Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 December 25

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 24 December	26 December >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eyepartner

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

This and this is about the closest I came to finding any reliable sources about this company, not notable as far as I can tell. Sam Walton (talk) 23:55, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is essentially an advert for the company's products. I couldn't find any third-party sources that would attest to notability, nor did I find any independent reviews of the products. I did find the company on many complaint boards, however, so they have quite a few vocal unhappy customers. LaMona (talk) 17:22, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not only are the primary sources and press releases noticeably the only links, none of this suggests even a minimally better article overall. SwisterTwister talk 18:20, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:21, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:21, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:21, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:21, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing but an ad. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:20, 27 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per Xxanthippe. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:14, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG.It is clearly advert and lacks third party sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:08, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advert masquerading as an article. Most of the sources are primary, only a couple of reliable sources, so fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:13, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:30, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mahphara kamil Tahsin

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

Current links are to poor-quality homevideos on YouTube. I was unable to find meaningful content in reliable sources and therefore believe that this singer fall short of our notability requirements. Pichpich (talk) 23:33, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the following was left on the talk page by @Tahsinheheheh:

Rising starts should also get a chance to show their talents No one was born star Wiki should give her a chance Maybe in future she ll something

Delete Wikipedia articles are for those who are notable, not to propel people to notability. Delete at this time. If she rises to notability later the article can be recreated.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:20, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7. Doesn't contain a credible claim of significance. Thparkth (talk) 22:29, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too soon for an article. Very few Google hits, all of them apparently social media. Like others have pointed out, Wikipedia is for people who are already notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:36, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Not significant now, maybe in the future they could pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:14, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:33, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss World Special Awards

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

Sideshow of the main event Miss World. No sources conform WP:RS. No independent notability and to my opinion fancruft. The Banner talk 22:42, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and the worst part is there are similar pages for other pageants. The pageant companies don't even keep these lists on their own site, making Wikipedia nothing more than a WP:WEBHOST for such WP:TRIVIA Legacypac (talk) 23:38, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - additional awards do not have the significant coverage that would establish them as a notable standalone entity. As pointed out by Legacypac, even the pageants don't seem to take much note of them. Merging to the main article would unbalance the content. -- Whpq (talk) 15:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable awards, Fails GNG. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 22:38, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss World. Not independently notable, but a valid search term. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:35, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sriwijaya Air Group aircraft

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

Individual registrations are not notable per WP:AIRLINE-DEST-LIST. The number of aircraft for each airline of the group is more than enough for encyclopedic purposes. Jetstreamer ^Talk 22:29, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:35, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete neither notable or encyclopedic - wikipedia is not an airline enthusiasts website and lists of aircraft registrations and names are by precedent never listed as they are rarely notable and certainly not in this case. MilborneOne (talk) 22:57, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:09, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory. Pburka (talk) 15:17, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as planespotting trivia -- Whpq (talk) 15:13, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as listcruft. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:16, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was moot. Page creator has moved article back to draftspace to improve it. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:32, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Paperboy's Fable

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

WP:TOOSOON. The book hasn't been published yet, and article is way too promotional. No independent sources at all, just routine listings. Grayfell (talk) 22:11, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I misunderstood the "too soon" wikipedia rule. I do have a question about the sources, however. I improved many book wikipedia page and sources provided seem to be from a publisher. Is that not acceptable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor2626744 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's sometimes (but not always) acceptable to use WP:PRIMARY sources to support content in articles, but they are not usable for establishing notability. See Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (books). Since anybody can put out a website or create an account on websites like Amazon or Goodreads, these are not usable for this purpose, since Wikipedia isn't a platform for promotion. Nobody is denying that the book will probably be published eventually, but not every book or author, even ones published by notable publishing houses, is notable enough to have an article.

I want to be very clear on this: Even when the book is published it still may not be notable enough for an article. Reliable, independent sources will be needed. TOOSOON isn't a rule, it's just a useful shorthand way of explaining a common problem. Grayfell (talk) 22:26, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. Thank you for letting me know. I will let you know what I find in the future. Editor2626744 (talk) 22:26, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:41, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Monastery of St. Michael, Zadar

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

Has been at WP:PNT for over two weeks without translation activity. It was PRODded per routine, as articles not in English only get two weeks' consideration before being posted for deletion. However, somebody, two days later, removed the PROD tag with the false edit summary "fixed". So now we have to delete it via AFD. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:06, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Strange - I would have expected WP:CSD WP:A2 to apply, but for some reason, the rules say that untranslated content in English Wikipedia is deleted if the content exists on another Wikipedia, but kept if it does not exist in another version and needs translation. I would have expected CSD in both cases and not sure how this policy works. I would favor deleting this content because English Wikipedia is for English language and this content seems out of scope to me. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:30, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it's on another language's Wikipedia, then, in a sense, it's already on Wikipedia, and its presence here is a duplication outright. It's like an extension of WP:A10. Otherwise, articles not in English receive a grace period, handled according to the procedures spelled out at WP:PNT, to allow a brief period for anyone interested to translate them before they're deleted. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:52, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Untranslated for over two weeks. clpo13_(talk) 18:57, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Soulseek324 (talk) 22:56, 26 December 2015 (UTC) struck !vote of a sockpuppet - they edited a number of AfD pages in addition to the one the sockpuppetry concerned, aparrently in a bid to make the sockpuppetry less conspicuous. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Turquoisesummer RichardOSmith (talk) 08:08, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, without prejudice to recreation in English. Mjroots (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:16, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withrawn Number 5 7 21:35, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Clancy

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

fails WP:NSPORTS (WP:NFOOTY) Wikipedia:FPL both on league and England. Widefox; talk 21:02, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn due to missed that one. Widefox; talk 18:44, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:26, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 12:31, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:33, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:33, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He played twice for Blackpool in the third tier of the English football league system (which is fully professional) in 2004 [1], so he does meet WP:NFOOTY. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:45, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Jmorrison230582 - I missed it. Widefox; talk 18:40, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Jmorrison230582. Subject continues to play, so there are additional chances to expand upon notability. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 17:14, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Already notable per above, but WP:NOTTEMPORARY "lagging indicator of notability" (similar to WP:CRYSTAL) applies. Widefox; talk 18:40, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. On the whole, there seems to be consensus that this is a WP:BIO1E case, but that the content could be restored to merge into other relevant articles. Sandstein 17:58, 2 January 2016 (UTC) Sandstein 17:58, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Murphy (veteran)

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

PRODed by me. Article creator Kendrick7 didn't properly contest the PROD, simply removing the tag with the rationale that references were added. That in itself is a big part of the problem here: the article as currently constructed doesn't read like a coherent biographical article, instead reading like a series of statements strung together, with the existence of ref tags at the end of those statements constituting the ONLY common thread. Just from glancing through the sources, it certainly appears that the article could be fleshed out a little more. However, I'm fully well aware of WP:AFDISNTCLEANUP, so on to notability. The overwhelming majority of the sources' focus is on his recent death. Not only WP:NOTNEWS comes to mind, but it's rather pernicious to allow fleeting headlines to hold such sway over OUR coverage, unless Wikipedia really isn't independent of big corporate media and I just haven't been paying attention to that. What's really notable about Murphy's death is that it's one of many unexplained or controversial deaths which have occurred in Alaska Department of Corrections facilities over the past two or so years, which led to Governor Walker recently firing the department's commissioner. The only source not specifically pertaining to his death is from 2000, referring to his receiving a citation from the United States Department of the Interior, which on the surface would likely fail WP:BLP1E. Organized search-and-rescue teams and search-and-rescue operations are quite common in the coastal areas of northern and western Alaska. This area is mostly flat and beyond the tree line, so seeing nothing but snow and ice and the sun's reflection off of same for miles on end can be highly disorienting, even to people who have experience in the wilderness. From reading that source, it appears he received the citation because he performed these actions while employed by the Department of the Interior, not because there was anything special about it. Furthermore, it appears that Archie Ferguson, as a member of a search-and-rescue team, utilized that training and as such was mainly responsible for this rescue, with Murphy accompanying him in his role as a workplace subordinate. This brings to mind WP:PUFFERY, as does the mention of the film role when compared with the source. Charles Wohlforth's piece (and I say "piece" because I'm not sure whether it was published as an opinion column or a news story, which may have bearing on this discussion (Postscript: Wohlforth is an opinion columnist and not a news reporter for the ADN)) indicates that Murphy's role was incidental, plus leaves doubt as to whether this film has actually been released. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 07:58, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a general rule, if you need a wall of text to explain why we should delete the biography of a deceased Native American veteran and life-saving hero who died under tragic circumstances, it's quite possible that you are on the wrong side of history. Kvetching about the article being the result of a vast conspiracy of backwoods Alaskan "corporate media" is bad enough; but invoking the WP:Biography of Living Persons one event policy for the biography of someone who is dead is just extra ridiculousness. -- Kendrick7^talk 08:48, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps that wall of text IS warranted, given that the very existence of this article suggests that we're here to mindlessly parrot yesterday's or last week's headlines, pretending that such reflects notability, while ignoring topics with established notability which have the misfortune of falling outside of Wikipedia's comparatively limited collective memory (more on that below). It's called providing background to the uninitiated and reflecting the bigger picture. Journalists are tasked with coming up with X amount of material by a deadline, with context often falling by the wayside as a result. They're also directed by their editors to focus on certain topics and aspects of topics and to ignore others, no matter how newsworthy those respective topics or aspects may or may not be. Right or wrong, it's what people have to do in order to earn their keep in this world.

You don't help your cause any by giving a rationale that's literally oozing with POV. If you can't maintain a neutral point of view, then how can I trust that your creations adhere to such? Then you make things even worse by disparaging an entire geographic region of the world. "Backwoods"? If you really want to go there, it's been mentioned any number of times over the years that the area Murphy hailed from, known today as the Kusilvak Census Area, is Alaska's version of Appalachia. It's an area which sorely lacks coverage on Wikipedia. The only real editing attention given to the region as a whole has been to wipe its former name of "Wade Hampton" from our collective consciousness, coincidental with social media commentary that Hampton was a "terrorist". However, all of that, including the connotations of historical revisionism, falls outside of the scope of this AFD. More to the point, the only editing activity to this article since this AFD started has been to replace non-existent categories with other non-existent categories, which affirms my claim of WP:PUFFERY. There is no category for the Alaska Department of Military and Veterans Affairs. That article isn't in the deplorable shape found in many other articles covering Alaska state government. However, there was a scandal in the National Guard which contributed to the reelection defeat of Sean Parnell a little over a year ago. You honestly expect anyone to believe that this is more relevant to our encyclopedic coverage of the department than that? Please. Making things worse, there's a draft covering the incumbent adjutant general which has been left to rot by the geniuses who run AFC for over a year, because it appears that they're still stuck on last year's events when she was only an unsuccessful state house candidate, prior to Walker appointing her as adjutant general. Going back even further than that, the state's first adjutant general died in the line of duty in a plane crash while conducting an inspection tour in the aftermath of the 1964 earthquake. His son was also a National Guard officer, who also died in the line of duty in a plane crash three decades later. There was also a territorial adjutant general who died in the line of duty in a plane crash. Alaska Territorial Guard is chock full of redlinks referring to individuals whose notability is established and even inherent, at least as far as Wikipedia's aforementioned lack of collective memory is concerned. Comparing the existence of this article with the lack of acknowledgment of any of those events or persons makes this article out to be a WP:POVFORK even without your rationale validating that.

As to your point about BLP: if you haven't noticed the recent deaths ticker found on the main page, the discussion process judges candidate articles in terms of how they would fare as BLPs ALL THE TIME, even though those persons are also deceased. At any rate, you're avoiding the point. Take away his death and its coverage and you have a flagrant WP:BLP1E violation. Add that event and coverage and you have a flagrant WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:NOTNEWS violation, something made all the more obvious by your rationale.

In summary, I simply cannot treat this article and its cherry-picked sources as if they exist in a vacuum. No one else should be expected to do so, either. See this AFD for reference: even though someone managed to cobble together a series of reliable sources and prose backed by those sources, prompting one editor to !vote "keep" for that very reason, it was still the same deal as this, essentially making a mountain out of a molehill. Using either that article or this article as an example, anyone could conceivably create a Wikipedia article on themselves irrespective of notability. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 01:16, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:14, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:39, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While this article is clearly about a tragic death, it is no more than a news story, which as we know is not sufficient for a WP article. I don't see anything that brings this up to notability criteria. LaMona (talk) 22:35, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing about this person passes the notability requirements for soldiers. We need to drop the false notion of "wrong side of history". History is the process of the past, it takes no sides.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno if "wrong side of history" was directed at me or not. Regardless, this constant mindless parroting of whatever's "trending lately" and offering only the same information found on the countless millions of other websites in the world, or gratuitous links to same in lieu of real information, suggests that our target audience are people who are dumbed down, know no better and are willing to accept whatever we offer them as perfectly valid. I'm no longer in the position where I can sing Wikipedia's praises out in the real world because I deal with a lot of people who do know better, and therefore there are no praises I can sing which don't ring hollow. It's been that way for at least the past four years, whereas prior to that there was some glimmer of hope. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 11:22, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:38, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge There seems to be something notable going on and the nomination tells us quite a lot about it. Perhaps the best place to summarise this is Alaska Department of Corrections which currently says that its commissioner is Schmidt when the actiing commisioner is now Monegan and the one who had to resign was Taylor. Please let's focus on correcting and improving our content per our editing policy. Andrew D. (talk) 09:55, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet the criteria of WP:SOLDIER to qualify for serving in the military, and that someone's death was tragic does not mean it meets the criteria for being an article (WP:NOTNEWS) - articles about an event when that event is someone's death need to meet WP:LASTING, not be based on how admirable a person the deceased was. Egsan Bacon (talk) 21:05, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'm unable to understand the opinion by GreenCricket, and the other "weak keep" opinion doesn't actually make an argument. Sandstein 18:04, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zahid Ahmed (actor)

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG, unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent and do not cover him becoming a Dad JMHamo (talk) 15:04, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Once he will have had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions he will qualify for an encyclopaedic article per WP:NACTOR. Until then, not a single word in the article is suggestive of his WP:SIGNIFICANCE and the article should be deleted under WP:CSD#A7. kashmiri ^TALK 15:58, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 20:40, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 20:40, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Keep He is significant figure and has a side info in google, he is notable for google but its wiki link is linked to Pakistani ODI cricketer which must be replaced by Zahid Ahmed (actor) so i suggest to keep it GreenCricket (talk) 11:07, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am unable to replicate side info in Google which only returns 212 hits on "zahid ahmed" actor.[2] Can you link it please? There is a side info for Zahid Ahmad the cricketer, it might have some incorrectly matched images. kashmiri ^TALK 12:36, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless anyone has better Pakistani coverage as I'm not seeing anything to suggest even minimal solid notability. SwisterTwister talk 03:18, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:37, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Side info is for ACTOR

Side-info on google is for Zahid Ahmed Actor not for cricketer..It is mistakenly linked to article of a cricketer because there was no article on wiki for Actor Zahid Ahmed...How can you imagine a side-info for a cricketer who has played two ODIs for Pakistan only and even he is not a Test cricketer? GreenCricket (talk) 14:19, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Side info on Google is always for the search term, and it returns the cricketer's personal data along with photos randomly of the cricketer and the actor (as this is how Google algorythm works). But - BUT - Google results are completely irrelevant to a person's notability for Wikipedia - see WP:GOOGLEHITS. kashmiri ^TALK 23:32, 20 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]

Weak keep per WP:NACTOR. MB298 (talk) 01:25, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable. Soulseek324 (talk) 22:57, 26 December 2015 (UTC) struck !vote of a sockpuppet - they edited a number of AfD pages in addition to the one the sockpuppetry concerned, aparrently in a bid to make the sockpuppetry less conspicuous. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Turquoisesummer RichardOSmith (talk) 08:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' - not seeing the standard for WP:NACTOR being met, and doesn't pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:50, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. At first glance, this looks like NC, but none of the people arguing to keep made any convincing arguments. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Manns

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

Fails WP:BIO as none of the sources provide the substantial coverage that is required for inclusion. SmartSE (talk) 13:26, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:GNG at this time. Reads like a CV. Kierzek (talk) 14:08, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article was reviewed by two members of the community via "Articles for Creation" before being accepted. Both considered it to meet the required criteria. It is not intended to read like a CV (although was largely collated by following references and biographical information available online). Manns is very influential amongst urban planners in Europe however, as a practitioner rather than an academic the references may not appear substantial. There are nonetheless multiple independent sources which, combined, demonstrate notability and impact. All sources are reliable and independent (The Planner, for example, is published by the Royal Town Planning Institute). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lori1986 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep~~ Apologies if incorrect (still learning the ropes!). The Proposed Deletion page states "To object to and therefore permanently prevent a proposed deletion, remove the -proposed deletion/dated- tag from the article. You are encouraged, but not required, to also. . . ." I deleted the tag as I wanted to make sure that I registered my objection correctly in order to take part in the discussion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lori1986 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 11 December 2015

I've struck your second !vote as you can only state that once. Please note that this is an articles for deletion discussion rather than a proposed deletion so the template should remain on the page. SmartSE (talk) 15:33, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ssт✈^(discuss) 17:15, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. ssт✈^(discuss) 17:16, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Found this page useful. Certainly notable in contemporary urban planning circles and influential (worldcat shows in libraries globally). In press last week as an individual 'deeply involved in the search for solutions to London's housing needs' and a 'driving force'. Various speaking commitments and accolades online in different countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.17.161 (talk) 14:10, 12 December 2015 (UTC) — [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:37, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and draft and userfy later if needed as simply looking at the article at its current state shows it's not easy to pinpoint its exactly notability, simply several links tossed and there could certainly be a better article than that. SwisterTwister talk 08:14, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show they are notable. Some mentions on News, nothing on Newspapers, Scholar produced a max citation of 5, a single mention on Highbeam. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:38, 25 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]

At best, only weak keep -- As I read this article, he seems to be the senior planner for a (probably) large firm of commercial chartered surveyors (estate agents), who published something on the London Green Belt. I would anticipate that he makes his living by representing developers at planning enquiries and the like. He certainly seems to have high profile clients, but I am dubious whether he is truely notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:39, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep He seems to be very influential in his works. He also has quite a lot of sources mentioning him, allowing him to barely pass the notability guidelines. FiendYT 16:37, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:47, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Turkey 2010

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

This seems to be the only Year specific page for Miss Turkey (since 1930's). Given it has no sources and the details of who won are already at Miss Turkey, it should be deleted entirely. Legacypac (talk) 02:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, although it's probably about to be CSD'd anyway. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 12:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe reduce the AfD list by one... Legacypac (talk) 12:08, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Source added which includes all winners information. Also, winner is already written in article. AlexandreManette (talk) 19:54, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the Miss Turkey article? This is article is about a one day event, it should be and is covered as part of the larger topic at Miss Turkey Legacypac (talk) 20:16, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also the source does not support the ages, measurements or hometowns of the contestants and some other details on the page.Legacypac (talk) 14:13, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:15, 18 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 20:37, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is not of sufficient importance to merit its own article. Curro2 (talk) 16:15, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, due to verifiability concerns. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 21:50, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Yamaguchi先生 - Fails GNG. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 22:39, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This has been relisted twice with no comments for a week, and general consensus to keep exists. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 03:11, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Hepner

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

Per WP:NOPAGE this bio should be deleted and redirected to Miss Montana. The media coverage over her DUI seems disproportionate and inappropriate in a wiki article. Should an otherwise private person have a DUI forever associated with them on Wikipedia and all its mirrors? If she did not have an article we would never start one over the DUI. If you strip that out, you have just the basic fact she won the contest and a little trivia about her win that can be incorporated on a list. Legacypac (talk) 06:22, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 11:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 11:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a WP:GNG pass with, and I quote, "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." If you think that the coverage of one aspect of the subject's life is disproportionate, then that is a editing issue, not a deletion issue. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:10, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit out the DUI and you have the info at Miss Montana give and take a little detail. So the stand alone article tells the reader nothing the list does not tell them except that she (shockingly) went to University of Montana. The sources are really lacking here beyond the DUI. There is this though [3] Legacypac (talk) 06:32, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:13, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The DUI is one reason we may want to editorially turn this one into a redirect. Montana is one of the least populated U.S. states.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:14, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the holder of Miss Montana has formal duties, and as can be seen from this article a formal platform. The DUI is notable since it created a vacancy in the position of Miss Montana. The article should be kept.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:37, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to To Pimp a Butterfly. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 03:14, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hood Politics (Kendrick Lamar song)

I feel like 5 of the non-singles on To Pimp a Butterfly have short stub articles that have shown no sign of expansion and Hood Politics is the worst offender of them all. Sure it charted, but other than shown charts (which are already represented on the discography page) the content is too minimal to justify having it's own article. I also suggest deleting the articles for: Institutionalized (Kendrick Lamar song), Momma (Kendrick Lamar song), U (Kendrick Lamar song), and For Sale? (Interlude) for the same reasons. These articles do not say much about the songs other than the fact that they charted, are on To Pimp a Butterfly, and maybe 1 little side fact for some of them (which could be instead said on the TPAB main page.) I definitely think it would be beneficial to delete them, especially Hood Politics. -Mrmoustache14 (talk) 15:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: We now live in a time in which every song from an album can chart in the week of its release due to the way charting methods have rapidly changed. A song meeting the first criteria of WP:NSONGS is no longer satisfactory to prove notability. I'd also support the deletion of the other four songs mentioned. Azealia911 _talk 23:43, 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 20:37, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to To Pimp a Butterfly. Note: the list in WP:NSONGS is NOT the criteria which makes a song notable or not. The first paragraph of NSONGS is the criteria, the list that comes after it is simply some of the things that can help it meet the criteria of the first paragraph. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 15:18, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CureMD, Inc

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

Promotional piece created for a non-notable company. Ireneshih (talk) 05:27, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the currently listed sources are simply not solid enough to suggest a better notable article and my searches only found a few several links at Books, News, browsers and Highbeam but perhaps nothing for a better article yet and I would suggest using WP:Articles for creation instead of article mainspace. SwisterTwister talk 21:26, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't undestand, why this article does not meet Wikipedia policy. There are neutral point of view, independent sources and many links at News. 27century (talk) 23:54, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

27century There simply are not enough solid in-depth third-party sources overall to solidly satisfy companies notability guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 01:00, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bloomberg is watching them and #1 KLAS SaaS ranking, a top competitor in the market space.[4],

CureMD, ICDLogic among vendors releasing several tools for tracking, troubleshooting ICD-10
EHR Provider CureMD Selects DrFirst for Electronic Prescribing of Controlled Substances
Quote: Posting an overall score of 85.1 in the KLAS survey, CureMD was praised by providers as offering a simple-to-use EHR and backing it with a “knowledgeable, responsive support team.” Some CureMD customers complained, however, that the software forced them to enter the same data in more than one field. That hassle factor aside, CureMD received the highest score on the survey question, “Would you buy this product again?”

There are sources out there, I removed some hopeless redlinks and the writing could be improved with prose or by skipping the M&As/partnership mentions altogether, but it is a viable article and topic. 009o9 (talk) 08:35, 20 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 20:37, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only sources I found were press releases, or announcements based on press releases. I removed many of these from the article itself. Of the links above:
- Healthcare finance news: a short product announcement, no analysis
- hitconsultant is an announcement from CureMD: CureMD, a cloud based EHR provider for physician practices has selected DrFirst to provide controlled substance e-prescribing (EPCS) capability to users of CureMD EHR system. "
- Medscape: not accessible without an account, but surely not enough on its own for notability.LaMona (talk) 21:42, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the sources meet WP:CORPDEPTH. For what it's worth, CureMD was salted, having been deleted as spam multiple times. Grayfell (talk) 22:56, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Passes neither WP:GNG nor WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:01, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. As a copyright violation of [5], which the article claims to be an exact copy of. As Pburka convincingly argues, these data are not uncopyrightable facts because (unlike, say, the telephone book) they are the product of research, i.e., a creative process. (Disclaimer: I'm a lawyer, but not specialized in US copyright law.)

Even if the copyright violation would not mandate deletion, there would be a consensus for deletion based on an assessment of the weight of the arguments in the light of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. While the opinions are, numerically, divided, most of the "keep" opinions merely assert that this is a well-sourced list (which one can be sceptical about, given that http://www.grg.org looks rather self-published, as Pburka also noted) - but almost all of them did not address the other arguments for deletion based on Wikipedia's list inclusion guidelines. Sandstein 17:38, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of supercentenarians who died in 2012

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

Uniqueness: These "List of supercentenarians who died in YEAR" are the only lists of people who died in a span of time for any topic on Wikipedia. We don't have List of actors who died in 2012, List of tall people who died in 2012 or even List of murder victims in 2012.

Not a Valid Topic: There are no independent reliable sources that deal with the topic of super old people who died in a given year. Instead, these annual lists are extracts from lists on the super old people hobbyist site GRG for which Wikipedia should not be a WP:WEBHOST. Further, see WP:NOTMEMORIAL "Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements." It also violates WP:LISTPEOPLE "A person is typically included in a list of people only if all the following requirements are met: The person meets the Wikipedia notability requirement. and The person's membership in the list's group is established by reliable sources."
Duplicates existing article: this topic duplicates Lists of deaths by year#2012 presenting an inappropriate WP:CONTENTFORK

Legacypac (talk) 19:37, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:35, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:35, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep. It doesn't appear to violate the requirement for LISTS. The bigger list of people who died in that year is only for blue linked people that have articles and is just a navigation device. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:29, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looking at Category:2012 deaths, excluding the two categories for just redirects of victim names to two particular incidents, the only articles separate from the main 2012 deaths is List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, 2012 (with a corresponding category) and List of members of the United States House of Representatives who died in 2012 (which are really birth or death categories). I don't think supercentenarians can be put into the same category as law enforcement shootings or US members of Congress and the blue-linked ones can be copied over to the people who died in 2012. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:30, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Keep A defined list on a notable topic with clear inclusion criteria, which is part of a bigger series. Also compare with List of veterans of World War I who died in 2008, for example, which is another similar stand alone list. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:35, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:50, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With reference to the nomination, I don't agree with the argument of uniqueness: all year-based lists of people should be based on the most year for which they were most notable; in most cases that would be the year of birth or the year of an achievement; but in the case of supercentenarians, it is the year of death which is most notable because it is their age at the time of death which is notable, and therefore the death date is the most sensible basis for categorisation – that this happens to be unique to supercentenarians is not a just cause to delete the articles. With regard to the validity of the topic and WP:LISTPEOPLE, I make the following observation – not all supercentenarians have their own biographical pages, but there are many who do and for whom their supercentenarianism is their only point of notability; therefore I must conclude that supercentenarianism is sufficient basis to meet WP:N, and that this is a valid basis for a stand-alone list. The referencing isn't great, but that can be improved. Aspirex (talk) 11:55, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a policy-based rationale. Notability, on wikipedia, means significant coverage of the topic in multiple, independent reliable sources. There's nothing about that in the !vote above. It should be discounted accordingly. This list contravenes WP:NLIST. David in DC (talk) 15:46, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Disagree. I'm making a justifiable WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS extrapolation – i.e arguing that because there are existing supercentenarians who have bios despite being WP:BLP1E cases, then all supercentenarians could justifiably have bios if someone had the motivation to write them; I'm pre-supposing that the references exist, and I don't think that's an unfair assumption. As is alluded to many times in this AfD above and below, it is questionable whether bios for BLP1E supercentenarians should exist at all; but as a step-off from that, there would be cases to delete probably half of the articles in the Longevity template – so when I see an AfD like this which has the potential to be a test case which could branch so widely into an established project, I believe it would be sensible for us to step back and say WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for now, and then tackle the whole issue holistically. (For example, the nominator really should have bundled all the other List of supercentenarians who died in xxxx pages into this AfD. Clearly they must all share the same problems, and the editors in this AfD need to understand that they're making a decision for twenty pages instead of just one). For the record, if we do tackle the longevity articles issue more holistically, I'm likely to lean towards deletion of a lot of the articles. Aspirex (talk) 05:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But is the age of 110 really the barometer for making them notable? Lists of centenarians only cares for notable cetenarians, namely those people who are famous for something other than their age alone. Does it make sense that Helen Reichert be on List of centenarians (actors, filmmakers and entertainers) because of her activities but if she had lived two more months, she would then automatically notable no matter what she did or did not do? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:39, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The continued existence of Bio pages for people'whose only notability is reaching age 110 - a full twelve years younger then the oldest person in recorded recent history, is a related problem. Current practice, in absolute contravention of WP:NLIST is to include on these lists every person GRG says past 110 years old even if not a single other RS about them can be found. Legacypac (talk) 08:55, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have the essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and we also have the essay WP:OUTCOMES and they contradict, because they are just essays. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think this comes down to a question about whether supercentenarians are notable. If they are, by sheer dint of longevity, then a list of them is appropriate, and listing them by year of death seems logical. I think longevity is a case of WP:BLP1E, and that longevity does not confer notability, but I know others disagree. Pburka (talk) 16:35, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is that true? For example, NFL quarterbacks are notable, various lists about NFL quarterbacks are appropriate but would the next leap be that all lists about NFL quarterback be notable? Would lists of NFL quarterbacks who have passed for 400 or more yards in a game by year be appropriate then? In the same vein, supercentenarians are notable generally only if they are known as the world's oldest people, not by and of themselves. No one cares about every single person who dies at age 110, just generally the oldest person who dies then. As such, is a list of everyone who died at age 110 or above really appropriate? Wouldn't it be better to go to the general deaths in 2012 page and have the world's oldest person who died at those times be included there, not on a separate list of all people above age 110 who died that year? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:35, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think all lists about supercentenarians would be notable, but death is closely tied to the topic of longevity. The two most important facts about a supercentarian are their birth date and death date, and I suspect that most supercentarians are only written about when they die. (But, as I said, I don't think supercentarians are inherently notable.) Pburka (talk) 18:36, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But year of death? A lot of these supercentearians were never really written about as, barring a few, most were just elderly individuals, not the most elderly which would warrant some discussion. The page is just citing one source because that source (and only that source) is concerned with tagging all supercentenarians. There is no other evidence of notability for this list other than the one source cited here. Wouldn't year of birth be similarly appropriate under that logic? Both of those facts are really all that we have that matters about these people. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:46, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're arguing that the individuals in the list aren't notable. That's a viewpoint I agree with, and I would support deleting this list along with all of the individual articles (except for those who are independently notable). However, if supercentarians are notable simply for being long lived, then I believe that listing them by year of death (and year of birth) is appropriate. Pburka (talk) 19:51, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the idea that the existence of other annual or date range articles for this topic does not help. This is test case for deletion, which I choose because it was a longer list then the older ones, yet 3 years back so it should reasonably catch all the known deaths. If someone passes GNG they should have an article. If they have an article and died in 2012 they should go on the Deaths in 2012. If they don't pass GNG or the appropriate subguideline they don't get an article and WP:LISTPEOPLE applies. Legacypac (talk) 21:29, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Well-sourced material by several editors in hard work over lots of years. We have such lists to other years, so it does not make sense to delete this one. In case of deletion many information will be lost, because they are not shown in other lists on wikipedia, this is the reason we have this list. Arguments of merging or duplication are without sense and wrong, just look at the content of the mentioned lists and compare this with the content of this list. Similar name does not mean similar content.--37.4.93.114 (talk) 13:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

(Personal attack removed) Legacypac (talk) 18:33, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This was not a personal attack, Alansohn is disturbing the discussion. [6] Legacypac (talk) 09:20, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a clearly defined list and properly sourced list that meets all of the criteria of Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists. The list also provides a framework for the addition of other articles of individuals as additional material becomes available. This is the very definition of the purpose of a standalone list. Alansohn (talk) 21:14, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This appears as WP:LISTCRUFT to me - most, of course, do receive obituaries of some type, but this lies far outside of the idea of counting how many died within a particular cycle of 365 days, interest in which I do not see in multiple, reliable third-party sources. Supercentenarians who are notable for their coverage will appear in the respective "Deaths in...." article, the rest who did not meet the criteria for some other list fall under WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Canadian Paul 17:26, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and block Legacypac! He is a man on a mission out of control.--Dangermouse600 (talk) 19:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

Another ILIKEIT and I hate the nominator vote, to be considered for what it is. Legacypac (talk) 21:58, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have a suggestion: First create a list on wikipedia with all verified dead supercentenarians in a sortable table, sortable to gender, to year of death, to place of death, and then all the other lists could be merged or deleted. But not the other way round, because in this way there is danger of losing information in case of being not installed of the big table. So I wait for the big table. It's your turn, Legacypac, you were the one who wished changes.--Kachelus (talk) 10:51, 30 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

Do you really think all that information is relevant here? Wikipedia isn't a directory of everyone who died after hitting age 110. If that's your requirement before even considering deleting one of these pages, that's not particularly productive. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:04, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Ricky81682, that is also a reason why we have lists of the deaths of supercentenarians, all sourced, over the years. Believe it or not, there are many people who look at this so you can suppose there is a relevance. Only deleting anything by declaring the content would not be productive is not the way Wikipedia works I think. Also think about that these lists were generated by many users in lots of months, even years. Is it your wish to destroy their work?--Kachelus (talk) 14:43, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inquiry Is this list up for deletion because the information on this list is replicated somewhere else on Wikipedia or is it up for deletion because the people listed here are not notable in the eyes of the nominator? 66.168.191.92 (talk) 14:12, 30 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

See [7] Legacypac (talk) 17:35, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing notable, as that word is defined on Wikipedia, about the particular year a group of especially old people die. The nominator's rationale, based on the facts that:
Wikipedia is not a web host for the GRG
Wikipedia is not a memorial, and
this is a list of trivia/fancruft
are sensible and policy-based. The arguments opposing deletion, not so much. David in DC (talk) 15:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is well-sourced and fulfills the criteria for wikipedia stand-alone list. There is no obvious reason for deletion, especially only for deletion of the list 2012.--37.4.93.37 (talk) 18:28, 30 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (very new acct)[reply]
Keep I agree this is well sourced and should be kept especially since this is the only 1 up for deletion and yet the others aren't? Kind of stupid. Bbonds775 (talk) 20:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The list is almost entirely sourced to a hobbyist website. Regarding the other lists, please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Pburka (talk) 22:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gerontology Research Group is not a hobbyist organization. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:53, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having carefully read our page on the organization and their own website, I must disagree with you. It's a group of amateurs who collect statistics about long lived people. Pburka (talk) 01:06, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And who have, for many years, tried to bootstrap their standing by proliferating their info onto wikipedia. Please review the original Arbcom longevity case before closing this AfD. Only by understanding just why these articles are subject to discretionary sanctions can the context become clear. GRG has used our project as a web-hosting service for far too oo long. David in DC (talk) 01:24, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's no evidence that people who survive 110 years are inherently notable. They're often (but not consistently) subject to a brief burst of fame on their death, but this falls under WP:BLP1E. If these subjects were inherently notable, this list would be a reasonable way to organize the articles, but they're not, so this list and most of the linked biographies should be deleted. Pburka (talk) 01:39, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Several policies apply. 1. "Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as "people from ethnic / cultural / religious group X employed by organization Y" or "restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y". Cross-categories like these are not considered sufficient basis to create an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon." Fails criterion. 2. This article is a replica of the ONE notable source, and probably is a WP:COPYVIO. That site states, "These tables are Copyright © 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 by GRG Interactive." Seems kind of compelling. 3. WP:NOTMIRROR/WP:WEBHOST apply. FeatherPluma (talk) 02:44, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Every webpage is automatically given copyright under the DMCA, however Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co. determined that you cannot copyright facts, only original commentary. The chart would have to say something like "awesome person" or "was great in bed" or some other commentary. Lists like "best of" or "best ever" are subjective commentary. Oldest and youngest are mathematically objective. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:50, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Except these aren't facts. For many of the people, determining their birth date (and place) requires scouring many, often contradictory, sources, and determining what date is the most likely. See, for example, Delma Kollar. The bar for copyright is quite low, and that element of judgement is likely sufficient to grant copyright protection. Pburka (talk) 23:42, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no ... flipping a coin to decide which of two competing dates go into a chart is not worthy of a copyright, anymore than choosing between two telephone numbers in Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the list is not copyright because it's an arbitrary "flip of the coin" non-encyclopedic cross-categorization, then it should not be here. We would not import the telephone directory here, right? That's what Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co. looked at. If these various lists on the site we are mirroring are copyright (which they claim but you demur), they should not have been imported here improperly, (you disagree). If on the other hand, we ourselves here have no ability to assess the factual accuracy of the table, this is disturbing as representing a blanket acceptance of the criteria and accuracy of application of the site's processes. The data here is exactly the same here because our process is merely mirroring that individual page. That is where your argument further falls apart: the site (on its other pages) discusses the implications of the data, including visiting on issues including definitional and seiving bias drift. The site appears to have used judgment criteria for its internal verification of the names it put on the list. When you read Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co., that judgment effort and fact checking process (selection by rule based in-house verification, unlike the "mere facts of a telephone directory list") may be copyrightable. The bigger problem though is explaining why this cross-categorization is encyclopedic knowledge that ranks higher than importing the telephone directory. Or the telephone directory of 1944 Manhattan for that matter. Yes, the telephone directory is useful within its own parameters, but no, we are not porting it over here as useful within the parameters of an encyclopedia. In what way is the intersection of 2012 and date of death of supercentenarians "a culturally significant phenomenon"? FeatherPluma (talk) 22:13, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TLDR, sorry ... I zoned out after a few sentences. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:11, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TL, DR. That's a lot like WP:IDONTLIKEIT, right? David in DC (talk) 15:53, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The page we are discussing here, List of supercentenarians who died in 2012, starts by asserting that this page is the exact copy of http://www.grg.org/Adams/Deaths2012.HTM. This assertion is surprising by itself, but doesn't catch all of the truth. The wp page has been obtained by a robotic, identical copy of everything of the original grg page... except from the deletion of the columns source, application, add date and picture. What is the copyright status of the remaining material, robotically copied into Wikipedia? Do we have the agreement of the original writers (Martin Miet/Luc Le Lay, Robert Young/Filipe Prista Lucas, Paolo Scarabaggio, Steve Coles and the about 80 other writers named in the source column of the original page)? Moreover, what is the use of this document once amputed from its most valuable part (the picture is, more than often, backed by a biographic sketch ) ? Pldx1 (talk) 09:43, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

This discussion have been submitted to a Deletion Review, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 January 2, closed as deletion endorsed at 03:05, 10 January 2016 (UTC). FYI, Pldx1 (talk) 10:04, 12 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete. Going ahead and closing this. As the list is simply a straight relisting of the chart, with no encyclopedic commentary or third-party information relating to it, there is a copyvio concern here. I am more than willing to undelete/userify if that can be addressed and the articles salvaged by someone. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:44, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Billboard Year-End Pop 100 Songs of 2005

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

Also nominating:

Year-end lists for a defunct chart that existed for only a few years and which never received the coverage over its more well-known counterpart, the Billboard Hot 100. The only place these can be found is the year-end issue of Billboard (magazine), but that's what they do, withhout further coverage of the topic in independent reliable sources. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:22, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:37, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:38, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:38, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~: This is useful list for music lovers. Such list should be made for each year. Billboard's weekly Hot 100 are indeed followed worldwide but year end charts are cream of all those weekly charts and informative for music lovers, such lists deserves place on Wikipedia. --Human3015^TALK 20:43, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't the year-end Hot 100 list, which do exist on Wikipedia already and receive coverage in 3rd party sources. This is for chart that few paid attention to or talked about (in particular the year-end lists) and was gone within 4 years. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 21:55, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for clarification, I was confused. This isn't year end chart about which I was talking. Stricken my !vote.--Human3015^TALK 06:44, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Copying a list from another publication is a copyright violation. Pburka (talk) 15:19, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm unable to find coverage for these year-end charts, unlike that which exists for the year-end Hot 100 Singles and Billboard 200 album charts. Gongshow talk 16:50, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:51, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Courage. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 03:19, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Civic courage

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

Doesn't have any source and I haven't been able to find any. D'Andria (talk) 19:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Delete "Civic courage" seems to be a translation of a Russian expression. There is no evidence that it exists in English with the same meaning. Two of the three linked articles do not use the expression, unless I overlooked it somewhere. Seems to be a neologism. The concept should be covered in courage. Borock (talk) 19:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Courage includes in its definition: "moral courage is the ability to act rightly in the face of popular opposition, shame, scandal, discouragement, or personal loss." What is described as civic courage seems to be much the same. Borock (talk) 19:55, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked out the Google Books link above, and the expression is used a lot in English. A much better article could be written with these sources. The concept, called "civic courage" in English translations, goes back to the Classical Greeks. A merge to Courage as a section is also possible and might be better for readers since then all people interested in the topic of courage can learn about this important sub-type, not just the ones who are looking for this expression.Borock (talk) 11:56, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is not a thing. Curro2 (talk) 16:17, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:18, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - It's mentioned at Courage. There doesn't look to be anything more than that mention here, so a redirect seems pretty straightforward. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Courage without prejudice to a split if and when that becomes necessary. Graham (talk) 00:57, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Per WP:NPASR. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:38, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suresh Moktan

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

WP:BLP of a musician, completely unsourced once an invalid WP:CIRCULAR reference to another Wikipedia article was stripped. While there's a valid notability claim being made here ("highest grossing album in Bhutanese history"), I can't find any verification of that even on a Google search — the claim seems to turn up only in Blogspot blogs, and even then it's not claimed as the best-selling Bhutanese album ever, but only the best-selling Bhutanese album in one particular genre of music. (The same claim is asserted in the Wikipedia article that was being CIRCULARed as a "reference" — but it isn't sourced there either, so I couldn't even just pull over an existing reference and be done with it.) As always, however, because public relations people do have a tendency to inflate their clients' claims of achievement (e.g. ascribing "hit" status to an artist's latest single even if it was never actually a charting hit on any real chart), WP:NMUSIC cannot be passed merely by asserting that the subject passes it — you must reliably source the accuracy of their claim to passing it. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if real reliable sources can confirm that the album was actually as successful as the bloggers claim. Bearcat (talk) 17:57, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 20:37, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best as unless considerably better coverage is found, there's nothing to suggest a better notable and acceptable article yet. Notifying tagger Shalir Salim. SwisterTwister talk 05:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:38, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:17, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bhutan-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:44, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, appears to be notable figure in Bhutanese modern culture. See [8], [9], [10]. --Soman (talk) 22:26, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Per WP:NPASR. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:32, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Beanstalk Group

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

Questionably notable company as although it has been associated with notable entities, I see nothing solidly better to suggest an independently notable from my searches here, here, here, here and here. At best, if not actually independently notable, this could be merged to parent company Omnicom. SwisterTwister talk 21:05, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:35, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep subject of the article meet WP:ORG as one of the largest brand and corporate licencing office in New York. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 19:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:16, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Omnicom. Many of the links are broken, and none of them that I viewed had substantial coverage of Beanstalk, only mentions and short quotes. LaMona (talk) 21:53, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:14, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Samiksha Bhatt

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

Seems to have done some small non-notable roles in some shows/films which aren't verifiable from any WP:RS. Article padded with lots of claims not verifiable like films winning awards and such. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Also, created by an WP:SPA. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:17, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:17, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:17, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as mentioned as all I see are a few works here and there, nothing to suggest better solid general notability. SwisterTwister talk 03:19, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:13, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:14, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Juicy Noise Records

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

I have searched books, news, and the general web. I can't find any reliable, independent references to the topic. New label, and no signed notable bands (all blue links are not disambiguated), is therefore not one of the "more notable independent labels" according to WP:NMUSIC #5. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP (as much as I hate referencing corp for record labels). 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:06, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best as my searches noticeably found nothing better, not even minimally. SwisterTwister talk 21:29, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:13, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above - I'm unable to find coverage to establish that this label meets WP:GNG, WP:MUSIC, or WP:CORP. Gongshow talk 16:53, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks WP:RS .Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:11, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:54, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Urdu web sites

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

There is absolutely no indication that this topic has received coverage as a topic, thus this is far better served by having a category. Wikipedia is not a link farm. Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:12, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have created this list, before creating this i have seen Lists of websites. If you consider category is better to serve the list of Urdu web sites, then please also delete Lists of websites and its sub lists. So first we should discuss about deletion of Lists of websites.Ameen Akbar (talk) 14:22, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, likely search term. Siuenti (talk) 19:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SALAT because this list is too broad in scope to be of any value. Additionally, an indiscriminate list of Urdu websites likely violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:24, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The value to anyone looking for notable Urdu-language websites is obvious. Siuenti (talk) 23:29, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:12, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Category:Urdu-language websites makes this redundant, and is a far better way of achieving the same objective. utcursch | talk 19:33, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because having sections and annotations is a bad thing? Siuenti (talk) 19:46, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sub-categories can replace sections. Articles provide more information than annotations. If a website is not notable enough to have an article, it's not notable enough to be present in that list anyway. We have got Category:Websites by language for all other languages, and they work just fine. Wikipedia is not a search engine or a directory. utcursch | talk 20:02, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So what exactly is BAD about having sections and annotations ? Siuenti (talk) 20:05, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing is bad about having sections and annotations per se. As the nominator mentioned, there is no indication that this has received coverage as a topic; and as Notecardforfree mentioned, the scope of this topic is just too broad to be useful. When you address these concerns by restricting the list to only notable websites, a category makes it redundant. Lists make sense when the number of inclusion-worthy entries is relatively small and/or when they contain information that cannot be presented in form of categories. For example, "List of Urdu websites by traffic" (restricted to top 100), "List of Urdu websites by foundation date" (restricted to those founded before 2000) or "Comparison of Urdu websites by features". Sure, you could create a table in this list with parameters such as traffic rank, foundation date, free/paid and so on. But the topic is simply too broad - there are literally thousands of Urdu websites. A list like "List of Urdu websites" would make sense if there were only 50 Urdu websites in the world, and the topic had been given coverage in reliable sources, indicating its notability. utcursch | talk 20:44, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you think categories can replace sections you don't understand how they work. If you think people should be forced to click through every single link to find out what makes it different from all the other links in the category, you shouldn't put yourself in charge of their navigation. Siuenti (talk) 20:18, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By that logic, the List of people should contain a direct link to every biography we have on Wikipedia. utcursch | talk 20:49, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A category is still enough for this kind of list. D4iNa4 (talk) 05:21, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and the category as well. It's absolutely useless to group all Urdu websites. Why would anyone want to look that up? Curro2 (talk) 16:18, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The name would suggest this could be helpful but the current content suggests nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 05:47, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. General consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 03:29, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Century City Mall

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

Highly promotional article for non-notable shopping mall, full of non-notable details that only serve as advertising for its amenities. The abs/cnn item is essentially a press release DGG ( talk ) 05:56, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:34, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:34, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:34, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or, failing that, Redirect / merge with Century City, Makati. There seem to be quite a few independent sources talking about the complex eg: this, this, this and this, and modern retail premises (eg: Trafford Centre, Westfield Stratford City, MetroCentre (shopping centre), Bluewater (shopping centre), Lakeside Shopping Centre, St. David's (Cardiff) (yes I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but hear me out) tend to be big-business affairs that are strongly promoted by city or regional councils as significant for employment and regeneration prospects, which gets sustained news coverage. I would expect G11 worthy article to say something more like "The Century City Mall is a fresh new experience in shopping, guaranteed to be revolutionary in the world of retail. It has received numerous accolades around the globe." ... but it doesn't. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment while not a shopping mall of the three major Philippine shopping mall brands (SM, Ayala, Robinsons) I believe this is less promotional than some of the malls of the aforementioned brand (many of them are plagued with violations against WP:NOTDIRECTORY, with list of anchors and shops, usually unsourced.) The mall itself isn't an "amenity" of a residential tower but as a stand-alone mall. The only "details" that would doubly serve as advertisement is the fact that the mall hosts "local and international shops". The commons shopper won't care about the construction details of the mall, the architecture behind the mall- such as the type of glass used. Mentioning that such decisions in the architecture of the mall is made to minimize heat to provide comfort to shoppers is avoidable (notice I changed that to "people inside the mall" which includes staff and employees and removed some peacock words like the mall being a "lifestyle center")Hariboneagle927 (talk) 17:52, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:07, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A 1promotional article doesn't have to be G-11 worthy to be deleted here. The G11 standard is undoubted advertising; thestandard here is usitability for an encyclopedia , and NOT ADVOCACY. Borderline notability combined with substantial promotionalism is a good reason for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 18:01, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I wasn't sure about this when I started reading (how do you get customers into 100 shops with 527 parking spaces; and is that 180,000 sq ft GLA total, or is it that each of the five floors has 180,000 sq ft?) until I noticed the point about the possibility of redirecting to an article that already has an entire section devoted to the topic. Further checking reveals that while the nominator questions ABS-CBN News for the quality of their writing based on their source selection, our article on ABS-CBN News and Current Affairs reports that they "topped the list among Philippines news and broadcast organizations, garnering 68% of the public trust." Claiming that the article contains "non-notable" details is an inappropriate use of a term that has a specialized meaning in an AfD context. There is nothing wrong with non-notable details in an article, in fact, an article without non-notable details would be an oddity. Unscintillating (talk) 02:55, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:07, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss USA 2016

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

No date or venue yet and mostly no reliable sources, article created too soon. Cheetah255 (talk) 18:02, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete like the other pageant articles this user created for 2016. Legacypac (talk) 18:10, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As it will take place within 12 months. However, only on the condition reliable sources are found. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 18:35, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacking date, venue and reliable source coverage as the nominator states. The sources mentioned in the previous AfD discussion don't even mention the 2016 pageant. The references in the article either don't confirm date and venue or are unreliable (Angelopedia). • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No venue or date has been confirmed. Soulseek324 (talk) 22:59, 26 December 2015 (UTC) struck !vote of a sockpuppet - they edited a number of AfD pages in addition to the one the sockpuppetry concerned, aparrently in a bid to make the sockpuppetry less conspicuous. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Turquoisesummer RichardOSmith (talk) 08:11, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DElete Article created by a now blocked puppetmaster and edited by one of his sockpuppets, making the article in fact unreliable. Especially in combination with the lack of reliable sources conform WP:RS The Banner talk 11:59, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lots of problems, including future tense. Removing the banned contributions would be difficult. If editors want to get started before the event takes place, we have Draft: space. Unscintillating (talk) 23:33, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now, as there's very little information from reliable sources right now, so it's too soon. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:11, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 15:16, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Haaksman

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

I was gonna translate this article to Portuguese, but wanted to gather more sources for it. I had so much trouble finding them that I decided to go the opposite way and nominate this for deletion - it's supported by two apparently minor sources; one's not working. Best I could find were sources on some legal trouble he had with a Brazilian musician. What do you guys think? Victão Lopes ^Fala! 03:32, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches found nothing better at all than a few links here and there at News, Books and browsers. SwisterTwister talk 20:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:02, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He seems to be well-covered in the indie music databases like Soundcloud and some at allmusic, but nothing that would attest to notability as a musician on WP. The article is mainly a list of works with little context, it's more like a directory listing than an encyclopedia article. LaMona (talk) 21:59, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage in independent sources to show they pass notability criteria. He exists. He's a working musician. But not notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:54, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 15:17, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Novoa

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

Questionable notability, page's creator is making pages to promote an upcoming film project. The award claims appear fictitious, there's no source for "Deluxe Merit" award and it doesn't appear to exist, these links show that the other two cited awards didn't go to this person: http://caucus.org/events/awardsdinner120212.html http://www.afi.com/Conservatory/alumni/schaffneraward.aspx JamesG5 (talk) 03:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:39, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best as I have found some links at News and browsers but especially nothing for a solidly notable article yet. SwisterTwister talk 20:24, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:00, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not possible to even verify the little that is in the article. Could be notable in the future, but not yet. LaMona (talk) 22:02, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches turned up nothing to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:05, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was the consensus is to delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:11, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clan Crozier

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

The entire article is a mass of original research by a lone editor.

Here's a breakdown of the first section:

The first para seems to be synthesis drawn from several dictionaries.
The second para contains a conclusion drawn straight from a primary source.
The third para is partly drawn from an unreliable webpage.
The fourth para is drawn straight from a primary source.
The fifth para is original research drawn through DNA tests presented on a personal webpage, and personal interpretations of place names, personal names, and maps.
The sixth para is drawn straight from primary sources.
The seventh para is original research drawn from the supposed distribution of surnames.
The next four paras are drawn straight from primary sources. There's no secondary source to show any of this information is any way relevant. The rest of the section is more of the same, with unsourced musings, assumptions and conclusions.

The article continues in the same vein. Names of individuals are cherry-picked at the whim of the editor from various primary sources without any secondary source showing context or relevance.

The section on heraldry contains imaginary coats of arms created by the editor himself. There's a section on a tartan, and another on mottoes drawn from seemingly random people named Crozier. The rest of the article comes across as boldfaced gibberish accompanied with annotated screenshots of Victorian primary sources. Unfortunately the editor is spreading this nonsense into other articles.

Anyway, this content belongs on a personal webpage not Wikipedia. I have no doubt that someone can craft a reliably-sourced and useful article on the historic Crozier border family, but this is unsalvageable and a detriment to unsuspecting readers.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 00:34, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:50, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would support the deletion of this article. The reasons being firstly that the "Clan Crozier" is not a recognized clan by the Lord Lyon King of Arms - with or without chief. Secondly most of the information in the article is random information not specifically about the "Clan Crozier" but rather what seems to be heraldic information, that is incoherent and will not make any sense to any one reading it who is new to the subject let alone anyone who is a clan historian.QuintusPetillius (talk) 16:29, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

False the article was started by someone else, who is wanting someone with genealogical experience to help of. Being descended from the nephew of Clement Crozier's nephew Robert Elliot in modern language, but in 16th century language Clementis Hobs, felt I could help established a vanquished Crozier Clan and make them Unvanquished like their allied the Armstrong. 05:57, 12 December 2015‎ 67.0.63.191 (talk)‎ . . (12,050 bytes) (+645)‎ . . (→‎15th century: Crozier is a Crozier site and wanted help from a genealogist. Since granddad Robert (Hob) Elwode (ie Elliot) was adopted by uncle Clement Crosar to become Clementis Crosar (ie Crozier) helped the Crozier. Am an Elliott this is my site.) (undo) (cur | prev) 19:08, 9 December 2015‎ QuintusPetillius (talk | contribs)‎ . . (11,405 bytes) (-312)‎ . . (Removed bizzare self made image of what is claimed to be some sort of sasine. You are free to do what you like to your bogus Clan Corzier article but I will fight you all the way if start adding such rubbish to other clan articles)

Is that what you said? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.0.63.191 (talk) 02:56, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doing a Google search "Clan Crozier", because information I have developed, and also the images, the people searching "Clan Crozier" will not be going to Wikipedia where they site is for their modification, but will be going to one of my websites; gorrenberry.com. Though the individual who's criticized me is quite dictatorial, in trying to keep me from being a foremost authority, he will have these Crozier fall to a website they can not control. It would be similar to have a Clan Elliot web site in which Elliott do not have participation, and are told who they are. Mark Elliott — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.161.67.169 (talk) 22:07, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From a research genealogists point of view if those which are descended from the given surname like Crozier are superseded on the knowledge background of their given family, the information on any given clan on Wikipedia will not have viability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.123.235.204 (talk) 05:54, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I would be far from surprised if there are not some elements of truth in this article, but taken as a whole it is an essay made up of irrelevant and unconnected ramblings, some of them unrelated to the surname Crozier. Tartan was a highland dress until outlawed after 1745, and revived as a variety of antiquarianism in the 19th century, with Edinburgh outfitters inventing tartans for lowland clans that had never historically worn any. I expect that the coat of arms did belong to someone of the name, but that does not mean that it belongs to everyone of the surname. I could no doubt find more wrong with this WP:ESSAY, if I tried harder. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:50, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Don't get me wrong, I am all for having articles about the Scottish clans but this article is just full of meaningless sentences and paragraphs. Wikipedia articles are supposed to make sense to anyone reading the article who is new to this subject and the nonsense included in the Clan Crozier article does not make sense to me and I am an experienced researcher of the Scottish clans. Therefore it won't make sense to anyone who is new to the subject. All the content is written in very bad English - as are the contributions to this talk page by the editor who created the article. And the editor who created the Clan Crozier article has already been temporarily blocked twice as both User talk:67.0.63.191 and User:Lawismarkellot for edit warring on the Clan Eliott page. Further he seems to be citing nothing but his personal ancestry to the Clan Crozier article which is not specifically about the "Clan Crozier" which the article should be about. He is also using his personal ancestry as the only argument on the talk pages as to why he is right. Besides all that the Clan Crozier article is nothing but a meaningless mess which is drawing conclusions from primary sources, and combining secondary sources to prove an otherwise unpublished point of view which is original research and not permitted on Wikipedia as per: Wikipedia:No original research.QuintusPetillius (talk) 16:47, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He is a Hunter in-law which does not respect my brethren as a Gorrenberry Elliott the Armstrong; Follow links from Clan Armstrong allied to the Elliot are not listed on Clan Eliott site.

http://www.clanarmstrongtrust.org.uk/ Clan Armstrong Trust http://gorrenberry.com/armstrong-fairbairn-elliot-y-dna-link/ https://journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/flor/article/download/14397/20215/ Top historian of Scottish history; Dr Jackson W.

The Gorrenberry Estate once of the Family of Buccleuch is slated for Wind Edge (Hermitage Castle) wind farm this is my families ancestral land. To the Norman Redheugh Clan, I am "Cowie of Gorrenberry", but to the Armstrong I am their younger brother in a Danish sense "The marsh dwelling elk".

The difference between the name Eliot (Breton) and the name Elliot (Borders) is one character.

The difference between; http://www.electricscotland.com/webclans/dtog/elliot2.html and http://www.electricscotland.com/webclans/dtog/elliot.html but the true difference between the two links shows whether only the Norman Eliot, family of the in-laws speak or whether the in-laws the Hunter and the family Elliot-Elliott get to speak also.

It also will determine the future validity of family Clan sites on Wikipedia, if the in-law like this time of year are the ones telling who the families are and not the families themselves.

From The "Cowie of Gorrenberry", or "The Marsh Dwelling Elk", have a happy season an a prosperous and healthful 2016 especially for the in-laws. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.123.235.204 (talk) 18:48, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete almost unintelligible ramblings, by editor who does not seem to be able to understand this is not Facebook (see "happy season an a prosperous and healthful 2016 especially for the in-laws" immediately above). Appears to have attempted to shoe-horn in any reference to Crozier, however ir/relevant. Very few reliable independent sources, numerous Victorian "romantic" histories of dubious reliability. Blow it up and start over - Arjayay (talk) 12:14, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with blowing it up and starting over, the Crozier, like the UK Armstrong will seek information elsewhere. Today I administrate and operated two web sites, which represent me descended from a William Elwald of Gorrenberry, 1484 at the creation of Redheugh for today's Clan Eliott chief. Am under the shield of the stag-head as described in The Chronicles of the Armstrong.

The United Kingdom Armstrong search for information, and dominate in seeking information from my one site elwald.com, and the crozier, if one is to put "Clan Crozier" in to the Google search, you will see my other site gorrenberry.com to be referred to. The husband of today's Redheugh, has MI6 experience, when the elwald.com site came under attached I created another site gorrenberry.com.

In 1484 you will find on the Redheugh sasine of this site, that William Elwald of Gorrenberry, is there with Walter Scott, of Edschaw, who is the son of David Scott of Buccleuch, along with two brother of Cessford, to create Robert Elwald of Redheugh.

When you get to Trevidale where one finds Hob Elwode, Clemt syster sone. That is Clement's nephew, or Clementis Hobs as listed in "Thieves of Liddesdale", who I am proud to claim as my granddad. Another line you may read is;"Mathewe Hunter John Crosyer kynsman." It should be noted that the Hunter family is also related. In resettlement 1540 of English revels Clement Crozier, Archie Elwald of Gorrenberry, Robin Elwald of Redheugh, Hector Armstrong of Harlaw, and others resettled these Hunter on Hunthill near the Ker's Ferniehirst Castle.

Feel that the Crozier family show be writing this article, do not like feeding the Armstrong from my elwald.com site, or the Crozier from my gorrenberry.com site.

If you go to Clan Eliott, one may ask what is in an extra character being added; Eliot is the Wm de Aliot of Southern France branch of the name and Elliot with an extra "l", is the evolved from Ellot, with an inserted "i" branch of the name where Ellot evolve from Elwald.

In websites it makes a great difference also;

given;

http://www.electricscotland.com/webclans/dtog/elliot2.html

It will take one to a censored form of giving only the history of the Eliot family with a single "l" and single "t", where if one takes the character "2" out of the link it gets rid of the censorship.

http://www.electricscotland.com/webclans/dtog/elliot.html

The writer of the first my brother-in-law Keith Elliot Hunter, does not have the technical capability to know the difference, so he was helped by Redheugh with MI6 background.

Redheugh (Clan Elliot Chief) and Ferniehirst (Clan Kerr Chief), and Cessford (Duke of Roxburghe) are all linked to North British Windpower NBW

Google "North British Windpower), then Google "North British Windpower NBW" and see how many of the images come from;

www.elwald.com/chiefs-kerr-elliot-duke-of-roxburghe-nbw-nbwp/

or

gorrenberry.com/chiefs-kerr-elliot-duke-of-roxburghe-nbw-nbwp/

The of NBW support The Windy Edge (Hermitage Castle) wind farm on the past Buccleuch Gorrenberry estate, and that is why Wikipedia, and the Elwald-Ellot of Gorrenberry are being censored because corporate wind farming want to place a wind farm on my families ancestral lands, and that is why it is important like I have always been asking for input on this article especially from the Crozier which started. It seemed like they wanted someone with genealogical experience. If you go into to my two websites one will see I have genealogical experience.

To blow up this site the Crozier will go to gorrenberry.com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.123.235.204 (talk) 15:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus

We appear to have consensus of at least 3 people in this discussion, if not more, who want to delete the Clan Crozier article. In reply to the above the problem editor's websites which he claims show that he has genealogical experience actually show nothing of the sort and are a complete mass of unlogical nonsense.QuintusPetillius (talk) 15:30, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Clan Crozier From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This is my first attempt at creating a Wikipedia page, hence its low quality and brevity. I am not an expert on geneaology or Clan Crozier, but merely one who thinks the page should be created given the availability of information on the web, and the existence of other clan pages much like the Croziers (e.g. Armstrong).

I look forward to seeing this article evolve!

Will I Lawismarkellot, to help out the person above with strong knowledge of Clan Crozier being descended from Clementis Hobs (in modern language Clement Crozier's nephew Robert Elliot), found in the last paragraph in "The Thieves of Liddesdale", and they being in Riccaton, close to Robert 15 of Lariston, and his younger brother Martin of Prickenhaugh, felt I had an genealogical background to help and assist the owner a KCrozier of this article. Just trying to help a vanquished clan to became unvanquished. Sincerely Lawismarkellot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.123.235.204 (talk) 06:00, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:43, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kreuz Oberhausen

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. sst✈^·discuss· 17:03, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. sst✈^·discuss· 17:03, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nondescript cloverleaf interchange. Dough4872 17:14, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—fails WP:GNG and does not warrant an article. Imzadi 1979 → 21:26, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep: This is one of a group of disruptive nominations for deletion by a small number of systemically biased editors who have a fixed agenda of wanting all articles about Autobahn interchanges in Germany to be deleted, even though they have carried out no research into whether the subjects of the articles pass WP:GNG or not, and are therefore contending that they fail GNG without regard to whether that contention is true or false. For that reason, this nomination, like all disruptive editing, should be treated as vandalism, and should be withdrawn. See also my more detailed comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kreuz Kaiserberg. Bahnfrend (talk) 18:43, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please see WP:AGF and WP:NOTVAND. Note that "disruptive editing" is expicitly stated as not being vandalism. (And accusations of vandalism when no vandalism has in fact taken place are given a decidedly dim view.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:18, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Despite the accusation above, there is no WP:BIAS here, there is WP:NOTVAND, and there is no failure of WP:BEFORE (which was not stated but inferred). Every interchange on the Autobahn is named. Therefore, unlike in most other places, one cannot assume that a named intersection is an indication of something special and, therefore, probable notability - instead, it's WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. Interchanges are not things that are inherently notable; they have to rise and fall on GNG alone, and I'm not seeing how this (as with the vast majority of other Autobahn interchanges) does so. There is no bias, and there is no cabal, there is only notability, and this is how it fails. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:18, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – not every interchange is notable. sst✈ 03:33, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Response: Whether that's true or not, this is the interchange between two of Germany's oldest and busiest Autobahns, and also the starting point for the construction of the Autobahn that linked Germany's Autobahn system with the Netherlands. I have found further content for this article and will add it in the next 24 hours. Bahnfrend (talk) 10:30, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please remember that notability is not inherited; the fact that the two Autobahns are exceptionally notable has no bearing on whether or not the interchange is. However, the part about it being the starting point shows promise, and I'll keep an eye on it with a view to potentially changing my !vote if there's GNG-worthy stuff. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:17, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Response: Yes, but of course an interchange between two important Autobahns is, all other things being equal, inherently more likely to generate coverage in reliable sources. I have been delayed in adding content, and will add it shortly, but in the meantime, here is one of the sources I have found - it's an article about, amongst other things, the opening ceremony of the first stage of the Autobahn to the Netherlands (which included a parade ending, and ribbon cutting and speeches, at this interchange and seems to have been quite an event). Bahnfrend (talk) 13:44, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW. If somebody wishes for this to be userified for the purpose of sorting the articles into a category (which would, I believe, be appropriate here), feel free to ping me. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:45, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of console games spanning multiple discs

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

Contested prod. The topic does not meet the WP:GNG - multiple, reliable, secondary in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. In short, the list is WP:TRIVIA. The list is a cross-section between console games and physically-distributed versions being on multiple discs, which doesn't fit under any parent article. This is not a defining characteristic of video games and serves no real encyclopedic purpose. Games with a notable number of discs would have this detailed in their articles. Majority of examples are unsourced and unsourcable. (Perhaps a broader list could exist about video games that were notably large in size at their time, but it would still feel very WP:OR even with sourced examples.) — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:08, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the nomination. This is trivia and likely unverifiable without original research. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:10, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary list that adds nothing to Wikipedia. Seasider91 (talk) 17:09, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Aspirex (talk) 19:55, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --The1337gamer (talk) 12:36, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yeeeeeep. — Smuckola (talk) 19:57, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 22:03, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete regardless of the OR concerns I don't see it as being necessary especially since multiple disc games were quite common in the original PlaySation days. if anything this would be better of as a category.--67.68.23.129 (talk) 23:33, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. But needs attention for BLP issues, IMHO. Sandstein 18:07, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cuppy's Coffee

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

Non-notable coffee franchising company - fails WP:CORP ukexpat (talk) 23:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:28, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:28, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:28, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Non-notable coffee franchising company - fails WP:CORP & WP:GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 00:46, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:21, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as none of this currently suggests solidly satisfying the applicable notability guidelines. Notifying past users KDS4444 and Takeaway and also Onel5969 who is part of WikiProject Food and drink. SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A franchise with over 30 locations is nothing to sneeze at, but nothing to light up the world over, either. The legal difficulties of its owner also make it more interesting. And at first there just doesn't seem to be that much coverage. There's this, this little article, and this (another small article). However, Blue Mau Mau (love the name), is one of the two main trades for franchisees. A search there turned up tons of stuff. But you have to sift through, since not only does it give news stories, it also posts op-ed pieces. But it does included items like this, this, this, this, this, and quite a few others. Article as it stands is very poorly sourced and could use some more work. If it's not deleted, I'll be more than happy to expand it a bit. Btw, thanks SwisterTwister for the shout out. Always feel free to let me know about F&D articles. Finally, what I really found interesting, for those who think that Wikipedia doesn't matter, take a look at this entry at Blue Mau Mau. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:05, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting so Onel's sources can be evaluated. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:32, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:32, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete no indications of notability of the business ahatsoever, Staszek Lem (talk) 03:11, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Onel's sources. --Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 13:31, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:23, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Onel's references aren't significant enough to establish notability, and they are also not even in the article yet. I also did my own searching and came up with much the same. As per Davey2010's comment above, Not Notable, if anything this failed business will become less and less notable over-time. Aeonx (talk) 17:24, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - fyi, the references don't have to appear in the article, simply exist, as per deletion policy. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:16, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would appreciate if this were relisted a third time if no further comments are made, for a better and clearer consensus. Cheers, SwisterTwister talk 23:21, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
1. Sneed, Brandon (2009-08-31). "Cuppy's Coffee shop owners refuse to bow under weight of failed franchise". Star-News. Archived from the original on 2016-01-02. Retrieved 2016-01-02.
  The article notes:
  
  In a May interview with BlueMau Mau.com, an Internet news site that has followed the Cuppy's franchise saga since its early days, Cuppy's CEO Dale Nabors said he shut down most of his means of communication because of the rising number of threats he and his family were receiving.
  Nabors took over the chain from Robert Morgan in 2008.
  ...
  The Russells, who have joined 27 other franchisees in a class-action lawsuit against the Cuppy's franchise, hope to one day rename and rebrand their shop when they can afford it. But as it turns out, splitting from a chain has made their Cuppy's, located off College Road beside Staples and PETCO in University Centre, more appealing, customers said.
2. Maze, Jonathan (June 2008). "Cuppy's: If it's broke, buy it". Franchise Times. Archived from the original on 2016-01-02. Retrieved 2016-01-02.
  The article notes:
  
  Still, the flagship is Cuppy's, which has 73 units and deals in place for another 135.
  The chain was created when Doug Hibbing and Robert Morgan paid $3 million for the assets of Java Jo'z, Hibbing's former employer, and renamed the chain Cuppy's. The previous owner went to jail for tax evasion.
  The new owners sold more than 100 franchises by promoting Cuppy's as a cheaper alternative to Starbucks. Blogs on the Internet began hammering the chain because many of the people who licensed the brand under the Java Jo'z name couldn't get refunds of their licensing fees when they couldn't open sites – and the switch to Cuppy's appeared suspicious. "It created a PR nightmare," Nabors said. "It was a mess."
3. Bennet, Julie (September 2007). "Attacks from the blogosphere: What Cuppy's learned the hard way". Franchise Times. Archived from the original on 2016-01-02. Retrieved 2016-01-02.
  The article's introduction:
  Last winter, Doug Hibbing, president of Cuppy’s Coffee and More in Fort Walton Beach, Florida, learned about blogs the hard way.
  Hibbing had been working for Roy Snowden, the owner of a coffee licensing concept called Java Jo’z until May 2006, when Snowden was sent off to federal prison for tax evasion. Hibbing and an associate, Robert Morgan, pledged $3 million for the assets of Java Jo’z and for a second company, Medina Enterprises, that equipped the company’s drive-thru coffee stands. By July 2006, they had started a new company, Cuppy’s Coffee, and turned it into a franchise.
  According to a UFOC they filed this July, Cuppy’s then spent $189,557 on Internet advertising, promoting their offering as a less expensive option to Starbucks. Leads poured in like latte and by the end of December they’d sold 100 franchises.
  The article further notes:
  Cuppy’s is back on track after its Blogosphere blow-up. Hibbing said, “In hindsight, we could see how our purchase of the Java Jo’z assets caused so much confusion. We finally hired a PR firm, but I wish we’d done so earlier.”
  Cuppy’s new PR consultant, Rhonda Sanderson, sent a long letter to all the blogs, with details about the Java Jo’z asset purchase, including a timeline.
  Hibbing started contacting the unhappy licensees in person, offering to sell them products whether they chose to convert to Cuppy’s or remain as Java Jo’z. So far, 33 have converted, he said. He also contacted the American Association of Franchisees and Dealers in San Diego for help in re-writing Cuppy’s UFOC and Franchise Agreement. The new documents won the AAFD’s Accredited Contract approval status.
4. "News Briefs: Cuppy's may be out of business". Franchise Times. January 2009. Archived from the original on 2016-01-02. Retrieved 2016-01-02.
  The article notes:
  
  Cuppy's Coffee, the controversial chain that grew on the promise of being a lower-cost Starbucks, appears to have gone out of business amid strong indications of financial problems.
  Franchisees and prospects say they haven't heard from the company or its owner, Dale Nabors, since a short conference call in October. Phone numbers for Nabors' offices in Muscle Shoals, Alabama, are disconnected. The company's Web site no longer lists contact information.
  Neither Cuppy's, nor its sister company, Elite Manufacturing, their parent, Medina Enterprises, or owner FranSynergy have filed for bankruptcy as of press time, nor have they signaled a shutdown. But franchisees, former employees and attorneys believe they are no longer operating.
  It is uncertain where this leaves the franchise, which at last count had 75 units. The company has no staff. Franchisees say they're getting merchandise directly from suppliers. Several prospective franchisees said they never received equipment they paid for and needed to open their businesses.
5. "News Briefs: AAFD suspends Cuppy's accreditation". Franchise Times. September 2008. Archived from the original on 2016-01-02. Retrieved 2016-01-02.
  The article notes:
  
  A clearly frustrated American Association of Franchisees and Dealers has suspended its accreditation of Cuppy's Coffee's franchise agreement, pending a vote on the accreditation's full withdrawal this month. AAFD Chairman Bob Purvin made the move amid allegations that the chain hasn't started construction on some stores, after his effort to get Cuppy's to cooperate with his investigation failed.
  ...
  Critics lambasted the move, pointing to Cuppy's history of poor relations with franchisees. Reports surfaced of the company's failure to make refunds of some promised construction deposits and they didn't stop when Nabors bought the company in April. The AAFD began investigating the company in February, and then this summer heard allegations that some franchisees have been waiting several months for Cuppy's and Elite Manufacturing to begin work on their stores.
6. "News at a glance: AAFD to start rating franchise systems". Franchise Times. May 2009. Archived from the original on 2016-01-02. Retrieved 2016-01-02.
  The article notes:
  
  The review will look at “the totality of the opportunity,” including both the contract and the company’s actual practice, [American Association of Franchisees and Dealers (AAFD) chairman Bob] Purvin said. This is considered important—one of the highest-rated contracts was Cuppy’s Coffee, a franchisor that has apparently disappeared after a series of significant issues between it and its franchisees.
  Purvin, in fact, called Cuppy’s the “Bernard Madoff of franchising” and said the company was running something akin to a “franchise Ponzi scheme.” He added that, “no matter how much you like a company or a brand, you still have to be careful.”
  ...
7. Dickler, Jessica (2007-07-30). "Stealing Starbucks' buzz: As the cappuccino king hikes prices yet again, some smaller coffee shops see an opportunity brewing". CNN. Archived from the original on 2016-01-02. Retrieved 2016-01-02.
  The article notes:
  
  But for Doug Hibbing, president of Fort Walton Beach, Fla.-based Cuppy's Coffee & More, a small specialty coffee franchise, there's an upside to the dairy squeeze.
  Although some diehard java fans don't balk at spending more than $3 for a latte, Starbucks customers may go elsewhere if prices get too high, Hibbing believes. And Cuppy's 38 stores are more than happy to sell them their caffè lattes instead, which cost $2.50 to $2.75 for a 12 oz. cup.
  ...
  Even as dairy costs rise, "the margins in specialty coffee are still very comfortable," Hibbing admits. "It does cut into the profit margin some, but it's not a deal breaker by any stretch of the imagination."
  And therefore, Cuppy's can keep prices well below the cost of Starbucks, at least for the time being. In addition, "because our stores are locally owned and operated we don't have the layers and layers of overhead some of our competitors have."
  And that's what Hibbing hopes will stimulate the company's expansion. Cuppy's expects to open 100 franchised locations by the end of the year.
8. The sources listed by Onel5969 (talk · contribs).
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Cuppy's Coffee to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 02:06, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's hardly enough coverage to completely save the article though and from the two, the Franchise Times is likely the best, but not exactly as solid as it could be, because of the listed information. It simply seems there's simply not enough coverage overall. SwisterTwister talk 02:13, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I normally agree with Cunard but on this occasion I have to disagree with them - Half if not all of the sources are well .... shit .... As ST notes they're not as good as they could be - I don't expect sources to be amazing but these all just seem crap..., And plus on another note the only notable thing about the shop is it failed .... I'd imagine worldwide there's millions of failing shops but they don't need an article and IMHO this doesn't need an article either.... –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 02:50, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've added links to four more Franchise Times articles and a CNN article. Per Wikipedia:Notability#Notability is not temporary, I don't think the shop's failing should bar it from having an article. Cunard (talk) 03:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the company is notable because it doesn't seem to be dying a natural death, even after the owner was arrested for check fraud and the assets (without the liabilities) were purchased from Java Jo's where that former owner served time for tax evasion charges.[11] The Cuppy's website is still active and they appear to still be attempting to sell franchises. My first impression is that this may be a pyramid scheme and that the article should (more prominently) detail more of the company's sordid past. This is information which, if it proves to be RS, should be easily attainable to anyone considering doing business with the firm. The knife cuts both ways, Wikipedia articles can have the effect of keeping corporations honest, deleting this article may be a favor to a possibly less than reputable firm.[12] 009o9 (talk) 06:33, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Blue MauMau (Google page rank 4) appears to be a specialty news/blog (on Google News) that is covering the Cuppy's story.Site search for Cuppy's The nine year editor owner, Don Sniegowski, has been reprinted in NuWire Investor (Google page rank 5) with the Cuppy's saga mentioned.[13] The website, Unhappy Franchisee is clearly not RS, but the site may have links to primary (court) sources. Cuppy’s Coffee Overview Per User:onel5969 this subject/article has notability legs beyond WP:CORP that need to be expanded. 009o9 (talk) 07:46, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It appears as though the original franchising died out when the owner was arrested. However, since then, trademarks were abandoned and then someone else has registered them and is selling franchises again. The new person appears to have no relationship to the original company. The new person coming in and changing the article to an advertisement is partially what brought this article here. LionMans Account (talk) 15:10, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. After three relistings, there appears to be a consensus in favour of keeping this article. Renaming can be done through the normal channels if desired. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:48, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pashtun Americans

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

For many reasons this article needs to be deleted. For example, the name "Pashtun Americans" is made up by an editor of Pakistani background who lives in Australia and who is now blocked indefinitely. I had to mention his information because he doesn't know about America. He copy pasted content from Afghan Americans and Pakistani Americans into this page and invented a new group of people who do not identify as such. There are no sources to back the name Pashtun American. In America people are identified by nationality, not by ethnicity, tribe or clan.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 17:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The data source cited in the article supplies a number of speakers of Pashto. Is this really an article about Pashto speakers in the US and, if so, is that a notable topic? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pashto speakers in the United States are roughly 50% of Afghan Americans or a small percent of Pakistani Americans. As we all know that English becomes the main language of everyone in America, there is no purpose in labelling people by what language they spoke in their former countries.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 07:01, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Rename: These kind of articles are encyclopedic. 16,000 is enough population to make article. Maybe article can be renamed to Pashtuns in America or Pashtun Community in USA which will increase scope of article and those Pashtuns from India, Pakistan and Afghanistan living in USA but not citizens of USA can be included in this article.--Human3015^TALK 22:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The people do not self identify as Pashtun Americans, neither are they called Pashtun Americans by the government or by anyone else. So, it is a newly created term by a controversial editor who got blocked. Many ethnic Pashtuns may be offended by being labelled Pashtun Americans, instead of Afghan Americans or Pakistani Americans. It's an attempt to divide them based on ethnicity. It is also very complicated to verify and determine who actually is a Pashtun, many non-Pashtuns will be labelled as Pashtuns.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 07:01, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have stricken your !vote as you are nominator and you are not suppose to !vote, but you can comment. And yes, "Pashtun Americans" may not be a proper term here, thats why I suggested title Pashtun community in America. Any "XYZ community in America" is a valid and encyclopedic article. I am also agree on that images of people should not include in this article unless they self identify themselves as "Pashtun origin or Pashtun". Otherwise it is BLP violation to call them Pashtun if they do not self identify themselves as Pashtun. --Human3015^TALK 02:02, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are probably millions of different ethnic groups living in America, are we suppose to create separate articles for each and all of them? If the answer is no then why create an article for ethnic Pashtuns? Why single them out?--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 04:44, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Krzyhorse22: Not exactly millions of different communities lives in USA. As per article Pashtun population is more than 16,000 in USA, but all of these are citizens of USA, there can be more Pashtuns IN USA who are not citizens of USA. This is enough population to create article on them. But they should not be grouped as "Pashtun Americans" because it is not official grouping, either they are grouped as "Afghan Americans" or "Pakistani Americans" or "Indian Americans" as per their origin in South Asia. So better title will be Pashtun community in the USA. --Human3015^TALK 11:15, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should first learn what community is. No such Pashtun community exists in the United States. They only identify selves as Afghan Americans, Pakistani Americans or Indian Americans, and they are scattered all over the country. I didn't say there are millions of different communities, I said there could be millions of different ethnicities, tribes, clans, etc., I hope you know Pashtun is ethnicity and not nationality or a race. Again I ask, what makes ethnic Pashtuns special than the million of other ethnic groups living in America to have an article?--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 12:28, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that user:Krzyhorse22 is ethnic Hazara who don't want to keep such articles about Pashtuns, This article should be not deleted, It an Encyclopedic and Informative article that should be kept on Wikipedia. And let me say that It does not matter that the article is written by a block user, We should see what are written in the article --2.89.234.120 (talk) 17:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have stricken comment of obvious sock probably made as block evasion. Looking at contribution history of IP shows that it is obvious case. SPI will not be useful here as CU will not connect any user to IP. Moreover, it is case of WP:OUTING. Editor has said below that they have never declared their ethnicity on Wikipedia then revealing it will not be good though it can be a wrong guess.--Human3015^TALK 10:50, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saadkhan12345 (talk · contribs), first of all you're evading blocks so your opinion cannot be counted. Second, I'm not ethnic Hazara, no where did I claim such.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 00:59, 6 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) 01:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Human3015 and articles mentioning "Pashtun American" identity [14][15][16] - this report says 100,000 Pashtun Americans (page 11, point 5) —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Just because some Pakistani editors used a wrong term in the past doesn't mean we must create a Wikipedia page for each of that wrong term. Creating a Wikipedia article for every wrongly used term causes confusion and misunderstanding. "Pashtun" is ethnic identity and "American" is nationality. It's not what others may wrongly call them, it's what they call their selves, which is Afghan Americans or Pakistani Americans. There are people who wrongly use Hindu American to refer to Americans who are from India, see also Sikh Americans for example. "Sikh" and "Hindu" are religious identities.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 18:54, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:40, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:16, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nominator states there are "many reasons" this article should be deleted, but it sounds like the central premise of their argument is that there is no community that self-identifies as "Pashtun Americans." However, a google search did, in fact, reveal sources that discuss a self-identified Pashtun community in America (see, e.g., this article from DAWN, this second article from DAWN, and this article in Newsweek, as well as other articles cited by other editors in this discussion). Therefore, I don't think deletion is appropriate here, but I do think this article should be renamed so that casual readers don't mistake this for an article about Americans living in Pashtunistan. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:53, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article will be of low importance and relevance to most; however it's encyclopedic in nature and therefore completely legitimate in my opinion. Typical WP:BIAS towards minority groups. Aeonx (talk) 17:05, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:59, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Artist Zingaro

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

I have no access to the two quoted sources but it looks most unlikely that they are either robust or independent. It is difficult to believe that a modern American artist has no evidence of notability on-line. Nothing in the text suggests notability. Unlikely to pass WP:GNG on the evidence given. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:59, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here's a news search Zingaro + enamel [17] and a google search that shows gallery representation. [18]. I suspect that this one just needs sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:59, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.

Singh (talk) 15:04, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.

Singh (talk) 15:04, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Zingaro is a key agent in the historical perpetuation of the vitreous enamel medium (see 'Vitreous Enamel" and 'Fred Uhl Ball.') He is a rare master of the artistic medium and has trained several others who are soon to be worthy of Wikipedia recognition. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Rubberbandlady (talk) 00:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC)rubberbandlady]] comment added by Rubberbandlady (talk • contribs) 03:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:35, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't appear to be notable. No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Citobun (talk) 15:03, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:11, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the sources are primary. I fail to see significant third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 15:46, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet typical criteria and only a handful of news hits, with barely a mention. Not notable. Aeonx (talk) 17:14, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Boing! said Zebedee, CSD G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:13, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Stag (Film Character)

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

Non-notable film character from non-notable films. | Uncle Milty | talk | 10:06, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DB-G12 copyvio — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.117.166.223 (talk) 14:18, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Schools are kept per SO (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 22:50, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Government Polytechnic Soron Kasganj

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

Unremarkable educational institution as well as being filled with redlinks. This article is extremely hard to understand and borders on incomprehensibility, and there are a few formatting errors as well. References do not show why the educational institution is notable. CatcherStorm talk 09:52, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a verifiable education institution on the list of the Directorate of Technical Education, Uttar Pradesh. The article itself is clearly in need of editing, for example to remove overlinking, but AfD is not for clean-up. AllyD (talk) 14:44, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep academic institutions like this are generally kept per our long standing consensus. Editors need not be reminded that WP:AfD is not for cleanup or a place to suggest improvement to a shambolic article. Although, we sometimes consider WP:TNT but in rare cases. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 10:07, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:53, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:53, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. --Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 19:12, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are usually kept. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:09, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus reached, article was already deleted by an administrator. (non-admin closure) Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 12:33, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oath of Genesis

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

Sources don't show why the game's notable. 3/4 of the sources are from IMDb. CatcherStorm talk 09:42, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Schools are kept per SO (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 22:50, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wye School

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

Redirect Wye School to United Learning. Unremarkable educational institution. CatcherStorm talk 09:40, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not sure why this school might be deemed unremarkable. As I understand it, it was the first free school in Kent, an area noted for its grammar schools, and it created quite a stir before and after opening. It's also one only 2 state secondary schools in Kent without its own article. CalzGuy (talk) 10:07, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @CalzGuy: You currently have no references to show why this school is notable. See WP:GNG for more info. Note that a mere Google search brings up few related results to the Wye School, and there is zero news coverage of the school as well. CatcherStorm talk 10:17, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying that it is the article that is unremarkable? Rather than the school itself? Is that correct?CalzGuy (talk) 10:29, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Not notable otherwise. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:18, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a secondary school meeting WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. VMS Mosaic (talk) 12:37, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, secondary schools are considered notable by long-term rock-solid WP:CONSENSUS. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:37, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @The Bushranger: @VMS Mosaic: I'm not quite seeing how this school is notable. It's a relatively small institution with 181 students, its sources are mostly primary and don't indicate its notability other than there being a little opposition by local leaders, and this school was built relatively recently. CatcherStorm talk 08:55, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - the point is that per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, it does not have to be 'normally' notable (note that notability is just a guideline, so wide and longstanding consensus can alter it). A secondary school only has to have proof that it exists (i.e., it must pass verifiability, which is a policy). VMS Mosaic (talk) 09:41, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned, the point is that Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia, it's also a gazetteer. There are some things - national- and state/provincial-level roads, geographic features, and secondary-and-above educational facilities among them - that are, therefore, incuded on the basis of the fact that they are verifiable alone. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:52, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES says: "Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are usually kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists." Sources that verifies the school exists are found, and I have added one more. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 21:30, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:53, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:53, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per precedent about secondary schools documented at WP:NHS and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:54, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- We normally regard all secondary schools as notable. This one is only two years old and thus perhaps catering only for 11-13 so far, but that should make no difference. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:28, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a secondary school per longstanding consensus and precedent. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:09, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. --Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 19:10, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Glossary_of_association_football_terms#S. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 03:37, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Squad rotation system

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

The article is essentially an essay of no encyclopedic value. It has no references, despite having an Unreferenced template for almost 8 years! I'm sure anyone understands the value in rotating between players in various sports and can find links discussing squad rotation, but I really don't see the value of having it as a separate article (which I doubt gets much exposure anyway, given that only 5 articles appear to link to it) as opposed to mentioning its usage in different sport articles.

As it is, the article is a mess that mainly focuses on football (soccer), tries to broaden the subject by briefly mentioning hockey and American football, and then goes really off-topic on band rotation. Given the limited amount of editing over the years, it's unlikely to change. Even if someone thought it would be possible to have this as a separate article, they'd be better off starting over with a blank slate. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 09:30, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Glossary_of_association_football_terms#S. There's no encyclopedic value as it currently stands. It could be expanded (and more importantly, sourced), but I'm guessing that won't happen anytime soon. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:33, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with the nominator. This is a classic example where someone has written an essay about a single sport, and a token but misguided effort has been made to make it appear to have a world-wide focus. There's nothing salvagable in this article, and I think it is sage advice indeed to delete altogether and let someone start anew if they ever want to revive it. Aspirex (talk) 19:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 12:31, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:34, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No notability demonstrated. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 17:15, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Lugnuts. Giant Snowman 11:43, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:05, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eli Avikzar

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

The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies. Alvin the Almighty (talk) 08:47, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Clearly an unremarkable person, CSD A7. CatcherStorm talk 09:39, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:28, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:MANOTE.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:28, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:56, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep we have articles about Eli AVikzar translated in Israel Wikipedia and France Wikipedia. why it shouldn't be translated in English?

He is the founder of one of the biggest Martial Art in Israel, he trained more then 100000 fighter in Israel Army (idf), and if some wikipedia users don't know about this art don't mean that this don't exist. Their is a link on the page from Israel academic institute that have a page a bout this person. The institute name is Winget college - one of the biggest sport colleges in Israel. Wikipedia should be the place that people will find things that other don't know, and this is a opportunity for some wiki users that think that this person don't important do study something new. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anyname4u (talk • contribs) 15:21, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Anyname4u: Please read WP:EXIST. Just because something exists, that doesn't mean it has to have an article. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 15:24, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rsrikanth05: Hi , I read it, this person not just exist, he mentioned in many books and independent reliable source. I add more links about the person in his page, you can check it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.155.171 (talk • contribs)

Comment The reference formatting was problematic - the titles given were not the titles and implied content that just wasn't there - but I fixed that. Aside from a college web page the remainder are mainly passing mentions.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:10, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is notability everywhere, but likewise, WP:OTHERCRAP also exists everywhere. It does not appear that this individual has accomplished anything outlined in our notability guidelines to suggest notability, and they don't seem to meet our direct notability policy WP:GNG. Most of the sources mention him in passing or fall under WP:ROUTINE. Mkdw ^talk 00:22, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am opting to recuse myself from this deletion discussion as I have taken custodial actions regarding this AFD. Mkdw ^talk 02:33, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this person mention in wiki articles about Krav Maga and in other wiki articles about notable Martial artist that he was their trainer for example Eyal Yanilov, Avi Moyal, Kobi Lichtenstein — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.155.171 (talk) 01:33, 28 December 2015 (UTC) Clearly same editor as Anyname4u. Mkdw ^talk 02:27, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ATA notability is not WP:INHERENT. Mkdw ^talk 06:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Besides his name mentioned in the articles were added by this user as well recently. Seems more like an WP:OPINION. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 07:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Adog104: you not right, I add just the link to the article, the name was already in the article, and in one case I corrected the name, that is it.

Then my mistake then. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 15:36, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I didn't find significant independent coverage of him. I found passing mentions and comments from students, but nothing to meet the GNG. Jakejr (talk) 21:27, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he 2nd Krav Maga Chief in Israel Defense Forces, trained 80,000 male soldiers and 12,000 female soldiers, was main developer of Krav Maga after the Imi Lichtenfeld. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.141.220 (talk) 12:57, 30 December 2015 (UTC) Clearly same editor as Anyname4u. Mkdw ^talk 02:25, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources? I can't find any. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 17:27, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have struck the edits from the two IPs as they are clearly tied to Anyname4u. They are single purpose IPs dedicated to only this AFD. Like Anyname4u, they did not sign their posts. The IPs geolocates to the same place and ISP in Israel. Their IP addresses are very close to each other in the IP range and adding their keep arguments about an hour apart. The first IP shares the same behavioural trademark of capitalizing "Martial" and references the other Wikipedias; essentially rehashed arguments. I have recused myself from this AFD as a participant in order to perform custodial duties. Mkdw ^talk 02:33, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:OSE is not a valid argument in this case. Searches did not turn up enough to show that this person passes our notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:10, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) clpo13_(talk) 09:48, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Brodhead III

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

This article has not been sourced for three years and google does not seem to be very talkative on the subject, leaving doubts on the reality of the issue Rinko87 (talk) 22:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The lack of in-article sourcing is not sufficient reason to delete, and Google Books indicates that the article is correct (for instance in History of Cornelis Maessen Van Buren and The Stroudsburgs in the Poconos), though many books' content is unavailable. From the available book-sourced info, it's marginal whether it should remain an article rather than being merged to Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania and Daniel Brodhead IV. What tipped it in favour of a keep vote is this more comprehensive article, which, although not listing its sources, would have been created from reliable sources -- though possibly primary/offline in nature.^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 16:33, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Daniel Brodhead IV per nom. Being the first white person to settle in a small town isn't a suitable claim of notability. The sparse sourcing doesn't pass WP:GNG. The short content here is better represented in the son's article. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:37, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to Keep I'll accept subject meets a very broad interpretation of GNG based on Mr. Norton's addition of citations. @Johnpacklambert:, what do you think of the new material? Chris Troutman (talk) 19:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Daniel Brodhead IV, being the first Euro-American to settle in a particular locality, and being a local judge, are not enough to demonstrate notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:05, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This does not accord with the article on Stroudsburg. Furthermore being the grantee of 600 acres (about one square mile is hardly notable. Possibly limited merge to his son and to Stroudburg, perhaps adding one sentence to each. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:31, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 08:09, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is enough information to have a stand alone article since I expanded it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:13, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with kudos to RAN for adding the material and sources that put this well past the minimum Wikipedia standards of notability. Alansohn (talk) 18:56, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:38, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Viqar Ul Aslam

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

Does not satisfy the WP:NBIO criteria: a young entrepreneur, founder of a small software business, his only claim to notability is receiving an award from regional government - an award apparently not based on merits but on a public poll! Sources quoted do not help in establishing the guy's notability and comprise of a software review, a list of the 21 recipients of the said award, and a cursory mention elsewhere. So, this is a typical example of WP:SINGLEEVENT. kashmiri ^TALK 18:05, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment at least as notable as winning a state level pageant like Meg McGuffin did. Guy started a business, won an award, employed people, developed products all over the span of years. That is more notable then most people in the world. Listening to some people here, a passing mention in a newspaper is enough to satisfy GNG. Legacypac (talk) 18:16, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to a degree, I would perhaps AfD Meg McGuffin - if not her coverage. But still I would't compare Miss Alabama and Miss America pageants to the Young Entrepreneur Award in the state of Jammu & Kashmir. It just doesn't compare. In the latter, in a public vote in a state of 14 million people, the most any winner received was less than 2000 votes, and media did not rather notice that. This precisely affects notability of a person. kashmiri ^TALK 18:49, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just looking for some consistent application of the GNG for Bios. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tamara Fazzolari, efforts to delete a page with way more sources at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Candy Carson, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali Wallace and the list goes on. I'm not going to be disruptive and vote against deleting every bio with a source, but when people are calling for a ban on me using AfD for trying to clean up promotional fluff... Legacypac (talk) 19:05, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He is notable as he has not just won youth icon award but also been able to win best entrepreneur not just that his poems in kashmiri and Urdu are widely known. He is a young entrepreneur who is recruiting young people by providing them trainings in a conflict torn state. He deserves to be on Wikipedia his business is not small scale rather a medium level expanding one. I have researched on him and he has been interviewed by Indian National TV - Doordarshan and also ETV Urdu short clips are on YouTube from these interviews. He has great Oratory skills and known sales communication trainer I checked his linkedin page which has more details about him. He has thousands of people attached their endorsing his skills and notability to be exact! I would recommend voting to keep this page and further edit it. The information about such people is of public interest. I will try to upload the bio part a lil more to it tomorrow as I'm gathering details on it I wish to work more on it as I'm new maybe someone among you can help me in building this page better. Thewikisquad (talk) 21:35, 17 December 2015 (UTC) — Thewikisquad (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

TV stations routinely interview tens or more people every single day, to fill the programme. Being on TV does not confer automatic notability, sorry! Or, I should perhaps get Wikipedia articles written about myself and quite a few colleagues of mine? BTW, his poetry is virtually unknown in Jammu & Kashmir, or did I miss something? kashmiri ^TALK 15:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as pure Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement. Business "awards" like this are a dime-a-dozen. Please promote yourself elsewhere. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:28, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Public poll" I guess that shows the notability rather than proving against it, public poll shows public interest. I don't see any parameters breaking that.

I would say "keep" after checking the sources which are reliable. If we deny bio with sources of reliable nature then I guess lot other bio should not be here.

Being a top entrepreneur in that state is quite notable. I don't see any open promotional material on the page but I think it should be edited properly to present the information in best shape. Jackbrownwashere (talk) 18:44, 19 December 2015 (UTC) — Jackbrownwashere (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Are you kidding me? Do you know how such "polls" are organised? The winner is one who is most popular in his/her uni class. Claiming that this particular award went to a "top entrepreneur" in the state is a joke. And read WP:ONEEVENT and WP:INTHENEWS please. kashmiri ^TALK 11:33, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You must be kidding me using your experience on Wikipedia as a monopoly over reviewing as if you're the founding member of this encyclopaedia, if you cannot check and prove the sources are organised you cannot push on allegations like that, I did my part you don't have to debate as its a discussion. And just one person cannot have say over matters here. You should stop pulling strings like you wish and let others decide this article! Polls define the popularity of people and when it's published on reliable source.

You just don't have to be a cop over here, be a contributor give your opinion related to the policies which policy says poll cannot be considered notable feature? Jackbrownwashere (talk) 13:03, 20 December 2015 (UTC) — Jackbrownwashere (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 08:04, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. We need significant coverage, not bare mentions. The awards themselves don't seem significant enough to prove notability, either. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 14:52, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Notable as the sources have mentioned him for notable reasons not just awards. Please check the recently added sources. I guess Youth Icon Award is greatly notable. Thewikisquad (talk) 14:58, 27 December 2015 (UTC) — Thewikisquad (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG , WP:SINGLEEVENT and WP:ANYBIO and even his company does not appear to be notable.Further he is 25 years and upcoming and at best a case of WP:TOOSOON.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:16, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~, How is WP:SINGLEEVENT While it has been reported for two awards nd two different notable achievements which includes creating the states first online radio which has listeners across the the world, I would request checking the CITYFMJK Radio for added links! The age argument is not worthy to discuss! The Page also contains notable sources that indicate the validation of the content! 7 link sources for 4 different achievements! not a single event! Thewikisquad (talk) 10:18, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment: Crossing out duplicate !vote. kashmiri ^TALK 13:19, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The station is listed as a "product" of his company[19] and actually is one of a myriad webcast stations that anyone can set up on the www.radio.co platform. It was started only two years ago and has almost no mentions in internet sources that I could find. Anyhow, this does not prove how the guy is notable on his own. By the way, a website I set up also has readers from all over the world but this does not make me notable! kashmiri ^TALK 13:42, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - cannot find enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to show that they pass notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:18, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Yash ! 02:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jonah Smith

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

I still confirm and echo my PROD: "Searches found several links particularly Books, News and browsers but all mostly unusable coverage for notability and also mostly local news, so all in all, there's no convincingly outstanding improvement here yet.". SwisterTwister talk 08:11, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 14:43, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 14:43, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 14:43, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What about the coverage I indicated when I deprodded it? You didn't find any of that? --Michig (talk) 17:41, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems he was on America's Got Talent and got lots of coverage because of that, although there is other stuff as well, including: [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]. Some of that is pretty in depth so I think it would meet the notability guidelines and would be enough for a full length article. FuriouslySerene (talk) 15:11, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per sources provided by FuriouslySerene. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 19:31, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 07:57, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:14, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spacetoon (Italy)

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

No references. No demonstration that the Italian channel is anything different than the global Spacetoon channel. Binksternet (talk) 04:40, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 05:59, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 05:59, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:23, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI the correspondent article on it.wiki (created by the same user) was speedy deleted today, treated as an hoax. All author's edits were reverted. --Supernino (talk) 15:09, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 07:55, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The channel on Italy it never existed and was never born in any platform. The entry only contains untruths. --Stupoto (talk) 23:32, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as hoax. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 12:36, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. To delete, but editorial transwikiing or deletion of the non-English parts is still on the table. Sandstein 17:45, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Words without consonants

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

Unreferenced collection of multilanguage trivia. Nonencyclopedic Staszek Lem (talk) 02:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would feel more inclined to delete this if the transwiki to Wiktionary were completed. One notice says this will happen. But the other notice takes that away and says the Transwiki bot failed. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 03:08, 17 December 2015 (UTC) 7&6=thirteen (☎) 03:05, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if nobody wants to do this manually, this is not the reason to keep it for may years. If somebody is willing to undertake the job, one may userfy the page. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:55, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:01, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 07:53, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a lovely piece of work, but it does seem to be WP:OR, and not supported by reliable sources. There is a single entry for "ewe" as a consonantless word on page 37 in White's Every-day English: A Sequel to "Words and Their Uses" (1880). This article does not mention either Spanish or Hebrew which "Segmental and suprasegmental errors in Spanish learning cochlear implant users: Neurolinguistic interpretation", by Ignacio Moreno-Torres and Esther Moruno-López, indicates both have multisyllable consonantless words. Perhaps @Kwamikagami: would enlighten us on what sources they (sing.) used in preparing the original article in January 2010‎. --Bejnar (talk) 11:24, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete People have amassed a large list. But it is a list based on a trivial similarity. We could also assemble a list of words without phonemic vowels (drawing from Semitic and Slavic to begin with), but that would also be trivial. Maybe a small part of this be moved to a single paragraph under Vowel. Pete unseth (talk) 13:47, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep until transwikied. BTW, we do have an article on words w/o vowels. — kwami (talk) 23:11, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep until transwikied. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:49, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Rename to List of English words without consonants, and remove the non-English sections. Given this is the English Wikipedia, we don't typically include other languages in lexicography-related lists. There are a few exceptions, but the word "consonant" doesn't even have a consistent meaning across languages. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and doesn't have indiscriminate collections of lexicographical trivia, but it does have encyclopedic lists of words. There are reliable sources which include such a list (making a case for WP:SALAT). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Rhododendrites. --Sammy1339 (talk) 08:01, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) clpo13_(talk) 09:43, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Zais

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

Beyond her summer job, name drops of other pageant winners before after and at the time of her win, listing of her non-notable parents, husband and daughter and other trivia, we are left with the fact she won a looks contest. That information is best presented Miss South Carolina USA when WP:NOPAGE is applied. Delete and Redirect. Legacypac (talk) 04:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:54, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 December 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:01, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 07:51, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 09:20, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey J. Kroll

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

Essentially an advertisement. Emphasizes such minor accomplishments as winning "the largest wrongful death settlement involving a car and semi-trailer for a female in Vermilion Count" . References for the cases, but nor for the firm. DGG ( talk ) 07:48, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 14:31, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 14:31, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 15:42, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG because the multiple mentions in the press are about his cases. He is not the biographical subject of media attention himself.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:04, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trial lawyer with no particular claims to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:18, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article does not pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) because its subject has not been the focus of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Also, Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. - tucoxn\^talk 18:56, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 09:12, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jennings Strouss

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

Esssetially an advertisement. The sources show no more than selection for "Best Lawyers of America", a thoroughly meaningless distinction. DGG ( talk ) 07:47, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 14:30, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 14:30, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 14:30, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 14:30, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 14:30, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 15:42, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Local law firm it seems with no obvious outstanding signs of better encyclopedia notability and improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:43, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CORP. The article does not pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) because the topic has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Also, Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. - tucoxn\^talk 18:57, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per DGG and Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:20, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 02:23, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Girlfriend experience

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable neologism that fails WP:NEO and WP:NAD, since of course "Wikipedia is not a dictionary, phrasebook, or a slang, jargon or usage guide." This article is a textbook case, discussing coined terms and phrases, perhaps suitable for Wiktionary but not Wikipedia. (Previous AFD in 2007 was of a different deletion era and 2012 was discussion about references, not policy.) -- Wikipedical (talk) 07:14, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a widely use phrase and a topic far more notable then many articles here like Meg McGuffin. Legacypac (talk) 07:42, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The notability of another article has nothing to do with this deletion discussion. The article fails WP:NEO and WP:NAD. Nothing you have said rebuts that. -- Wikipedical (talk) 02:52, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Legacypac, and rewrite. It currently looks like an essay. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 15:43, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The article fails policy. An article consisting of definitions and neologisms are forbidden, no matter how it's structured. -- Wikipedical (talk) 02:52, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to SR-22 (insurance). I agree that this can and should have been done with need for a heavyweight process like AfD. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:59, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Certificate of Financial Responsibility, Auto Insurance

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

Fails WP:ORG. Recreated article. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 14:58, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:02, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:26, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:00, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to SR-22 (insurance): alternative terms for the same document ([25], [26] and many others): Noyster (talk), 18:10, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to SR-22 (insurance) as per Noyster, as clearly they both are about the same subject. Nothing new to merge. Probably should have simply been done to begin with rather than prodding and taking it here. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:32, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Michig (talk) 08:58, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

William Hare (author)

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

Non-notable author. Notability not supported by references. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:36, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:08, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 14:41, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as News, Books, browsers and Highbeam seemingly found some links but nothing surprisingly better. Notifying past users DGG and Oshwah. SwisterTwister talk 00:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
weak Keep. He has 5 books with about 200-300 libraries holding each, and there will presumably be reviews, though they need to be looked for. He's written quite a miscellany. This may not be an autobio, for he's a published author, but some parts were almost indecipherable. I've cleaned up what I was sure of. DGG ( talk ) 00:46, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes, he's written some books, but that's not enough for notability. There is one review in Booklist, and zero in Kirkus. No impact. Not notable. LaMona (talk) 03:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep, I'm with DGG here. Not only do libraries hold his books, his film noir books get cited in other books about film noir. A proquest search on the title turned up a published review of his history of the Holy Land.(now added to page) I hope the article creator will return with more references, because searching for someone named William Hare who writes on divers topics is like looking for a specific rabbit in Farmer MacGregor's garden.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 09:34, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unfortunately, this has in the last day become a cringe-worthy press release, supported by primary sources. If it's kept it'll need a lot of clean-up. 2601:188:0:ABE6:AC2E:9C35:B399:A9E0 (talk) 13:35, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:57, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (I commented as the IP above, and edited the article to remove a lot of unsourced content). I can't find much, or any, substantial coverage about the author or his books. Inclusion in libraries doesn't appear to satisfy WP:AUTHOR, and if there isn't any in-depth coverage about him from WP:RELIABLE sources, it's difficult to see keeping this. I was probably mistaken to refer to this as an autobiography--more likely this was begun by a friend or a student as an assignment. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:08, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ~~Keep.~~ Clearly a notable author, with many library holdings and there should be corresponding reviews. The format and the style are incomprehensibly bad, but ut's been partly rewritten already, and I'm rewriting it further. Not characteristic of student work; can't conceivably have been written by a published author themselves, so I remain piuzzled. But it can be rescued. DGG ( talk ) 05:59, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment DGG I'm sure you didn't mean to vote 'keep' twice, and must have forgotten your earlier comment. Thanks, 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:13, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did have a feeling I'd seen it before .... DGG ( talk ) 04:02, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An account persists in adding poorly sourced and badly written promotional content. I continue to remove the cruft, but each time I'm led to question whether the author's works, represented in libraries, are enough to establish notability. Perhaps it is, and in this respect DGG may be ultimately authoritative, but lacking extensive coverage of the author or his books, this reminds me of artist bios that use a listing of gallery shows to support notability, in lieu of objective coverage. At any rate, the recurrent unacceptable edits may induce a request for page protection, and in the short term muddy the ability to properly assess the article. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:07, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:55, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 18:08, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RenWeb

AfDs for this article:

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

This article should be deleted because it is written like an advertisement and has no educational value Jonnymoon96 (talk) 02:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I completed the nomination for the user, who posted it on the article's talk page. ansh 666 10:29, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-It may be written as an advertisement, but the notability of it is clearly established because it is used by many schools. In veritas (talk) 19:00, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best and draft & userfy if needed as my searches found nothing noticeably better than links at News, Books, browsers and Highbeam but perhaps nothing for a solidly noticeably notable article as mentioned. SwisterTwister talk 06:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:52, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:54, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Current article is nothing more than a promotional brochure. Regardless of notability, per WP:DEL4, this article needs to be blown up. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:28, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Since it has been relisted twice, closing it. The episode seems to have received coverage specifically focused on it and the consensus leans towards keeping it. Renamed to Dog-Whistle Politics (Scandal episode). (non-admin closure) Yash ! 02:22, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dog-whistle politics (Scandal)

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

This article is about particular episode in the TV show "Scandal." Shouldn't this episode be included in that realm instead of making a completely new article about one episode? TheInformativePanda (talk) 23:33, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Making a Wikipedia page for each episode doesn't help the fans of the series nor everybody else, especially 'Dog-whistle politics' is a political term used in the UK. Article should be merged.45sixtyone (talk) 23:52, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but move to Dog-Whistle Politics (Scandal episode) for correctness/clarity. Wikipedia:Television episodes applies, the Huffington Post article provides a little context/reflection, the Time magazine ref establishes notability, and the article is properly constructed and contains information over and above that in the Episode List.^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 14:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree: Keep but move to Dog-Whistle Politics (Scandal episode) because it does meet the notability standards. Amazingstuff101 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that it received more press that most television episodes, but it is not independently notable. The articles go to the notability of Scandal. --Bejnar (talk) 16:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What would you consider required to reach sufficient notibility for this episode (independently)? In the case of this Scandal episode:

As with everything, there are enough mundane recaps, episode reviews, and ratings information to provide a base article (not sufficient in itself to establish notability).
Time rating this particular episode as one of the third-best episode of 2015 adds weight to the episode's Reception.
For a dissenting view see this.
This piece puts the episode into specific context with a dispute between former NYT critic Alessandra Stanley and Scandal's showrunner. Shonda Rhimes (ref not in current article) -- this provides some more background on the incident.
This piece includes comment by Rhimes on the episode/context.
Another piece which links the incident with this episode is this.
The Huffington Post article explicitly discusses the issues raised by this episode.
The contextual information cannot be easily and naturally included in an aggregated page.

Perhaps WP:Television episodes could do with a community-agreed rubric for notability given the huge quantity of episode-specific articles on wikipedia (cf Wikipedia_talk:Television_episodes#Policy_inconsistent_with_reality). Cheers, ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 14:31, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:40, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is weak, and there might be an argument for merging it into a season list, but there's enough provided significant coverage from reliable sources that it demonstrates notability beyond just the show itself. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:09, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:53, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:02, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maciej Sulęcki

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

Non-notable boxer does not meet WP:NBOX. Unreferenced excepted for Boxrec Peter Rehse (talk) 15:41, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 15:41, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced article except for a link to his fight record and it doesn't show any significant titles. At best this is WP:TOOSOON. Mdtemp (talk) 19:45, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article shows no significant coverage and I don't see anything that shows he meets WP:NBOX. I don't think winning the vacant "Republic of Poland International" title is enough. I'm not even sure what that title is or who sanctions it. His record is good, so this may just be a case of WP:TOOSOON. I have no objections to this article being userfied. Papaursa (talk) 04:17, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable boxer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:43, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very poorly written article but he does pass WP:NBOX under Criteria 2 as national champion of Poland, however, I am not sure if there are other affiliated sanctioning organization is Poland. The level of opposition he has faced has really ramped up since he won that title of two of the last three opponents that he has beaten have their own articles. I will improve it a little now but my suggestion would be to improve it not delete it. --Donniediamond (talk) 12:40, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just re-read that. He is the Polish International champion, a weaker title than the national title, but I still just about say Keep especially after the victory and manner of victory over Proska. That was a very notable victory and he has become the only man to stop Proska with the exception of GGG.--Donniediamond (talk) 12:52, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore that, he won both the Polish national title and the Polish International title. I have improved the article a little and I am back to Keep. --Donniediamond (talk) 13:23, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:51, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pinging earlier !voters for possible re-evaluation after Donniediamond's research: @Johnpacklambert:; @Papaursa:; @Mdtemp:. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:54, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Still does not meet the WP:NBOX criteria. A professional national title does not guarantee a pass.Peter Rehse (talk) 00:02, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:NBOX as the title is not the national title, but even so it does not appear there is WP:SIGCOV which overrides any argument if an individual met even one of the criteria in that guideline. Mkdw ^talk 00:17, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the Polish national title isn't a national title? And there is significant coverage, it's just that its in Polish. --Donniediamond (talk) 09:53, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The burden of proof is on those arguing keep to substantiate their claims that there is significant coverage. The Republic of Poland Middleweight Title has only been held once in 2013 and was vacant. Even if they hold this title, all the guideline says is they're likely notable -- not that they are notable. Mkdw ^talk 19:54, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coverage is routine sports reporting--fight results and announcements. No significant coverage fails the GNG. Title is one of hundreds of minor titles and the sponsoring organization isn't given so it may not even be from a major org. Jakejr (talk) 21:19, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He's ranked #11 in the world by one of the 4 major ranking organisations, is ranked in the top 20 in the world by Boxrec, and there's quite a bit of Polish coverage. Clearly at a level where he should be included. --Michig (talk) 08:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. A valid rationale for deletion has not been presented. For examples of valid deletion rationales, see WP:DEL-REASON. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:05, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

German Wine Princess

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

One step down from German Wine Queen. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:48, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wine is a major German export and the German Wine Princesses are national representatives of the German wine industry. They are not merely local beauty queens but, like the Wine Queen, they are genuine experts on German wines and ambassadors for Germany in this important arm of their economy. The nom has put forward no argument for deletion other than a comparison with the Wine Queen. In practice they are a key team working for the German wine industry promoting their products at home and abroad. Bermicourt (talk) 12:01, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per lack of arguments for deletion, or alternatively merge to German Wine Queen, with the option to become a standalone article again once it becomes too long. Don't see a reason to do this through AFD. —Kusma (t·c) 20:04, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:03, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:04, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:04, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:04, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Most "keep" opinions are quite shallowly argued, and don't address the WP:OR issue of what to consider "Poland" for the purpose of this article. But that can be editorially remedied by refocusing the list on people born in the territory of the current state of Poland. As to the broader issue of whether such country-level lists are appropriate, this discussion does not yield consensus. Sandstein 17:55, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Polish supercentenarians

AfDs for this article:

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

1. This list by definition should be empty. There was no country of Poland between 1795 and 1918, which means we will not need this article until 2028 (110 years after the founding of the modern Polish state).

2. Even if you try to redefine this as people born in the area of what is now Poland, the shifting borders and various divisions of what we call Poland make it tough to determine who should go in which country. Hence the struggle in the article to class people by region

3. It is actually a list of 1 person who was 110 at death at the top - but then a bunch of other slice and dice lists of people below. The people that don't live in Poland are counted elsewhere anyway.

4. The List of European supercentenarians covers or should cover all the "Polish" people living in Europe anyway so having this list creates unnecessary maintenance. Legacypac (talk) 10:51, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 11:08, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 11:08, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete recognizing that the Europe list will have all these people, which can be searched and sorted at will. EEng (talk) 09:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an article of Polish people and culture, not Polish official politics. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:46, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No it is restricted to people born within current Poland borders, regardless of their culture or language. There is a Ukrainian on there and people that moved to other countries scores of years ago. This is a list of superold people, not about Poland. Did you want to recast your vote after looking carefully at the inclusion criteria? Legacypac (talk) 19:09, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Europe is a big place. It makes more sense to split it up in to sub-divisions than to have one massive article. Also, for the last few weeks you've been arguing in favour of deleting supercentenarian biographies on the basis that "the information about these people is better presented on a list". But now you want to delete the lists! Are we going to reinstate the biographies, then? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 13:57, 11 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

Editors are trying to reduce the number of overlapping lists. This topic is overburdened by lists that slice and dice super old people. As things are now structured, a man born in Warsaw who moved to the US should be listed on pages for Poland, Austria-Hungary, Europe, North America, US, oldest people, oldest men, top 10 men, living or not living versions of the list, US state, and maybe 10 other places. There are not enough editors interested in maintaining the lists, or who know how they all fit together. Less lists, better organized, are part of the answer. Lists of mini bios below a reduced number of table lists are a great idea. Legacypac (talk) 20:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, editors are NOT struggling to maintain the lists. You've only been editing in the topic area for a few weeks so I don't see how you can know that. Now will you please explain how "less lists are the answer"? Wikipedia is not paper. All your suggestion will achieve is limit the amount of information available. Listing the oldest people from individual countries is of interest to people. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 01:40, 12 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

We don't want to "delete the lists", just all the overlapping lists and sublists; everyone still goes on the continental lists. A smaller number of large, comprehensive lists is much better, since the reader can search and sort according to his interest, instead of according to some predefined set of slices and dices. EEng (talk) 21:15, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make such changes, how about starting a discussion on the WOP project talk page, rather than these never ending, whack-a-mole AfD discussions which are getting on everyone's nerves. I would actually like to spend some time making productive edits to these pages but instead I'm having to forever spend my time commenting in AfD's. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 01:40, 12 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

If you improved the pages to get rid of the wild obvious inaccuracies the deletion efforts would be reduced. Obviously there are not enough interested editors to properly maintain so many slice and dice lists. So let's make it easier.

1. A big List of oldest living people that is sortable based on all the variables and can be updated with people that pass 110 and people that die.

2. a few Lists of people over 110 when they died by location (North America, South America, Africa, Asia, Oceania, Europe) Within these articles you could have a little table extracting oldest by country in the region if desired. The regional lists would just grow as super old people die or are discovered to have already died. Mini-bios go below whichever list the person is on, with a section link from the name to the. People notable beyond a mini-bio are linked to their page.

3. Get rid off all the country, former country, men, woman, emigrant and immigrant, and other silliness lists that lead to absurd claims like the person I found who was noted as being born in both Poland AND Germany, but dying in Switzerland, and (not actually) the oldest in the EU.

This comment posted on another discussion is helpful here: "Actually, independent Poland as it existed pre-1773, 1918 to 1939, and again from 1945 to the present, includes parts of the former Austro-Hungarian Empire, German Empire, Nazi Third Reich, Russian Empire until 1918, Soviet Union from 1945 to 1991, Lithuania, Belorussia and Ukraine. In the last 242 years, Poland has been much larger, much smaller, and non-existent geographically. Oh, and for the record, during the partitions of Poland between 1773 and 1795, the Russian Empire got the largest slice of Poland as it existed prior to 1773. Thought you should know. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:38, 11 December 2015 (UTC)" Legacypac (talk) 23:48, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I disagree with Dirtlawyer's statement that things would be different if the "wild inaccuracies" were got rid of. Even if it were completely up to date and accurate, this list (for example) would still serve no purpose, given the existence of the Europe list. EEng (talk) 01:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unnecessary content fork. I like EEng's and Legacypac's idea of simplifing this old people stuff. And Legacypac is correct this list has nothing to do with Polish culture, dziękuję bardzo. --Bejnar (talk) 05:30, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ollie - I can fairly draw the conclusion that editing all these lists is a problem for editors because I've now checked may lists and found serious inconsistencies all over the place. An American women found on the US list should be on the North American list, but often is not. In fact the US list is about as long as the North America list, even though it should also cover people from Canada and the Caribbean lists. You might think someone over 110 who was born in what was Austria-Hungary and shown in the Austria sublist there would be on the stand alone Austria country list, but these lists don't match - not even close. Japan has >3% of Asia's population but 100% of the super old. Yet the Asia list did not match the Japan list. It is a massive mess. The claim this universe of lists is being maintained adequately is highly misleading and should lead to enforcement of sanction for trying to mislead other editors. Legacypac (talk) 05:48, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

None of this discussion is appropriate for an AfD. This is clearly about a wider issue, not the individual articles, so take this elsewhere. And stop with the pathetic threats, I did no such thing. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 13:25, 13 December 2015 (UTC)This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

Deleting inaccuate articles that duplicate other articles is very much an appropriate use of AfD. I just nominated the Czech Republic list for deletion too. You might think the managing about 6 names of people over 110 years old would be easy, but it's a mess. Much better to have fewer, but better lists. There was no threat, more a reminder there is an open case dealing with possible sanctions so it would be good to be careful not to add more evidence to it with misleading posts here. Legacypac (talk) 13:30, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did NOT intentionally mislead anyone. Your WP:BADFAITH accusations are completely out of order. Can you please give links to specific problems that you can see, please? I have been editing in the area for two years and I have observed that articles in the scope of the project are generally well-maintained. We're dealing with a number of articles across the scope of the project, so it's more appropriate to have a discussion on the project page about how to deal with problems. Instead, you have just made a large number of significant changes to a good number of articles without looking to find consensus first. You don't WP:OWN these articles. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 13:41, 13 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

I've pointed out the issues with your points here. None of us OWN the articles. I'm not taking the changes required to clean up inconsistencies and proliferation of lists against WP policy personally. If you do take it personally may e a little space from the topic is needed? I was going to say the topic is not life and death but it actually is. Legacypac (talk) 14:01, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I will use the same argument as with the Czechs: It is best to try to establish a single unified list for the whole Europe. Europe has so many small countries and border changes that keeping these separate is like begging for trouble. In the 2050s they might be able to exist separately, but we do not yet have enough content to include for each and every European country. In contrast, the United States probably deserves its own article. Lets wait half a century, and then reconsider recreating this article. User:Ceosad

Well can't we have this kind of discussion all in one go, and try to establish consensus on how best to present this content, rather than in a spate of AfDs? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 23:07, 13 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

the discussion is happening all at once across a few example article to establish precedence. When we have consensus we can work together to impliment it across the rest of the country articles. Some people would scream if we did not put these through AfD. Legacypac (talk) 23:13, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I mean discussion in the same place, not at the same time. You've failed to comply with WP:BEFORE. The whole thing is a total mess. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 23:24, 13 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

What part of BEFORE would that be? EEng (talk) 23:45, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The part where you raise any concerns on the talk page or the project page first. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 00:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

as explained elsewhere these are test cases at AfD. Many will not accept a deletion discussion made on a project or article page. The first test case just went delete Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_supercentenarians_from_the_Nordic_countries and others seem to be following. Legacypac (talk) 00:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BEFORE says, "If an article has issues try first raising your concerns on the article's talk page, with the main contributors, or an associated WikiProject, and/or adding a cleanup tag, such as {{notability}}, {{hoax}}, {{original research}}, or {{advert}}; this ensures readers are aware of the problem and may act to remedy it." Obviously that means to do so if there's any reason to think such a discussion might resolve the problem(s). That's very seldom (which is why you hardly ever see such discussions on article talk pages), and there's no reason to think such a discussion would have led anywhere other than where we are now i.e. the suggestion that the list is redundant to the Europe list -- a suggestion with which I wholeheartedly agree. EEng (talk) 01:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's just a cop out. It's a perfectly sensible idea to have a discussion on the project page where involved editors can express their views as to how this information should be displayed (i.e. do people support having individual country articles or one big European article). Instead, what will no doubt happen is that the articles for the smaller countries will be deleted but the ones for the larger countries will be kept, leaving us with just a few countries left, which is a mess. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 00:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Three similar discussions just closed as delete in the last couple hours and the others are trending that way. I would nom all the country lists all together but past group noms I've done on pageant winners were poorly received, so we go one by one starting from the most poorly considered articles. There are old and new tags all over WOP titles and yet the confusion between lists continues - so BEFORE has been tried. Legacypac (talk) 02:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can still discuss these issues on talk pages or project pages! AfDs aren't always the first place to turn. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 00:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appropriately notable standalone list of individuals from Poland who resided or moved from that country. Alansohn (talk) 03:20, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perhaps now a European list is still somewhat manageable. But more and more people reach a very advanced age. Europe is very huge and if you start to delete lists of separate countries, soon you wont see the trees through the forest anymore. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and thus the forest. Cutting the trees now and recreate them in 2050 is not a great idea. Once a tree is cut its gone for good. Petervermaelen (talk) 12:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

I think you should review the meaning of the idiom forest for the trees. EEng (talk) 13:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update related very similar articles Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of supercentenarians born in the Russian_Empire, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of supercentenarians born in Austria-Hungary have now closed as delete. The sister articles on Caribbean and Nordic Countries were also deleted. The same arguments used here were used on those 4 with good effect. Legacypac (talk) 03:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:10, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update very similar article List of Czech supercentenarians was just deleted based on the same rational as advanced here. Legacypac (talk) 09:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot to mention that very similar article List of Australian supercentenarians was just kept based on the same rational as advanced here.--Kachelus (talk) 10:03, 24 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

List of Australian supercentenarians just closed so not fair to say I missed it. It covers a different situation outside Europe. Editors might also note the flood of Single Purpose Accounts, even worse then on this one.

Note to Closer Ollie's conduct in this discussion was a factor in his new topic ban [27]. I don't want to grave dance, but that may be a valid factor to consider when assessing opinions in a close here, especially given the volume of comments he made on this AfD. Legacypac (talk) 10:45, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:48, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree with other users.--Inception2010 (talk) 09:47, 25 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

Delete a unified list makes sense from a practical standpoint. Managing multiple lists with similar content is just busy work. Blackmane (talk) 14:45, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - because the list is needed. and appropriate as it makes it easier for readers to find specific information.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:53, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BabbaQ why is this list "needed"? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:24, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky81682 I stated it in my reasoning for Keep just above.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As little of a fan I am of these articles, AFD is not cleanup. If there's an issue with the definition of Poland, that's best for an RFC or other dispute resolution, not deletion. There exists a Poland today and so there is at least a possibility of keeping a list of the oldest people in Poland. Second, if there's little names here due entirely to the definition of Poland and the idea is to merge this into a single Europe article, again, AFD is not cleanup. Propose merger of all the small national articles and then deal with merging them, once there's some consensus to support that, then any attempts to create/recreate these pages can rightfully be taken to AFD. I don't see any indication that any of the other pages in Template:Longevity for current nations (as opposed to Austria-Hungary and the Russian Empire ones) have been successfully deleted. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:16, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Czech was recently deleted, just closed faster then this discussion. There were no Hungary, or Russian articles outside the deleted one, they were amalgamations of various current countries lists. Plus Austria used to exist but was merged. [Nordic Countries] was deleted recently. List of Benelux supercentenarians was Prod deleted fairly recently. Brazil and Japan were merged up to South America and Asia respectively. Switzerland was deleted again recently. We need one Europe list. Legacypac (talk) 09:53, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again you forgot to mention, that List of Australian supercentenarians, also nominated for deletion a few weeks ago, was kept.--Kachelus (talk) 11:00, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Australia had or has 26 names and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Australian supercentenarians was largely of question of keeping or merging to Oceania. Czech is probably a better example as it had basically a single leftover person when looking at the actual nation as it is, same as Poland here. Nevertheless, I think we first need a RFC on all nations on whether or not we use historic location or just those born in the place of the current nation and I'm not sure I'd agree with Legacypac's focus on people born in Poland proper. It's no different than dealing with say, old civilizations or people: was someone really a Category:2nd-century Indian people when India didn't exist in the 2nd century? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:22, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I think you misunderstood me, Ricky81682. It was my intention not to tell only about the deleted pages, and most of them I preferred to delete, too, but also to say, there is with Australia one case the users wanted to keep that. So every participant of the discussion here can decide what he or she wants: Vote for deletion and look for arguments of that like the Benelux or Russian Empire way, or vote for keeping and look for arguments for that like the Australian way. It is not fair, just to hide the cases that are against the own intention. That's it what I want to say, nothing else.--Kachelus (talk) 14:52, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Anthony Appleyard, multiple reasons: speedy deletion criteria A7, G1. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:17, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeshwanth ln

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

No importance, I also did research on this person and did not find evidence the person existed. Seems like an A7 (No indication of significance). TheJack15 (talk) 04:33, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:48, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Baquli

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

This page violates WP:NOTADICTIONARY TheJack15 (talk) 04:31, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 06:02, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete obviously. Not an encyclopedic topic. sst✈^(discuss) 06:04, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTADICTIONARY. -- 山村貞子 (talk) 04:39, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Salt-N-Pepa. If anyone feels there's anything worth merging here, feel free. Michig (talk) 08:35, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Latoya Hanson

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

Singer who is unnotable without her group. She produced some singles that went nowhere. The rest is non-essential information that is trivial at best. ALongStay (talk) 04:12, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 06:05, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with reasoning above, the article is mostly about her more notable group. Alone, she has not had any accomplishments to constitute a stand-alone article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:11, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as I also question the article's solidity as there's nothing to suggest an otherwise better article and I would've also suggested moving to the group's article but, considering she was only there for one year with no noticeably major impact, perhaps not. SwisterTwister talk 05:29, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Salt-N-Pepa - she was part of a group that during her tenure was nominated for a Grammy Award. CrazyAces489 (talk) 05:39, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per CrazyAces489. Best to keep the title as a redirect, as if it's deleted, no doubt someone else will crated it again. BTW, I do wish that some AfD's would just have merge tags used instead of AfD, save a lot of drama. Montanabw ^(talk) 04:21, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 08:29, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Romario Lendor

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

Only 15 years old and clearly fails the requirements of WP:NFOOTY. I see no indication of in-depth coverage meeting the requirements of WP:GNG. Pichpich (talk) 02:56, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 03:00, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 03:00, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 03:00, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 03:48, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 04:50, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. Has not played in a fully-professional league or senior international football, thus also fails WP:NFOOTY. Just WP:TOOSOON. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 04:52, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I completely agree with Jkudlick Spiderone 18:39, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:14, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. JTtheOG (talk) 06:25, 30 December 2015 (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) 16:05, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete and salt. See my comments below and at the last AfD. Given the guy's draw as a potential target, I'd recommend that any further attempts to create the article have some extremely substantial coverage in very solidly reliable sources. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:37, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cool Cat Saves The Kids

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

The movie that the article describes is not relevant enough nor has spawned enough events to deserve a Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MashedPotatoGrenade (talk • contribs) 18:49, 24 December 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 December 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:42, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 03:01, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - After doing a search for any WP:RS that would prove notability, I only found one article, an opinion piece, that related to this movie. It certainly doesn't seem to fit any notability criteria. Lithorien (talk) 03:58, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cool Cat Saves the Kids. I'm going to close this one early for the same reasons: basically, this video doesn't pass NFILM and to make matters worse, the guy reacted poorly to some YouTube reviews and ended up gaining an Encyclopedia Dramatica page in the process. We don't necessarily delete pages based on the likelihood that it'll be vandalized, but it does add an extra reason for this page to be deleted. I'm going to salt both entries. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:35, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:21, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Artists Reserved Rights Transfer and Sale Agreement

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

No real evidence that this contract is notable. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:48, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:56, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:56, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:23, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep subject of the article appears to be a very notable contract. Nominator, if you had looked closely, there is no how you will not see New York Times, A People's Art History of the United States: 250 Years of Activist written by Nicholas Lampert, Art of the Deal: Contemporary Art in a Global Financial Market -written by Noah Horowitz, this one in JSTOR, American Artist--Written by Ernest William Watson, The Deskbook of Art Law, Law, Ethics, and the Visual Arts to mention few. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 08:23, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:08, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not a perfect article, but I'm convinced of notability by the entry in the Guggenheim blog (which, in spite of being a blog post is an official publication of the G), which shows an archival copy of the agreement and says "it was adopted internationally and continues to be a standard artist agreement form today." LaMona (talk) 23:06, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now only if it can actually be improved as the current article is not what it could be. SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Per WP:NPASR. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:15, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Riverboat Gamblers

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

The PROD was removed so here we are and I still confirm and echo my PROD: "My searches found no considerably better than some mostly local coverage at Books, News, browsers and Highbeam, but perhaps not enough for a better encyclopedia article.". I found no convincingly better notability and improvement aside from them being locally known (I'm from this area and I'm not familiar with them). SwisterTwister talk 02:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 03:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:41, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If no one comments until December 25, I would appreciate this being relisted a third time so hopefully users can give this better attention. I simply hate "no consensuses".... SwisterTwister talk 08:35, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted a third time per nominator's request. Mz7 (talk) 02:20, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:20, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I would have tossed this in the delete pile except for the inclusion of the band in games and extensive touring that they appear to have done. Lots of local/regional coverage as well. Lithorien (talk) 04:06, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per the previously discussed reasons. Also a side-test I do, they have practically no followers on Social Media which indicates they are small time at best. Their youtube channel has s ~770 subs. Aeonx (talk) 16:58, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:58, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Earth British Virgin Islands

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

Is a National beauty pageant winner always notable? I submit NO. They had 1 event back in 2013 with 6 girls in gowns and swimsuits. The facebook page [28] and wix website (56 visitors to date?) barely confirm the existence of this "organization" and the rest of the mentions are press releases, an expired fundraising campaign [29] etc with this post [30] being the best source I could find. Some of the claims in the very short article are not true or dubious (headquarters location, traditionally how it works (with one event to date) etc. Delete this or every local parade, bake sale, and soccer game qualifies for a WP article its very own. Legacypac (talk) 07:07, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete as there's hardly even much of an article here and it hasn't changed much since starting in April 2014 so that certainly says something. SwisterTwister talk 00:15, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:47, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 02:07, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:14, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 05:33, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Low Pressings

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

Nonnotable music "label" tagged since 2011 - üser:Altenmann >t 16:51, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject is not notable and is not referenced in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 17:49, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 02:05, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seemingly unlikely notable especially given its history so there wouldn't have been much. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus was that the links addressing the subject and the subject's music did not constitute the substantial and independent coverage needed for notability. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:56, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dj Hollygrove

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Many links to itun or trivial mention in barely notable sources. Magnolia677 (talk) 02:02, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that it Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Many link are notable links including itunes and apple music pages. He is also a DJ on a corporate radio station Nawnsens (talk) 02:44, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Magnolia677's reasoning as well as the previous AfD on the same subject. Lithorien (talk) 04:09, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:MUSIC. Sources are pretty much limited to sites where you can download the subject's music and co-hosting a show on a local radio station does not confer notability. Hut 8.5 11:32, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again I disagree siting 1. from WP:MUSICBIO stating that Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself. This artist has had different release that are "independent of the musician" which i believe that these releases fall under that <ref>http://sosouth.com/detaildownload.php?ID=11221 |title= OG RON C &THE CHOPSTARS PRESENT</ref> I also site 7. from the same WP:MUSICBIO which states and I quote "Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability" Example 1<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chopstars |title= THE CHOPSTARS</ref> Example 2<ref>http://sosouth.com/detaildownload.php?ID=11221 |title= OG RON C &THE CHOPSTARS PRESENT</ref>

Example 3 <ref>http://schedule.sxsw.com/2015/2015/events/event_MS33299 |title= OG RON C & THE CHOPSTARS</ref> Those are just a few of many links that not only back up numbers 1 & 7 from the requirements, that this DJ who is apart of The Chopstars which have been features in NY times, Revolt (TV channel) and more is more than qualifed

Nawnsens (talk) 03:20, 26 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment - (I have added "nowikis" to keep the above comment from spilling off the page).

First, I'm not sure what you mean by "siting 1"? Also, I scrutinized each of the citations listed.

The first, titled "This Shit Here Nigga Vol. 11 [OG Ron C & The Chopstars Present", is just a promo site to buy records. Not a reliable source, plus, it just mentions his name. No bio.

The next, is a Wikipedia site.

The next is a repeat of the first source you listed.

Finally, this link doesn't even mention Mr. Hollygrove.

Again, I don't agree that he's "more than qualifed (sic)" for an article yet. Magnolia677 (talk) 04:11, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom. Clearly, this doesn't pass either WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:34, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:29, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leon Mann

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

I can find absolutely no good sources to support the article, and the present references do not discuss him in any detail except for his own website. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:01, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:54, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:54, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:54, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:54, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches simply found nothing better than a few links here and there. Notifying tagger JJMC89. SwisterTwister talk 02:55, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I didn't find any substantial coverage in reliable sources. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:03, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Fails GNG. Class455fan1 (talk to me) 23:21, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 10:18, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paul G. Boyle

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

Files WP:FILMMAKER. This person has not made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his field. The article discusses mental health issues, criminal behavior, and the winning of a non-notable film festival award. A search for reliable sources to support these statements was not successful. The article had been nominated for deletion on Nov. 8, 2009, but the nomination was deleted two days later without any improvement made to the article. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:55, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete - Hardly much here at all and nearly speedy material thus this simply suggests the signs of even minimal notability happening here. SwisterTwister talk 05:50, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing here is compelling enough a claim of notability to override the paucity of reliable source coverage; I did a search on both "Paul G. Boyle" and "Paul Boyle", and found just one news article by which the sourcing could be even slightly improved, which isn't enough considering that the one source already present here is supporting a statement that has no bearing whatsoever on his notability or lack thereof. Bearcat (talk) 21:03, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and fails WP:GNG and WP:DIRECTOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:37, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 08:24, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

B2B Payments

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

Personal essay, no references provided, not written from a neutral POV BOVINEBOY2008 01:11, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Written in essay style, no sources. Topic could be covered in the Business-to-business article -- I see nothing unique about payments compared to other b2b functions. LaMona (talk) 23:10, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:30, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:30, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best as this is hardly solidly an acceptable article yet. SwisterTwister talk 00:30, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as personal essay on the topic of business to business Happy Squirrel (talk) 16:38, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as has no sources to support. Lakun.patra (talk) 16:14, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 17:43, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kreuz Kaiserberg

(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} 00:49, 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 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 ) 04:47, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This is an interchange between one of Germany's most important Autobahns and one of its busiest and most congested. Each of the Autobahns has an article of its own on at least 10 different Wikipedias (including English Wikipedia), and each links Germany with at least one neighbouring country. The interchange is of an unusual design, and is located within the Ruhrgebiet, which is the largest urban agglomeration in Germany. The interchange is also already the subject of standalone articles on three other Wikipedias. All of these easily ascertainable matters indicate that the interchange is clearly notable, regardless of how much non-Wikipedia coverage it may have in the English or even the German language. The fact that this article has been nominated for deletion is therefore clear evidence of systemic bias on the part of the nominator and any editor who might choose to support the nomination. It follows that the nomination is contrary to English Wikipedia policy. More generally, see also my comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways#German highway interchanges. Bahnfrend (talk) 11:48, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the discussion mentioned by DGG also commented that each interchange should be judged on its own merits as to whether or not it passes GNG, which this one clearly does not. The lack of AGF on the part of Bahnfrend is disconcerting, and patently false. There is no systemic bias, there was simply a case of an over-abundance of non-notable interchanges on German freeways. Prods and AfD's have been initiated on those appropriate in other countries as well, it is simply that there wasn't this super-abundance of non-notable articles in those countries. Simply a case of not meeting WP:GNG, nothing more. An article existing in other Wikipedia's is not a valid reason for inclusion here, as each Wikipedia has different standards of inclusion. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:32, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response:

This nomination is clearly a bad faith nomination intended to pursue an editorial line persistently and unreasonably hostile to certain types of articles, namely articles about Autobahn interchanges in Germany. The nomination is therefore also disruptive editing, which is grounds for an editor to be blocked or banned. For a start, the nomination falsely states that the previous nomination failed "solely for procedural reasons". In fact, the true reason for that nomination's failure was "no consensus", which is a substantive reason, not a procedural reason. What's more, to the extent that the failure was procedural, the procedural reason was (to quote one of the comments in that nomination) "lack of research done by nominator". It follows that the present nominator's statement that the previous nomination failed "solely for procedural reasons" is not only false, but would be misleading even if it were literally true.

In response to the failure of the previous nomination, the (different) nominator of this nomination (who is peddling the same disruptive line) has then nominated this particular article without doing any further research, and on the basis of another false statement, namely that the subject matter of the article is "just like thousands of others."

As to the falsity of the statement, anyone taking even a brief look at the map displayed in this article would notice immediately that the design of the interchange it describes is both complex and unique, and that the interchange is therefore accurately described in the first sentence of the lede as a spaghetti junction. The interchange, which is actually referred to by Germans as "den „Spaghetti-Knoten“" ("the Spaghetti Junction" - see the source linked below) is therefore clearly not "just like thousands of others", as the nominator must well have known all along.

As to the absence of any further research, a cursory online search using the links above reveals that the intersection is one of the busiest and most famous in the whole of Germany. For example, it is described in Bild, the biggest selling newspaper in the world published outside Asia, as both "the Spaghetti Junction" and "the cult interchange", and it also has numerous non trivial online references in various other prominent online German media sources, including Die Welt, Die Zeit (two of the most respected newspapers in Germany) and Rheinische Post (the leading newspaper in the Duisburg area). Amongst other things, the sources identify by name the two engineers who designed the interchange; they also comment that its unique design has inspired a variety of artworks and cultural activities (described in detail in the sources, eg this one - Rheinische Post), and was dictated by several factors, including the very cramped nature of the site and the configurations of the Autobahns it connects. The sources also indicate that the interchange is the end point of one of the most congested stretches of Autobahn in Germany.

The article therefore clearly passes GNG, as would be obvious to anyone even remotely familiar with the German online media industry, one of the most prominent in the world (and which can easily be translated into English by Google Translate for those who can't read German but who, unlike the nominator, are not affected by systemic bias).

The administrator who closed the previous, failed, nomination commented that "Maybe some [of] the less important ones could be nominated individually". The nominator has responded to that comment by nominating this article, which must surely be about one of the most important ones. Which is yet further evidence of disruptive editing.

In light of the fact that this nomination is disruptive, clearly based on no research at all, and is one of a block of similar nominations that must similarly be based on a total lack of research, the editor who nominated it is undoubtedly disruptively editing, and I therefore call on that editor to withdraw this nomination and all similar nominations immediately. Bahnfrend (talk) 13:27, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—fails to establish notability inline with WP:GNG. Just because this has a name does not provide an assumption of notability because every interchange in Germany is named. Other language editions of Wikipedia can have stricter or less strict inclusion requirements than us, so the presence or absence of articles there should have no bearing on whether we have an article here. Imzadi 1979 → 21:20, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Response: For the reasons I have just given above in response to Onel5969, this nomination (and also the previous, failed, nomination, which I note was nominated by you) is an example of disruptive editing, and the subject matter of this article clearly passes GNG. Indeed, the fact that you describe it as failing GNG when searches using the links above very quickly establish that it passes GNG with flying colours strongly suggest that you are making that assertion without regard to whether it is true or false, which is yet another example of disruptive editing. Bahnfrend (talk) 13:27, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because this particular interchange is notable. Friendly advice to Bahnfrend: Please abandon your combative attitude and assumptions of bad faith regarding other editors. You are damaging your own cause. Vandalism has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia, and nothing you mentioned comes remotely close. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:27, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll note that elsewhere he flat-out says that disruptive editing is vandalism - which Wikipedia policy explicitly calls out as not the case. I'm in agreement with Cullen328 here, Bahnfriend - please take a deep breath and step away for a cup of tea. Then come back and engage with a little good faith. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:21, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:22, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:51, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being part of a large AfD closed for procedural reasons is not a reason to bind the time of AfD volunteers. This seems to be saying that the article got away, and needs to be captured and brought back to justice. Articles are created with an assumption of good faith, and do not need the permission of AfD volunteers to exist. The claim that this intersection is like "thousands of others" leads me to wonder if the nominator looked at the article. There is no explanation in the nomination for why admin tools are needed. Regarding the mention of a previous Afd for Dreieck Ahlhorner Heide, one of the statements there was, "the information is clearly non-controversial and verifiable, and if an article is not warranted for a particular item, it should be merged into the corresponding larger articles rather than deleted." The nomination argument that this topic is "non-notable" does not reflect the basic concept of notability on Wikipedia...roads in Western civilization receive on-going and in-depth attention from multiple layers of government, cartographers, and news media. The existence of potholes can remove elected officials. Arguments at AfD need to focus on WP:V and WP:NOT. Unscintillating (talk) 14:04, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Unlike virtually all of the other Autobahn interchange AfDs, there appears to be sufficient available data here to demonstrate that WP:GNG is met by this interchange. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:16, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Gasoline (band). Sam Walton (talk) 15:19, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thurber T. Mingus

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

Non-notable musician, fails WP:BAND. Attempts to inherit notability via associations with other notably artists. | Uncle Milty | talk | 00:16, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 09:19, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 09:19, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best as this is questionably independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 22:22, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gasoline (band). An article isn't justified here but a redirect is appropriate. --Michig (talk) 09:32, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gasoline (band). Valid search term. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:45, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gasoline (band). Not enough to warrant a standalone article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:36, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:43, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pumpjack (band)

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

Local band, fails WP:BAND. Attempts to inherit notability through associations with other bands. | Uncle Milty | talk | 00:14, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 09:19, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 09:19, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is another case of nothing currently to suggest a better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 22:17, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very little coverage found. Nothing to suggest inclusion is warranted. --Michig (talk) 09:31, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Yash ! 02:17, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriella Brum

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

According to the article the subject was Miss World 1980 for 18 hours. The only source does not actually name the subject (seems to be for the next or two years later). Fansite speculation [31] does not help notability. There is some RS coverage out there but this seems like someone that had a couple days of fame for quitting and does not warrent an article, [32]. Legacypac (talk) 00:05, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article as it stands requires sourcing and expansion to be viable, but I find the idea that an unusual event like the sudden resignation makes her inherently less notable rather odd. Artw (talk) 00:37, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking length of rein equals barely held the position, but one might argue it gave her more notability for being the vanishing queen. Legacypac (talk) 00:57, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the last clause of Legacypac's last comment: "it gave her more notability for being the vanishing queen". Reliable sources are not that hard to find: [33], [34], [35], [36]. She was soon featured in Playboy (magazine) on the cover, with a headline of "Miss World for a Day: World-Class Photos of the Beauty Who Walked Out on the Title". (Playboy cover) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:37, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above comments and sources. Artw (talk) 03:52, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - AfD is not a clean-up service or a request service for attention of an article. This is a clearly notable person with a bad article. Those two factors does not mean non-notable but the opposite. per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a WP:GNG pass, per Metropolitan90's sources. It's also extremely likely that there are additional German-language sources out there if anyone wanted to bother to look for them. Ejgreen77 (talk) 02:56, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:14, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:14, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:14, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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