Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 December 24

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 23 December 25 December >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep.

(non-admin closure) –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 02:07, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Commander One

Commander One (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing

Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. Marslo2015 (talk) 12:58, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:32, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:33, 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 keep.

(non-admin closure) –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 02:07, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

House of Orioles

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not entirely convinced that this was a real noble family; a Google search gets me mostly false positives about Baltimore baseball fans. Is there an Italian name I should be searching? Half the sources are not actually anything I could verify. The user who created this has been blocked for being unwilling/unable to communicate. PROD removed by an IP with no reason given. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 23:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as hoax. BTW I am sure that this IP is same person as blocked user "Alec".--Yopie (talk) 00:46, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - not hoax. Note the Italian article was created in 2011 by an active user - obviously "House of Orioles" is not going to be an effective search term.[1] [2]
    YO 😜 09:00, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep - does not seem to be a hoax.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:41, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 22:54, 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. J04n(talk page) 17:37, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Watusi (band)

Watusi (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Local band. Searches (when narrowed by including "band" and "Dallas") fail to find anything but calendar listings and PR. Article has existed for 10 years, but has never had a single independent reference. | Uncle Milty | talk | 23:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 18:14, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 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. J04n(talk page) 17:38, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Applied Mathematics and Computational Mechanics

Journal of Applied Mathematics and Computational Mechanics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet

WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 21:37, 24 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 under CSD G4 -- see previous discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aleksej Pechkurov. This article has been repeatedly recreated under different names -- see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alex9777777 and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alex9777777/Archive for more. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 22:47, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksej Gennadevich Pechkurov

Aleksej Gennadevich Pechkurov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable person. No Google results. Speedy deletion removed by IP that has no edits outside this article, and could very well be the creator. JDDJS (talk) 21:02, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as quickly as possible as an egregious misuse of Wikipedia to create a vanity page. Good call, @JDDJS Quis separabit? 21:23, 24 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. J04n(talk page) 17:39, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Melinda Smith Bowman

Melinda Smith Bowman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails

WP:POLITICIAN. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:52, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 18:22, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 18:22, 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. Passes WP:NFOOTBALL

TalkContribs 12:29, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Guillaume Katz

Guillaume Katz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete: as non-notable

sportsperson. Quis separabit? 20:01, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep as meets Notability (sports) for association football having played in the fully professional Swiss Super League with FC Lausanne-Sport. SpeechFreedom (talk) SpeechFreedom (talk) 22:30, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 10:53, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:55, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:55, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:55, 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 speedy keep. The nominator has withdrawn his nomination and there are no other arguments for deletion. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:28, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nadia sirry

Nadia sirry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources, fails

WP:ARTIST NottNott talk|contrib 19:28, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Nomination withdrawn. This wasn't a well thought-out AfD which I apologise for. Mistakes happen. NottNott talk|contrib 14:36, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.Nadia Sirry is an award winning artist. She took many awards inside and outside Egypt and is referenced by governmental sources, local and international newspapers. Please reconsider deleting this article - üser:noraasdf1234 >t 16:19, 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. J04n(talk page) 17:40, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tuvana Türkay

Tuvana Türkay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apparently non-notable actress, reference list consists of a single link to IMDB (fails independence). Article requires multiple independent reliable sources that cover the subject in depth in order to be retained. KDS4444Talk 19:28, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 18:24, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 18:24, 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. I am withdrawing my nomination. J04n(talk page) 13:18, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tlhalosang Molapisi

Tlhalosang Molapisi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Do not believe that his accomplishments meet the criteria for

WP:ANYBIO. J04n(talk page) 19:15, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 19:15, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 19:16, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 19:16, 24 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. J04n(talk page) 17:41, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lost in the Wind (album)

Lost in the Wind (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Album which does not pass

WP:NALBUMS, no easy google hits, not listed at Czech IFPI (record charts). Artist also listed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pavel Vondráček ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 19:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
(talk) 19:11, 24 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. J04n(talk page) 17:42, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HGP Architects

HGP Architects (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I've found a bunch of mentions regarding the design or future design of buildings by this company, but nothing in depth about them that would indicate that they are

notable. Sam Walton (talk) 18:55, 24 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. J04n(talk page) 17:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Janice Celeste

Janice Celeste (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No obvious

WP:BIO criteria for notability. In terms of general coverage, there is one Daily Mail article about her losing a bunch of weight as a grandmother and winning a beauty contest in New Jersey for married women. All other references are passing mentions. Like all of the articles created by this one's author, smells strongly of undisclosed paid-editing. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:42, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 18:25, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 18:26, 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. J04n(talk page) 17:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

InfiniteQuest

InfiniteQuest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can't find any reliable sources about this website, therefore not

notable. Sam Walton (talk) 17:26, 24 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. J04n(talk page) 17:44, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligroup

Intelligroup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I've found mentions, press releases, and light coverage of the acquisition, but nothing that would show this company is

notable. Sam Walton (talk) 16:48, 24 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. J04n(talk page) 17:45, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Tea Party protests, 2010

List of Tea Party protests, 2010 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
List of Tea Party protests, 2009 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is clearly still a

WP:LINKFARM. I could see that the article could possibly be re-written in prose to make notable encyclopedic content but since the last AfD (5 years ago) nothing has happened. As such, I believe this list and List of Tea Party protests, 2009 should be deleted. WormTT(talk) 16:16, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:32, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:32, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:32, 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. J04n(talk page) 17:46, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vikash singh Rajput

Vikash singh Rajput (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails

WP:TOOSOON Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:58, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk to me) 16:00, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk to me) 16:00, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk to me) 16:00, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk to me) 16:00, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete:

talk to me) 16:01, 24 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. J04n(talk page) 17:47, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vivienne Hu

Vivienne Hu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Self promotional. Many sources listed do not have in-depth introduction of the subject. The behavior of User:Haotianqi2 on Chinese Wikipedia suggests a strong conflict of interest. Mys_721tx (talk) 15:44, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: as self-promotion (as noted) and not inherently notable. Quis separabit? 00:54, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as per nom and above editor. Fails
    WP:DEL4. Onel5969 TT me 14:30, 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. J04n(talk page) 17:47, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Nicaragua, Vienna

Embassy of Nicaragua, Vienna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only source in the article is Google Maps. Embassies normally aren't notable unless they receive coverage in reliable sources, which doesn't appear to be the case for this one. It doesn't help that

csdnew 15:26, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
csdnew 15:28, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
csdnew 15:28, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
csdnew 15:28, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: per reasons given by

talk to me) 15:29, 24 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. J04n(talk page) 17:48, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Ward (children's author)

Nick Ward (children's author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of any notability. No awards. No newspaper articles of any substance that I can find. All references seem to be reviews or from the authors website. Derek Andrews (talk) 14:40, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Although the subject appears to have written a goodly number of children's books, I don't see how he meets any of the criteria under
    WP:AUTHOR. The article doesn't even assert any such claim to notability. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:50, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per above users. Citobun (talk) 11:02, 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. J04n(talk page) 17:49, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dreieck Darmstadt

Dreieck Darmstadt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was de-prodded with a lengthy rationale. However, the rationale never successfully addresses the point that this particular interchange passes

WP:GNG. Just another interchange like thousands of others. Onel5969 TT me 14:40, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete Just another incomplete cloverleaf. Fails GNG. These are utterly generic, cookie cutter features of modern highways worldwide. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:37, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 19:36, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 19:46, 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. J04n(talk page) 17:51, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dreieck Dernbach

Dreieck Dernbach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was de-prodded with a lengthy rationale. However, the rationale never successfully addresses the point that this particular interchange passes

WP:GNG. Just another interchange like thousands of others. Onel5969 TT me 14:38, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 19:36, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 19:46, 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. J04n(talk page) 17:52, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kreuz Dortmund/Unna

Kreuz Dortmund/Unna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was de-prodded with a lengthy rationale. However, the rationale never successfully addresses the point that this particular interchange passes

WP:GNG. Just another interchange like thousands of others. Onel5969 TT me 14:38, 24 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. Noting that the article was completely unreferenced even at the end of the AfD, making deletion mandatory per

WP:V.  Sandstein  09:58, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Kreuz Dortmund-Nordwest

Kreuz Dortmund-Nordwest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was de-prodded with a lengthy rationale. However, the rationale never successfully addresses the point that this particular interchange passes

WP:GNG. Just another interchange like thousands of others. Onel5969 TT me 14:37, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Where is the significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, DGG? I would not support keeping an article about an English, American or Japanese cloverleaf unless it was notable. Take a look at the vastly better quality of sourcing at MacArthur Maze, for example. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:11, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We;'ve always been extremely flexible on geographical features, certainly for natural features, but also for manmade components of important infrastructure. In practice, I don't think we really ever applied the GNG in this area.
Several editors are stepping forward to say that we do not need or want articles about every single cloverleaf or similar generic highway interchange in the world, DGG. These are routine parts of highway infrastructure that can be described briefly in the corresponding highway articles, as opposed to devoting freestanding articles to them. The average cloverleaf is far less notable than the surrounding elementary schools, middle schools, strip malls and small tech businesses where people actually spend their "quality" time, and we routinely delete those articles continuously. I never, ever thought that Wikipedia would incorporate a directory of individual articles about all the world's cloverleafs. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:45, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would never have thought so either, but since we deem to do it in the US, we should do it everywhere. There are many fields where I consider WP coverage way to expansive, and the interpretation of WP:GNG much to lax. I'm dismayed by our coverage of athletes in minor sports, or in major sports from countries where they are minor. I'm dismay ed at our coverage of insignificant musical or film performers I'm horrified by our coverage of internet start-ups. [etc. etc.]. .I personally have not the wlightest interest in these articles, but I do have interest in articles in other fields where some people think them unimportant_ Everyone will have their own list here, and it will not be the each for each of us. The only appropriate way of handling this is live and let live.
But DGG, your underlying assumption about "deeming to do it" is false. I live in California, by far the most populous state in the US, and drive extensively around the northern part of the state all the time. We have thousands of cloverleaf and similar interchanges in our freeway system but only 12 articles in the category "Road interchanges in California", and one of those is at AfD right now. There is no widespread push to create articles about run-of-the-mill highway interchanges in the US. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:29, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:BIAS. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:51, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete, cloverleaf interchanges are not automatically notable, not in the US or in UK, nor outside. Except a few passing mentions, I can't find nothing substantial about this one. Cavarrone 10:27, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I recognize the consensus appears other than I thought it was . DGG ( talk ) 04:57, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The posts in support of this nomination are almost unbelievable. You only have to look at the map in the article to see that THIS ARTICLE IS NOT ABOUT A CLOVERLEAF INTERSECTION!!!! Which is yet further proof that the proponents of deletion of this and other Autobahn interchange articles are simply disruptively editing. Bahnfrend (talk) 14:25, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Wow, your civility is a beacon in a wilderness of negativity. Btw, you might want to take your own advice and look at the article, whose first line is "The Kreuz Dortmund-Nordwest (German: Autobankreuz Dortmund-Nordwest) is a Cloverleaf interchange in the German state North Rhine-Westfalia." (emphasis added to help those who seem to have trouble). So either the map is incorrect, or the lead sentence is. Typical quality of these types of non-notable articles. Onel5969 TT me 15:33, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Response: It's an obvious translation error by an editor who is clearly not very skilled at translation, in an article that is tagged as a "rough translation". The original German Wikipedia article includes a correct description of the intersection. Any lingering doubt that might exist is easily cured by the simple expedient of looking at Google Maps. As the tag at the top of the article says, the appropriate response is to "enhance the translation". Bahnfrend (talk) 17:35, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 20:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 20:16, 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.  Sandstein  09:56, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kreuz Dortmund/Witten

Kreuz Dortmund/Witten (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was de-prodded with a lengthy rationale. However, the rationale never successfully addresses the point that this particular interchange passes

WP:GNG. Just another interchange like thousands of others. Onel5969 TT me 14:36, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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  09:56, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kreuz Dortmund-West

Kreuz Dortmund-West (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was de-prodded with a lengthy rationale. However, the rationale never successfully addresses the point that this particular interchange passes

WP:GNG. Just another interchange like thousands of others. Onel5969 TT me 14:36, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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  09:55, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kreuz Duisburg-Nord

Kreuz Duisburg-Nord (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was de-prodded with a lengthy rationale. However, the rationale never successfully addresses the point that this particular interchange passes

WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 14:33, 24 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. J04n(talk page) 17:41, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pavel Vondráček

Pavel Vondráček (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable musician,

WP:TOOSOON
, only ref is artist's website. Article is a translation of a recently created article from the Czech wiki.

Album article listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lost in the Wind (album)--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 19:07, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I thought we could
WP:A9 it after this decision, but I can tag it now.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 18:59, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
(talk) 19:11, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 00:23, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as none of the current article suggests even minimally better notability and improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:19, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a notable artist, and moreover, it was most likely Pavel himself who created this article, compare the email [email protected] at the artist's official website with the Wikipedia account
    Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:46, 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

Spartaz Humbug! 22:50, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Patricia Pine

Patricia Pine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per

WP:NOPAGE this article should be redirected to Miss Oregon. This does not require establishing notability, which is hard to do in these cases anyway. Her other activities would not justify a stand alone article. Legacypac (talk) 05:32, 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 06:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete perhaps only if necessary but certainly redirect as there's not confidently enough for a solidly notable article as there could be. TNT at best for now. SwisterTwister talk 06:18, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Miss Oregon#Winners as suggested by the nom and for the usual reasons (cheap, plausible, etc.) - The Bushranger One ping only 11:39, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a
    WP:GNG pass with, "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Ejgreen77 (talk) 01:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
At the ovr 1 per minute rate Ejgreen77 is voting keep it is hard to believe they are evaluating the articles - and they Always vote keep on every pageant winner. This is a classic case of
WP:NTEMP where someone notable for only one event should not get an article. Legacypac (talk) 03:34, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Actually, I did do evaluation before I voted. This AfD has been sitting open for nearly two weeks, so there was plenty of time to do it, and to assume otherwise is in very bad faith. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:50, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring all Wikipedia guidelines in AfD is bad faith. Suggesting you evaluated all these article and then went back and voted using the same words is hard to believe. Legacypac (talk) 03:59, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just point out that my redirect !votes were just as rapid and just as copy-pasted but didn't draw commentary... -The Bushranger One ping only
But you vote keep, delete, redirect depending on the article so you evidently evaluate them. If you are not arguing with the presented rational, there is less burden to make your point. Legacypac (talk) 07:11, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The claim of notability is backed up by the range of sources needed to support the claim. Alansohn (talk) 20:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Being Miss Oregon alone is not enough to pass notability. The sources do not pass GNG, and her roles on a local broadcast station and performing are not enough to pass notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:31, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 14:01, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The nominator states notability is not at issue, then argues about notability. Notability is at issue, and this one meets it. Keep.
    talk) 01:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
to clarify, notability is questionable, but following NOPAGE assumes notability. Legacypac (talk) 02:32, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The subject doesn't have independent notability beyond "winner of Miss Oregon", and nothing suggests that she will see more than her 15 minutes of fame.
    talk) 04:28, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete for failing
    WP:JOURNALIST. Notability doesn't rise to having her own page.Blue Riband► 14:51, 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 redirect to

Spartaz Humbug! 22:51, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Danijela Krstić

Danijela Krstić (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Formula artricle, seen one, seen them all. Per

WP:15MOF. Legacypac (talk) 05:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Keep as her notability is for winning the
    notability is not temporary. Subject easily crosses the verifiability and notability thresholds with significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. Notability is a threshold, not a competition, and once crossed does not require a steady stream of new notable accomplishments. - Dravecky (talk) 18:34, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • See
    WP:NTEMP which says "In particular, if reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual." Legacypac (talk) 20:26, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the
(discuss) 19:42, 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 06:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With keep votes of greater then 1 per minute is Ejgreen77 even reading these articles or doing any evaluation of the sources? Legacypac (talk) 03:31, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I did do evaluation before I voted. This AfD has been sitting open for nearly two weeks, so there was plenty of time to do it, and to assume otherwise is in very bad faith. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:50, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, you saved up all your votes to make them at once. NO answer provided to any policy based argument like [WP:NTEMP]] which says "In particular, if reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual." No answer reliable sources with in depth coverage provided. Just a IHEART pageants and can copy paste responses across multiple AfDs at a rate greater then per minute. 04:08, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep The number, scope and duration of the reliable and verifiable sources provided meet and exceed the notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 12:36, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 14:00, 24 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) 00:16, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Weekley

Richard Weekley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of the

ANYBIO. Unable to find any references in reliable sources independent of the subject. J04n(talk page) 13:12, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. Curro2 (talk) 13:44, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 13:12, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 13:12, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 13:13, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as mentioned, with this clearly even being close to speedy and PROD material, not even enough to suggest minimally better here. SwisterTwister talk 06:03, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as per nom and above editors. Searches did not turn up in-depth coverage. Onel5969 TT me 14:45, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:15, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zo National Region Development Party

Zo National Region Development Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability, no extensive coverage by reliable sources. None of its candidates hold office. I've tagged this for notability several times as an IP, and presumably COI accounts remove the templates. Article is increasingly being used as a promotional page. See also Let Suan Khai and Kham En Thang. JNW (talk) 12:50, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep looks barely sufficient to justify having a page. Curro2 (talk) 13:42, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Was not one of the 91 parties listed for the 2015 elections. Was not a party listed in the 2010 elections. They are one of 11 or 13 (depending on source) "Chin" (Chin State) parties, but only three have fielded candidates. Most sources are rehash of the Wikipedia page or social media. What "reliable" sources there are, only just mention them, nothing in detail. Note: this page and pages of party officials have been created/recreated by sockpuppet. Bgwhite (talk) 10:59, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources used in the article are questionable at best. Several are Facebook posts, one is a search for Myanmar in Reuters (?), and the others contain trivial mentions or none at all. While it's kind of been made to look like a solid page, if you look closer, it's very obviously non-notable, and per nom, seems to be a promotional vehicle. Johanna(talk to me!) 03:39, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Removed a number of references that do not support to adjacent text AT ALL (do not mention this party). What is left is non-notable. FeatherPluma (talk) 06:42, 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 redirect to

Spartaz Humbug! 22:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Kari Virding

Kari Virding (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per

WP:NOPAGE this article should be redirected to Miss Oregon where the information is best presented in context as part of a list. The proposed redirect does not require establishing notability, which is hard to do in these cases anyway. The rest of the article is trivia like the names of her family members and that she has attended (as an observer) a bunch of pageants. Legacypac (talk) 05:39, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
(discuss) 09:06, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Noted, creator and only significant editor of the article. Legacypac (talk) 00:35, 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 06:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then could you provide sources that document her reign in any significant or indepth way, other then handing the crown off a year later? Legacypac (talk) 08:18, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 12:21, 24 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  09:54, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dannarzai

Dannarzai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to be legitimate. Nothing in Google but mirrors of this page. Curro2 (talk) 01:46, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Delete unfortunately, nonverifiable. - üser:Altenmann >t 22:10, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 07:45, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 07:46, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing to say. No Varification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki Guide (talk • contribs) 17:47, 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  09:54, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jangail

Jangail (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of significance Alvin the Almighty (talk) 11:21, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Curro2 (talk) 11:24, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

do not delete this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.160.119.125 (talk) 16:33, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unfortunately, nonverifiable. - üser:Altenmann >t 22:10, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 22:50, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 22:50, 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.

Spartaz Humbug! 22:53, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Peter Shankman

Peter Shankman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Possibly notable as author, but only reviews I can find are PW and Booklist, nothing in newspapers that I can access. As for his entrepreneur cred, there is this 1998 article when he was "pre-success". But I don't find anything else other than the brief quotes. I think this fellow is marginal in terms of notability. LaMona (talk) 17:07, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:16, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Jgreene1333 (talk) 00:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)I'd disagree. Shankman is very notable, just seems to have an underwritten Wikipedia entry, which I've been updating. I've added numerous keynotes, CNN appearances, and more information on the companies he's founded, and sold.[reply]

Thanks, Jgreene1333, I'll be interested to see what you come up with. As full disclosure, however, I should note that you are the creator and primary editor on this article. LaMona (talk) 01:48, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jgreene1333 (talk) 19:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)Sure - I've added 13 media appearances on CNN and Fox, as well as 9 significant keynoting events over the last year, and can easily double or triple that as I keep going, so I'd think he'd definitely qualify as notable :) (and also have a very under built out page, previously).[reply]

Thanks, User:Jgreene1333, however those do not fit into the WP guidelines for notability. Notability is based on what other people (independent third-parties) have said about the subject, and none of those address that. LaMona (talk) 16:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:45, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now as none of the suggests even minimally better general notability but draft and userfy if needed. Jgreene1333, I would also suggest using the "show "preview" as this will alleviate the need of clicking "edit" again so many times and also alleviate servers and history logs exhaustion. SwisterTwister talk 06:40, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SwisterTwister Sorry for unncessary edits - there are number of better general notability links that I'll put up there once I have them drafted :)

Significantly updated with many more resources and profiles. Jgreene1333 (talk) 13:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So now we've been ref-bombed. I removed the use of his own books as references -- his writings should not be referenced, but you can add ISBNs which then become links to sources for the books. You have added references to his speaking engagements, but those are not about him. The one potentially notable thing, the NASA advisory, is not validated in the ref you provide. Smack media is an promotion agency, thus not an independent source. Unfortunately what you've done is increase the promotional aspect of this article, which is the opposite of what is needed. Also, there is still the matter of the photograph, which you uploaded to Commons as "own work" - although it appears to be a professional photograph. LaMona (talk) 18:23, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LaMona - I'm unclear if the issue with NASA advisory panel was that the title needed to cited exactly, which I've updated, but he is listed on the PDF that is the reference, under the committee. I've removed the picture until I can post additional documentation about it. There are a number of profiles listed about him, including Crain's New York, and others. I can take down Smack Media, and find an additional source for that story.Jgreene1333 (talk) 20:57, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "issue" with the NASA advisory panel is that the article says "He was appointed to this position by NASA Administrator Charles Bolden." The reference is just a list of members of the panel -- nothing else. So the only thing that is verifiable is that he was a member of that panel on that date. You can request permission of a copyright holder to attach a free license to a work, such as a photograph. See template. Profiles do not attest to notability -- they are not independent of the subject (subject often provides the information). LaMona (talk) 01:40, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
LaMona - I've replaced the Smack Media reference with an independent reference. All of the books have been re'cited with ISBN numbers. I've added (current citation 36) another NASA release speaking about the establishment of the committee. Also have added several references from the NY Times, and removed several tangential. Working on the photo. Jgreene1333 (talk) 16:35, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how to explain to you that more ref-bombing isn't helping your case. The more you add insignificant and non-reliable sources, the worse you subject looks. The "profiles" are 1) interviews 2) blog posts or personal website. Ref #40 is about someone else and is just a name-check for Shankman. Being know for tweet-gags isn't one of our notability criteria. Getting into a pissing contest with a blogger also isn't a route to notability. Being mentioned in articles is not the same as being "featured." You really need to reduce this down to what makes him notable. Adding more non-reliable sources is not working. LaMona (talk) 19:01, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  11:17, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete insufficient coverage in independent sources. - üser:Altenmann >t 22:12, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused - there's plenty of coverage in independent sources, the issue seems to be with the formatting, not with the existence of coverage of Shankman - Jgreene1333 (talk) 16:49, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not all coverage is equal. Mentions are not "coverage". Articles about other people and other things that have his name in them in one place is not "coverage." Not all sources attest to notability. I feel like I've said this many times to you, and don't know what it will take to get the point across. Marketing materials are neither independent nor reliable. A source saying that he spoke at a conference or meeting does not confer notability. I think it is very important for you to understand the concept of notability used by WP because you do create and edit other articles, not just this one, and you are spending time adding non-reliable sources to an article, which is a waste of both your time and the time of anyone who is reviewing the article. This is not a good thing for Wikipedia and its volunteers. LaMona (talk) 17:35, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
LaMona I hear you and am working on improving it. I appreciate your patience, and should have it cleaned up in the way you suggest within the next day. Jgreene1333 (talk) 18:06, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Following up, I'm continuing to update the page with sources to highlight notability, and removing the types that have been flagged. Thanks. Jgreene1333 (talk) 12:49, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm generally quite patient, but I'm beginning to lose it. You have added links but removed none, and the links you have added do not support notability. I may give this a bit of time before I just do the edits myself, but basically all of the links to his TV appearances are
wp:primary and do not belong in the article. (Basically, #s15-25) Mentions and short quotes (e.g. #13, 14, 4, 6, 28) do not support notability -- delete those. One-off stunts (25, 26, 27) do not support notability. Delete those as well. When you have done this, you should have maybe a half a dozen references, but all of them may be good. At that point, it will be worth asking others to review the article. And, like I say, I can give you only a short amount of time on this because I've already given this about two weeks of my time, and I'm about at the "cut to the chase" point. LaMona (talk) 20:51, 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) 00:16, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Roland Barrera

Roland Barrera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Autobiography. Refs (note: they do exist but are inline external links so there is no references section) are predominantly unreliable (facebook, blogs, etc) and notability is not demonstrated. However the real problem with the article is that it is entirely written from a non-neutral point of view: not only is it promotional throughout it appears this individual has a "colourful" past (see "Costa Mesa bar owner liable in $18 million Ponzi scheme") and the article is an attempt to counter that, going so far as to say "Barrera is working to ... expose the perpetrator(s) that have extorted and falsely named him and continue his work as a cultural ambassador" etc.

talk) 11:08, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 02:57, 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 no consensus. To delete, at least. Whether to convert to a list article, as proposed, might need further discussion.  Sandstein  10:00, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ceremonial pole

Ceremonial pole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

See talk page for RfC. Majority agree this is

WP:OR
. If no one wants to scale it back to a short list of links to related to the concept, it seems the closest thing we have to consensus is to just delete the thing.

As there is no consensus about what this should even include as a list, and even that would be OR, deletion seems the best option. This doesn't belong on the 'pedia. -

☼ 21:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 21:48, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 21:48, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 21:51, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Only partially joking. ;) It's been a strange history with this article. Turning it into a disambig would work, too. -
☼ 20:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
What about the fact that combining these all in one article is
☼ 20:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:51, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think it's
WP:OR. The group of "ceremonial poles" can be analytically inferred from the fact that these are poles that are used in ceremonies, and differentiated practices are well documented in RS. It isn't more OR than it is to list Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish and Sikh temples in the article Temple. Or to list wine, beer, milk and soda in the article Drink. It would be absolutely mindless to go hunt for sources that say that Hindu and Jewish temples are instances of the same concept of 'temple'. One will find comparisons here and there ('Hindu temples are like Sikh temples in terms of x but not in terms of y') but one vainly looks for authors trying to prove their foundation: 'The following are instances of temples: Hindu temples, Sikh temples, Jewish temples, Mormon temples...' This is a problem with top level articles, such as this one. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 10:38, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
That's not what came out of the RfC. With all due respect, did you read the RfC, page history, and rest of the talk page? -
☼ 20:02, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Noting that the RfC's consensus, that "the primary focus should be 1.Ceremonial use of large poles mounted in the ground", doesn't seem helpful here.  Sandstein  11:05, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  11:05, 24 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) 00:26, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Teen USA 2016

Miss Teen USA 2016 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources, no date announced, and this has not been televised for many years - YouTube show only. Too soon for an article. Past event dates suggest July/August 2016 Legacypac (talk) 08:30, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:21, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:21, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:21, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Also SALT the article otherwise it will be recreated very soon after this AFD closes....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:34, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or move to Draft:, and salt until 5 September 2016  Unsourced, uses future tense.  Miss Teen USA 2015 was dated 22 August 2015, so the un-salt time was chosen as two weeks after 22 August 2016.  This particular topic may be in the news at that point even if it fails to take place, because of Trump's involvement and the upcoming November 2016 US Presidential election.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:15, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No more Trump or NBC involvement, since they sold out, which will decrease the coverage I project since no one gets free press like him. [6] Legacypac (talk) 03:41, 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 keep. Obvious Keep is obvious.

(non-admin closure) –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 02:13, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Noah Cyrus

AfDs for this article:
Noah Cyrus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This actor fails

WP:NACTOR, considering that none of the roles listed are significant. Being the voice in a re-dubbed film is almost notable, but subjectively I feel that this does not meet the threshold. Being related to other entertainers does not give someone notability. Though there are a few hits on google, they are not related to anything in the article and do not cover anything substantive or "remarkable" (most of the hits name her as Miley Cyrus' sister) only noting that she wears provocative clothing. If this person gains more significant experience in the future, the article should be recreated. Again if this person does more with their life in terms of activism or culture, she would gain notability (fundraising for PETA is again dubious notability [in itself]). Cocoaguy ここがいい 07:34, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Alright those actually good points. Cocoaguy ここがいい 17:45, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. But your original points also were pretty good, Cocoaguy. But before weighing in with an opinion, let me ask -- Are you withdrawing this nomination? If so, why not just close it? NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:12, 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 delete. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lovifm.com ( Radio ). Continued block evasion by serial sockpuppeteer User:Alex9777777. SuperMarioMan ( Talk ) 13:47, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lovifm music

Lovifm music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Had nominated for speedy under A7, anonymous IP user removed, am now moving to AfD, see talk page for the list of previous titles under which this company has attempted to insert itself into Wikipedia. KDS4444Talk 08:22, 23 December 2015 (UTC) KDS4444Talk 08:22, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The true art of the real site and a man ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.45.9.97 (talk) 07:43, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added information in article, good article — Preceding unsigned comment added by JenniferMari-Gardner (talk • contribs)

  • Delete. Unremarkable app whose articles seems meant to promote it. No independent sources have been offered to indicate how it is notable; there also seems to be a sock working to keep this here and/or users of the app have been directed to come here. 331dot (talk) 11:53, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does not appear notable; no Google results except personal playlists and Wikipedia. Not all of the article makes much sense in any case.
    What's wrong? 11:59, 24 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) 00:23, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Shaw

Jason Shaw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD removed by TonyTheTiger, saying this should be expanded with details about his relationship with Paris Hilton, but the facts actually are that he only apparently dated Paris Hilton a few years and there's nothing else to suggest he was otherwise best known for anything else even including his relationship (to be honest, there's not even much solid in-depth coverage about the relationship as it is). As mentioned with my PROD here, my searches found exactly the expected coverage, gossip and passing mentions and the longest work he ever had was only four episodes of one TV show, it also seems he's no longer active with the entertainment area as well. It's also worth this is a particularly troubled BLP article (basically unsourced) with a few vandalisms here and there. SwisterTwister talk 06:18, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:19, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:19, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was not saying the article should or should not be kept. I just felt the deletion decision deserved fuller attention because of the possibility that there may be a way to meet the
WP:WAWARD) 16:09, 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 speedy delete as A7.

(｡◕‿◕｡) 11:29, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Robert Cruz

Robert Cruz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails

sh! 05:38, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:27, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:27, 24 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) 18:12, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BrainBuxa

BrainBuxa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article fail

talk) 20:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 20:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 14:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:44, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:02, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience t 05:28, 24 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. The "keep" opinions are given less weight because they claim the existence of sources, but do not cite them; indeed, the article contains no reliable independent sources.  Sandstein  09:53, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Naghma Sahar

Naghma Sahar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Claims no notability, fails

WP:GNG. PROD was revertinged by citing reason that she is covered in some book written by her colleague at NDTV! Sounds very much an independent source. (rolling eyes smiley) §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:11, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:11, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:12, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She was one of the (two) main characters in Braking News, a non-fiction book that got very positive reviews when it was published in 2010: outlook, live mint, elevate difference, and that could be used to beef up our article. Unfortunately, I am at present very far from my copy of the book. Thanks, Biwom (talk) 18:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The book is written by Sunetra Choudhury, a fellow NDTV pal of hers and that kinda book can be used only to write generic information about her but not considered as independent source to establish any notability; like already said in the AfD rationale. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:11, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For Wikipedia to feature a biography that article must either meet
    WP:BIO
    . No acceptable sources are cited so this article fails GNG. No assertion is made that this person could pass any specialized criteria. In Biwom's sources, only the live mint source mentions this person by name, and then it only does so in passing while the subject of the article is something else. This person is not the subject of those articles on Braking News.
It could be that Braking News is a
WP:RS which contributes to this person's notability but evidence is not presented which ties this person to be the subject of that book. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
So every employee of a "major India TV network" is by default notable per GNG? (And what a blunder; she works for NDTV; not India TV, both are different.) And what does the article really say? That she went on a "continual hunt for local cuisine"! That's notable?! That's all the book reviewer could write about her? And as said previously, her colleague writing testimonial about her is not independent source. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are making a false argument, Dharmadhyaksha. I stated, "a major India TV network, which I presume NDTV is. And clearly, the janitors are not notable, but the on-screen television personalities most likely are. For example, a person in a comparable position with the BBC or NBC or CNN would almost certainly be notable on that basis alone, and I presume that the major TV networks of India are just as important and notable as the ones in the USA or the UK? Or are these networks unimportant, minor ones? Or are only the women non-notable?? Just curious. Montanabw(talk) 22:29, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 TT me 13:19, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well you should come back with
assuming in bad faith that this AfD is because the subject is women. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:20, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
No, I am not assuming they are the same network and please stop your hyperventilating and assume good faith, They appear to both be major networks. The NDTV article states "New Delhi Television is among India's top broadcasters and has offices and studios across the country. Its three national news channels NDTV 24x7 (English), NDTV India (Hindi) and NDTV Profit (Business news) form the core of the company." If this is not true, then perhaps the NDTV article shouldn't be there or that material needs to be removed ... but if it is major, then the people it hires are major - and I would suggest that over 1500 links mean it's pretty significant. By extension, people who are its major on-screen personalities meet GNG. Montanabw(talk) 08:51, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With that logic WP will be full of non-sense if applied to all List of largest employers. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Another false analogy; we are looking at both company size and celebrity status here. Montanabw(talk) 21:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But we are not. You are wrongly implying that because she is seen on screen and is an employee of a large company she is notable. That's wrong! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience t 05:25, 24 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) 02:36, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

The Game (mind game)

AfDs for this article:
The Game (mind game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is a joke, a hoax, a prank. Jonty Haywood – who is quoted by several sources in the article, is the creator of LoseTheGame.com (which hosts several of the sources), and is the author of the petition mentioned in the article – was responsible for the Porthemmet Beach hoax. Among the sources for the article are social media postings, articles from student newspapers, and an email apparently sent to a school boy by the Australian prime minister. And it's illustrated by a picture of a toilet. The GA Review was obviously done as a joke. It didn't discuss any of the obvious problems with the article, including the sources. Jack Upland (talk) 05:00, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. GA reviews don't address notability, but they do address verifiability. And this game does indeed seem to exist. Here's an article about it at
    The Next Web. The article itself is obviously not a hoax, though I suppose you may mean that The Game is a prank people play on each other. Well, OK, but that's a perfectly legitimate topic for an article on Wikipedia. Do you have a better deletion rationale? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:19, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
[That article is basically a copy of this article.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:28, 25 December 2015 (UTC)][reply]
    • Keep. Yeah, I'm going with "keep", too, and I think this could even be closed as "speedy keep" based on the current deletion rationale. The article itself is obviously not a hoax. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:42, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • (
    notable
    (at least in my opinion).
Among the sources for the article are articles from the
be bold
and remove some of the more dubious sources if you like—having not looked at the article properly for about a year, I'm sure I'd be quite ashamed of what I would have considered to be suitable encyclopedic sourcing back then—but focus on the good sources, not the bad. I think it's fairly obvious that I'm !voting keep.
in good faith
.
I think it's worth pointing out that although this page reads "7th nomination", the last proper nomination (excluding a bad faith
pointed nomination) was back in 2006. It ended with "delete", 2006 was before most of the sources now in the article were written. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 11:27, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 01:24, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 01:25, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep and dammit after many years I just lost the game. Artw (talk) 03:09, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: If there were no problems with the article, it would not have faced 7 deletion nominations, so I would appreciate a more thoughtful response. My "feelings" about the article are that it is quite humorous, but it that it doesn't belong in a encyclopedia. I said this article is "a joke, a hoax, a prank". It's very hard for me to categorise this article. The information isn't verifiable in a normal sense. That isn't acceptable in Wikipedia. For example, the lead states: "the number of players is estimated by Jonty Haywood to be in the millions". Who is Jonty Haywood? He is a known prankster who has been involved in the creation of this article under the name Kernow and possibly other names. The article also says: "petitions in Britain trying to pass laws involving The Game have been created". There is a source for this: a petition to Bristol City Council with one signature – Haywood. Haywood is not a school boy: he appears to be a teacher who graduated from Cambridge. Don't tell me that petition was not a prank! Does the game exist? I don't know. If you unscramble the paradoxical rules, the object of the game is publicise the game, thus causing other people to "lose the game". Hence, this article itself is part of the game. While there might be someone out there "playing the game", as it stands, the article is largely a vehicle for promoting Haywood and his pranks. That fails the criterion of notability. It's been said that there are verifiable sources. Let's look at these in turn:
1. Daily Nebraskan: a student newspaper. Not a reliable source.
2. De Pers: based on an interview with Haywood.
3. Metro (1): a short snippet that refers to Haywood's website.
4. Rutland Herald: an article that refers to Haywood's website.
5. Canadian Press: quotes Haywood.
6. LA Loyolan: a student newspaper. Not a reliable source. Refers to Haywood's website.
7. xkcd: a comic.
8. Cory Antiel: Apparently a student essay. Apparently Antiel is a puppeteer. Hosted by Haywood's website.
9. Metro (2): quotes Haywood.
10. KC Star: refers to Haywood's website.
11. Petition: authored by Haywood – see comments above.
12. Kevin Rudd email. Hosted by Haywood's website. A non-notable prank.
13. Daily Globe: refers to Haywood's website.
14. "The Game (I lost!)": a blog on a site called arseburgers.co.uk.
15. Tolstoy: no direct connection.
16. Dostoyevsky: no direct connection.
17. Wikinews: an interview with Haywood.
18. SBMC: a comic.
19. RealLife Comics: a comic.
20. Youtube.
21. Youtube.
22. Twitter.
23. Facebook.
24. TechCrunch: report of 4chan prank. Doesn't explain what "the game" is.
25. ABC News: blog, page unavailable.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:24, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The list of references Jack Upland gives may not be the strongest collection ever put together, but together they do enough to satisfy me that the topic is sufficiently notable for a low-importance article, particularly as it is known fairly widely and over a period of many years. (Notwithstanding the article does require some clean-up). Aspirex (talk) 11:24, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment – It is strange that none of the above responses reply to my point about Jonty Haywood. Either this is a hoax, or there are no sources that allow someone who stumbles across the article, like me, to verify that it is not a hoax. That is what verifiable sources are for. They are not simply a box to be ticked. I believe it is a hoax. People who claim that they "play the game" are like people who claim to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. (I am not saying this because Bilorv is a follower of this "church".) Do they really believe the cult-like claims of the game? Do they believe that everyone is playing? Do they believe that only the British PM can end the game? If people were genuinely playing, they would not make a website about the game, because that involves thinking about the game. They would not write newspaper columns about the game. They would not write this article. They would not participate in this discussion. They would not oppose the deletion of this article. The claims about the game are not genuinely believed. We have an article about the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but we say that it is a parody (despite the fact that people vigorously argue otherwise). We have an article about the Porthemmet Beach hoax, but not about the beach. If people want to write an article about their hoax and their pranks, OK. But an article which states the game is genuine is not OK. Wikipedia just lost.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:34, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Your point about Jonty Haywood is not a challenge to notability. We have an article about the Porthemmet Beach hoax, as you quite rightly state; this is because that while it was something Haywood did for a bit of a laugh, it is notable. You could say the same here. I doubt Haywood invented The Game, but that's not the point – he's been involved in spreading The Game across the internet. It's a game. A meme, an idea, a concept. Calling it "a hoax" is like saying Chinese whispers is just a hoax. It doesn't make sense. It's an idea that most certainly exists, whatever its origins, and in both cases has been reported on widely enough for there to be a Wikipedia article about it. The British prime minister being able to end The Game, that everyone is playing but only a few know they are playing etc. – these are all jokes, non-serious rules that accompany The Game and vary from group to group, like the rules of any other game. Your analysis of the references above is flawed in that it considers mentioning Haywood to disqualify it from being a reliable source, as if this is some sort of conspiracy to deceive people into believing... well, I don't know what, really. You accuse me, journalists and everyone here of some vague conspiracy. You seem to have changed your stance from saying the article should be deleted to saying that we should write in the article that it's a hoax or "parody" (of what?) of some sort.
    I play The Game, in the sense that I have a group of friends who have heard of the rules and find it funny. Avoiding loss is not really the point (as the article points out). The point is to have fun. This is the point of every game. And yes, I "believe" in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I also like Doctor Who. So what? None of these three things are "real" in any meaningful sense, but they are concepts that exist, that are talked about, represented in various media and reported on by secondary sources. You wouldn't nominate the latter two for AfD.
    And as for the cheap "If there were no problems with the article, it would not have faced 7 deletion nominations" argument, it's just wrong. Encyclopedia Dramatica has been nominated for deletion 8 times; this rather offensive subject has been the subject of 22 AfDs. Both still have pages. The common theme? Childish, immature, very much internet focused, but still discussed in reliable sources and still notable. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 23:18, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"I play The Game, in the sense that I have a group of friends who have heard of the rules and find it funny." Thank you. You have just confirmed that I am right: it is a hoax.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:52, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you have anything meaningful to say, this will be my last reply here. I wrote a lot of words there and you've just cherry picked a few of them to confirm some deluded conspiracy of yours. A hoax is (according to Google) "a humorous or malicious deception". Where is the deception here? What do you feel you are tricked into believing? There is nothing written in the article that is untrue. And how does this mean the article should be deleted? — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 09:33, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, there is hardly anything in the article that is not a bogus claim or the reporting of a bogus claim. For example, "the number of players is estimated by Jonty Haywood to be in the millions". As you have confirmed, there is probably nobody playing the game. Haywood probably said that, but it is just nonsense, not an estimate. This is a hoax. The guidelines are clear: we can write an article about a hoax, but not an article that perpetuates a hoax. It doesn't matter whether the hoax originated with the article, or not.
As you say, Haywood "been involved in spreading The Game across the internet". Almost all of the sources link directly back to Haywood. He put forward the petition. He even took the picture of the toilet. This raises the issue of notability, and makes it all seem promotional, particularly as Haywood was involved in establishment of this article. It also underlines the fact that it is a hoax. It also raises the issue of verifiability. The sources echo Haywood's bogus claims uncritically (and light-heartedly). They are not independent, reliable sources.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:10, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
San Diego Comic-Con International
in July 2008

References

  1. ^ "'The Game' is a fad that will get you every time". Archived from the original on 24 July 2009.
  2. ^ "Nederland gaat nu ook verliezen". Archived from the original on 15 December 2008.
  3. ^ "Teens around the world are playing 'the game'". CTVNews.
  4. ^ "If you read this you've lost The Game - Metro News". Metro.
  5. ^ "Column: Playing 'The Game' with the other kids". Daily Globe.
  6. ^ "Mind game enlivens students across U.S." Archived from the original on 18 May 2008.
  7. ^ "Archives : Rutland Herald Online". (subscription required)
No, it doesn't. The sources are not independent reliable sources. Almost all uncritically echo Haywood. They are examples of humorous, "silly season" reporting, or blogging. Simply because a few sources play along with (or are taken in by) a hoax, does not make the story verified.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:39, 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 merge to

(non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:10, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Citizen Trump

Citizen Trump (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A cable-news TV special, airing TODAY, and propped by a single newspaper preview listing and a partisan blog posting. Not even *close* to meeting notability guidelines, even technically. Calton | Talk 04:11, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:21, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:21, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:21, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:21, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This does not seem to be notable as it promotes a TV program which will most likely air once or twice and receive marginal rating and associated buzz. Cocoaguy ここがいい 06:58, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've converted the page to a redirect. No need to delete a page that serves a purpose. I vote to close this discussion to save time. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:58, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, this page serves no purpose since it's not a legitimate redirect term, nor is the underlying content useful or notable. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promoting your particular brand of agit-prop. And what part of Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed. in the AFD notice gave you difficulty? --Calton | Talk 16:06, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you mean the redirect does not serve a purpose? I am not looking to promote anything. I just want someone searching for information about Citizen Trump to be redirected to Donald Trump. This is very straightforward and an AfD discussion is not necessary. Since my conversion to a redirect page was undone, I'll cast my vote to redirect the article. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:28, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why would anyone be searching for information about a one-shot cable-news show on Wikipedia? Answer: one wouldn't and one shouldn't, your attempt to juice up the show's Internet presence (I.e., promote) notwithstanding. I repeat, it's not a legitimate redirect term. --Calton | Talk 05:04, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What on earth are you talking about? I am not trying to promote anything. This is a documentary film about a person. It is entirely appropriate to redirect a film about a person to the individual's Wikipedia article. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:23, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to either
    talk) 01:22, 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. Sam Walton (talk) 00:24, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Informosphere

Informosphere (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable new concept. Antigng (talk) 03:45, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 23:56, 24 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) 00:25, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Palwasha Yousuf

Palwasha Yousuf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable person. Just know as the sister of Alishba Yousuf and Syra Yousuf. MusaTalk ☻ 03:34, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MusaTalk ☻ 03:34, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MusaTalk ☻ 03:34, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MusaTalk ☻ 03:35, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. MusaTalk ☻ 03:35, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete completely nn. - üser:Altenmann >t 22:28, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Curro2 (talk) 09:31, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: not remotely notable. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:07, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Only relation connection not enough for
    WP:GNG! SuperHero ● Ping ● ★ 10:08, 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. Sam Walton (talk) 00:27, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Bagron

Bill Bagron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails

WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 03:32, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MusaTalk ☻ 03:40, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MusaTalk ☻ 03:40, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MusaTalk ☻ 03:40, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MusaTalk ☻ 03:40, 24 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

(non-admin closure) –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 02:19, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Freeze Frame (1979 film)

Freeze Frame (1979 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (films) Cubbie15fan (talk) 03:09, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MusaTalk ☻ 03:41, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alts:
subject:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
subject:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
director:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
studio/distributor:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deletion as

(｡◕‿◕｡) 11:34, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Cat's Paw (film)

Cat's Paw (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (films) Cubbie15fan (talk) 03:08, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MusaTalk ☻ 03:44, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Looks like this was created by a sockpuppet of
    (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:33, 24 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) 00:27, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jive64

Jive64 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apparently briefly cracked some Israeli music chart, though none of the sources appears to be a solid

WP:RS. Smells like paid editing, Prod was disputed. OhNoitsJamie Talk 02:52, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MusaTalk ☻ 03:45, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. MusaTalk ☻ 03:45, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as mentioned as this was easily PROD material and should have been accepted as such, because unless considerably convincing Israeli sources are found, my own searches found nothing at all. SwisterTwister talk 05:51, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This article's creator, User:Alwayssmileguys, has been indefinitely blocked for paid editing. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:35, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ohnoitsjamie and clearly fails
    WP:BAND.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:29, 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 keep.

(non-admin closure) clpo13(talk) 06:01, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Psycho-biddy

Psycho-biddy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable term or subgenre. Koala15 (talk) 02:15, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Did you bother to check the references? There is already an entire book on the topic linked in the reference list. Just from a quick Google search, i quickly found another source that is an entire chapter in another book. And that's just from a quick glance, with only one of the four different name variations for this sub-genre. I think there's more than enough notability to be found for this sub-genre. SilverserenC 09:39, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm with Silver seren. According to this article in Entertainment Weekly, Fangoria ran an article about it recently. It's not like this is super-obscure. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:34, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 19:06, 24 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 keep. North America1000 23:26, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kayode Otitoju

Kayode Otitoju (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only sources are dead links, does not appear to meet

WP:GNG Melcous (talk) 00:48, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MusaTalk ☻ 03:48, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MusaTalk ☻ 03:48, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. MusaTalk ☻ 03:48, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep subject of the article meet
    t@lk to M£ 11:38, 24 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2015_December_24&oldid=1142223436"