Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 December 21

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 20 December	22 December >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:28, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Data - the journal for Negative, Null and Inconclusive results (NNI results)[edit]

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

This new journal does not even have any papers published in it yet, so it is too soon for it to have met any of the conditions of notability for academic journals. I already tried prodding this but the article creator (who claims on the article talk page to be one of the journal's founders) removed the prod. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:57, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I could not find any reliable, secondary sources that discuss this journal. This journal may become notable one day, but right now, it is WP:TOOSOON. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of independent coverage at this moment; may require a second look in the future. CarnivorousBunny^talk 02:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Way too soon, also rather promotionally written (not surprising, given the stated COI). Does not meet NJournals or GNG --Randykitty (talk) 10:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now - I see the interest of the journal's subject (publishing results that are disappointing and that other journals would turn down for something sexier, basically), but it's not notable five days after being announced. In addition, the article has issues like confusing structure, a primary source based explanation of what 'Interest Number' is and why it matters, etc. This isn't really a standard thing to do (I'm clearly going soft), but I have offered to the page's author that I would be happy to be involved in writing an independent article on the topic with their input at some point in the future, provided they can come up with links to independent coverage that make me feel that the article would meet notability criteria. Blythwood (talk) 13:52, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now - If the journal will exist in two or three years time, try again.Shisha-Tom (talk) 08:33, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: for now it fails Notability (academic journals). Sam Sailor ^Talk! 21:06, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NJOURNALS Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:39, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:28, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NerdyKid Simulator 2016[edit]

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

No sign this has ever attracted third-party editorial coverage, WP:GNG is not met. Declined A7 (software programs aren't eligible) and G10. joe decker ^talk 23:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Reliable sources must be verifiable and independent of the subject. Being generous, this is WP:TOOSOON. Grayfell (talk) 23:10, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL Seasider91 (talk) 23:14, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not much else to say about it. Going by the talk page, the writers of the article seem to think that having the blessing from a small YouTube channel makes it a article? Reil (talk) 23:18, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A game pretty much existing against an WP:ATTACKPAGE (outside of en.wiki) against a child? Low notability and no point to something which would be a "worst of Steam Greenlight" candidate in most other ways to have an article here. Nate • (chatter) 04:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Too soon" is way too generous. This looks like it's verging on WP:MADEUP. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is no WP:RS and beyond WP:TOOSOON. It does not belong in Wikipedia and obviously needs to be deleted.--Jersey92 (talk) 04:21, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think this can be closed as WP:SNOW. --Jersey92 (talk) 04:23, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above fails WP:GNG and WP:TOOSOON.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:42, 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 speedy deleted by Worm That Turned, Multiple reasons: speedy deletion criteria A7, G11, G4. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:26, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Acantelys[edit]

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

Reads like an advertisement, dubious references JMHamo (talk) 23:01, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - First because it reads like an advertisement and the article would be too much work to rewrite for consideration to be on Wikipedia. I think WP:KIBOSH fits here.Mwenzangu (talk) 14:43, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and perhaps salt, given the equally dismayed reaction at the first Afd. For a bunch of supposedly prized academics, good lord are they bone-headed. Copypasting Wikipedia policy into the text so as to avoid re-deletion is not going to do it, fellas. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:44, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:48, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:50, 23 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 Frenulum of tongue#Disorders. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 23:28, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cunnilingus tongue[edit]

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

"Cunnilingus tongue" is neither a disorder recognized recognized in the medical literature nor a term of notable usage. None of the references provided mention a disorder caused by performing cunnilingus or other sexual acts, and several link to sources not even discussing oral lesions. This article obvious a joke and a hoax. 160.39.155.38 (talk) 22:06, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I completed the nomination. ansh 666 22:27, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - actually, it's pretty well sourced; at least two of the sources I checked did refer specifically to a disorder of the tongue causing lesions related to friction experienced during oral intercourse. It could use a review by editors more familiar with WP:MEDRS but it's certainly not an "obvious hoax". Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:46, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All these sources are reliable as defined by MEDRS, apart from 2 or 3 which fall just outside of MEDDATE (not published within last 5 years). MEDDATE is not a strictly applied rule. A source can still be reliable it if was published in 2004. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 17:14, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. 22:48, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. 22:48, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Delete Sources only briefly mention the condition and is often mentioned as a condition with no name. A search of the condition brings no viable sources. The Wikipedia page on cunilingus seems to suggest this condition is not noteworthy nor an official condition. A merge could be appropriate. EllsworthSchmittendorf (talk) 23:20, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a modest amount of this material into Frenulum of tongue#Disorders. The way I'd probably do this is to give "ulcers" its own subsection and include this among the possible causes. If that section gets too big, then we can always expand it into a new article (e.g. Disorders of the lingual frenulum or Tongue ulcer). De Guerre (talk) 00:15, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Content already discussed at Oral ulcer. Also, this condition is not always ulcerative, can be fibrous hyperplasia. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 01:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've convinced me that concentrating on ulcers is probably not the right approach. So my next suggestion is a subsection on "trauma", and expand it to include many possible ways that the frenulum may be physically injured. De Guerre (talk) 03:49, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment - In attempt to establish some sort of consensus here, I suggest that one key issue is WP:SIGCOV.
"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material.
The question that I would like to see answered is whether or not any of the sources, reliable though they may be, address the topic "directly and in detail". Most of the references that I could check mention this condition only in passing. De Guerre (talk) 06:43, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They are textbooks, what do you expect? Matthew Ferguson (talk) 17:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To get its own article, I expect significant coverage. De Guerre (talk) 03:30, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as author -- the condition is both notable (more than 2 reliable sources), and this article is well sourced. Suggest nominator actually checks the sources in question before making such claims. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 01:43, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the nominator, but I did look at the references, and one or two of them don't check out. Reference 6, for example (Textbook of Oral Medicine, Oral Diagnosis and Oral Radiology) doesn't have a page 1245. De Guerre (talk) 06:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was probably a Google books preview of an ebook version which typically have many more pages than the paper version. All of the refs "check out", suspect you just have access problems or are looking at a different format of the source. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 06:29, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked it up again and the section on traumatic ulceration to the lingual frenum appears on 626 [1]. Must have been the original reference generated from an ebook preview is the only reason I can think for this. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 18:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I alerted WP:Med to this discussion. Someone might want to alert WP:Sex to it, though that project is significantly less active than WP:Med. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:19, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Frenulum of tongue#Disorders per De Guerre. The type of injury may exist, but this is not a formal name for it. Wikipedia should not be in the business of inventing titillating names for topics not independently notable enough to have been given a name of their own. bd2412 T 19:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Merge per De Guerre et al, I think it needs to be covered somewhere but I don't think it requires a separate article necessarily. Keilana (talk) 21:34, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've not even accessed the articles you are suggesting to merge to. There is already content covering this phenomenon on mouth ulcer, cunnilingus, tongue disease and frenulum of tongue, however the fact that it is mentioned in other articles is not justification to delete the article. It is a notable subject and worthy of a stand alone article per WP:N. Actually, every argument presented so far in this discussion is invalid, from the completely unfounded claims in the original nomination to these sheepish "merge" suggestions from those who have clearly not read the articles they talk of. The references meet MEDRS, notability is met. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 21:40, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does the phrase "cunnilingus tongue" exist as an actual medical diagnosis? bd2412 T 00:18, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

The term doesn't appear in ICD-10 if that's any help. De Guerre (talk) 03:30, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nor SNOMED, nor MeSH, for what it's worth. De Guerre (talk) 03:50, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nor does it appear as a phrase in the asserted "Textbook of Oral Medicine". The sentence there says: "Lesions on the lingual frenum are usually seen in individuals who practice cunnilingus (tongue projected into the vaginal area)". The words are adjacent, but as part of separate clauses, with the latter being a parenthetical. It does appear as a phrase in two texts that I can find, with the same primary authors, Crispian Scully, ‎Stephen Flint, Color Atlas of Oral Diseases (1989), p. 264, and in Crispian Scully, Stephen Flint, et al., Oral and Maxillofacial Diseases (2010), p. 221. However, two incidental uses are not enough to claim that this is the recognized name of the condition. bd2412 T 04:17, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Admittedly not all of the sources use the term cunnilingus tongue, but rather some refer to this condition descriptively. However, the current article title is the most succinct for an encyclopedia. Compare with "traumatic ulceration of the lingual frenum secondary to oral sexual activity" ... if you'll pardon the pun it just doesn't roll off the tongue. I should be able to supply more sources which use the exact term. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 07:09, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "secondary to oral sexual activity" is also secondary to the kind of injury. We have an article on the ankle sprain; we do not have individual articles on the "bicycling ankle sprain", "basketball ankle sprain", and "hiking ankle sprain". bd2412 T 14:26, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

comment it does seem Wikipedia:Notability--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:56, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per others. We shouldn't have an article with this name based on so little: it is not the job of Wikipedia to promulgate new terms. There does appear to be enough sourcing to say something, but that something can be in another article. Bondegezou (talk) 15:04, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge too novel a term, and too little coverage to merit a standalone article. Alexbrn (talk) 08:10, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as one of many ways to injure the frenulum, as is represented in reliable sources; a standalone article would be undue weight. — soupvector (talk) 16:39, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment Of all the ways one could injure the frenulum, this is the only one to receive obvious attention for a simple reason --- someone found the idea humorous. The idea that this is a legitimate medical condition deserving of its own page or more than a single sentence on another page that does not reference it by either of the names ascribed to the condition here is ridiculous. 160.39.155.163 (talk) 06:21, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is entirely invalid given the number of reliable sources on this topic. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 14:09, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect as suggested by De Guerre, per WP:SNOW. I agree that the sources which specifically describe this as "cunnilingus tongue" do so descriptively and non-exclusively. It should be a redirect to a discussion about general traumatic injuries to the tongue which might be caused by a number of activities. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:32, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm withdrawing from this farce, if you people want to get rid of a notable article then fine, merge it yourself. I'll leave this task to one of the helpful commentators here. I'm sure you can manage it, you know, given how well you know this area of medicine, how much research and work you have put into these articles. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 14:09, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I checked out two of the references; one is simply a reference of the other. It appears to me to be a neologism with one reference picking it up from another. Another reference was an anecdotal description of an emergency room visit-I don't know if that even counts as a single case study. Reference three calls it cunnilingus syndrome, not tongue. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) (talk) 00:22, 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 speedy delete. per G3. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Turq Qunox Right-Wing Party[edit]

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

No verification in reliable sources that this organization exists. Either a hoax or highly non-notable. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:08, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete WP:G3/WP:HOAX. Fails verification and includes unsourced WP:BLP-violating allegations about things Joseph Kony did. No evidence from Google that this exists at all, let alone is a notable thing. Created by a user already WP:NOTHERE blocked for posting racist screeds to this deletion page. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 22:43, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 22:43, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 22:43, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 22:43, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per Ivanvector. This is an obvious hoax as the only relevant google result for the subject matter is this article Seasider91 (talk) 22:50, 21 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:28, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prak Monyphearun[edit]

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

According to the Soccerway link provided in the article, he has only been on the bench for a full international and has not made his debut yet. He therefore fails WP:NFOOTY. He clearly fails WP:GNG due to a total lack of reliable sources discussing the player. The article was deleted very recently in a previous AfD. Spiderone 21:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 21:27, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:31, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:32, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:34, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 22:27, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails WP:NFOOTBALL as has not played in a fully professional league and has only played youth internationals. Seasider91 (talk) 22:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 13:30, 22 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:27, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Undown[edit]

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

Non-notable band. I originally nominated this article for speedy deletion before I realized how much history it has. Enough people have looked at it and not decided it needed to be deleted for at least an AFD discussion, but there doesn't seem to be anything at all notable about this band. No assertions of any chart positions; no tours; no indications of any significant coverage at all. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:19, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 22:44, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 22:44, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I couldn't find anything on them—at least in English.--Fotoriety (talk) 00:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's simply nothing better at all here, not even minimally better notable and acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 05:30, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Short-lived project band. Japanese sources muddled by music magazine of same name existing at same time. Complete absence of WP:RS and discography is probably lifted from Amazon Japan or HMV. No room for improvement, no potential. Jun Kayama 08:03, 22 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:27, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberly Jesika[edit]

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

Primary claim to fame appears is being an "entertainment correspondent" for a non-notable show. The only non-trivial coverage from a WP:RS is a couple paragraphs in this HuffPost article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:36, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What is this primary claim and who is the claimant ? The article clearly states she is an animated film director and a children's comic book author and also an entertainment host. this HuffPost article you mentioned above proves her notability also another huff post link [2] has an interview with her and proves the notabiliy. Also an article from blogher [3] Always :) (talk) 20:59, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please read WP:BIO and WP:RS. Directing animated films or writing books doesn't automatically make someone notable. While HuffingtonPost meets WP:RS requirements in most cases, blogs usually do not. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:06, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Program used paid programming time on Pop (the former TV Guide Network) to get on the air (it has since ended as the show's page hasn't updated since the summer); there's a very high threshold here for people who pay to get on TV or radio for an article. This posting from Ripoff Report as the subject's top G-hit doesn't meet RS by any means but doesn't inspire confidence about the subject, along with a bunch of other G-hits which seem to be paid placement stories. Nate • (chatter) 04:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:CREATIVE. Also, no significant coverage. Magnolia677 (talk) 05:49, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ripreports may be true , may be false . There are lot of fake accusations in ripreport. More over being an entertainment TV host is secondary . Always :) (talk) 08:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This article's creator, User:Alwayssmileguys, has been indefinitely blocked for paid editing. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:43, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:BASIC. Nom, who can view deleted articles, may want to confirm or disprove that Kimberly Jessy and Kimberly J. Bowles and Kimberly Jessy Mrs. USA Petite California were or were not about the same person allegedly involved in the Tailhook scandal, something that this blurb seems to confirm, cf. the crosspostings between the Facebook accounts Kimberly Jessy Bowles, International, Kimberly Jesika, and Kimberly Jesicka. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 17:08, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as none of this suggests a solidly better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 17:34, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Ohnoitsjamie fails WP:ANYBIO and lacks WP:RS.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:01, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:26, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JStar[edit]

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

Article seems to be a blatant advert. A lot of the sources are blogs, thus failing WP:RS and WP:GNG. -- Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:55, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:55, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - searches turned up zero. On any of them. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:39, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom lacks WP:SIGCOV.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:58, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:25, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Progreso Networks[edit]

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

No evidence for notability-- the refs are mere mentions DGG ( talk ) 19:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:11, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:45, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:45, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches found nothing better at all. SwisterTwister talk 20:45, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am the original author of the page, and I have had a look after a long time. I am stripping out the non-IPv6 Forum (a not-for-profit advocacy forum based in Luxembourg) stuff, and will welcome a review. Disclosure: I was involved with bringing the Forum to Singapore in 2011, and convincing Progreso to provide secretarial and administrative support to the Chapter. -- Sanjeev "ghane" Gupta 03:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghane (talk • contribs)
I would like to move the page from 'Progreso Networks' to 'Progreso Training'. I have removed the content for PN, the parent company, the article is now only (as far as I can tell) about PT, which focusses on IPv6 training and advocacy. Could someone who knows better than me the implications of this please say yes or no? -- Sanjeev "ghane" Gupta 03:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

No, I disagreed to the deletion of this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.185.129.194 (talk) 05:15, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As discussed above, the article has been repurposed since the AfD nomination. It was then about Progreso Networks Pte Ltd but is now about Progreso Training Pte Ltd. I am not finding significant coverage of either firm. In addition, a large proportion of the article content is about the Singapore chapter of the IPv6 Forum. Even if that group were notable, notability cannot inherit from a group (or from material about the extent of IPv6 adoption in Singapore) to a training firm. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 08:11, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per AllyD.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:49, 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. While the article still needs work on citations, the consensus was clear that there was enough in-depth coverage from independent sources to show that it passes GNG. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:53, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Shams (East Pakistan)[edit]

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

This page does not meet the basic guidelines of Wikipedia regarding notability and neutrality and lacks reliable sources to even establish significance. The page is filled with citation tags. Sheriff | report | 19:20, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Sheriff | report | 19:37, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Sheriff | report | 19:39, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are sufficient mentions in English.[4][5][6][7][8] While they're mostly just mentions with few details, the fact that Bangladesh executed one of its leaders in 2015 for war crimes,[9] despite a protest,[10] attests to its long-term significance.Clarityfiend (talk) 23:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment They are mere mentions, you cannot build a Wikipedia article out of these. Sheriff | report | 00:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 03:30, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question You've removed more than half the article, saying that it's unsourced. How do you assess the article's cited sources? The nomination mentions a lack of "reliable sources", but BanglaNews24.com and Ekushey Television are mainstream news outlets in Bangladesh. If they fail to meet WP:GNG, what point do they fail on? Worldbruce (talk) 03:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The sections removed were completely unsourced and tagged for citation since June 2014 and nobody could find citation for that material for one and half years, that explains why it's not even a notable subject. Now, people can see what we are talking about, the lede is still tagged for citation. Did you see another article before where even there were no sources for the lede? Not sure, what do you mean by mention of "BanglaNews24.com and Ekushey Television"? Can you be more specific? Sheriff | report | 10:35, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking about the two sources referenced in the article. On what grounds do you feel they fail to meet WP:GNG? Worldbruce (talk) 15:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both sources do not support the information presented in the article. Technically, this article does not have any sources to support its notibility. Sheriff | report | 15:54, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've now removed more than 90% of the article, including all of its sources. Since most other editors on the English-language Wikipedia are not fluent in Bengali, the language of the sources you removed, kindly provide a translation of those sources to substantiate your assertion that they do not meet WP:SIGCOV. Worldbruce (talk) 18:13, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the only two sources cited are dead links... which leaves no sources, reliable or otherwise. Curro2 (talk) 13:45, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Ekushey TV source could easily have been recovered from archive.org here [11]. In any case, by Wikipedia policy, sources need not be online. The fact that they were dead when you looked at them is not a sound reason for deleting the article.

The only reason the article has no sources is that nom deleted them all and does not appear to have taken reasonable steps to look for alternative as directed by WP:BEFORE.

Removing the contents of the article and its sources immediately after nominating it for deletion is inimical to this discussion, and has been reverted. If the consensus here is keep, then the discussion likely will have identified sources to support some or all of the content. If the consensus is delete, it will all be removed anyway. There's no reason to shoot first and ask questions later. Worldbruce (talk) 15:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, at this point, we have one source in the article Ekushey TV, the other one is a dead link so basically we are relying on just one source which is not even a reliable third-party source. A bengali newspaper citing atrocities in East-Pakistan by Pakistani-supported militia cannot be considered a third-party source. The information which i removed could not be attributed to a source at the time i removed it and most of it still cannot be attributed. The editing of that page should be treated separately than AFD discussion. If you want, you can start a discussion at the talk page of that article and present your case why that information should not be removed. Instead of reverting me on that page, you should have attempted to source the content which you restored or left it removed according to WP:RS since it lacked reliable sources. Sheriff | report | 16:10, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may find Wikipedia:Link rot helpful. The BanglaNews24.com article was reprinted here [12] (and also archived at the blacklisted archive dot is/P9urm). Worldbruce (talk) 18:10, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Searching DAWN and The Daily Star, the largest English-language newspapers of Pakistan and Bangladesh respectively, returns hundreds of hits for "Al-Shams", a few of the most relevant being: [13], [14], [15], and [16]. A couple books that make more than a passing mention of Al-Shams are [17] published by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and [18] from an imprint of Rowman & Littlefield. Al-Shams also earns an (albeit brief) encyclopedia article here: [19]. Although none of these is as significant as a book-length history of the Al-Shams organization, keep in mind that WP:ORG instructs us that, "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." I don't have full-text HighBeam Research access, but a search there for "Al-Shams Pakistan" returns 74 results, mostly in South Asian newspapers such as Dhaka Courier, DNA, Financial Post, Hindustan Times, The Independent, Mint, The Nation, and The New Nation. The article may need improvement, but the topic easily meets WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Worldbruce (talk) 17:11, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:ORG and WP:GNG. This is a rather politically motivated deletion nomination.--Akbar the Great (talk) 03:55, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How can you claim that it's politically motivated? When it was nominated, it had two meekly sources in it which were not even accessible and it still has two meekly sources in it, both Bangladeshi, they cannot support a third-party point of view. Instead of saying that nomination is politically motivated, why don't you improve it with sources. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 04:51, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well it says on your user page that you support the current ruling party in Pakistan, which co-incidentally 2 weeks back, became the first Pakistani government to adopt genocide denial as a policy. However, several Pakistani sources also confirm the notability of this militia group.--Akbar the Great (talk) 09:53, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the notability of this group is easily asserted by a quick Google Book search. Try it yourselves; [20]. For example: "auxiliary paramilitary force (the Razakaars, Al-Badr and Al-Shams) of 50,000" --Soman (talk) 14:11, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:25, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Intertech[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:Company: coverage cited (or which I can find elsewhere) is not substantial and only mentions the company or its executives in passing. Flagged for 5 years without improvement. Nsteffel (talk) 19:22, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Best places to work listings are not evidence of notability and I am finding nothing better to indicate this to be more than a training firm going about its business. AllyD (talk) 08:29, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Passing mentions and being put in lists with other items of same category doesn't pass as notability as per WP:CORP Mwenzangu (talk) 14:30, 23 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. WP:CRYSTALBALL/WP:TOOSOON. No prejudice against recreation per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES if and when the school actually exists. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:57, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sacred Heart International School[edit]

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

Fails WP:CRYSTAL. Also title could be tweaked to be less ambiguous. RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 10:04, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 10:36, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 10:37, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:48, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 19:21, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP is not a crystal ball.—azuki (talk · contribs · email) 07:41, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not sure how WP:CRYSTALBALL would indicate a keep vote. Totally unsourced article (only source is FB, an unreliable source). Crystal would indicate that this is a case of WP:TOOSOON at best. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:02, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article about a high school does not meet the notability requirement in the pertinent essay, Wikipedia:Notability (high schools), that articles on secondary or high schools are kept except where they fail verifiability. It also fails the relevant notability guideline, Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), since this school has not yet been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources -- the school is not even open yet. Those looking for additional articles to nominate for deletion should consider Sacred Heart Boys High School, a related institution, which only has one cited secondary source in the article. - tucoxn\^talk 19:38, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "One cited secondary source" is far more than enough to pass WP:V and thus WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:56, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:24, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Standard Parking[edit]

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

Promotional article on a non-notable company. Google News didn't find anything that would allow us to write a well-sourced article about it. Huon (talk) 18:21, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I just realized that the article was nominated for deletion in 2008 for basically the same reasons, with a "keep" decision that noted the article needed cleanup. Now, seven years later, those basic issues still are unresolved. I do not think they can be resolved. Merely having many employees is not a guarantee of notability. Huon (talk) 18:26, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - AfD is not cleanup. Publicly traded company on a major exchange - NASDAQ. If you search without the term "corporation" you can find the references on Google News. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:33, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As the sources already listed at the end of the article confirm, the company is certainly notable. I agree that the promotional tone of the article was annoying and non-encyclopedic. I've taken a whack at improving the style. [21] --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:07, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Dubious sources and article but a corporation with a $500M market cap is most likely notable, irregardless of a skim through Google. Esquivalience ^t 03:31, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 23:29, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Halfling[edit]

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

Delete and Redirect to Halfling (Dungeons & Dragons) - This seemed to be a severe enough WP:POVFORK to bring here for discussion. Halfling (Dungeons & Dragons) and Hobbit already exist, and they both include mostly the same information. The very little meaningful and unique dictionary-like information could be brought to the D&D article. I am also worried that this article might devolve to become a some kind of list for popular culture mentions. Ceosad (talk) 05:25, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:13, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The D&D article would have to be moved to this name, as there would be nothing to disambiguate against any more. Not sure about whether it should be deleted or not. I suspect halflings are not notable independent of D&D, and skimming through RPG sites seems to back this up. However, it's difficult for me to figure out a good search string to pull up relevant results in reliable sources. Maybe I can figure out something better later. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:34, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, this article was created 12 December 2003, while Halfling (Dungeons & Dragons) was split from it on 9 February 2010, so inappropriate to delete this, rather discussion should be about merging the two? Coolabahapple (talk) 16:42, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am open to other solutions as well. If the consensus is that a some kind of merge is the best solution, it is okay by me. As far as I know halflings are not notable outside of D&D. The term itself is just an ancient neologism to avoid copyright problems. WP:NOTDIC. There is practically an article for each D&D creature. Category:Dungeons & Dragons humanoids Ceosad (talk) 17:18, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this and merge and redirect Halfling (Dungeons & Dragons) back to this article and remove popular culture list magnet.--KTo288 (talk) 20:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 17:31, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and convert to disambiguation page. Tolkien and D&D halflings both deserve mention and links to their articles. I don't see a real problem with listing other fictional, or legendary, halflings as well.Borock (talk) 19:35, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and convert to dab seems reasonable here. ansh 666 22:32, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and disambiguate, as above. I doubt either fictional race could lay claim to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for this, or more accurately I don't think this community could ever conclusively agree on which. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge: I added some references to demonstrate notability. Praemonitus (talk) 23:51, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete, either keeping the current page or converting it into a disambiguation page. There can easily be debate over whether hobbit or halfling (Dungeons and Dragons) (or perhaps something else) is the primary topic, but since it can plausibly refer to either one, deletion would clearly be unhelpful. Nyttend (talk) 02:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and dab per others. VMS Mosaic (talk) 10:32, 22 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. Perhaps, as suggested, consensus can be found through further discussion for a merger. Sandstein 10:13, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wheeler Ridge Interchange[edit]

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

Was prodded back in 2012, but contested with the rationale: "significant because of the roads that intersect here; also a truck bypass too". A news search returned zero hits, as did Newspaper. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:13, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is a significant and extremely important interchange for California and arguably the western US. There are many terms besides "Wheeler Ridge Interchange" (this is the first time I've seen it termed that). This UCLA report has very significant analysis of the interchange (page 32) and this book appears to go into construction detail.--Oakshade (talk) 17:51, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That UCLA report is a master's thesis in statistics. Even putting aside the question of whether a master's thesis could possibly be a WP:RS, it's not about the interchange in any real way. The subject is statistics. The interchange traffic data was just used because it was a conveniently available dataset on which to demonstrate mastery of statistical techniques. The second reference isn't a book at all; it's an environmental impact statement. Things don't become notable because they get included in an environmental impact statement. If this is the best we can do in the way of sources, it's a clear delete -- RoySmith (talk) 16:20, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—unlike subjects of the batch of German interchange articles that have been created as of late, interchanges in the US are typically not named. The few that have actual names are an indication of notability, and further an indication that sources should exist, which may or may not be online. Imzadi 1979 → 19:14, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Despite having a name, the interchange is unremarkable and any details about it can be covered in the I-5 and CA 99 articles. An interchange having a name does not automatically indicate notability, every interchange along the Pennsylvania Turnpike has a name and most of them are simply trumpet interchanges with a toll booth connecting to the cross road. Dough4872 23:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Having a name does not confer notability. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NOTTRAVEL.Charles (talk) 10:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non notable fork in the road, a search for sources brought back little more than trivial passing mentions such as this. I checked one source given by by Oakshade and the reference to the interchange is, in full, "Wheeler Ridge interchange is in Kern County where State Route 99 ends and merges with Interstate 5 and it is in the north of Smokey Bear interchange". Spaghetti Junction it ain't. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:02, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you speaking of this reference in which"Wheeler Ridge interchange is in Kern County where State Route 99 ends and merges with Interstate 5 and it is in the north of Smokey Bear interchange" is simply an introduction and goes into explicit multi-page detail detail of traffic patterns and analysis? --Oakshade (talk) 16:16, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It does go into great detail, but it appears to be more concerned with the freeway network in general, rather than this specific junction. In that case a merge / redirect may be more appropriate; I'm just not sure where. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:25, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The whole book is about the freeway network in general, but there is multi-page detail and analysis of specifically this interchange.--Oakshade (talk) 16:54, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 17:31, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Oakshade, and because it is a significant interchange, coverage is necessary to a full understanding of that section of Interstate 5, and enough sourceable detail exists to justify this as a separate article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:20, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, many interchanges have names and are not notable for them. But this is neither a German interchange or a Pennsylvania Turnpike interchange, and therefore the blanket "named interchange, not unique, not notable" logic can't be applied. Looking at everything I think this can be shown to squeak past GNG barely, and 'barely' is all that is needed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:43, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per the sources listed by Oakshade this interchange received significant coverage in multiple sources. Although not a great argument, Imzadi is an expert on WP road articles. - tucoxn\^talk 19:45, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No consensus - Searching for "Wheeler Ridge Interchange," I found one reference, 'Major Development Plans Announced by Tejon Ranch Co.,' Business Wire, December 16, 1997, referring to "Laval/Wheeler Ridge Road interchange." From the above, it appears to be an imporatnt interchange, so very likely there's write ups on it. However, the likely problem here is the "Wheeler Ridge Interchange" name of the article. That is to say, the topic may be notable, but the article title is messing with the AfD. There's no writeups on Wheeler Ridge Interchange, so we are not able to fine info on the topic here at AfD. Suggestion: Close as no consensus, change the title if the closer can find a better one, or close suggesting the name of the article be changed to reflect the topic. -- Jreferee (talk) 15:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further: I Googled "Laval/Wheeler Ridge Road interchange"[22]. That brings in more hits and appears to be the correct name for the interchange per http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist6/factsheets/docs/i5lavalroad.pdf. I suggest the close rename the article Laval/Wheeler Ridge Road interchange and close as no consensus to allow a relisting at AfD -- with the correct name of the topic -- if needed. -- Jreferee (talk) 15:54, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tricky issue. Normally subjects like this one – a minor component of a notable entity which do not deserve an article on their own – are merged and redirected to master. Here, however, we are having a road interchange, so we are talking about two masters. Can't merge to two, possibly. I would then suggest merge and redirect into either Interstate 5 or CA 99, where it could occupy a subheading, and make sure that the term is clearly cross-linked between the two. kashmiri ^TALK 21:06, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. DGG ( talk ) 06:22, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BQ Aquaris E4.5 Ubuntu Edition[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No basis for notability for this particular model. DGG ( talk ) 17:08, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It has four independent media refs, so it meets WP:GNG. - Ahunt (talk) 17:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:09, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

which of them do you thing reliable sources for notability , rather than sources indiscriminately covering every product in the class? DGG ( talk ) 20:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think the media coverage of the release of this device is indiscriminate? If it has been covered by the tech media then it has been covered. These are not directory listings, like a phone book, but actual reviews. - Ahunt (talk) 20:54, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:35, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would this, this, this and this not be considered bylined reviews/articles in notable tech publications that are reliable sources? This is by no means an exhaustive list, just the first four that popped up for me. I have to say, I don't see the problem. It does seem to rather easily meet WP:GNG, unless there's some specific criteria for tech devices that I'm not aware of. Keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:15, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think those "finds" pretty much close this AfD. They are all large sized media outlets with independent editorial staff. No question the topic meets WP:GNG. - Ahunt (talk) 21:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources listed by Shawn give a clear pass of WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The previous discussion was clear to delete as there were no sources at the time. It clearly meets WP:GNG now even without the additional finds by Shawn in Montreal. Close per WP:SNOWCLOSE. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:41, 22 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:19, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Musket[edit]

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

High school magazine. All content already in main article DGG ( talk ) 17:01, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks significance and is only notable for one minor event, by refusing to run an abstinence ad. Meatsgains (talk) 17:52, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly not notable school magazine.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:59, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Will redirect to the dab page Doug Baker after deletion. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:18, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Baker[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Lack of independent sources; establishment of notability not improved since first AfD. —swpb^T 17:00, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 17:04, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches simply found nothing better than some of his listed books at Books, browsers and Scholar. Notifying 1st AfDers Nyttend and Zero0000. DGG, I believe you could also contribute beneficial comments here given your familiar area insight. SwisterTwister talk 05:37, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:37, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:37, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my comments at the first AFD: no evidence of notability, and these publications [stuff published either by 'D. Baker' or by 'Baker Publications', or by Claregate College which the author established] can be treated as self-published. Nyttend (talk) 05:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An obit in the Times has always been considered here as definitive proof of notability, as a world-famous newspaper of record. It true that his career does not match anything that I personally would think notable, but that's not the standard.. One really good source is enough, and the Times is that. DGG ( talk ) 07:40, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But DGG, which Times is being talked about? I'm willing to strike my vote if I can be shown that it's The Times of London, or the New York Times (of course less likely for a Briton), or any other major Times, but without specification and without full citation information, we can't know. For a hypothetical example, he founded a small and short-lived college; wouldn't this potentially make him a candidate for an immediately postmortem appearance in The Oxford Times? I don't have access to the archives of The Times of London, so I can't do anything better than my quick inconclusive Google search, and I'll happily withdraw if you confirm that it's The Times of London or any other really major newspaper. Nyttend (talk) 13:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While I can see allowing obituaries alone establish notability for people who died before even 2000, someone who died this recently we should be able to find sources outside of an obituary, that may be in a major publication, if they really were notable. The obituary rule is mainly in place because sources before a certain date are harder to find, but with such a recent death that should not be an issue. There are not enough sources to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:42, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion of notability in the article. Willing to reconsider if DGG can summon up the obituary, my searches for it drew a blank. Szzuk (talk) 18:39, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing verifiability. The only source is the supposed Times obituary. "The Times" without qualification is unambiguously the London one, and a Times obituary (as opposed to a paid death notice) would be good enough for notability for me, but I can find no evidence that it actually exists. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If presented with solid evidence that this is The Times, and not merely a Times, I will wholeheartedly support keeping the article, not because one of their obituaries is sufficient coverage by itself, but because they're well qualified to decide which newly-dead people are significant enough that their deaths warrant a news story, and we can assume that the very low standards of WP:BIO would easily be satisfied by such a person. I'll happily switch if someone with online or print access to Times-of-London archives can confirm that they really did publish such a story, but lacking such confirmation, I agree that we're lacking WP:V here. Nyttend (talk) 21:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Problem I indeed cannot find it in the index to The Times -- Iwsill need to check further. it is inded possible that it did not mean the London Times. butt here may be a problem--it's not in their index DGG ( talk ) 05:18, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Someone wrote "An online obituary is visible at www.times.co.uk" on the talk page, but I don't find it either. Zero^talk 13:34, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I gain the impression that he managed to make a living as a full-time crank, peddling his WP:FRINGE pseudo-science through an unrecognized college and a self-publishing company. My guess is that most of the books were pamphlets, though many managed to have both hard and paperback editions. this link appears to show that the company in question was dissolved in 1995, perhaps when the subject retired. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:05, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

However, being a full-time crank is not a reason for deletion. What you need to show is that he wasn't a notable full-time crank. I'm not so sure. Zero^talk 22:52, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The onus is on keepers to show he satisfies WP:V. There appears to be no argument that if a good ref appears a number of editors will change from delete to keep, myself included. Szzuk (talk) 00:16, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Bbb23, CSD G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:47, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New Crush Class of 2015[edit]

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

Attempted article on part of a cancelled show, Non-encyclopedic content. Sourced to press releases for the show. Prod was removed by i.p. editor. DGG ( talk ) 16:59, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even the models listed don't seem to be notable. If they were then we would write articles about them, not about this one photoshoot. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:56, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable, no independent reliable sources. GermanJoe (talk) 17:07, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - I have reverted an early closure (and left a notice on the user's talkpage). Per Wikipedia:Non-admin closure#Appropriate closures delete closures should be done by admins (who need to delete the articles anyway). GermanJoe (talk) 17:07, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, a snowball's chance in hell the article will survive AfD. kashmiri ^TALK 20:33, 22 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:59, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bahan 2 middle school[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 15:57, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Insignificant middle school with no sources. Meatsgains (talk) 16:34, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 17:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources. There is one similar Wikipedia page that may be the same school, however this page again has no sources and poor use of English. EllsworthSchmittendorf (talk) 23:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you post a link to the related page? That would be helpful. Thanks! Meatsgains (talk) 03:45, 23 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:37, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Los Hechos y el Derecho TV[edit]

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

Lacks notability guidelines for web contents. Also is self promotion, because was created by Lhdtv (acronym of Los hechos y el derecho tv), and the WP article is used in the webpage as advertising. War ko ^talk 23:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:GNG - No evidence of significant coverage in reliable neutral sources. Both a Highbeam search and google news found 0 results for "Los Hechos y el Derecho TV" and "lhd tv". I checked google results and mostly found blogs, facebook and mirror pages. The article does not cite any neutral sources. The website loshechosyelderecho.blogspot.com is a blog, and does not show up in Alexa.com results, meaning it is a small website. They show lhdtv.info on the weblink, but this does not exist. - Taketa (talk) 07:24, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find any independent coverage of this in either Spanish or English. I note that this article was speedy-deleted from Spanish Wikipedia in 2010 as promotional. (See the deletion record at the top of the page es:Los Hechos y el Derecho TV, and the notices on the user talk page es:Usuario discusión:Lhdtv.) --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:37, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:17, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jenner (actor)[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No awards, only nominations. No meaningful biographical content. No independent reliable sourcing. Just a DOB and a list. PROD removed without edit summary or talk page explanation by SPA. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 23:10, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 23:10, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing to suggest better satisfying the applicable notability guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 08:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 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 15:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing but nominations and nothing else of notability. Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 17:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable pronographic film actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:50, 23 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 List of Penthouse Pets. (non-admin closure) Ya sh ! 03:04, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hanna Hilton[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No qualifying awards, only nominations and Employee-of-the-Month type "honors" from businesses promoting their own products/websites. No independent reliable sourcing. No real assertion of notability. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Penthouse Pets - After doing some more research on the subject under consideration here, there does not appear to be enough notability for a stand-alone article at this time. Guy1890 (talk) 04:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I suppose if that is better than simply deleting, either way, there's nothing to suggest a solidly better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 19:45, 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 15:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as recommended above. She not notable enough for her own article. Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 17:36, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet notability guidelines for pornographic actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:19, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Guess it's better than deleting .... although I would prefer deletion1 .–Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 22:38, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:49, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of bondage models by decade[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Moribund and virtually empty list. Previous AFD closed as no consensus, and efforts to improve the list and make it BLP-compliant have effectively depopulated it. Nobody's been able to come up with inclusion criteria that would create a nontrivial list, without ending up with entries for any entertainer who's ever played a tied-up character, from Pearl White to Keifer Sutherland. Time to put this out of its misery. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seriously, why is this completely indiscriminate list still around? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete indiscriminate list that is not helpful or encyclopedic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:39, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comments in the first AFD. postdlf (talk) 20:46, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Should've been deleted the first time round!, Unencyclopedic list that belongs anywhere but here! .–Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 22:36, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:35, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yogilates[edit]

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

Not notable. Alexbrn (talk) 14:25, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I could find no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Non-notable. Citobun (talk) 14:56, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. A google search did not reveal any coverage by reliable secondary sources (though a Google news search turned up a few Portuguese language articles that may mention the topic). At this time, this article does not pass WP:GNG, and deletion is appropriate. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:30, 22 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) 04:59, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cali The Producer[edit]

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

There is no evidence that the subject comes anywhere near to satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. None of the cited sources does more than mention "Cali the producer" briefly in passing or include him in a credit list, and searching for sources has failed to find any significant coverage of him.

To illustrate the nature of the cited sources, the first four are as follows. [1] A page about Chris Brown releasing a recording, in which the only mention of "Cali the producer" is "Encore une fois, l'artiste fait confiance à Cali The Producer, qui a déjà collaboré avec Drake". (Translation: "Again, the artist puts trust in Cali The Producer, who has already collaborated with Drake".) [2] A page about a Justin Bieber recording, the only mention of "Cali" being "produced by Cali The Producer and Skrillex". [3] A page about another Chris Brown recording, which includes "Producer: Cali The Producer" in a list of credits, and says "Cali The Producer handles production on the record". [4] A download page for a ringtone, the only mention of him being a statement that the record from which the ringtone tune was taken was "produced by Sebastian Johannes Fuchs, better known as Cali The Producer". The rest of the references are similar, and it didn't seem worth the effort of writing out a description of every one of them.

To illustrate the nature of what internet searches turned up, the first page of hits from a Google search for "Cali the producer" were as follows. This Wikipedia article; Twitter; Instagram; Facebook; YouTube; YouTube again; a page on Soundcloud which merely says "No tracks found for cali the producer" and that is all; a page on a site called "ink361.com" which is just a tool to access and organise pictures on Instagram; a forum post which asks whether the claims made about Cali the Producer on Wikipedia are genuine or whether he is "a robot who edits wiki pages to seem successful". The next couple of pages of hits are not much better: there are a few download sites, more pages giving his name in credits, etc etc, but nothing of the kind required by Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's nothing at all to suggest a better notable article for the applicable guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 08:22, 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 15:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the nominator has done extensive searches to prove no significant coverage exists. LibStar (talk) 13:59, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt: A repeatedly-created article about a non-notable person. The articles creator also goes around to different articles, crediting him with work he's never partook in. EG, Cali is never mentioned in the physical album booklet for Free TC, but the article creator insists he worked on three tracks. His official twitter also links to this article in the 'website' box, there is clearly a conflict of interest here, I'd go as far as to say that the article's creator is Cali the Producer. Azealia911 _talk 06:23, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:34, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ULMA Construction[edit]

(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:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. I don't see any good references, GNews is full of PRWeb stuff, and one or two mentions in passing, nothing in Books. I'd have prodded it, but since it's a Spanish company, maybe some Spanish speaker can find some reliable Spanish coverage? For now, as I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this looks like a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - None of this currently suggests a better notable article and this current article looks more like their personal website, rather than a better encyclopedia article. There's nothing to suggest fully satisfying the applicable notability guidelines yet. SwisterTwister talk 08:49, 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 15:27, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete looks suspiciously like an advertisement created by someone with a possible conflict of interest. LibStar (talk) 15:54, 21 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) 14:14, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Goldenberg Institute[edit]

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

None of the third party references are about the institute. Paul Charles Dubois is notable; Goldenberger probably is a;so, but that doesn't mean the institute is . DGG ( talk ) 06:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:25, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:25, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:25, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:25, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The argumentation "pro deleting" is based on a false perception and misleading. As a matter of fact is not true that none of the third party references is about the institute. There are three (!) newspaper articles included as references, which is - compared to entries about other institution - quite something. Just compare it to the C.G. Jung Institute. The Goldenberg Institute has more proof of relevance in comparison to this and many other articles. Furthermore, it's a non-profit organization. So also PR should not be an issue here. As the "no external reference claim" is wrong, I kindly ask for WP:WDAFD (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Withdrawing_a_nomination). rgds -Andreas Parker (talk) 09:34, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of the three articles mentioned by Andreas Parker, one is not retrievable, neither via the indicated link nor through the search function of the Huffington Post page. The other two articles contain only trivial mentions of the organization, but no substantial coverage. There is no independent, verifiable source for any of the information on the organization; their own website obviously can't be regarded as such. Full disclosure: The corresponding article in the German wikipedia has been deleted today on my initiative. I would recommend to do it here, too. -- Framhein (talk) 21:21, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User Framheim's information is correct. However, the decision made by the German colleagues can also be considered as wrong. The Goldenberg Institute is a privately funded, nonprofit research entity, small but this is not an unusal fact in the field of psychology. But this is a German thing, a cultural issue. They trust only "the state" and state appproved entities with a lot of offical stamps and certificates. So I assume the German decision to delete the German version is linked to the fact that the Goldenberg Institute is a private academic initiative which is sort of an oxymoron in German thinking. Ok, that's their culture, may it be. But the Goldenberg Institute is not only active in Germany, it has ties to the UK, the US and Russia. So this is not a German matter at all and it's quite upsetting that the Germans want to impose their false decision to the English Wikipedia. It's more than irritating that a German editor who normally doesn't contribute to the English Wikipedia continues his vendetta against this topic around the globe. Very interesting, indeed, and very very German. Now, back to the facts: As it may be true that the public perception of the Institute is relatively low, the same is true for the C.G. Jung Institute in Zurich which nobody tries to delete from anywhere. The Goldenberg Institut is nothing else. If the C.G. Jung Institute may exist in Wikipedia, the Goldenberg Institute should be treated equally. The C.G. Jung Institute is not more notable than the Goldenberg Institute, it is even commercial, which the Goldenberg Institute is not! It shares the typical features of many small research groups in the field of psychology. There is nothing abnormal compared to other such institutes, they all contribute to science. That's typical in psychology, which is - outside the universities - a matter of a lot of research done in small institutions. What's more: there is also no commercial aspect on the institutes site, no classes to book, no lecture to buy, nothing. I accept the decision of the German colleagues, but is was a false one. May it not be repeated here. Thanks --Andreas Parker (talk) 21:42, 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 15:27, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just one more hint towards the fact that the Goldenberg Institut is notable enough for Wikipedia. Just have a look at the Board of Directors and Trustees. It reads like a "who is who" of science and society (from Harvard professor to Vatican's scientist) and the projects of this whole thing are nonprofit, altruistic etc. (English version). Again, the deletion of the article in the German Wikipedia was a huge mistake, based on the above mentioned cultural reasons. Let at least take the international Wikipedia the right decision and not repeat the German way of destructing everything that is not state run. --Andreas Parker (talk) 14:28, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons for deletion from the German wikipedia are set out here: It didn't happen for dubious "cultural issues", but for lack of notability with a complete absence of external perception and sources (a standard, by the way, which I do not want to "impose" upon the English wikipedia in some imaginary "vendetta", but which I expected to be shared across all language versions). The references to articles published in the Huffington Post weren't considered as external because they all stem from authors of a "collective" called "Psychologie aktuell", which shows a substantial personal overlap with the Goldenberg Institute. I agree with this assessment, as the two organizations do not only share much of their leading personnel, but also (until two weeks ago) the same adress and even (until now) identical tax IDs. Neither do I hold the referenced book by Darius Barsfeld to be a relevant independent source, as he is co-founder and honorary president of the Goldenberg Institute and even owns the proprietary trade mark "Goldenberg". And as to their purportedly non-commercial nature, they tellingly admit on their website that they "support our members’ professional development". While there is of course nothing wrong with such an endeavour, it casts some doubt on repetitous claims of a purely altruistic motivation. -- Framhein (talk) 23:19, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, even after your (again very German) obsessive research we come back to the key question: what is the problem? We have here a small institution with a purpose that should be not be too difficult to understand. Look here and learn. You will find these issues with ALL privately run research institutions. You see a personal overlap, so yes, I see it as well. Almost all scientists earn money from jobs in the private sector and do altruistic work as well. So what in the world is so weird that some people who earn their money with one business on the one hand run an altruistic research institution on the other hand. Again, we have so many examples like the so often mentioned C.G. Jung Institut which is purely, extremely and totally commercial, but notable enough for Wikipedia. On the Goldenberg site: no commercial content, no classes, nothing to sell, none, nothing, zero. But you bring up as an argument a personal "overlap" with a company which is not the issue here. But, wait a second: This article is not about some other "collective" (or whatever), which by the way (I can also read) declares on its page that it supports whom? Wikipedia!

But back to our main topic: This all is not about a publishing collective or a book of some completely unimportant author or the trademark Goldenberg. (This guy, by the way, seems NOT to be a President of the institute, but to be only some honorary board member. You should at least read the website properly). If you wouldn't have wasted your time with tax IDs (again such a terrible German attitude of sticking your nose into other peoples private business), you could have done what I did: read what the projects of the Goldenberg Institutes are. And wonder, oh wonder, you will find NOTHING commercial, nothing, zero. And this third class author you mention is not the topic of the institute. This guy seems to have lent the name to them or whatever, but the projects you find are far beyond any commercial use. Because if you would have read the site (instead "German stalking" other people's tax data) you would have had the chance to understand what these guys really do: research. Privately funded. So this is about an institute that clearly declares that its goals are research issues, not commerce - with a mostly notable board of trustees. But you, instead, are doubting the notability of a private academy in whose directorate world class people play a role with what? With the argument that there is an overlap with a publishing "collective" that supports Wikipedia?! Eh, wait a minute: That's neither illegal nor strange. This is cool. So what I can see in your argumentation is still only this typical German "everything private is evil attitude". And now you want to convince the rest of planet earth that the German man knows it best, again. Well, you seem to be, sorry to say that, strangely obsessed with fighting this topic. Why don't you invest your energy in the misuse of the C.G. Jung Institute's presence on Wikipedia which is purely commercial. Instead you do an indepth research into a harmless topic and construct a non-notability case with very clever pseudo-logical thought chains, because of some personal overlap? And even if - it's not the fact if you ask me - but even in case the Goldenberg Institute was commercial: what's the point? It is a research institute, dealing with psychological topics that others ignore, and all this with a very notable board, at least in parts. Sorry, it's not meant as an insult. But your argumentation is so out of this world that it may make sense in Germany, but not in the real world. Honestly, you cannot deny three simple facts:

1) This Goldenberg Institute is a research institute into topics others don't deal with, 2) has a partly very notably board of trustees. 3) is most likely non-commercial, although there seem to be an overlap with a writer's collective that supports Wikipedia.

So what the h**** is the problem? And most of all: what are your personal interests in this matter? Mine are that I have been admiring Paul Charles Dubois, the guy that these guys do reasearch about, since I studied medical psychiatry in the 1980ies. I am thrilled by the fact that researchers deal with a topic that nobody else touches because it promises no merits. Dubois is a experts-only topic, you can only lose money with topics like him. I have been working in bio-medical research since 1988, I know what I'm talking about. No normal human being would voluntarily deal with this matter unless it is due to antiquarianism.

So, tell us, what is YOUR reason that makes you twisting the facts here? I can only assume that there IS a personal vendetta between you and them going on in real life. Otherwise I would consider it sort of pathological stalking that you do such NSA like snooping into tax and address data only to prove what? That these people do other things as well? That's sick, somehow... Now I would recommend some non-German wise person somewhere from planet earth to decide the fate of this article. Because I strongly doubt that user Framheim's discussion with me will get much nicer if we continue.

My points are:

1) This intitute is notable since it deals with scientific topics that are "orphan" topics.

2) Dealing with Dubois, Goldberg etc. is as such a precious scientific work, whatever the outcome may be, because nobody else does it.

3) The Institute itself claims publicly to be non-profit (and it wouldn't even be a problem if it were) which is legally binding under German law and offers NO (zero) commercial products on its site.

4) The Intitute directors seem to work for a (partly?) commercial publishing collective, too. But that is not the issue here. People often do more than one thing.

5) The trustee board is loaded with highly notable people. (See here)

Pls. would now a non-German person bring this charade to a satisfactory outcome and a dignified result without using twisted arguments. Thank you and cheers. --Andreas Parker (talk) 02:00, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the sources establish notability from an independent perspective, nor are the sources really saying much about the institute at all. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:28, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As currently sourced the article clearly does not pass notability criteria. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent sources (mainly some mentions on Books), to help out. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:04, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:33, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MeriMoney[edit]

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

Obvious advertising, less than a year old. JTtheOG (talk) 04:00, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Based on my web searches, no evidence of notability for this company. Altamel (talk) 06:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 16:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 16:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete: An unreferenced article on an online service. No evidence of attained notability; fails WP:NWEB, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 12:31, 23 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 Serval#Subspecies. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:15, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cape serval[edit]

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

Looks like a hoax — WP:DEL6. I could not find any evidence that this subspecies is extinct. If the article describes the whole species, then it is a fork of Serval — WP:DEL5. Тилик-тилик (talk) 21:47, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 December 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:13, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:59, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to redirect Not a hoax. If at least one other subspecies as recognized, then Leptailurus serval serval must be recognized. It looks like multiple subspecies are usually recognized (but there are some authorities that don't recognize any). But that's taxonomy, not encyclopedia building. I think it is rarely a good idea to have articles on subspecies; they usually differ from each other by minor details of range and morphology and can be easily discussed in the article on the species. That doesn't mean subspecies articles are automatically forks of the species articles; in rare cases, they may be appropriate. In this case, we seem to only have an article on one subspecies, so I don't think there's any great harm in turning the article into a redirect to Serval. If somebody does come along and create articles on other serval subspecies, then this could be restored. Plantdrew (talk) 19:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:12, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:12, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:06, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Free Egyptian Army[edit]

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

Most likely a hoax rebel group.[23] Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:51, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:25, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:25, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:10, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best as none of this suggests even minimally better general notability. Notifying tagger MrX in case he's not aware of this current AfD. SwisterTwister talk 07:01, 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 15:26, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete deceptive attempt by the Egyptian regime to smear the supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood (Qatar, Turkey) and to incite public outcry against them. News articles on this alleged group appear solely on websites with a pro-Egyptian government slant, similar to the hoax opposition figure Khalid AlHail (soon to be nominated) which was fabricated by Egyptian newspaper Youm7. Elspamo4 (talk) 23:44, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are several news article suggesting that this group may exist, for example here, but none of them cover the subject in any real depth. The suject fails WP:ORGDEPTH.- Mr X 01:45, 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) 14:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dhe Chef[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability_(media)#Programming Only 4 episodes where aired till this time. Josu4u (talk) 17:32, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 19:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 19:44, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:07, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This cooking reality series claim to be the largest cooking reality in South-India as per the sources from [24]. --87.109.251.176 (talk) 16:21, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment [25] The channel which is broadcasting (IE; Mazhavil Manorama and the online newspaper (IE; Manorama Online) are from same management - Malayala Manorama. So I'm not trusting this reference Josu4u (talk) 16:36, 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 15:26, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as probable copyvio; all major contributors (and also the IP !voting keep above) appear to be sockpuppets of User:Arshad Roshan.a.a. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:52, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - other than the non-independent coverage from its parent company, not seeing enough in-depth coverage from other sources to support notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:07, 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 speedy delete. Deleted as the creation of a block evading user. No comment on notability. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:21, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aparna Vinod[edit]

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

Fails WP:Notability_(people)#Entertainers. Josu4u (talk) 17:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Objection.... The article Aparna Vinod is all about the biography of an Indian Actress and she appeared in multiple notable films which is an assertion of notability. A similar article for this - Gayathri Suresh who is also a Film Actress. --The Indian Wisher (talk) 17:32, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 19:44, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 19:44, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best as there's hardly much from only two films to suggest better notability and improvement. SwisterTwister talk 06:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources present in the article are actually enough to prove the notability of this actress, but just for the show I will add these two excellent sources in Malayalam, which I found without much effort: filmi beat kerala kaumudi. Regards, Biwom (talk) 17:02, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:21, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about keralakaumudi.com, but filmibeat is not WP:RS. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:14, 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 15:25, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject is only an upcoming actress and fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR at this point.It is case of WP:TOOSOON. Separately G5 is applicable as the article has been created by the sock of an indef blocked user as per this SPI report.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:48, 23 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 Skulduggery_Pleasant_(series)#Gold.2C_Babies_And_The_Brothers_Muldoon. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 23:32, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gold, Babies And The Brothers Muldoon[edit]

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

Unsourced book related article, no references to indicate this subject's importance. Salimfadhley (talk) 16:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:21, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Skulduggery_Pleasant_(series)#Gold.2C_Babies_And_The_Brothers_Muldoon. I can't find anything to show that this novella is notable outside of the series itself. It seems to have never gained any true coverage other than a mention here and there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:51, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:51, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Skulduggery_Pleasant_(series)#Gold.2C_Babies_And_The_Brothers_Muldoon as per Tokyogirl79. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:51, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:25, 21 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 Miss Oregon USA#Winners. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 23:33, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bridget Wilmes[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article reads in it entirety:

"Bridget Wilmes is an American actress, model and beauty pageant titleholder. She attended Texas Christian University from 2011 to 2015.

Wilmes was crowned Miss Oregon USA 2015.^[1] She represented Oregon at Miss USA 2015.^[2]

Wilmes is a model and actress. She is represented by the SLU commercial modeling and talent agency in Portland.^[3]^[4]"

According to WP:NOPAGE this basic info is best placed in context on a list - which you will find at the articles for each pageant she participated in. The article was part of a bulk AfD that closed with a request to individually deal with them. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madison Guthrie More reasons [26] This stand alone bio also fails WP:NMODEL and WP:15MOF Legacypac (talk) 13:11, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Miss Oregon USA Bridget Wilmes". KATU.com. Retrieved 5 February 2015.
^ "Miss Oregon USA crowns winner in Portland". OregonLive.com. Retrieved 5 February 2015.
^ "Perfect 'fit for a' QUEEN". Pamplin Media Group. Retrieved 5 February 2015.
^ "Explore Talent Acting Profile - Bridget Wilmes - 21 years old Acting - Portland OR 97013 - ExploreTalent.com". exploretalent.com. Retrieved 5 February 2015.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note she apparently is not a model as the link to her modeling page is already dead. Legacypac (talk) 10:34, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Article was originally nominated as part of a long list of other beauty pageant contestants in January by the same nominator, so the original nomination is a redirect to the main discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madison Guthrie. For the second nomination, Legacypac edited the original discussion page/redirect rather than creating a new page as should have been done. I have copypasted the discussion to here, reverted the first discussion page back to the previous redirect, and edited the article and log pages accordingly. Pinging @Legacypac: and @Gene93k: as previous editors of the first discussion. I'll remain neutral on the nomination itself. --Finngall ^talk 18:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I overrode the redirect and supplied a link to the bulk delete discussion. Your solution is more elegent so thank-you for that. Legacypac (talk) 20:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect to Miss Oregon USA#Winners, as suggested by the nom and for the usual reasons of plausibility, cheapness, and the like. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:32, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:24, 21 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:31, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Amswych[edit]

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

Subject has 1,580 Google hits, mainly blogs and some sort of a fantasy game he's a fan of. His coverage in the media is limited to non-independent sources like synagogue websites and several minor articles he published in newspapers. The user who created the article (and made three edits in total) is "Eco-faith", the name of Amswych's own website. Has a notability tag since 2012. AddMore der Zweite (talk) 11:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I viewed each of the 9 refs in this article, tedious huh? Two 404s, two trivial, five primary. Szzuk (talk) 22:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- My attitude is to judge an article, assuming it to be true. If the man were a Christian minister, pastoring a local church and engaging in some activism on the side, would I think him notable? No: the fact that he is a rabbi, not a pastor should make no difference: obviously NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:28, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:30, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hridayapoorvam (Album)[edit]

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

Fails : WP:Music. Not even any references from any notable News portals. Josu4u (talk) 11:29, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:07, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NALBUMS, a non-notable release. Also qualifies for CSD under A9. Azealia911 _talk 18:49, 22 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 Miss Idaho USA#Winners. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 23:33, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Claira Hollingsworth[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article reads in it entirety:

"Claira Hollingsworth was crowned Miss Idaho USA 2015.[1] She represented Idaho at the Miss USA 2015 pageant but Unplaced.[2] She won the title of Miss Teen Idaho USA in a previous year. Hollingsworth is one of only three women to win both the Miss Teen Idaho USA title and the Miss Idaho USA title.[3] In 2010 Hollingsworth was named the Idaho State High School Rodeo queen on June 19, 2010.[4]"

According to WP:NOPAGE this basic info is best placed in context on a list - which you will find at the articles for each pageant she participated in. I was able to find a little more info, but it does not help justify an article. Her pet raccoon might be kind of cool but not encyclopedic. Her planned career of dental hygiene is unlikely to gain her enough notability for a Wikipedia article in the future. [27] The article was part of a bulk AfD that closed with a request to individually deal with them. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madison Guthrie More reasons [28] Legacypac (talk) 06:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:25, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:25, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Article was originally nominated as part of a long list of other beauty pageant contestants in January by the same nominator, so the original nomination is a redirect to the main discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madison Guthrie. For the second nomination, Legacypac edited the original discussion page/redirect rather than creating a new page as should have been done. I have copypasted the discussion to here, reverted the first discussion page back to the previous redirect, and edited the article and log pages accordingly. Pinging @Legacypac: and @Gene93k: as previous editors of the first discussion. I'll remain neutral on the nomination itself. --Finngall ^talk 04:49, 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 02:53, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Has been subject of significant press coverage in major newspapers in Idaho, multiple times.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:50, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss Idaho USA#Winners, as suggested by the nom and for the usual reasons of plausibility, cheapness, and the like. My musings at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucy Fleck are also "per" here (and boil down to WP:BLP1E). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:31, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:16, 21 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:13, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brian H. Robb[edit]

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO. No significant coverage, no awards, no widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his specific field. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:56, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Brian H Robb is the director of prestigious cbcalliance - Coldwell Banker and enough news articles about him is presented in the article including from The Washington Times , Bizjournals.com etc. Moreover the Afd tag is placed by the user ,who tried to blank the page and speed the wikipage accusing some other reason. But here he is telling another reason towards deleting this page. Always :) (talk) 14:18, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete: Non-notable per WP:1E - the lawsuit seems to be his only claim to notability. Kolbasz (talk) 15:13, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ajmal Kasab is a terrorist responsible for 2008 Mumbai attacks alone and why should a terrorist have a wiki page ??? and here Brian H Robb is the director of a prestigious cbcalliance as well. Always :) (talk) 15:25, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:1E didnt tell , you can't create wiki for person's like Brian H Robb. Instead it says if substantial news reference from main stram news website is thr, it can be created. his lawsuit, which later revealed the corruption in Education Management Corporation - has lot of relevant links from main stream medias and it was a big news, also the CEO of Education Management Corporation resigned due to the lawsuit settlement.

Always :) (talk) 15:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Whilst I agree that the subject probably does not meet the criteria for notability - his notoriety seems to be entirely based on one court case - it also does seem to me that there may be an ulterior motive for wanting the article deleted. Deb (talk) 16:09, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being involved in a lawsuit is not a criterion for notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:57, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of notability. The secondary sources focus on the event rather than the person. --bonadea contributions talk 08:42, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This article's creator, User:Alwayssmileguys, has been blocked indefinitely for paid editing. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:32, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sorely fails WP:BASIC and I can't find sources to ameliorate that. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:06, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Magnolia677 fails WP:GNG sources are more about the event rather than the subject.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:56, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's hardly much convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 17:33, 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) Ya sh ! 03:02, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abba Gumel[edit]

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

Abba Gumel does not want his information on Wikipedia. He see it as a violation and will like the page deleted. At the appropriate time, he will setup a page as necessary. Osharomi (talk) 12:52, 21 December 2015 (UTC) Creating deletion discussion for Abba Gumel[reply]

Keep. Holder of a named chair at a major university, so meets WP:PROF. It is not the subject's choice whether or not they have an article and it is not in any way a "violation". -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:17, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. I disagree with you Necrothesp, the fact that he is a holder of a named chair at a major university does not give you or anyone right to put his information on wiki. It is just a violation as I said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osharomi (talk • contribs) 16:08, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you'll find it's up to consensus among Wikipedia editors who or what has an article and not the subject. As long as the information is accurate there is no violation involved (whatever that may mean). Stating someone exists and who they are is not a violation. Striking your vote as nominator. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:15, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Striking vote from nominator -- the nominator is presumed to already be voting for deletion. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 20:14, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~This is funny. I thought that is why Universities have webpages to handle information about Professors/Chairs. If I decided to take your picture with that of your family members from facebook and created a wikipage because I want to show that you exist (Would that be fine or be considered a violation). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osharomi (talk • contribs) 18:12, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Striking second delete vote by same user). -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 20:07, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 17:21, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 17:21, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- courtesy delete is allowed per WP:BIODEL -- this is definitely a pass of notability via WP:PROF by the named chair and certainly WP has the right to keep correct information online where there is no copyright violation (hence why you can't take someone else's photograph from facebook and pass it around, but you can take a photo that shows me in it and put it on the net.) But I think that this fits in with the non-public clause that allows for a deletion. However, we do not have a request from Abba Gumel himself, and this statement "At the appropriate time, he will setup a page as necessary" suggests that a deletion of this page will be replaced by a page without WP:NPOV. I think it will be a pain to keep up, not worth the effort of defending, and thus a delete is much easier; however, per precedent, this page is definitely a Keep however. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 20:14, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ If it is about the fact that he holds the position of a named chair, then remove his name and use the named chair portfolio (with him holding it for now). A lot of holders of named chair at major universities are out there and they are not been profiled on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osharomi (talk • contribs) 22:01, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Striking fourth delete vote by nominator -- I'll ask this to be closed as a WP:POINT nomination if these repeated votes continue. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 00:08, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Abba Gumel is not a particularily notable person, I see no reason not to remove this page, if it is against their wishes to have one. EllsworthSchmittendorf (talk) 23:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While it has an invalid rationale, this vote means that we can't speedy close the discussion. Nyttend (talk) 02:54, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The holder of a named chair at a major state university in the USA is easily notable. We could still delete on other grounds, as summarised at WP:TNT, but (1) that's for junk articles of various sorts, and this one is respectable, and (2) such a deletion doesn't address notability grounds, so anyone could create a new article on the guy immediately. Nyttend (talk) 02:39, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF#C1 (highly cited publications in a low-citation field) as well as #C5 (the named chair). The publication impact is borderline enough that I'd be willing to follow the subject's preference if notability were based only on it, but the named chair is unambiguous. And the deletion statement (especially the part about "he will setup a page" seems to reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is and how it works — it is not a hosting site for you to write about yourself, nor should the subject of an article have direct control over it. As for the article being a "violation": obviously if the subject sees and can articulate specific problems with it then those should be cleaned up, but it looks unobjectionable to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:50, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Is notable a holder of a named chair at a major North American university. (Also per WP:PROF#C1 see above)- Ret.Prof (talk) 13:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by DGG, CSD G3: Blatant hoax. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:29, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Plaque, Winnipeg[edit]

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

The article was Prodded and that was removed. There is no indication this concrete driveway in anyway will meet notability guidelines. I can't find any reliable sources that discuss this driveway. -- GB fan 11:39, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Utter drivel. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:19, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Necrothesp, what speedy deletion criterion do you propose we use? -- GB fan 15:46, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Looks like A11 to me. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's an article about someone's driveway. Brought a few moments of humour into my life but it's not notable (Google returned nothing relevant) Neiltonks (talk) 16:16, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 17:25, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, seems to be A11 - article creator User:RobLab identifies themselves on their userpage as Robert Labossiere, and the article is about the Labossiere family driveway on which "Robert and Tim talk[ed] after school, often until dinnertime". No sources, and no explanation as to why the driveway of a Winnipeg school inspector (identical to all other driveways in the neighbourhood except that the Labossiere family used a French word to refer to it?) deserves recording in an encyclopedia. --McGeddon (talk) 18:16, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete. Personal history, sounds like something Guy Maddin might include in the long-awaited sequel to My Winnipeg. The article does make a pretense of claiming the driveway is unusual for its "floating slab" construction, but it's unsourced and unconvincing. At this point, given the multiple editors who've taken the time to respond here, I'd prefer to see this as a snow delete on the merits, with full effect, rather than a peremptory deletion under A11. But whatever. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:43, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently this is where I am to defend proposed deletion of this page. I am a newbee. This is confusing. Please be gentle.

Initially McGedden said it was not refer to a sufficient "notable" landmark. I replied "notable to whom," raising a question, not an opposition, as to who determines notability and questioning how local vs official history is to be represented, even encouraged here on Wikipedia.

Then D'Superhero proposed rapid deletion, on new grounds, the article is too "short." Really.

Judging from Mr. D's talk page, he is a controversial type, prone to flaming, possibly someone Wikipedia would exactly be pround of. I'm not judging, just saying. If 3 or 4 responders are telling you you're wrong, quoting Wikipedia scripture, well, I'm a newbee, that looks fairly damning.

So what's a fella to do? I would appreciate guidance. "The Plaque" is admittedly not a huge deal for me. I think it's interesting, as a phenomon, historically, and maybe it's significance will grow in recognition over time, not so much in itself but as a totem of a time, a place, people and the meanings they carried with them. What else is an encyclopedia for? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobLab (talk • contribs) 01:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Afraid I missed your reply on the article talk page. Someone really should have pointed you at Wikipedia's notability guideline by now, apologies for not doing so. In summary, Wikipedia articles are on subjects "that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time". We could all research and write personal essays on our childhood haunts, but if those places had no wider significance (basically: no coverage in the press or published books), such writings don't belong in this encyclopedia. --McGeddon (talk) 08:55, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

okay, suddenly I see a bunch of other "talk." I do appreciate the attention. Really, it's such a small part of history. But therefore excludable? Says who? My father was not merely a "school inspector " but a senior bureaucrat in the Department of Education. Someone could use some help with reading. The Maddin reference made me smile. Gimli boy done good. His flic "My Winnipeg" made me laugh out loud, on an airplane. Maddin, however, is not joking, either. History is how we construct it, and I would like to do so here. Also, plaques are not as also commented, common in suburbia. In fact, they are rare. I will do some research and substantiate as much as I can in the article, if you would give me just half a chance. Don't you folks have jobs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobLab (talk • contribs) 01:51, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

wow, really, I just spend an hour plus trying to substantiate my article with links and what not and you just ride over them... wow, i'm stunned — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobLab (talk • contribs) 03:07, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by this? You mention the same "lost edits" being overwritten by somebody else's alert, on my talk page, but the article hasn't been edited by anyone in that time.

If you've got a couple of links that back up the notability of the Plaque (a local press clipping, a few paragraphs in a history book, an award), by all means paste them as raw links here and that will likely be enough to see the article kept. --McGeddon (talk) 09:35, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:12, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Not remotely notable by Wikipedia's standards. Graham (talk) 03:30, 23 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 snow close/speedy delete. I'm snow closing this because I can't see this ending other way and also because it's a clear copyvio from here. Given that there was such a problem with socking, I'm salting the page for the book and the author. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:34, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Theory of Creator[edit]

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

Non-notable book. As far as I can tell, it has received no coverage whatsoever. Kolbasz (talk) 11:02, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Kolbasz (talk) 11:31, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. I cannot find any sources that indicate the notability of this book whatsoever. For that matter, I cannot find anything notable about the author either. An argument can be made for speedily deleting both articles. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:09, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

Comment: The AfD template has now been removed from the page ~~4 times~~ 5 times. The page and related talk page are being 'interefered with' (blanking and 'fake' protection templates) by about 3 SPA editors (including the page creator) and one IP. FYI. 220 of ^Borg 17:16, 21 December 2015 (UTC) updated 220 of ^Borg 17:35, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI re the SPAs: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Surbhipatel. Kolbasz (talk) 17:39, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt, does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK, a search has revealed nothing, article references are to publisher, a case of WP:PROMOTION? ditto for author article. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:31, 21 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 article is already speedy deleted as WP:G3. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:07, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nahla Rowe (singer)[edit]

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

This article seems to be (or based on) a well-organised hoax, possibly interwoven with aspects of this person's life that are real. Let's take the intro:

Her self titled debut album was released in October of 2006 and went on to peak at number 5 on the Billboard 200 chart, eventually selling 2 million copies worldwide. The album produced two Billboard Hot 100 entries, including the Top 20 hit "Typical Love Story".

Well, I can find no evidence that this album exists. I can find a YouTube video uploaded a week ago claiming to be this person performing a song 'Typical Love Story' but searching the lyrics reveals that this song is actually 'Love Story', a minor R&B hit by Katharine McPhee from 2007. The same uploader, under the name '90s Throwback' has uploaded several other 'Nahla Rowe' songs which all also seem to be obscure R&B songs by other artists. I have contacted the page creator, Musicbiblegod on their talk page but they have not replied. I can also find a Twitter page and photographs attributed to this person, but I have no evidence that it has ever interacted with anyone. There's a photo on Wikimedia Commons of them uploaded a few months back by another burner account, User:Fashionhousedaily, so we're dealing with multiple burner accounts if this is a hoax. - Blythwood (talk) 09:43, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On balance, since this is just so blatant, upgraded to speedy delete, but keeping this content here for background. Blythwood (talk) 10:20, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - creator keeps removing templates, including AfD. She does appear to be a fashion designer, but the article about her music career and being discovered by Clive Davis, Billboard hits etc is pure hoax. —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:52, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I removed them because this is simply ridiculous. Rowe's album is still on itunes and every other outlet, as I cited on the page, along with additional sources. this is the itunes link: https://itunes.apple.com/album/id1068232479?ls=1&app=itunes Musicbiblegod (talk) 10:55, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Article speedily deleted as hoax, user blocked (three hours only) —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Have opened a sockpuppet investigation on the page creator in case they've done this before. Blythwood (talk) 11:06, 21 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. Never close on one !vote but sources are fine and cites of any language can be used .... You can't always expect English news articles on foreign subjects.... (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 23:36, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mucahit Bilici[edit]

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

delete: After cleaning up this article to get a good look at what remains after the removal of unreferenced padding, and having searched the internet to see what the subject has been doing, I am convinced that he does not meet notability requirements. He's an academic, but that certainly doesn't bring notability by itself. He has published a book, which does not seem to have made any great or lasting impact, and a few articles that aren't widely cited. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 09:40, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he's well-known in Turkey (it's the same guy - compare his photo) -[29][30][31][32][33] —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:43, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear —Мандичка, thank you. But do you have sources in English that might help non-Turkish-speaking editors make a decision. Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 11:16, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. You don't need sources in English. Just use Google translate and you can see the articles are about him. —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:18, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After translating the sources I can see he writes some columns and blogs in Turkey. Is this sufficient to establish notability. I don't think so. But let's see what other editors think. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 04:54, 22 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} 23:36, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where Fear and Weapons Meet[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:BAND for all 12 criteria. The few sources available online were of such a similar nature that they were likely either self-published or reworded from a single, unreferenced source (in these cases, most likely the band.) The band having at one time, with no indication as to when, had members that went on to other more notable bands does not make this band notable. Abovethestorm (talk) 09:13, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Vanamonde93 (talk) 09:47, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Well, there's local coverage: [34] from Miami New Times and [35] and [36] from New Times Broward-Palm Beach. But one of them is just a top 10 list of best local bands. Also, [37] from Exclaim!, [38] and [39] from Punknews.org. Many of the sources I found are either local or very short, so I'd like to hear what others think. I think I'm better at finding sources for heavy metal bands, so maybe there's more out there. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:10, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 17:27, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources listed above (one of which, Exclaim!, is international coverage), along with Allmusic biography, plus several releases on noteworthy independent punk rock labels. Methinks a look into back issues of paper punk magazines of the day (e.g. Maximum Rocknroll, Punk Planet) would likely turn up more. Chubbles (talk) 21:40, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as well as the above coverage is enough for a better article. SwisterTwister talk 05:31, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources I found seem adequate. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:05, 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 speedy deleted G11. (non-admin closure) shoy (reactions) 16:11, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

V R Sharma[edit]

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

Does not meet wp:notabiltiy criteria, even the new information is pass by mention Shrikanthv (talk) 09:03, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - I think it's safe to say that the article's subject is clearly not notable, and the SD of the article would not be controversial and therefore doesn't require an AfD. I'll tag the article for CSD. CatcherStorm ^talk 09:43, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Vanamonde93 (talk) 09:49, 21 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. (NAC) (non-admin closure) Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 15:47, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Choate[edit]

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

Not notable. Never played past college. Only a college coach, has yet to reach the NFL. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:59, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Light keep - Being the headcoach of a notable college football team probably grants some degree of notability. It's good to have the coach's page before his future prospects (if he has any) in the future. You never know, he might move onto the NFL. CatcherStorm ^talk 08:27, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My presumption is that the head coach of a Division I FCS program will likely pass WP:GNG. Choate was just hired as a head coach two weeks ago. There was significant coverage of his hiring and will likely be additional coverage as his head coaching career progresses. Examples of recent significant coverage include this from The Seattle Times and this from USA Today.
Keep. Head coach of a Division 1 (FCS) program, there's sufficient coverage already to pass GNG and support the article, including the sources cited above and others such as [40]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:57, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a WP:GNG pass, per Cbl62 and Arxiloxos. An NCAA Division I head football coach is notable. Ejgreen77 (talk) 01:40, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 08:36, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zaarly[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I noticed this instantly after DGG (who also coincidentally tagged it from July 2013) deleted and added again this article and, as I concur it seems questionably notable and improvable, I have nominated it myself. My searches found nothing better than a few passing mentions with "Zaarly company" at News, Books, browsers and Highbeam but certainly nothing to suggest a better notable article yet. Notifying past AfDers Bonadea, AllyD and Ceyockey. SwisterTwister talk 07:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. there are many of these articles from earlier years that need review. The most recent item other than a mention I can find is [41], from the Denver Post, but Iconsider it a press release. DGG ( talk ) 07:58, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - little to no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Citobun (talk) 08:07, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and above comments. CatcherStorm ^talk 08:33, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Delete no significant reliable coverage that I can find. Vanamonde93 (talk) 08:35, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG clearly lacks third party sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:46, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:08, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Approaches of management[edit]

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

An OR essay without a single source FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:17, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOR, WP:V, etc. The topic is clearly a notable one; however, the page "Management" already exists, and though in bad shape, has more sources than this one does. Vanamonde93 (talk) 08:43, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In addition to the problems with WP:OR and WP:V, this is also a WP:CONTENTFORK with project management. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:05, 21 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) 14:20, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Hussain Sikder[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO. ambassadors are not inherently notable. Coverage merely confirms he held the roles and nothing else LibStar (talk) 05:49, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 06:01, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 06:01, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The ambassador of any country to Russia, one of the most important countries in the world, is notable per WP:COMMONSENSE. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:21, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

still what did he actually contribute as ambassador? We do not give free notability passes simply because they've been ambassador to Russia. LibStar (talk) 15:35, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make sense. Australia's most recent ambassador to Russia [42] is a not very highly ranked career public servant, for instance. Nick-D (talk) 23:16, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:21, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Diplomats who have made a meaningful and verifiable contribution to events of diplomatic importance (wars, treaties, trade negotiations, etc.) will have been written about in reliable, independent, secondary sources. Extensive searches uncovered nothing more than brief government announcements each time Sikder presented his credentials upon taking up a new position. These are not arms-length secondary sources and do not satisfy WP:BASIC.

The essay WP:DIPLOMAT confirms that an ambassadorship does not automatically confer notability upon the holder. Russia is an important country. That does not mean that Russia-Bangladesh relations between 2005 and 2008 are therefore notable, let alone that Sikder inherits notability from Russia.

An appeal to WP:COMMONSENSE tacitly admits that the article violates the notability guidelines, and the guidelines reflect consensus, but argues that Wikipedia is nonetheless made better by having the article. Such a position is hardly surprising from an editor who has written "Ambassadors and equivalent ranking diplomats should be presumed notable ... I have long argued this."[43]

On the contrary, articles like this are harmful to Wikipedia. They give editors the impression that articles don't really need arms-length reliable sources, that a press release from any country (or company, or musician, or creative professional, etc.) automatically makes the subject eligible for an encyclopedia article. We require multiple independent sources so that a balanced article that complies with WP:NPOV can be written, instead of an article that just repeats the official government line (which is hardly likely to describe an ambassador warts-and-all). Worldbruce (talk) 18:27, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

well said Worldbruce. LibStar (talk) 15:28, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom and per Worldbruce. A Google search didn't turn up any in-depth coverage. Nick-D (talk) 22:47, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while I understand Necrothesp's position, and usually find myself in agreement with their reasoning, this time I'll have to disagree. While certain levels of performance are given automatic notability (the quickest example that comes to mind is Olympic athletes), I don't think ambassadorships are a category Wikipedia would want to have auto notability. The reason is that so often appointment of ambassadors has nothing to do with achievement or ability, but quite frankly is due to political paybacks and cronyism. Without the auto notability, as other editors have pointed out, this particular ambassador fails GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:57, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

for a long time Necrothesp argued inherent notability of ambassadors he gave that up when community consensus showed it not true. Now he tries the angle of they are an ambassador to a large country they must be notable! I've never seen him actually find sources to demonstrate an ambassador under AfD is notable. That is the best way to argue keep which again is sorely lacking. LibStar (talk) 13:02, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:08, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abe Burns[edit]

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

Despite several editors looking for further sourcing, it appears that his brief bio in Billboard's "30 under 30" is the best we have. I don't see enough there, even with the poorer references to meet GNG, and there is no claim to notability under CREATIVE or NACTOR, etc. Nominated for community input on notability. John from Idegon (talk) 04:18, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 05:08, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's hardly even much to suggest minimally better notability and improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No clear claim to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:33, 22 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. I withdraw the nomination. I think it's safe to say that I screwed up big time to start with. I did not notice that most of the refs were press releases and had nothing to do with the company. (non-admin closure) —azuki (talk · contribs · email) 03:42, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apollo Sugar[edit]

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

The references are press releases and/or have nothing to do with the actual company. —azuki (talk · contribs · email) 03:36, 21 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. All places are kept per GELAND. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 23:37, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nandarkha[edit]

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

Long time troubled article, orphaned since April of 2009. Lack of incoming Wikilinks for so long of a time implies lack of necessity for article. Abovethestorm (talk) 02:43, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not sure if being an orphan is the issue here but regardless there are not any reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 03:20, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Goood point, Meatsgains. Suppose I should have been clearer on that point. Not sure why I bothered to point out the orphaned nature of the article over the other lingering issues that combined to cause me to propose this article. Abovethestorm (talk) 04:13, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, if the article was not an orphan, I'd be more inclined to keeping it. Meatsgains (talk) 03:07, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:51, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Human settlements are considered notable by editor consensus. We generally keep them as long as they can be verified. Census of India says this village as over 3,000 people.[44] • Gene93k (talk) 09:58, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:08, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gene93K and WP:GEOLAND.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:01, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as G4. I'm mildly concerned that there's some socking or meating going on here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:20, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Savage High[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable film lacking non-trivial support. Fails WP:NOTFILM. reddogsix (talk) 01:52, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks notability with hardly any reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 02:14, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:48, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is a recreation of a film deleted back in 2014. Nothing has changed since then notability-wise, so I'm going to go ahead and speedy this one. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:16, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:07, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FABL Showtime[edit]

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

Non-notable local amateur basketball league. Almost no google hits outside their website. Not much more in Google News. Fails wp:GNG Happy Squirrel (talk) 01:36, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a local high school league with no claim to notability. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 06:39, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:29, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SVNIT Ground[edit]

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

Does not seem to have hosted any notable sporting events, article relies on one source. We can merge the info into Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute of Technology, Surat. JTtheOG (talk) 03:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:29, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The one reference included is self-published. Upon searching the stadium, the only results that appeared were social media pages. Meatsgains (talk) 01:33, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete as above, if the only sources are social media it doesn't justify an article. LibStar (talk) 05:51, 21 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:02, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dedipya Joshii[edit]

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

~~One film wonder. The film itself is not very popular The Avengers 16:55, 29 November 2015 (UTC)~~ Reverted as per WP:BANREVERT. 01:18, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 15:33, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 15:33, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I myself tagged this and I'm simply not seeing any better signs of better notability and improvement with only one coming soon film. SwisterTwister talk 06:24, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: Subject seems to be a one-time wonder filmmaker who has made only one film. Hence redirect to his film Saankal. Also, User:Sandhya2012 seems to have made many biographic articles on such people. Of these following are redirected: Abhishek Bindal, Giresh Naik K, and Tanima Bhattacharya. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:10, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:25, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only a handful of minor Indian news search results. Director is not notable, the suggestion to redirect to Saankal is a good one. Aeonx (talk) 17:29, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Michig (talk) 08:30, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mors Principium Est[edit]

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

Basically I align and echo my comments from the PROD saying this seems questionably notable and improvable as at best marginally known among those familiar with this but perhaps not notable for Wikipedia yet. Searches only found some passing mentions and nothing surprisingly better and the albums have some reviews but I still question the band's full notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:21, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 23:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 23:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Atleast when considering Finnish-language sources too there are some articles about the band in music magazines [45], [46] and the album articles have more reviews in English in the articles here. The music label is established in heavy metal. I'm not a fan on super strict interpretation on notability guideline, pragmatically looking at it this band has been interesting enough to have been made Wikipedia articles in 18 languages. --Pudeo ' 04:58, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:14, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:32, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see nothing to indicate passing WP:NBAND. This leaves significant coverage in independent reliable sources (under WP:GNG). The sources are:

a dead link to an archived copy of the band's history from their own website in 2006 (?)
metalstorm.net that says it got its limited info from the band's website and blabbermouth (which seems to be a WP:SPS)
a dead link to the band's label (the label's current version doesn't seem to have anything to say about the band[47])
a 2011 article from the aforementioned blabbermouth saying the band is looking for a new guitarist (they don't mention it, but I'm sure having a garage they could practice in would be a clincher)

In my opinion, that's very weak sourcing. I did some searching and really didn't come up with much else: youtube, Facebook and such and an assortment of metal blogs and forums. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article could use more development, but it should be retained. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:09, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Do you have a policy/guideline-based reason you feel it should be kept? - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:26, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It has an established label in the genre and the albums have reviews in music magazines (check the album articles and two links I posted earlier). But it's true hardly any death metal bands have several mentions in mainstream newspapers, so if you're for this kind of psychotic deletionism, please go ahead and nominate most of these for deletion: List of melodic death metal bands. I think a couple of album reviews in RS are enough.--Pudeo ' 18:13, 23 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:03, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Simone Bienne[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Nominating for deletion on behalf of Rayman60. @Rayman60: Please provide a valid rational soon, or I'll close this as a speedy keep. Kharkiv07 (T) 01:55, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: To me, the subject fails notability. Has had a little media involvement but generally low level stuff - nothing that to me can justify having a page here. A cancelled show on Playboy Radio, an internet radio, a syndicated radio show, a guest on a short-lived talk show and various stuff of the same ilk. A proposed deletion in 2011 had 2 deletes and one very weak keep votes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Simone_Bienne It was then re-tagged in 2014 and an SPA/COI editor then inexplicably deleted the PROD tags and added a large amount of content, changing the article from 1 to 2, somehow seemingly bypassing the PROD debate (unless I'm missing something). Therefore relisting so a decision can be made. Rayman60 (talk) 20:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ssт✈^(discuss) 02:14, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Many sources, but unless I'm mistaken all primary or tangential. In aggregate they may come close to establishing notability but one or two solid RS would really be the thing to do the job. Artw (talk) 22:13, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:24, 21 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 and redirect to Betty Shabazz. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:26, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Betty X[edit]

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

Ill-sourced BLP on musician with no good sourcing and no evidence of notability. It was an obvious puff-piece when PRODed in November; I cleaned it up then, but haven't been able to find anything resembling a reliable source since then, and even unreliable sources are extremely thin on the ground. Google News links are all about Betty Shabazz (wife of Malcolm X). Unless some good RSes can be found and verified, I suggest deleting this article and making this a redirect to Betty Shabazz. David Gerard (talk) 01:06, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 06:07, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 06:08, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Betty Shabazz. Well, I tried searching under her real name, her stage name, and by her associations with various other artists, and there is nothing out there but social media. For someone who has connections to Al Jourgensen and Pigface, this is pretty surprising. Anyway, best course of action seems like a delete and redirect. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:55, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Betty Shabazz. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 18:08, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found nothing to indicate that an article is justified here. The title would of course be an appropriate redirect as suggested. --Michig (talk) 20:12, 21 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.

[1] "Miss Oregon USA Bridget Wilmes". KATU.com. Retrieved 5 February 2015.

[2] "Miss Oregon USA crowns winner in Portland". OregonLive.com. Retrieved 5 February 2015.

[3] "Perfect 'fit for a' QUEEN". Pamplin Media Group. Retrieved 5 February 2015.

[4] "Explore Talent Acting Profile - Bridget Wilmes - 21 years old Acting - Portland OR 97013 - ExploreTalent.com". exploretalent.com. Retrieved 5 February 2015.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]