The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Consensus is clear. Drmies (talk) 01:20, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable list subject that fails WP:GNG and WP:LIST, for lack of significant discussion as a group and coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Moreover, this list of statistics also violates the spirit, if not the letter of WP:NOTSTATS, to wit:
"Wikipedia articles should not be . . . [e]xcessive listings of statistics. Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader. In cases where this may be necessary, (e.g. Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2012), consider using tables to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists. Where it is not necessary, as in the main article United States presidential election, 2012, omit excess statistics altogether and summarize any necessary data concisely."
This article was previously PROD'ed, but the article creator removed the PROD template without explanation. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:24, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NOT#STAT. While the team's overall win-loss record or even season by season is reasonable to keep in other articles, specific team-based win-losses make no sense, though I believe that the Longhorns do have a notable rivalry with one team that can be documented there. --MASEM (t) 00:46, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Texas Longhorns are a historically significant college football team WP:ORGIN with extensive coverage of their history. Does it fail WP:NOT#STAT? The table doesn't represent excessive statistics. It is similar to a season by season list, but instead focuses on the team vs. team results. Representing the information this way highlight different features. This table tells you who Texas has played, when they first played, when they last played, and also who they have not played. This is information you can not easily discover if you consult just the season by season records of the team or the List of Texas Longhorns football seasons. This information is certainly notable WP:GNG since all-time record versus a team is frequently cited when discussing an up-coming game. The article could use more explanatory prose, but that is just a reason for expansion not deletion. Note: I am the original author of the page though I have not updated this page for a while. (Sorry for deleting the PROD without explanation. I have never had one of my pages proposed for deletion and did it to stop the automatic deletion). Shatterdaymorn (talk) 02:35, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think you misunderstand several of the Wikipedia guidelines involved here. . . .
First, the Texas Longhorns football team is clearly notable per the notability guidelines for sports teams and other organizations per WP:ORG and WP:GNG, with significant coverage of the Longhorns football team in hundreds, if not thousands of independent, reliable secondary sources, but that does not mean that the all-time series records of the Longhorns vs. their opponents are likewise notable per GNG. The topic of this list -- "Texas Longhorns football series records" -- has not received significant coverage in multiple, independent, secondary sources, as a group. That means retrospective newspaper articles, magazine articles and books that discuss the Longhorns football series records, as a group, against their opponents. That does not include sports stats websites (e.g., College Football Data Warehouse, Sports-Reference.com), the Texas Longhorns website (texassports.com/), the Longhorns football media guide, Longhorns fan sites (e.g., burntorangenation.com), other user-contributed fan websites (e.g., Bleacher Report), the Big XII Conference media guide and records, the NCAA's various record books, or the UT student newspaper, yearbook, alumni magazine, and other publications of the university or its athletic department.
Second, this is exactly the type of excessive list of stats that WP:NOTSTATS was meant to exclude. There is no significant collective coverage of the actual list topic as a group, the article is nothing more than a list of over 100 win-loss records of the Longhorns vs. their all-time opponents, and the stats have been copied from one or more of the college football stats websites. Given that the topic is not notable per GNG and LISTN, no amount of added explanatory text will rectify the problem absent significant coverage of the specific topic of the list in multiple, independent, reliable secondary sources. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:05, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lean to delete. These types of lists have been discussed at some length at here in Nov. 2015 and here in Sept. 2015. As for WP:NOTSTATS, it remains my view that a number of editors (including some deletionists) have incorrectly interpreted NOTSTATS. Its purpose, as I understand it, is to require context for stats and to avoid pure data dumps. If there is a statistical list that is notable and not indisciminate, NOTSTATS suggests that any such listing should have contextual narrative text and citations. The introductory sentence of WP:NOTSTATS emphasizes precisely this: "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." As @Ejgreen77: has noted elsewere, if NOTSTATS was a valid basis for deleting statistical listings regardless of notability, it could be used to support deletion of highly notable statistical lists such as: List of college football coaches with 200 wins, List of NCAA football records, List of NCAA Division I FBS running backs with at least 5,000 rushing yards, etc. IMO, the real issue is not whether such lists are precluded under NOTSTATS. Rather, as suggested by @Bagumba:, the real issues here are whether the lists satisfy WP:LISTN and whether, even if the subject is notable, we ought to exercise editorial judgment under WP:PAGEDECIDE to opt against a stand-alone list/article. In this case, I would exercise our editorial judgment to avoid such articles for two reasons. First, I have concerns about our ability to maintain such sprawling lists, as the data at issue is massive (particularly if there are such lists for hundreds of college football programs) and changes with great frequency. Second, the same data sets are published off Wikipedia by organizations (e.g., here) that are better equipped to perform regular updates of the data. Cbl62 (talk) 05:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In considering NOTSTATS and providing context, there is none here, which is why it applies. Yet the data about the Longhorns vs A&M (that rivalry itself a notable topic) would be fine on the rivalry page, while an overall W-L summation would be appropriate on the overall team page in discussing how successful the team has been over it's history. Your other examples are cases where things like achieving 200 wins as a coach is a notable means to represent successful coaches (based on a check at Google). --MASEM (t) 05:56, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are largely in agreement, Masem. The list here lacks any context, but that could be cured with little effort by simply adding narrative text providing such context. For this reason, I see NOTSTATS as a red herring and not a good reason for deleting. I believe the stronger and more appropriate grounds for deletion are those summarized (hopefully, correctly) above. Cbl62 (talk) 06:05, 2 January 2016 (UTC)][reply]
I have added additional commentary to address the NOTSTATS complaint and some additional citations to try to make it better fit with people's interpretations of GNG. Shatterdaymorn (talk) 07:10 , 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Shatterdaymorn. I think your edits have now mooted any NOTSTATS issue. That said, I still lean slightly toward deleting for the reasons outlined above, though I will keep an open mind. Let's see what others have to add to the discussion. Cbl62 (talk) 07:52, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The additions do not alleviate the NOTSTATS issue. You are simply summarizing the stats, not putting them into larger context of why its overall record against any other team is significant. This potentially edgesd on original research as well. --MASEM (t) 13:41, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In regard to the worry over maintaining such data, I do understand the concern. I have made pages like this for other major football teams near the top in total overall wins (Alabama, Notre Dame, and Michigan) and those have been fairly well maintained in the years they have been available (since 2012) though the Texas one has not fared well. Do such list need to exist for every team? Probably not, but for teams that claim significant historical pedigree these lists help to explain that in a way that merely stating the pedigree does not. Shatterdaymorn (talk) 07:10 , 2 January 2016 (UTC)
@Jweiss11: Test case. There have been too many thinly decided sports-related list cases, and the goal was to nominate one and thrash out the arguments here before proceeding with the rest. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 07:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. This sort of statistical information does have a place within Wikipedia, even if it does not merit a stand alone article. In this case, I think the information would be best presented as a chart within the Texas Longhorns football article. Blueboar (talk) 14:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
However, I've never seen in summary articles outside of WP of stat tables that build out the overall historical records of a team against all other teams it plays against, outside of key rivalries. It's the level of resolution that would still be a problem in the main article. --MASEM (t) 15:26, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Masem, the problem is one of editorial judgment; that is, understanding and accepting what an appropriate level of summary detail is in a survey article written for a general interest encyclopedia. We see this problem frequently in our sports articles wherein even some experienced contributors have difficulty in distinguishing trivia from material facts; the problem, however is not peculiar to sports articles and is, in fact, a recurring issue to a greater or lesser degree throughout Wikipedia. As an example, it's one thing to state that John F. Kennedy attended the Choate School, produced a middling academic record, gained a reputation as something of a rebel, and provide noteworthy details as illustrative examples. It's quite another thing to create wikitables that list Kennedy's grades in each and every individual class he took over his four years of high school, with a running tally of his calculated cumulative grade point average on a semester-by-semester basis.
This list of the Longhorns' all-time series win-loss records fails LISTN, and simply merging this entire list of mostly trivia to the Texas Longhorns football main article would overwhelm it with mostly trivial stats in the same way that including tabular representations of young Kennedy's report cards would overwhelm the John F. Kennedy article. What would be a typical resolution of our particular problem would be to include a much reduced table with the Longhorns' cumulative win-loss records against their individual conference opponents and other identified historical rivals. Virtually no general interest reader gives a rat's furry little backside what the Longhorns' all-time record is against, for instance, the Idaho Vandals. As noted above, there are entire websites dedicated to compiling, recording and reporting the all-time head-to-head win-loss records of college football teams in tabular format, and there is no real value in copying such data from such stats sites to Wikipedia and trying to maintain it when the dedicated sources do a much better job of maintaining such statistics then Wikipedia ever could hope to do. That's the purpose of linked footnotes and "external links" sections, i.e., further reading. Trying to replicate the Longhorns' media guide or dedicated CFB statistics sites is folly. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:01, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are cumulative win-loss records against their individual opponents worthy of note? In typical game previews, such information is frequently noted. For example [1] and [2]. Notice Cal does not have a rivalry Texas. Is there a problem with maintaining such information? Possibly. The Texas page was not frequently updated, but I should note that a number of college football lists fall behind on this measure as well. That being said series records pages for other teams are well maintained. Do other sites do a better job of handling this information? I have added more context to the page to alleviate the NOTSTATS and GNG worry and I think that may address this worry as well. That being said, dedicated sources also do a better job of recording things like List of NCAA football records and List of college football coaches with 200 wins, but I don't think that makes those lists also subject to deletion. Also, please don't intimate that this is just a copied data dump. Notice, I constructed a table to present the information. This was by no means a simple feat. It was something that required a days of work. These debates are suppose to be rational, civil, and respectful and your tone (e.g., "gives a rat's furry little backside") is failing that. Shatterdaymorn (talk) 07:26, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Are cumulative win-loss records against their individual opponents worthy of note?" No, based on the lack of this information provided by secondary reliable source on team records across all sports and level of professionalism save for specific rivalries (where it makes sense). The only time I see this otherwise brought up is when team X plays team Y for a specific game and it is a random factoid the color commentators bring up. More specifically, because this type of win-loss record keeping is not a regular way of presenting these stats, we should not be doing it ourselves. --MASEM (t) 03:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Shatterdaymorn, Masem: I think it's fine to note win-loss records between two opponents in articles about specific games, i.e. bowl games and other games that are historically significant enough to warrant a stand-alone article. It also may be worthwhile to note such records in the game detail section of team season articles. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:29, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Shatterdaymorn has come along and added the kind of text-based contextual significance that articles like this one need (and that, really, so few of our list-class CFB articles currently have, unfortunately). Right now, 14 years into the Wikipedia experiment, there are only ten such lists currently in existence, so I find the idea that there will suddenly be hundreds of such lists to maintain to be an exaggeration, at best. And, as far as the whole "well, this stuff is already available elsewhere" argument, need I remind anyone of this? Just because it's available now, doesn't mean that it always will be. And, adding the information into the main Longhorns page would just result in over burdening and cluttering up the main Texas Longhorns football article, which is the whole reason why it was split out into a separate list article in the first place. IMHO, this information should be WP:PRESERVED somewhere, and it's probably best, easiest, and most logical to just keep it right here. Ejgreen77 (talk) 20:17, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You rely on so many faulty premises and make so many bad assumptions, EJ, that it's difficult to know where to start . . . First, you say, "Just because it's available now, doesn't mean that it always will be." -- Do you think think that the official Texas Longhorns football media guide is going to stop publishing all-time series record data, as they have every year for the last 30+ years (see p. 208 et seq.)? This is exactly the sort of trivia that media guides exist to present, and almost all CFB media guides include. Official team media guides -- whether hard-copy or web-based -- are not going away.
You also misunderstand and misrepresent WP:PRESERVE: it is not a get-out-of-jail-free card for non-notable subjects . . . It says "Preserve appropriate content. As long as any facts or ideas would belong in an encyclopedia, they should be retained in Wikipedia." Note the emphasis on "appropriate"; non-notable subjects do not get "preserved" as stand-alone articles. Period. First address the notability of the specific list topic; absent the notability of a stand-alone subject, you may "preserve" content as part of another article if it's appropriate. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:08, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge an abbreviated table of the current and former Big 12 teams (and maybe a few others, such as old Southwest Conference rivals) into the Texas Longhorns football article and cut the rest. Jhn31 (talk) 21:31, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jhn31: Please see Texas Longhorns football#Culture & Rivalries. The Texas longhorns football main article already includes tables for the win-loss series records for the Longhorns rivals and current members of the Big XII Conference. What else would you like to see included? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:42, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and the rest of its sort. Non-Discriminate list of information, if not downright plagiarism of other works such as CFBDW. Their current Big XII opponents records is already in the main article as this is standard practice for CFB team pages. The rivals records should be listed as prose in any section of the main page article and in the rivalry page.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 05:01, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Masem's WP:NOT argument. Not especially in favor of a merge/redirect situation, as the parent article already has the appropriate content, and its not especially a good search term... Sergecross73msg me 15:10, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I respect the effort to create this list. It looks to me like it is something that would be better served by a link to an external website that hosts this data. The list is WP:DISCRIMINATE but that's only one measure (and is not inclusionary anyway).--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:41, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet WP:LISTN, which requires that the grouping to be discussed by independent, reliable sources. Rivalries would meet coverage for a series with an individual team, but non-rivaries usually just mention the overall record in passing, Concerns with WP:UNDUE and WP:FANCRUFT precludes a merge to Texas Longhorns football to WP:PRESERVE.—Bagumba (talk) 22:19, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep as this seems notable and acceptable for now (NAC). SwisterTwistertalk 01:20, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He is not notable. I see nothing notable about him. Delete. Curro2 (talk) 14:48, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We know you believe that he is not notable. Please provide more reasoning than a basic assertion of your belief. Lithorien (talk) 15:46, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep - clearly, per Northamerica1000 - would have closed it myself, but unsure if that was appropriate for a NAC. Onel5969TT me 16:40, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - I concur with Northamerica1000. Lucas had his own Disney Channel special, and was the creator of a sitcom (albeit one that flopped after a few episodes). Though not as well known as Edgar Bergen or Jeff Dunham, he is regarded as one of the best by other ventriloquists. I'd say that's pretty notable. mwalimu59 (talk) 19:06, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Snow Keep. Clearly notable, verifiable, and the nom has no rational basis for deletion. Lithorien (talk) 15:50, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep - Perhaps even a speedy keep. Onel5969TT me 16:43, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' obviously. The mythological importance of this character is amply demonstrated by the sources provided by North America, and I found a bunch more through a very quick search. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:55, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Easy to find online with a quick search. JTtheOG (talk) 05:05, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. The coverage may not be overwhelming but the consensus is pretty clear. Drmies (talk) 01:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This article does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for Notability (companies and organizations). The organization was searched using the first 100 hits from Internet websites, reliable newspaper, book and periodical sources. References of the organization in 50 of the 100 results are incidental references mentioning that it was where one of the San Bernardino shooters prayed. The organization is mentioned in 36 results as part of a directory of mosques. The remaining 14 results were articles that covered events that incidentally took place at the organization or interviews with individuals that incidentally belong to the organization. Only one reference from a reliable source provides the depth of coverage about the organization that would qualify it to meet Wikipedia's notability requirement. Since only one source exists, it does not meet the "multiple independent sources" requirement. Amineshaker (talk) 16:12, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, it appears to not to be noteworthy nor merit having a Wikipedia article. There is no emphasis being placed on the Centre by the media and, as said above, is only referenced in passing. Delete. QuartzReload (talk) 23:32, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm going with keep since it's been around since 1979 and has had coverage over the years. Now of course it has more than 2,100+ news hits. I don't think it's a good time to delete it. —МандичкаYO 😜 03:27, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not acceptable to redirect a mosque to a mass shooting/terrorist attack, simply because the guy used to go there. The mosque was not involved in any way and he had stopped attending several years before. —МандичкаYO 😜 04:36, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Amineshaker: as nominator, you are required to notify the article creator/main contributor of articles you nominate for deletion. I noticed you have not done that. Pinging @E.M.Gregory:—МандичкаYO 😜 06:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact that this mosque is currently mentioned daily in a great number of media sources is in fact an argument for keeping. i.e., this mosque has now acquired international notability, a notability that it will retain in future discussions of this terrorist attack. Moreover, as Wikimandia said, the me mosque has had mainstream coverage over many years, i.e., long before this incident, two of which are already in the article. The article is actually quite ordinary, this is a large, thriving mosque and wikipedia has many articles on large, thriving churches.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just ran a news google search on this mosque (by relevance, not date). Many of the top hits have coverage of mosque that can be added to the article, probably because journalists are beginning to look at and report about this mosque. It turns out, for example, that in addition to the attacker, one of the survivors of the San Bernardino attack prayed at this mosque. Nom's assertions simply do not hold up.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:54, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, as Nom ought to have seen from scanning hits in the search he describes, the terrorists who attacked in San Barnardino were married in this mosque (a second wedding following the religious ceremony in Saudi Arabia). It is entirely routine to mention notable people whose weddings were held in a Wikipedia article about a church; it adds to a church/mosque's notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:44, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikimandia and E.M.Gregory above.--Regards, James(talk/contribs) 09:18, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I vote in favor of deleting due to not meeting Wikipedia's notability requirements for Organizations & companies. In responding to the Keep votes:
(1.) "it's been around since 1979 and has had coverage over the years. Now of course it has more than 2,100+ news hits. "
Date of establishment and number of hits does not qualify an article for notability. As mentioned before, the coverage of the Center in the media has been incidental (either pertaining to the suspect of the San Bernardino shooting or of a regional not-specific to the Center). Incidental references does not meet the Notability requirement.
(2.) "this is a large, thriving mosque and wikipedia has many articles on large, thriving churches"
The size of level of activity does not, on its own, does not qualify for Notability on Wikipedia without non-incidental reference in reliable sources
(3.) "The fact that this mosque is currently mentioned daily in a great number of media sources is in fact an argument for keeping. i.e., this mosque has now acquired international notability"
The international notability that is being referred to is pertaining to the incidental fact that the suspect of the San Bernardino shooting attended services there. Again, an incidental reference that does not speak about the Center itself as an organization.
(4.) "Many of the top hits have coverage of mosque that can be added to the article, probably because journalists are beginning to look at and report about this mosque. It turns out, for example, that in addition to the attacker, one of the survivors of the San Bernardino attack prayed at this mosque...the terrorists who attacked in San Barnardino were married in this mosque (a second wedding following the religious ceremony in Saudi Arabia)"
Again, the Center is being referenced incidentally in relation to the shooting. So far, there is only non-incidental article referenced in the article as of today, which on its own is not sufficient for Notability. ("Riverside: Islamic Center celebrates with an open house"). For those who vote on keeping the article, I highly advise them to include additional articles that provide coverage on the Center itself to prove it meets the Notability requirement. At that point, I would change my vote to KeepDjrun (talk) 16:51, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well-sourced "coverage on the Center itself" has now been added to article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:32, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sources 1,2,and 4 are substantive, independent, and were published long before the shooting. The post-shooting sources are not mere mentions; some discuss the link with the shooters and his gun-purchasing childhood friend in context of the fact that both attended this mosque; Some discuss the marrriage celebration held for/by he two shooters at this mosque; some sources interview mosque staff and members, quoting as they describe the shooters and the childhood friend, describing them, their attitudes and behavior; other post-shooting articles quote the imam of this mosque - sometimes at length. Substantive coverage is substantive coverage. Such coverage confers notability, no matter what event prompted the coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13(talk) 23:04, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant keep - The article in the LA Times, though it says very little, does appear to focus on the place. If a modicum of notability is the criterion for inclusion, then it looks like this article passes. But the keep vote is offered with no enthusiasm, and with reservations as to its justifiability. KDS4444Talk 11:48, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In response to the content above from E.M.Gregory that there are substantive sources, Sources 1 and 2 are NOT properly independent, let alone substantive. They are newspaper infomercial space fillers for open houses held some time ago. An open house mention in a newspaper is not substantive. Source 4 is not principally about this facility at all, it's about a wider group's perceptions. And the LA Times article does say... very little at all. Well, not quite. It paints a wonderfully detailed "encyclopedically relevant" picture for us: "As dawn broke Thursday, a few latecomers shuffled into the hall. Kuko welcomed them into his office, and offered them Sunny Delight, which he poured into small Styrofoam cups." Whole paragraph. That's the whole paragraph. I mean that's the whole paragraph. And every other paragraph isn't even as good. FeatherPluma (talk) 20:18, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bizarre comment Sources 1, 2 are, in fact, signed reported articles form The Press-Enterprise, a large, regional daily. Even the photo in the first article is by a Press-Enterprise staff photographer. FeatherPluma's assertions are false. The worst that can be said about these stories is that they are features local-institutiin-doing-good-stuff human interest stories of the type all newspapers run. The fact that the major daily in the region chose this mosque to feature is exactly the sort of thing that counts towards notability for a local institution of any kind. E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:16, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Riverside in GBooks is located in the midwest; definitely not Riverside, CA. - HyperGaruda (talk) 11:14, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith(talk) 21:43, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see this as no different then Inland Regional Center who's website crashed as the shooting story broke. It did not have an article either until I created it. Leadership of the mosque rushed to the reporters and made the mosque notable if it was not before. Legacypac (talk) 22:38, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete I am surprised there are people who actually think there is any reason to keep this article. It doesn't have more than one verified source, therfore, it must be deleted. There is no real focus on the actual mosque, its all on the shooting. Which is the only reason it was created, im sure. We need to be very weary of demonizing mosques- there is no reason to draw any link from this place to terrorism. Wikipedia cannot take part in any smear campaigns or bigoted speculation. Delete this article. Once there are more sources, and information on the mosque itself- only then can it be recreated, & if created, there should be no mention of this shooting. Period. VisaBlack (talk) 23:59, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT is not a valid argument. The assertion that it has only "one" verified source is false.E.M.Gregory (talk) 03:30, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - barely passes WP:GNG. One note, an earlier editor commented that when you nominate an article for deletion you are required to let the article's creator know of the nomination. That isn't entirely correct, it's "While not required, it is generally considered courteous", but not required. Onel5969TT me 14:08, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now and mention elsewhere at best as there is a detailed article here but perhaps not as solid as it could be. NOTE: Please relist a third time if consensus is not clear enough. SwisterTwistertalk 19:08, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"there is a detailed article here" True. Please state a policy-based reason for deleting this "detailed article."E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:21, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
comment I have added more sourced facts and a long BBC report on the mosque.E.M.Gregory (talk) 03:37, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpartazHumbug! 22:49, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete article does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements (lacking non-incidental references from reliable sources); additional referenced facts and "a long BBC report" added to the article still continue to reference the Islamic Center of Riverside soley in relation to the San Bernardino shootings ("An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it." WP:INHERITORG) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amineshaker (talk • contribs) 17:35, 4 January 2016
Please read article before making FALSE assertions. In fact, news coverage of this mosque already in article dates back years before the San Bernardino murders and is far from "incidental". E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing editor The article gives the mosque's size, details the scope and type of programs it sponsors, sources the building's construction and architect, describes the non-jihadist, moderate stances taken by congregation and leadership, and, yes, closes with details about its most notorious attendees. This coverage and detail (with the exception of the name of the architect, sourced to the architectural database at MIT) comes from reputable news media, mostly major regional, national, or international outlets, plus one California-based ethnic paper India-West. E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 01:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Already deleted in previous AfD but now recreated and CSD was declined since articles claims "professional", but player has not played in WP:FPL.Qed237(talk) 22:08, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Qed237(talk) 22:13, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:56, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 01:25, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be non-notable individual. The awards were mostly won by a firm he was involved in. The ones he won appear to be trivial in nature. reddogsix (talk) 21:34, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MB298 (talk) 22:38, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - My searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from reliable sources to show notability. Onel5969TT me 16:48, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as mentioned, simply still not enough coverage overall. SwisterTwistertalk 01:36, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others. Delta13C (talk) 16:21, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 01:25, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It was nominated for two small awards categories but didn't win either. It had only one substantial hit in a video game reliable sourcescustom Google search: [3]. All in all, there isn't enough to write an article, and as it stands, it's all sourced to primary sources. The TV part could redirect to Aurora, but I don't think it's worth it. And while MCV Pacific has a profile on Citizen, I don't think she has enough coverage for her own article either. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. czar 20:59, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as despite Hasteur accepting this, I still question whether it's solidly notable and nothing else here suggests better. Also notifying AfC reviewers Tokyogirl79 and Mkdw. SwisterTwistertalk 06:29, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Actually it was Slazenger who accepted the draft. Hasteur merely moved it to the draft space during the AFC migration. It appears both Tokyogirl79 and I reviewed this article when it was an AFC and chose to decline it. That being said, it's hard to judge sometimes whether an article would survive AFD so I don't see this particular close as being problematic. The title of this website makes it particularly difficult to evaluate in a WP:BEFORE search because "player attack" is used in a wide array of contexts. Inside the article there are a few sources that cover the topic but nothing that I would deem significant coverage. Some of the sources are now deadlinks and the rest of the sources are primary. Overall I would say the number of sources was probably below the threshold of WP:WEBCRIT. Mkdwtalk 07:59, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or move back to AfC. A look for sourcing brings up little. The website is moderately popular and has a moderate fanbase on social media sites, but nothing major. Now I'm mentioning this last part because while popularity doesn't set notability on Wikipedia, the amount of popularity - or lack thereof - can be a good indication of whether or not the sourcing is out there. As far as the claims in the article goes, neither of the awards appear to be major. A search for either doesn't bring up much coverage of either award, which indicates that they'd be minor at best and it'd be questionable as to whether or not they could give partial notability even if PA had won, which they didn't. (Only wins give notability.) As far as the TV claims go, a look at the channels shows that they're both the type of local channel that allows anyone to submit and air content. They're not discerning, by which I mean that showing on Face TV is not the same as showing on a channel that airs nationally and is watched by billions of Australians. This doesn't mean that it's not impressive that they have content and aired it, but it's not the type of thing that'd give automatic notability on Wikipedia when you're airing on a channel that accepts content on a first come, first serve basis - meaning that they'll accept anyone that can pay and has content that follows their guidelines. I have no problem with this going back to AfC, but this is likely going to be years before this site is really ready for the mainspace. I think it's likely that they will eventually pass NWEB in the future if they keep on at the rate they're going, but right now it's just far, far too soon for an entry. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:18, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - I agree, this appears to be an essay. Current sourcing is not independent, or a simple mention. Searches in News only showed the wiki page; zero on newspapers, books, scholar (where you would expect at least something), and highbeam.Onel5969TT me 16:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: unencyclopedic in tone and content. Drmies (talk) 01:26, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 01:29, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable model of guitar pickup. Substantial coverage is not forthcoming to establish notability; lots of incidental references, but nothing that clearly establishes this product meets WP:GNG. Mikeblas (talk) 18:17, 25 December 2015 (UTC) (categories)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY ScutiTalk 19:46, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best perhaps and mention elsewhere as there may not be a solidly notable article yet. SwisterTwistertalk 19:48, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable media company with big plans but meagre achievements to-date (one niche film in the Malayalam language). Should normally be speedy deleted under A7 but is being repeatedly resuced by an editor. kashmiriTALK 11:28, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Update: this does not even seem a company but a brand currently in development. No official company registration number is listed. The published contact email is a @gmail.com address, and the contact phone number is a mobile phone. While this fact alone does not rule out the possibility of being notable, it gives an idea of the size of this entity. Definitely WP:TOOSOON. kashmiriTALK 21:16, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This topic is notable, however the article needs a lot of improvement. So keep the article but make it better. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:32, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpartazHumbug! 11:17, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Compromise with Redirect to Asif Ali as none of this suggests yet solid independent notability and almost of the company's work has been Asif Ali's own films. Notifying tagger Josu4u. SwisterTwistertalk 06:38, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, That's the best decision. I am agreeing with it.Josu4u (talk) 23:43, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY ScutiTalk 19:46, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Asif Ali, the company's founder (with the history preserved under the redirect) per SwisterTwister and the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. I recommend preserving the history under the redirect so that it can be undone if the company receives substantial coverage in the future. Cunard (talk) 01:49, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
a tallest building of 16 floors hardly makes for a noteworthy list. And not an extensive listing on skyscraperpage [4]. There are many suburbs of Sydney (the major city north of Wollongong) that have higher buildings than 16 stories but do not get dedicated list of tallest buildings pages. LibStar (talk) 14:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- classic listcruft. None of these buildings are outrageously tall and this list seems overly specific. ReykYO! 06:50, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We had the same discussion for Cairns and Townsville page and they survived. In fact Wollongong is going to have taller buildings than both those two warrants a keep. It is good and interesting to compare cities of Australia. If you're not going to rampage the smaller cities in the American variants, then I don't see why Wollongong can't be here. Nikachu88 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:20, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
also curious why this is your first edit in 2.5 years. LibStar (talk) 06:08, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unlike many lists, it meets the requirements of WP:Stand alone lists, it has objective criteria backed up by a reliable source. Also this list is not just WP:OR from primary sources, but actually has a source that groups the topical list. However, the entire "Proposed, approved and under construction buildings" should be removed as WP:OR and WP:CRYSTALBALL, for example Crown Wollongong Towers 1 & 2 are listed as under construction, but the source only talks about approval. Similarly the Oxford on Crown only has support for the site being cleared. By the way, I don't find Nikachu88's reasoning for keep to be responsive to policy and guidelines. --Bejnar (talk) 09:29, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpartazHumbug! 11:10, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because this article complies with WP:LSC. The selection criteria are unambiguous, objective, and can be verified by reliable sources. Nevertheless, the authors of this article should substantiate all entries by including inline citations to reliable sources per WP:RS and WP:V. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:02, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I'm the main contributor to this page, that is my fault. There isn't much official construction news of the progress of projects in Illawarra, but I use my eyes. For instance Oxford on Crown towers are almost topped out and Crown Wollongong is well under way. The only other articles are sales pages for the apartments UnbreakableMass (talk) 23:52, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For stuff like building heights, a primary source like the sales pages is acceptable; it's for value judgements and the establishment of notability that they are not. Your own eyes, however, unfortunatly count as original research. - The BushrangerOne ping only 23:49, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY ScutiTalk 19:46, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not every city has sufficiently tall buildings as to warrant having a stand-alone list of its tallest buildings. It doesn't look to me as though Wollongong is one of the cities that does, or even that it will if the proposed and approved buildings listed on this page are built. --Metropolitan90(talk) 20:56, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But if there are reliable sources to substantiate the inclusion of the items in the list, then the list complies with Wikipedia policy (per WP:LSC). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:10, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - perfectly legitimate stand-alone list per WP:LSC and WP:STANDALONE. I also think the "proposed" section could stay as long its contents are well-verified and serious (ie, only credible proposals to actually build something, rather than just concepts). --Yeti Hunter (talk) 03:03, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 01:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any source to verify the existence of this film, let alone its notability. Vanjagenije(talk) 19:45, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This film has not been released yet, and it is unclear from the article what its current production status is. If the film is released, it will be easier to establish it as notable per WP:NFILM. --Metropolitan90(talk) 21:00, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As this new article (format corrected) itself tells us the "movie is at its pre-production stage" we know that WP:NFF is currently failed. If it begins filming and if it then gets coverage the topic can be reconsidered. Schmidt, Michael Q.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:11, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Advertising for a plastic surgeon. His book is in only 6 libraries, so he's not a notable author. His scientific publications have citations of only 48, 34, 22, 22, 16, 16, 4...., which is trivial in clinical medicine. Appearing as one of a number of other surgeons on a video show is not notability, the refs are PR, as usual. The promotional nature of the article is apparent even from the photo. DGG ( talk ) 19:16, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches particularly found only passing mentions at News, Books and Highbeam. SwisterTwistertalk 21:00, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (I created the article, and have disclosed the paid contribution on the article's talk page): He is a subject of public interest in the field of plastic surgery, with articles about his work in Vice magazine, New York Times, New York magazine, The Daily Mail and New York Daily News, quotes in NBC News, was named one of the best beauty surgeons in the US by Harper's Bazaar, was one of five plastic surgeons on the Bravo documentary Miami Slice, etc. His book is ranked #62 in plastic and cosmetic surgery on Amazon, which is pretty good. He is a plastic surgeon with a high profile, with press (more than mere "passing mentions") demonstrating his notability.--Bernie44 (talk) 23:12, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly a redirect from his name to buttock augmentation, since that seems to be the topic of the NYT article. DGG ( talk ) 06:27, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show they meet WP:GNG. As DGG as pointed out, they don't pass any of the more focused notability criteria, either. Onel5969TT me 19:20, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY ScutiTalk 20:38, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Basically, this person is famous for being famous. I don't think he can be considered notable as a surgeon because he has written very little of medical import. His area of expertise is ripe for salacious exploitation. (One article calls him "is the biggest advocate for butt augmentation in the world", and others make even more raunchy statements about him). He appears to be quite good at self promotion, and one article I found indicated that he contacted the reporter when he heard that his particular plastic surgery fad was being investigated, and made sure that his point of view was covered. Like fad diets, fad surgery gets attention, but WP articles should not attempt to justify the practice. The sources here are weak (Vice, Daily News, Jamaica Observer) and many are only mentions. None can be considered to be medically important. The only reliable sources (NYTimes, etc.) have only mentions of him. This is a beefed-up overly promotional article. LaMona (talk) 17:38, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mendieta is clearly the authority, at least as far as the public is concerned, concerning his particular niche in the plastic surgery world. There is more or less consistent coverage of him over the course of several years. As far as sources are concerned, Vice is not necessarily serious in tone at all times, but it is a relatively respected news source. I seems like he does, in fact, merit an article.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 02:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY ScutiTalk 19:44, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Really, per DGG. Incidental tabloidy mentions don't add up to notability. Drmies (talk) 01:31, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yeah not enough specific coverage to guarantee an article. → Call meRazrNation 10:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent significant coverage. Current refs are incidental mentions. A search turned up download sites, forum posts, and developer's pages but no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA with a name similar to the developer as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 16:22, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now in any case as my searches simply found nothing better to even suggest minimally better notability and improvement. SwisterTwistertalk 21:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added references to official linux distributions where this software is included, do these count as notable references? How does this differ to the WeeChat page for example? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.19.162.60 (talk) 02:33, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to read through Wikipedia:Notability. The distribution listings are acceptable as references, but still don't meet the threshold of significant coverage in my opinion, which in practice usually means one or more entire articles in reliable independent publications, or several paragraphs in a book by a commercial publisher.Dialectric (talk) 15:49, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Added further references, the book "Raspberry Pi for Secret Agents" Chapter 4 is about using OTR in Profanity which can be read in the preview. Profanity can be also be seen listed on the Linux Format issue 164 link. It was also listed in the Top 100 Linux Apps in issue 196, however since the content for this issue is only available to Linux Format subscribers I'm not sure this can be verified? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.19.162.60 (talk) 19:52, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The book section is legitimate and so is the Linux Format magazine coverage. Both demonstrate sufficient notability and coverage. Sbwoodside (talk) 08:16, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY ScutiTalk 20:37, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To remain, there would need to be articles ABOUT the software. Lists of distros shouldn't be included as references, but could be listed as External links. LaMona (talk) 17:59, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The book reference and magazine links are both about the software in question, in particular they mention some of the features in this page. The distribution references are there to back up the claims that the software is included in those distributions. Using the same example as previously WeeChat has similar distribution references, does this mean the Weechat page is also needs to be changed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.19.162.60 (talk) 21:16, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In any WP entry, wp:primary sources are discouraged unless needed to verify a particular bit of information not available elsewhere, such as using a person's own web page to verify their date and place of birth. In this case, the primary sources aren't adding to the content of the article - no one seems to be questioning that the software exists. But in no case do primary sources support notability. So if the previous version of the article, without these sources, didn't meet notability then this version, with primary sources, is no further along on that score. Since the XMPP source is just a list of software, it can't be considered to be ABOUT this software. The book listed here includes some "how to use..." instructions, again not a strong source. Basically all that you are able to show is that the software exists and there are instructions on how to use it. wp:gng requires more than that. LaMona (talk) 22:29, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If the Linux Format references cannot be considered notable (they are from an established publisher, but are fairly short articles), then I understand the reason for deletion according to the policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.19.162.60 (talk) 22:08, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY ScutiTalk 19:44, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Considering that There is now 3 sources that pass the WP:GNG (I would argue all 5 points when looked at together). As to the strength of the sources they seem to be fairly strong as they are not mentions of the software but descriptions of it's functionality and state and usage (which to be honest is all that is really worth talking about when it comes to software). Andrdema (talk) 05:49, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 01:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for, at kindest, being TOO SOON. Short films have a tough time meeting notability standards, just as do films released only to YouTube. Oh... it's not impossible for them to meet it...but it is highly unlikely, and this one currently fails. If that ever changes, the article can be resurrected. Schmidt, Michael Q.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Very weak references, none of which give any independent notability. He appears to be a good dentist but little more. Fails WP:GNGVelellaVelella Talk 22:41, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Save Ha! He's only the most famous dentist alive! DRosenbach(Talk | Contribs) 23:11, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; with a lot more accomplished and more refs then your typical pageant winner. Legacypac (talk) 05:40, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of independent, reliable sources. Most sources here are directly related to him -- Dental society directories, a press release, and at least one article (Global Health News) that says nothing about him. I also do not think that he meets wp:academic. LaMona (talk) 23:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:07, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY ScutiTalk 19:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as none of this seems to solidly satisfy the notability guidelines. Notifying DGG who is familiar with these health subject areas. SwisterTwistertalk 19:39, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF#C1[5]. The Distinguished Lecturer Award may also be enough. It would also be interesting to include material about his move from NYU to Columbia, purportedly because he believed that some of the school's actions were unethical [6], but we would need better sources than a blog post for that. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing significant coverage in reliable sources for this festival. I'm getting a lot of thing like blogs, forums, and WP:ROUTINE coverage, enough to WP:VERIFY that it exists, but not enough to establish notability per the WP:GNG. --Tavix(talk) 16:07, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:GNG. unless someone can find substantial coverage in Ukrainian press. LibStar (talk) 16:36, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 02:05, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY ScutiTalk 19:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now at best and restart later as none of this suggests a better notable article. SwisterTwistertalk 19:40, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I must agree it fails WP:GNG unless someone is able to point out something I missed in my search for in depth coverage in reliable sources. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:09, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:07, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 02:03, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY ScutiTalk 19:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as perhaps nothing better for a notable article yet. SwisterTwistertalk 19:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately he falls just short of passing WP:NHOCKEY and a quick search on him doesn't make it look like he can pass GNG either as the articles that mention him are just routine sports coverage. Deadman137 (talk) 23:58, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the "Personal" section of Craig Ludwig. That section should also be updated, possibly through merging some of the material from this article (e.g., his NHL draft status). Rlendog (talk) 17:28, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - fails GNG and NHOCKEY. Also opposed to redirecting. Resolute 17:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:22, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable amateur ice hockey player. Disputed prod by saying it meets #6 of NHOCKEY. However WP:NHOCKEY #6 refers to the championships level of the World Championships. He only played in the Division 1b level. Also can only find mention of him in routine coverage so does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Can be recreated when/if he ever meets GNG or NHOCKEY. - DJSasso (talk) 19:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: College hockey player without especial distinction. Only the Nottingham Post cite meets the GNG. Ravenswing 17:36, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 02:03, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY ScutiTalk 19:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Ample list of sources but simply nothing for solider notability. SwisterTwistertalk 19:42, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Resolute 17:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Consensus is clear. Drmies (talk) 01:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Side show from Miss Universe. Unsourced and to my opinion fancruft. The Bannertalk 01:19, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete to rip off some points by User:FeatherPluma on a similar AfD I started... This material is technically unverifiable because its sourcing is unknown and the sourcing is unretrievable on attempting a reasonable search. Technically, unless an editorially reviewed journalist were to compile this in a proper WP:RS, and no actual journalist would bother, only the organization itself could hope to generate or maintain a correct list that corresponds to its organizational rules and procedures, which can change (and actually have) over time. The sole purpose of this table is commercial promotion. The organization itself or a fan site could opt to host any definitive official data they wish to maintain for their commercial purposes but in my searches, the pageant businesses don't care enough about past results to keep such lists available to the public on their websites, so why should we? Legacypac (talk) 01:31, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This information should be in the main Miss Universe page. It should not be a stand alone article Seasider91 (talk) 17:57, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - on the note that this article serves a purpose for people interested in knowing these facts. Sources needs to be improved definitely but that is not a reasoning for deletion. The list is notable. --BabbaQ (talk) 23:58, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - information of the prizes is not in the official website of Miss Universe. therefore it is part of the history of the pageant and do not propaganda. They are still in force this awards. • Evanex (talk) 04:3, 04 January 2016 (UTC)
I do not call it propaganda, I call it fancruft. Not even the official website of Miss Universe mentions it, so why does it need a separate article? The Bannertalk 11:36, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY ScutiTalk 19:27, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see three strong policy based deletes and one ILIkEIT vote, that is more then many AfDs get so why the relist? Legacypac (talk) 11:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since all of this information is unverifiable, it does not belong in an encyclopedia. For all we know, much of the page has been made up, and nobody would know. That makes this list useless. Since the pageant itself does not keep records, per the editors above, then the information remains unverifiable. I did search the site and various mentions of special awards come up, but not in any organized manner and generally as a series of captions to pictures. Regardless, those pages are not reliable or independent of the source, and demonstrates that this page fails the WP:GNG. If individual special awards can be verified, they can be added to the year's page in question. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:23, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. The "delete" side argues this junction is nondescript but the "keep" side say it's special; the "delete" side says this doesn't pass WP:GNG but didn't convincingly address the conventions on coverage of highways that were invoked by he "keep" side. Deryck C. 21:38, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I find it funny that such interchanges somehow managed to get published on Wikipedia. Maybe I can get by with writing an article on the road in front of my house. Delete.MgWd (talk) 03:53, 25 December 2015 (UTC)MgWd[reply]
Keep. As the discussion on the group AfD commented , we would keep them if they were British. But the English language WP covers all the world equally -- it just is written in English If it covers English-speakign countries more, it's because most of our contributors are more interested. We should welcome attempts to expand equal coverage to other language areas. DGG ( talk ) 04:45, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the discussion also commented that each interchange should be judged on its own merits as to whether or not it passes GNG, which this one clearly does not. 68.231.77.22 (talk) 13:44, 25 December 2015 (UTC) - I apparently was logged out while editing. This comment is mine. Onel5969TT me 14:37, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It has nothing to do with WP:BIAS and everything to do with the fact that as every interchange on the Autobahn is named, being a named interchange on the Autobahn does not indicate a special status and thus notability, whereas in (for example) England, they do. - The BushrangerOne ping only 23:57, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—fails to assert notability in line with WP:GNG. Imzadi 1979→ 21:28, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Autobahn interchanges are all named; there is no significant inference of notability from the mere fact that it is a named interchange. There is no apparent evidence that this meets WP:GNG. These should probably be part of a list - there would be no objection to redirects to the individual Autobahns' pages. - The BushrangerOne ping only 02:13, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think that User:Meltingwood hits the nail on the head when he/she says, "Maybe I can get by with writing an article on the road in front of my house." The WMF says yes! yes! and leaves en.wikipedia to clean up the resulting mess that arrives from around the world. Unscintillating (talk) 17:18, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominator states that this intersection is just like thousands of others, yet given the map in the article and some WP:UCS, I think that this is not something that a reasonable person would say. A quick look at some references, and I've found that www.massdot.state.ma.us/Portals/8/docs/designGuide/CH_7.pdf page 7-14 states, "Interchanges with loops in all four quadrants are referred to as full cloverleafs and all others are referred to as partial cloverleafs." So the interchange under consideration is a form of a partial cloverleaf, and I for one cannot say that I've ever before seen one like it. I also looked at the talk page and see that the nominator has not tried to engage in a discussion about the alternatives to deletionbefore binding the time of AfD volunteers with an AfD nomination. I'll incorporate by reference all of the comments I made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kreuz Kaiserberg. Unscintillating (talk) 17:18, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: partial cloverleaf interchanges are incredibly common. In my experience, they're more common than the full cloverleaf now. Various agencies have found that by removing some of the ramps from a full cloverleaf that the interchange works better for the traffic on the freeway by eliminating the weave–merge conflicts between traffic exiting and entering at the interchange. Imzadi 1979→ 13:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but if the nominator is going to say that this interchange is "just like thousands of others", and you are going to use the words "incredibly common", it might help to start with showing one. I don't have the research resources to begin this search. Do you? We have an article on Partial cloverleaf interchange, but the examples tend to be balanced, certainly not like this one. Also, the article says that there were also gradient issues in the design. Unscintillating (talk) 22:40, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY ScutiTalk 19:27, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete Just another unremarkable interchange. If they were British, they should be deleted as well. Mangoe (talk) 20:39, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are you going to make a deletion argument? Is "unremarkable" a WP:INDISCRIMINATE argument? If so, what metric can editors use to know whether their new article will be considered proper under Wikipedia policy? I'd hope that any response you make would explain why this topic and its content are so bad that they must be deleted rather than merged. Unscintillating (talk) 21:50, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - as per WP:DEL8 - lack of notability is a valid reason for deletion. Onel5969TT me 22:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you have to have it in Wikijargon: there's no claim to notability and nothing in the article suggesting same. Interchanges are not inherently notable. Mangoe (talk) 22:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - a rationale for keeping this particular interchange would be nice. Your comments on the highway page are nice, but generic, and do not speak to the concept of the notability of individual interchanges. Onel5969TT me 11:53, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm sorry, tried to keep it short. You can find my full arguments within the discussion about Kreuz Stuttgart --Chandler321 (talk) 09:27, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: No worries. It's just that your comments on the that talk page don't specifically address the issue with this particular article, which is that it doesn't meet WP:GNG. Take it easy. Onel5969TT me 12:42, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep'per DGG. Just see all London subway-stations that are covered.Jeff5102 (talk) 09:32, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As has been pointed out in other AfD discussions, there is a large difference between subway stations and interchanges. Also, this still does not address the lack of notability of this particular interchange. Take care. Onel5969TT me 13:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Now that is true. Most interchanges usually are larger constructions than subway stations. However, my guess is that is not what you mean. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 20:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Nakon 01:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as this is simply not set for a solid article yet. SwisterTwistertalk 06:42, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Topic seemed weird and weak to me, until I ran a simple news search: [7]. Sourcing confers notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:01, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13(talk) 07:53, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY ScutiTalk 19:26, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a google news search finds sources. notability confirmed article needs to be improved of course but AfD is not a clean-up service. --BabbaQ (talk) 17:14, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP is not a record of every single thing that is happening, every single thing that has ever been reported in the news or every single thing that is documented elsewhere already on the web. Did you ever meet an AfD debate where you didn't just say "Keep, meets GNG", based on a two-second Google search but not much analytical thought? N-HHtalk/edits 14:54, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This seems to be covered adequately in Anonymous_(group)#.23OpParis and the present article is just an essay/advertizement from which little of value can be extracted. --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:33, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's all covered in Anonymous (group) already, and this is very poorly written and not even well sourced. Plus, the tone is totally that of an essay. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would say redirect this article but there is a small chance such a redirect would be useful. Just add anything useful into Anonymous (group) and delete this one. → Call meRazrNation 10:07, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per all the others. Not everything every organisation or group does needs its own discrete page, let alone a random essay like this. WP is an encyclopedia, not a politics noticeboard or Google v.2. N-HHtalk/edits 14:54, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. The general consensus is that this list serves a useful encyclopedic purpose. Some argued that this article constitutes unacceptable synthesis or is redundant to the list of shopping centres in Australia, but these arguments did not gain consensus. Deryck C. 21:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This list has become a mismatch of verified and unverified information measured using different standards, WP:SYNTHESISED into one. Unless the ranking(s) can be attributed to an external source, I beleive this page to be inappropriate for Wikipedia. OSX (talk • contributions) 22:42, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge the idea is encyclopedic enough and the lists are not so bad. But as you say there are problems that need fixing, but not so bad as to require deletion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:36, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A sortable table by area or shops in another article would meet the purpose of this. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:08, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteList of the largest shopping centres in Australia might be an encyclopaedic article but this one has no clear criteria for inclusion. The lead states that it is a list of "major shopping centres" but what exactly defines a "major" shopping centre? The article is more a directory of some of the shopping centres than anything else. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reasons for deletion are trivial. —Pengo 10:01, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure asking that for a list or ranking be referenced to an external party is not unreasonable. At the moment, editors are just adding centres at their own will making their own rankings. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Reasons for deletion are trivial" is not a cogent argument. The nom obviously didn't think the reasons were trivial and I have to agree that asking for sources to justify inclusion is most definitely not a trivial request. WP:V is one of our core policies. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:02, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a cogent argument for retention. Notability is not inherited. Just because some notable shopping centres are linked, doesn't make this subject notable. There are plenty of non-notable shopping centres that would warrant inclusion in the article so really, blue links are completely irrelevant. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:02, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CSC explains why lists are written. It is not a justification for keeping a list. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:49, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hopelessly unmaintained and unreliable. Redundant with List of shopping centres in Australia. That list could include size, and in sortable tables. Redirect, keeping history for possible merge. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:10, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In accord with the emerging consensus above, IMO, the valid policy and guideline issues here are better handled under WP:Editing policy than under WP:Deletion policy. There is no history on the talk page of editorial concerns with the article. AfD admins and AfD volunteers are not responsible to fix content problems on Wikipedia, nor is an AfD a valid reason to improve an article. A valid reason to improve the article is WP:LISTN and WP:CSC#Lead. I also suggest that content contributors consider the redirect suggestion above. The talk page provides a source that could be added to the lede. Unscintillating (talk) 18:51, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is hopelessly unmaintained. The content is grossly inaccurate, noting the fact change continuously. The talk page is never read. It is abandoned. And the whole thing is a content fork. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:32, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unless your intent is to !vote "Redirect with salt", you are arguing that the problems here should be handled with WP:Editing policy, and thus we are agreeing. As for "hopelessly unmaintained", I find this puzzling when I count 35 edits to the article this year before the Afd notice. Regards, Unscintillating (talk) 16:51, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is asking AfD admins and AfD volunteers to fix content problems. The source on the talk page is 8 years old and hopelessly out of date, so it's not suitable for the lead. WP:CSC#Lead addresses the lead section only. Improving the lead doesn't help the rest of the article. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:20, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is not a debate club. Your !vote and that of the nomination trace all of your concerns back to the lede. I agreed with those concerns, and provided support for content contributors to work on the problem; while encouraging those content contributors to support our policies and guidelines. Respectfully, Unscintillating (talk) 16:51, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My !vote was not limited to the lead. I also expressed concern that the article is a directory more than anything else. The nomination doesn't even mention the lead. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:37, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpartazHumbug! 11:00, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Couldn't List of shopping centres in Australia include this information? It seems completely redundant. Are we going to make a separate article for every sortable parameter in a table? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:28, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NRP has hit the nail on the head. There are two tables in the article up for deletion, maybe include the top 10 of each of those in the other article. There's no need for this list. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 17:24, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's certainly an option but then we're setting an arbitrary limit based on a single criteria. A shopping centre doesn't have to have a million shops just to be a major centre. A much smaller centre that draws customers from 150km away can be just as "major" a centre as one with 200 shops catering mainly for customers from surrounding suburbs. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:50, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY ScutiTalk 19:26, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, don't agree with suggestion article is 'hopelessly out of date' given an update occurred 13 months ago and is not likely to have materially changed. No doubt there is some out of date information, but not sufficient to warrant deletion when an update would be a better solution. Mbrjunc (talk) 06:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the sources in the article are at least 9 years old. Of the others, 28 are dead. You're correct that an update was done 13 months ago but that affects only 22 of the 72 sources, many of which are primary. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:52, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the Information could be updated, I was very quickly able to find the Westfield centre information from: http://www.scentregroup.com/properties/au/ ; someone just needs to go through an update it. Aeonx (talk) 12:40, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, I've made an update to expand the lead and clarify what the list is about. It's a useful list. Most of the information appears accurate even though many of the sources are dead-links, however this alone is not a reason to delete the article. Aeonx (talk) 12:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In 2015, the Shopping Centre Council of Australia identified Australia had 1753 existing shopping centres, being defined as a major integrated retail centre - That many? That's a huge list and how many does the article list now? Only 43. How is that useful? --AussieLegend (✉) 18:40, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pointless argument. If you actually read the report and the rest of the article lead which I added. Of course 1753 shopping centres is too many to include, which is why only the significant ones of over 70,000sqm are included...as per the lead, this size bracket is common for those in the industry. (Note: I was previously an Urban Designer in Australia, and worked on shopping precincts) Aeonx (talk) 21:07, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have concerns about the usefulness of such a list, but even setting that aside; In my view, the list as it stands is original research, and needs to be deleted per WP:NOR. The list has sources for the square-footage of each mall, but it does not actually have a source which ranks them. Nor does it have a source verifying that the method used to compute size is the same across all the sources used. Finally, there is no source showing that this list is comprehensive, ie it has all the biggest shopping centers in Australia. Therefore, the current rankings are original research; because it is based on the (unsourced) assumption that there is not a large center that needs to be inserted somewhere in the list that would change the rankings. I would make an analogy to this AfD, which was just closed as "delete." Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly it's not WP:OR. WP:OR only applies if no reliable, published sources exist. You're saying delete but you didn't even look I found TWO sources in the space a minute that substantiate the facts presented.Aeonx (talk) 21:07, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A number of similar article exist for other geographic areas, eg. List of shopping centres in the United Kingdom by size. This one appears to have been singled out because of a lack of valid references, rather than an assessment on it's encyclopaedic content. Whilst some of the wiki editors above are happy to argue and discuss this in detail above for deletion, none of them have appeared to bother to look for sources or rectify the true problem. Aeonx (talk) 21:07, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Only claim to fame is a WP:1E as a runner up in America's Got Talent. Sources are all primary, no further independent RS found. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. (Not to be confused with another actress known as 'Rappin Granny). A previous AfD closed as 'No consensus'. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:37, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Cruft, runner-ups in TV shows are not notable. CatcherStormtalk 10:50, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hasn't made a career after that talent show and only acted in minor roles prior to it Seasider91 (talk) 17:53, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's particularly hardly much independent of America's Got Talent, WP:TNT at best. Since participated at the 2006 season and the article's history, this certainly questions the article's solidity. SwisterTwistertalk 05:27, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability beyond BLP1E and no secondary sources. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:19, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Striking my "delete" in light of the comments below (but haven't look deep enough to go for a "Keep"). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:00, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While I confess to my disappointment that Wikipedia's rules are strongly biased towards the inclusion of American pop culture trivia, I have to accept that there is sufficient notability according to those rules for this to be kept. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:25, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I invite the above !voters to take another look at the article and the sourcing, as it has been drastically improved. This article meets WP:BIO as several reliable sources (most pre-dating her time as a finalist on America's Got Talent) provide significant coverage of Smallwood and her career. The articles from XXL, Columbus Times, and especially Los Angeles Times establish notability. It only took me a minute to LA Times article, which is an independent, reliable source and demonstrates that her stint on America's Got Talent is not her "only claim to fame". WP:BIO1E doesn't apply here as it was only after she won a Granny of the Year contest, signed to a record label, made a battle rap against the Fresh Prince, had a soda named for her that, and appeared in multiple television shows and films that she was a finalist on the reality tv show. gobonobo+c 18:55, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Gobonobo makes a convincing argument; this article meets notability guidelines. Silent sovereign (talk) 19:32, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per the convincing arguments made by Gobonobo, hardly not a BLP1E either which throws that reasoning out with the bath water. GuzzyG (talk) 15:45, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY ScutiTalk 19:26, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Been up 4 weeks and there's hardly been any discussion so relisting for a 4th time would be pointless and a waste of time, Consensus is to Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 21:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Currently this is questionably notable and improvable as both English and Polish Wiki have a few links but this hardly seems enough for a better article and the best my searches found was only this (basically a few passing mentions, hardly in-depth), this second one is actually simply a Wiki mirror and lastly these links. At best, in the case this is better known through Tim Owens, this article can simply be redirected to his. SwisterTwistertalk 20:00, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not the original writer of the article, but here's some multiple nontrivial published works that are (usually considered) reliable regarding this band: http://www.metalstorm.net/pub/review.php?review_id=3182 for an album review, http://www.allmusic.com/artist/winters-bane-mn0001820872 for a biography, as well as Garry Sharpe-Young's A-Z of Power Metal (which I don't have on me at the moment so I can't verify the page, but they were for sure given a biography in that book). EDIT: Page 486 according to the reference I previously added on List of power metal bands. Is it satisfactory to introduce these references to the article in order to indicate notability? Vortiene (talk) 22:07, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Vortiene: There has been extensive discussion about whether Allmusic.com is a reliable source. As Liz said here: it depends. Band clasiifications and other metadata at Allmusic.com are user sourced and are deemed unreliable. Individual reviews depend upon the reliability of the particular reviewer. Although it has only appeared on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard twice, the consensus seems to be the same, band classifications are suspect and individual reviews depend upon the reliability of the particular reviewer. A-Z of Power Metal has not been discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, but it is always a good idea to have a source in front of you when citing it. WP:SAYWHERE says: Don't cite a source unless you've seen it for yourself. --Bejnar (talk) 17:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I own this book, and there is a section regarding winter's bane on page 486. I usually only use allmusic as a source for band biographies, in which power metal bios are typically written by Eduardo rivadavia, who seems to be referenced often. Metal storm is a database/review site with editors who look over reviews written by their authors. There are reviews written by users, but these are marked as guest reviews. The one linked is not marked as a guest review and hence written by a member of staff and reviewed by an editor. Vortiene (talk) 18:18, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The BushrangerOne ping only 07:38, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep No argument for deletion (i.e., the use of admin tools). Unscintillating (talk) 04:42, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would appreciate if this were relisted a third time as there hasn't been a clear consensus yet. SwisterTwistertalk 04:46, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Reasonable coverage already identified. More coverage shows up in GBooks. --Michig (talk) 09:11, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Making way for more discussion per nominator request. —UY ScutiTalk 19:20, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY ScutiTalk 19:20, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 01:47, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
From online searching (including of books and my limited attempts at searching French-language media) I just don't see evidence of sources or that this is notable, sorry. Blythwood (talk) 18:51, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Withdrawn. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:56, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTNEWS. Violence in Israel is constant, and this shooting doesn't look notable enough for their own Wikipedia article. CatcherStormtalk 18:38, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Violence in Tel Aviv is rare, as are Mass shootings in Israel. This wasn't just some single stabbing Rossbawse (talk) 18:40, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now - guidelines state we shouldn't rush to delete things just because they are news. We can re-evaluate in a few months and see if it really has any lasting notability. —МандичкаYO 😜 19:09, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I am certain that the suspected perepetrator is the perpetrator and that the motives are nationalist but there is still not an answer on that. I wouldn't create an article but since the article already exist, I guess if we won't get strict answers in a week or so (for example, the the suspect is not the perpetrator and now responsibility claim would take place) so we would have to delete the article. --Bolter21(talk to me) 21:49, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is one of the most unusual attacks in recent history of Terrorism in Israel. Although there is not yet an official statement to say it is a terrorist attack, there are enough hits. I say that we should keep it not for a week but until we"ll have a clear answer. This might be the first ISIL afiliated attack in Israel and indeed a serious thing that occupies not only Israeli media but also international media. --Bolter21(talk to me) 14:09, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it is an important part of the ongoing violence in Israel! Dan Holsinger (talk) 13:00, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Salt this I agree that WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRYSTALBALL mean that not every news every needs a page. On the other hand, I also think that we could wait a week or so to see what the repercussions of the news event in question are. So I would like all news items to be kept for a week before we start targeting them with Afd's. Either way, in a few days we'll know more. Debresser (talk) 15:47, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agreed with the above, wait and see what unfolds. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:45, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Mass shooting and multiday manhunt in major metropolitan center. Plot Spoiler (talk) 04:36, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Concur with Rossbawse and Plot Spoiler. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:27, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a mass shooting, not just a regular attack. Additionally its gotten massive coverage and completely changed the landscape of Tel Aviv security during the manhunt. Its a major event, just just a basic terrorist attack. - GalatzTalk 17:35, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to WP:GNG - intensity, depth, breadth, duration of coverage. WP:SNOWBALL.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:13, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:CatcherStorm, you might consider withdrawing this AFD in light of intensity/extent of coverage [13]; [14]. Or perhaps another editor should close as keep since we have consensus and because the story had grown significantly but the article has not - probably at least in part because so many editors are reluctant to expand articles at AFD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major terror attack with wide local and international media coverage [[Haneelam]] (talk) 09:28, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The attack itself isn't unique within the 100+ day wave of violence in any parameter: We had attacks with 2/3 dead, attacks in Tel-Aviv and attacks by Arab citizens of Israel. The unique aspect is the length of the manhunt (day 5 and counting) which has had a semi-paralyzing effect on the local community. DGtal (talk) 11:12, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies (talk) 01:47, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A melange of unsourced trivia. This topic is by its nature unencyclopedic, nothing more than a junk drawer of unrelated trivia factoids. It is one of a series of three "Incest In..." articles created by the same editor, I'm running this through AfD as a test case since somebody already previously laid a NOTABILITY flag on it. If this ends in deletion, the other two articles need to go away also, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 18:25, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 18:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's better to delete these unsourced example farms and start over again from scratch. The encyclopedic stuff, if we can find and source it, can be discussed the main article, which is now mostly just a stub. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:04, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:V. The lede also has a WP:V problem, and there is no reason to believe that this topic exists other than as a WP:SYNTH of WP:OR. Unscintillating (talk) 13:46, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep - a lot of information on News (CBS Miami, Haute Living, Miami Herald, Elite Daily)
Top Up-And-Coming Visual Artists In South Florida (CBS Miami)[15]--27century (talk) 19:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:21, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 18:22, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: barely skirts by GNG by WP:ARTIST. Delta13C (talk) 16:15, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete per WP:15MOF and WP:NOPAGE this should be redirected to the appropriate list of pageant winners. Legacypac (talk) 01:20, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per international WP consensus that winning Miss 'Country' is enough notability for a WP page. Miss Israel is not a 'prelimenary round' it is the national beauty pageant. See List of Miss USA titleholders and Miss France where similar pageant members evidently have a separate page. Shuki (talk) 22:09, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss Israel. Unless there's something encyclopedic to be stated beyond the fact that she won the Miss Israel contest then a redirect is sufficient. --Michig (talk) 09:36, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 18:21, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete or redirect to American Idol (season 13) as either may be applicable but deleting it may actually take away the risks of this being restarted before solid notability has been established. SwisterTwistertalk 05:50, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
A losing competitor from American Idol has gone back from her regular life, in which does not meet a criteria of WP:NMUSIC, WP:BIO and WP:ONEEVENT. ApprenticeFanwork 15:36, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to American_Idol_(season_13)#Finalists. Other than a brief mention here about her performing locally, I can't see where she's gained any sort of coverage in the media past her departure from the series. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:35, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and hopefully it will stay like that as there are no better signs of a solid notable article yet. SwisterTwistertalk 05:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The page claims that its subject has won awards but 've been unable to verify this claim. Does not appear to meet GNG or MUSICBIO. J04n(talk page) 15:36, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a longtime troubled article with nothing to suggest satisfying the applicable notability guidelines. SwisterTwistertalk 05:51, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A quick search does not turn anything substantial enough to verify the notability of the subject. → Call meRazrNation 10:03, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete Fails GNG. Looks like COI, article creator admits they have researched this individual, Wiki is not the place to promote such research. DerbyCountyinNZ(TalkContribs) 20:48, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Its certainly COI and would need a substantial re-write if it survives the !vote. The biography of the subject has received substantial coverage in the national media of at least one country, which should probably make her notable. -- haminoon (talk) 09:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis that she is the first Australian female convict to come to New Zealand to live and that in itsself makes her notable. Also given the date of her arrival in New Zealand she would also be one of the earliest female European settlers to the colony NealeFamily (talk) 21:57, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting - I hadn't seen her article, but still think it is a keep as part of the country's early European history. NealeFamily (talk) 06:47, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - One of the earliest female European settlers to the colony in question. Notable. Also per WP:GNG,--BabbaQ (talk) 23:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Pre 1840 European settlers in New Zealand should be considered notable if mentioned in contemporaneous sources or reports of notable events of the time. Also, being the mother of Ann Boyce contributes to her notability. Additionally, the fact that the author who has recently published a new secondary source the chooses to contribute the result of their research should not result in an article being proposed for deletion because of CoI or lack of independent source material. If another editor cited the source instead would they receive the same treatment? - Cameron Dewe (talk) 10:34, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well sourced article about early settler. Note that the recent book about her has gotten news coverage that supports notability and can be added to article . Here: [16].E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:50, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article's author removed the book to avoid the COI as they wrote the book. The article is looking much better now. -- haminoon (talk) 20:48, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Very likely. I think all publishers ought to send new authors a copy of, How to Write a Wikipedia Article About Your New Book (And One About Yourself) That will Survive AFD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 01:49, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unremarkable person running a series of internet radio stations. Fails WP:GNG. One article in a local newspaper, but no significant coverage that addresses the topic directly and in detail. Just an autobiography with no objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability. HarryLet us have speaks 15:21, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. The person hasn't received any award, nor have they made a significant contribution to the radio industry that causes a lasting effect. So WP:ANYBIO is out. The only sources I could locate that satisfy WP:RS were the exact four references listed in the article. These references all describe this person and their coverage of him as if it were a local or community story; not a national story that provides in-depth analysis relevant for a nation (so, definitely not national news). The sources provided are secondary, reliable, and independent of the subject. However, the issue is the coverage itself; it's only a local or community event, and the number of references that could be located were only four. Four sources do not constitute significant coverage (in that a full article could be written without the inclusion of original research). Hence, this article does not meet WP:GNG. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 22:31, 1 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]
This is a national story. if you actually looked at the other three articles you would know. And YES, I HAVE received awards for this achievement. Please leave this page alone. You have pages for 5 year olds who have achieved something small. What is the problem with this? If you were searching my name from within Australia, you would see pages of articles regarding myself. Please leave this page alone! — Note to closing admin: Joshuajnet (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.
Joshuajnet, you are not being particularly helpful to your own case by blanking this AfD and leaving non-policy/non-rationalized comments on it. Please give us a chance to let discussion happen and process work. If you really are notable, then it'll be hashed out in the end. Lithorien (talk) 16:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I would have jumped on the deletion bandwagon except for one claim which, to me, screams notability: "He became known as Australia's youngest radio announcer and general manager." While I can't find, in policy, something to directly support that being notable, I suspect this is a case where we need to ignore the rules and stop being overly strict since this person actually has a credible claim to some notability. Lithorien (talk) 16:06, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree except that there are no reliable sources to back up the claim. It's one thing to make a claim. Anyone can claim to be anything (bearing in mind this is an autobiography - I would take a different view if it weren't). There is no third party evidence to back up the claim that he has become well-known or has received awards as claimed. He's someone who has set up some non-notable internet radio stations, received minor local coverage and has been mentioned in a few blogs. We have not been overly strict, giving him plenty of time to back up his claims of notability with reliable sources. He hasn't, so that is why I have nominated this for deletion. HarryLet us have speaks 16:31, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above reasoning. While the claim is made and referenced in one of the sources, it's not actually verifiable beyond a wild guess. Additional searching after my initial post isn't showing any evidence either. Lithorien (talk) 16:39, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 01:49, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The topic is something that doesn't seem to have been covered in reliable sources. Searching for sources results only in pages about individual borders, not about the topic of the article, which appears to be about longest distances between "farthest border points" (which I presume is referring to extreme points, a notable topic, but distances between them doesn't seem to be notable). It doesn't help the article that the article title is, to put it bluntly, filled with errors. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 14:56, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete – not an indiscriminate collection, failing list guidelines. ApprenticeFanwork 15:29, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Appears to be a textbook case of using Wikipedia as a collection of indiscriminate information. Like the nominator, my searches found only material related to individual border sizes, not the distances between country borders. Mz7 (talk) 18:30, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Well, maybe it's not quite the same list (Area ≠ Distance between two most extreme points), but the point still stands. "Farthest border points" is not a notable topic to warrant a list like this. GabeIglesia (talk) 19:54, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
A one-time finalist from American Idol competed a few years ago was gone back to her normal life and does not meet with requirements of WP:NMUSIC and WP:BLP1E. ApprenticeFanwork 14:46, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep looks like lots of in depth coverage of her: [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]. BLP1E doesn't apply since she's not a low profile person, she's given multiple interviews (and anyways tried out for the very popular show). FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:32, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment This seems not enough to be notable for a low-place finisher. Unfortunately, there's no significant coverage with the post-Idol activity. ApprenticeFanwork 12:30, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. This nomination was silly and I'll try to set the matter straight. Thanks PWilkinson. Drmies (talk) 01:51, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but change name, probably by reverting the page move from Shivraj Singh Chouhan Third ministry (2013–) made just a few hours before the nomination. The nominator should be aware that, while Wikipedia should not have two articles on the same topic, the first thing to do after finding what are apparently two such articles is to compare the articles. Broadly speaking, this can lead to one of three conclusions: first, that the appropriately sourced content of one of the articles is already fully contained and sourced in the other; second, that each article contains appropriately sourced content missing from the other; or thirdly, that the articles are sufficiently distinct in topic that both should be kept provided that they each meet Wikipedia standards. The content of this article clearly falls into the third of these cases, even though the current title does not (as it should) make this obvious - it is a sourced list of subnational government ministers (mostly automatically notable by WP:NPOL), of a type that we habitually allow on Wikipedia. PWilkinson (talk) 00:29, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. I know I'm not an administrator anymore but I'm going to be WP:BOLD and close this with a consensus to keep the article. The arguments put forward to keep this article outweight those proposed to delete it. There is a concern about how the subject's notability might be considered as temporary, but I'm afraid this is more a policy question rather than something that can be determined specifically for this article, and this article alone. (non-admin closure)→ Call meRazrNation 10:02, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As an uninvolved administrator, I am reviewing this close based on comments at WP:ANI and re-closing it as No Consensus. Per WP:NACD, this was a contentious discussion and should not have been closed by a non-administrator. As per WP:NACD, "Decisions are subject to review and may be reopened by an administrator. If this happens, take it only as a sign that the decision was not as obvious as you thought.". Please let me know if you have any further questions. Thanks, Nakon 02:21, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:POLITICIAN. No notable career. Has 15 minutes of fame when appointed as advisor to Minister of national Defence — and, for a period of about a week, enjoyed attention in popular imageboards — however notability cannot be temporary. WTM (talk) 13:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Janniger represents a historic first. He holds the record for being Poland's youngest sub-cabinet official. Janniger has received major press coverage. Even following his resignation, Janniger continues to receive significant coverage in reliable sources. Cachets687 (talk) 16:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Always among employees of the government one is the youngest. Has Wikipedia now become a book of records? Somehow I can not find information about Jan Lang (Advisor in Polish Ministry of Finance in 2013, he was 21 yo then) or Adam Malczak (Advisor in Polish Ministry of Interior in 2013, he was 21 yo then) although they also once held this record. --WTM (talk) 21:07, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lang and Malczak did not receive significant coverage in reliable sources. Janniger continues to receive major press coverage. Cachets687 (talk) 22:36, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reports in tabloids are not examples of major health coverage. He is a minor official who is not notable for his position, the trivia of his age at appointment does not make him notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:01, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, please allow me to clarify. Rzeczpospolita, Wprost, TVN24, TVP Info, etc. are not tabloids. They are the most respected news outlets in Poland. Janniger is notable as a sub-cabinet official, as a politician who represents a historic first, and as a political figure who receives significant press coverage. Cachets687 (talk) 16:19, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: No, he is not a "politician" as you suggest. He is just a young guy being briefly used for publicity purposes by an experienced politician as Antoni Macierewicz is. He by himself is NOT notable other than by association with his protector. kashmiriTALK 17:47, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is an example of political propaganda. Janniger is a "politician" per reliable sources (e.g. Rzeczpospolita). I have not seen a single source to support your conspiracy theory that Janniger was "being briefly used for publicity purposes". Such assertions need to be based on independent reliable sources. Cachets687 (talk) 02:33, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of notable achievements in any field so far. Media coverage alone does not make a person notable. He is a president and a founder of a limited in scope students organization from a university where both of his parents are professors. Darked (talk) 20:02, 12 December 2015 (UTC)This editor has made no other edits and zero edits on any Wikipedia since 3 Feb 2014Collect (talk) 14:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC) Collect (talk) 14:00, 16 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made 780 edits worlwide. --WTM (talk) 20:56, 15 December 2015 (UTC) Automatic account rename. >zero edits.Darked (talk) 00:52, 17 December 2015 (UTC) With zero edits from Feb 2012 until this AfD on enWiki Collect (talk) 01:45, 17 December 2015 (UTC) So what? E. Janniger's achievements are getting bigger because of my dry spell on en:wikipedia? Can you point out any other partisan/politically edit/vote by me? If not, what is your point? Darked (talk) 02:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC) [reply]
Delete - minor governmental employee, short term career, temporary fame. Lukasz Lukomski (talk) 23:34, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable in Poland per many sources, and in the past "substantial media coverage in reliable sources for more than one event" has generally been found sufficient on Wikipedia. Both parents have Wikipedia articles - and notability is not inherited, but does tend to be a "tie-breaker" in such cases. Collect (talk) 14:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No relevance for Wikipedia. He only was serveral days (!) advisor to a Polish minister. That's not enough. --Pressemappe (talk) 01:47, 15 December 2015 (UTC)This editor has made no other edits on enWikiCollect (talk) 04:35, 15 December 2015 (UTC) Collect (talk) 14:06, 16 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made 1,247 edits worlwide. --WTM (talk) 20:56, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly meets our GNG as the subject of multiple, independently-published sources of presumed notability. See the extensive Polish-language sources already showing in the footnotes. Everything else is sort of IDONTLIKEIT, ITDOESNTSEEMTOBEIMPORTANT mutterings, in the final analysis. Carrite (talk) 06:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per above comments. Notability is not temporary, a few days' fame is insufficient. Being employed as an "advisor", even at a government ministry, is not sufficient for an encyclopaedia article, either. kashmiriTALK 11:08, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Here are a few points to consider. The article has been read over 7800 times since the start of December. Janniger’s notability is clearly not temporary. For example, Janniger and associates created a nonprofit last week, instantly making headlines in Poland. In en:wiki we have pages for Assistants to the Secretary of Defense (even Acting assistants). Most importantly, Janniger meets and exceeds the standards set in WP:POLITICIAN. By deleting this article, we would do an injustice to the many readers who are interested in Polish politics. Cachets687 (talk) 02:11, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 12:46, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I find Lukasz Lukomski's opinion on this to be persuasive, especially given their status as an administrator on the Polish Wikipedia. As a side note, Collect's tagging of votes is not very nice, and he would be doing himself a favor to remove the tags, but that's only my opinion (and I don't know whether it is improper to do so, besides). generic_hipster 23:19, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The tagging of !votes of persons who do not appear to have been active on Wikipedia otherwise is common, especially where there is a reasonable likelihood they did not happen upon this discussion by mere happenstance :(. I note that any article existing or not existing on any other site is not relevant here - all we decide here is whether the person is notable under enWiki policies and guidelines (WP:GNG). Collect (talk) 02:05, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are lots of people who satisfy the GNG without doing anything that merits being notable. If we're going to clean them out, which would require a change to notability policy/guidelines, we should start in Kardashian territory and work our way downup through. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:28, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind explaining how this person satisfies GNG (other than WP:INTHENEWS)? Because currently your argument can be summed up as "it's just notable", which brings hardly anything to the discussion. kashmiriTALK 19:39, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep....Certainly. If Announcerless Game meets the criteria, this article certainly does. See WP:BIODEL, which states...
"Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete. Poorly sourced biographical articles of unknown, non-public figures, where the discussions have no editor opposing the deletion, may be deleted after discussions have been completed. If a deletion discussion of any biographical article (of whether a well known or less known individual) has received few or no comments from any editor besides the nominator, the discussion may be closed at the closer's discretion and best judgment"...this is not the case, so keep. SethWhales talk 22:01, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Plenty of reliable sources to meet gng, the argument for deletion is just IDONTLIKEIT. Jacona (talk) 19:57, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpartazHumbug! 11:12, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Probably should have been instead of relisting the second time, but I am relisting it since there were no comments. Dat GuyTalkContribs 12:32, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dat GuyTalkContribs 12:32, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note Appears to have co-written several medical articles with his father, including ones on cryosurgery etc. Collect (talk) 14:16, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how WP:ONEEVENT applies here. Even if one, for the sake of argument, were to accept that WP:ONEEVENT is relevant here, the article would not be suitable for deletion per Wikipedia:WI1E: “When an individual is covered for a single event, and the spotlight follows that individual into his or her new endeavors, WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E have not been held by the Wikipedia community to be compelling reasons for deletion.” Janniger’s appointment to head a think-tank in New Jersey resulted in substantial coverage in reliable sources. (e.g. Wprost: [23]) As he is covered in numerous reliable sources, there is no reason to delete/merge this article. Cachets687 (talk) 23:40, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure how serious [24] is, through it is certainly a nice achievement for someone so young. But the coverage of this is a short paragraph reprinted by several medias, with no analysis or such, and it was only covered along the lines of "look, that young person who made news few weeks ago did something mildly interesting again". --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:56, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, is registering a company/nonprofit and getting a website supposed to be a notable achievement? Sorry, I should then become a Wikipedian with an article! Let me also notice that either the iga.global website is absolutely unrepresentative of their activities or the guy has no idea what a thinktank is, and I am writing this as a member of a few real thinktanks. Else - consider it a threat - I will add BLPs of quite a few friends of mine who tried to promote their consultancy services as "thinktanks"; and will refer to this thread in case anyone wants to delete them! Regards, kashmiriTALK 17:54, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I have noted before, Janniger is notable as a sub-cabinet official, as a politician who represents a historic first, and as a political figure who receives significant press coverage. Establishing a nonprofit is not intrinsically a notable achievement. Yet, the media coverage does show that the public eye has undoubtedly followed Janniger into his new endeavors, with reliable sources, including Wirtualna Polska, providing critical analysis of Janniger’s position in the US. Even yesterday, Fakt published a new article on Janniger. Cachets687 (talk) 18:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Adviser is NOT a "sub-cabinet official". There is no such post in the civil service as "adviser". These are all posts of various external "helpers", often not even paid from the respective ministry budget. Moreover, he was adviser for only two weeks (24 Nov – 8 Dec) which still makes it fall perfectly within WP:ONEEVENT. That means, he was briefly in the media for two weeks in Nov/Dec, later one or two publications, and that's it. Plus, his USA company established around a year ago. Honestly, mere European Commission has several thousand advisers many of whom come up in the media from time to time; some might even have own consultancy companies. I can't imagine these facts alone would make them independently notable. kashmiriTALK 01:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
These claims are blatantly false. As Advisor to the Minister of National Defence (Doradca w gabinecie politycznym ministra), Janniger was, per Polish law, a sub-cabinet official. As the relevant statute clearly states, an Advisor is a Member of the Political Cabinet and is highly paid for a public official. See Dz.U.2008.73.429 ([25]). For your information, the Advisor to the Minister of National Defence has historically been compensated 9459,99 PLN per month. See interpellation 844 ([26]). Cachets687 (talk) 01:48, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh please, (1) existence of a salary scale is no proof that advisers are sub-cabinet officials. Nor that are even "officials" at all - there is no "adviser" grade in Polish Civil Service. If you read your linked law again, you will see: "A salary scale for government officials... AND advisers to officials (...)". The law you linked does indirectly prove that advisers are NOT officials in Poland! (2) Additionally, a salary scale of PLN 3.640–4.720 gross, as in the document you linked, is even below what a Polish attaché gets. Hope you don't argue that all attachés and above should be in Wikipedia because of having a regulated salary scale? Come on. kashmiriTALK 12:45, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article clearly meets WP:GNG. Looks like Kashmiri has decided the matter for himself, choosing to post inapplicable information and categorical falsehoods. In “The answer of the Secretary of State in the Ministry of National Defence - under the authority of the Minister - to interpellation no 844 on the functioning of the political cabinet in regard to announced savings in public administration”, then First Deputy Minister of National Defence, Czesław Mroczek, explains to the Sejm that the Advisor to the Minister of National Defense is compensated 6390,69 to 9459,99 PLN per month. ([27]) As its name states, the law I referenced relates to “the principles of remuneration and other benefits for employees of state institutions working in political cabinets, and who serve as advisors or act as advisors to persons holding national leadership positions.” ([28]) How are attachés relevant here? Assistants to the US Secretary of Defense (even Acting assistants) often have pages in en:wiki. Your earlier claim about European Commission advisers is likewise irrelevant. Yet, for the sake of argument, I will point out that there are not “several thousand advisers”, as you claimed, but typically 1 to 4 per European Commissioner. Please stop making manipulative statements. Cachets687 (talk) 18:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You have mis-translated the title. Correctly, it specifies "...pay and remuneration OF government employees placed in political cabinet roles AND OF advisers and acting advisers to senior government officials". Which is tantamount to advisers not being considered cabinet officials.
In the linked response to the parliamentary interpellation, Deputy Minister of Defence did not make a general statement on pay but clarified the staff costs in HIS cabinet, which had two advisers paid PLN 9459,99 and PLN 6390,69 per month respectively.
Irrespective of everything, and of the number of advisers working at EU institutions (there are huddreds and hundreds of them), this newspaper [29] informs that Janniger resigned on 30 November. So, his entire political career to-date lasted, well... seven days.
Sadly, you are once again posting misleading statements. Janniger, per many independent reliable sources, was Advisor to the Minister of National Defence and a Member of the Political Cabinet. (e.g. NaTemat: [30]) Previously, Janniger was a senior staffer at the Sejm for three years, including work as Deputy Chief of Staff to Antoni Macierewicz, then Vice President of Law and Justice, as well as collaboration with the Parliamentary Committee for the Investigation of the Causes of the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 Crash. (e.g. TVP Info: [31]). Janniger was also a political operative for Law and Justice as Deputy Campaign Manager. (e.g. Parlamentarny: [32]) It appears that the sub-cabinet position was the culmination of his service. Cachets687 (talk) 22:40, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. However, cleanup is in order to make sure it meets our standards. (non-admin closure)→ Call meRazrNation 09:56, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The BushrangerOne ping only 00:46, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Subject appears to be notable from a simple search but the article could definitely use a trimming of promotional tone because it reads like an advertisement. Meatsgains (talk) 03:35, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've re-organized the article for better flow and a less promotional tone. From some brief research he seems to be notable in his field. I've added some information from an (glowing) article about his kids following him into the business, and additional information from an (critical) article about fengshui retailers ripping people off by having them buy overpriced junk, and both of those are now cited. I've also found this article,[1] which is not in English, and which I haven't cited; but from what I can tell from Google translate, various Fengshui masters (including Tan Khoon Yong) were consulted about a Las Vegas casino, and are giving their opinions about if it has good or bad fengshui. I can't make enough sense out of it to be able to use it in the article, but it's evidence of notability. He's also briefly discussed in this book.[2] Again, appears to be notable. Someone needs to verify the information about the French TV show appearance, that link is dead, and the article could use attention by someone who can read whatever language that article about the hotel is in, but he does seem to be notable, so Keep. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 20:07, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as despite what's listed including above, my searches found no better coverage, especially considering what's currently listed at the article, aside from a few links at Books, News and browsers. The article may have some information but there's nothing solidly and outstandingly notable and acceptable, that is, unless the article can be further improved. SwisterTwistertalk 08:19, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY ScutiTalk 20:36, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dat GuyTalkContribs 12:29, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs cleanup and additional sources, but deletion is not a solution for that. Thisisnotatest (talk) 23:14, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus, default to keep without prejudice against a potential merger. Editor generally agree that WP:GNG and WP:NJOURNAL are governing guidelines in this discussion, but clearly disagree how those two guidelines should apply to this article. Deryck C. 21:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, only independent sources are brief in-passing mentions in local newspapers. Google Scholar indicates just a hand full of citations to articles published in this journal. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 11:19, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As creator of the article, I believe that the mentions in the local newspapers are sufficient independent sources. Moreover, the Dubrovnik Annals are used as a source in Wikipedia about 20 times. I think an article of the journal is needed to let the reader know WP's sources. Moreover, there are multiple mentions at Google Books. However, if my arguments aren't sufficient to keep it as a stand-alone-article, my second choice would be a 'merge and redirect' to Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts. Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 12:16, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whether the local in-passing mentions are enough to satisfy GNG is a matter of judgment. That a publication is cited in WP is not an argument: all a non-notable journal would then have to do to become notable is add references to some articles and presto! they're notable. As I said in the now, there is a smattering of citations to articles in this journal (most articles never having been cited, a few others with 1 citation, haven't seen any with more) and these pop up in GBooks. These are just cites of articles, none are in-depth discussion of the journal itself. The number of cites is way below what we would usually take to indicate notability for a single researcher, let alone for a whole journal (especially one that has been around for quite a while). --Randykitty (talk) 12:59, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Hi Randy, three points:
1. You are right on the ‘putting references first, thus making the journal notable of a stand-alone-article’-theory. I’ve seen that happen on WP too. However, that case here. I discovered the journal while being busy with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dživo Frana Sorkočević, and then thought an article was useful.
2. I’ve made a paragraph on the indexing of this journal. I hope it will increase the notability a bit.
3. And if the article stays or not: thanks for improving it anyway! Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 10:59, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Long-established scholarly Croatian Journal. Not many cites expected as field is recondite. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:27, 1 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]
So how does that meet any of our inclusion guidelines? --Randykitty (talk) 22:03, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Any sources that support the claim that this journal has a "historic purpose or a significant history"? --Randykitty (talk) 10:59, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per Xxanthippe. Newspapers constitute acceptable third-party coverage. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 07:53, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reminder to participants in this debate: notability is established by significant coverage in reliable sources (as are claims of an "historic purpose or a significant history" - such as "published Einstein's most famous paper"). In-passing mentions in (local) newspapers do not constitute such significant overage. --Randykitty (talk) 11:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we have established that this article has met any of WP:NJournals's criteria for notability, and I certainly haven't found any evidence that the journal has a "historic purpose or a significant history." Nor do the trivial mentions in newspapers confer notability (see WP:TRIVIALMENTION). Therefore, I am in favor deleting this, unless someone can cite specific evidence of significant coverage in a reliable secondary source (it need not be in English). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:02, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Based on what I have found, I'm leaning Delete here - I'm not seeing anything that passes WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Mdann52 (talk) 17:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - mentions in independent local newspapers do not give enough coverage to the topic so that it is the subject of significant coverage, which is required by both WP:NJournals and WP:GNG. As for WP:NJournals#C3 historic purpose or a significant history, no one in this discussion has explained any historic purpose/significant history, let alone show that such purpose or coverage has been written about so as to be able to include it in Wikipedia. While Economy of Ragusa, 1300-1800: the Tiger of Medieval Mediterranean cites to five separate articles in Dubrovnik Annals, those add to the notability of the articles themselves, not Dubrovnik Annals, since notability is not inherited. Merge Dubrovnik Annals to Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts is inappropriate. Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts has been around since 1866 and there is no source to even suggest that the academy's publishing Dubrovnik Annals since 1997 would be even a Wikipedia article mentionable part of the Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts' 150 year history or its purpose. Delete. -- Jreferee (talk) 12:56, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to show it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969TT me 13:29, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Searches in English for non-English topics generally do not. Aeonx (talk) 13:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Searching for the journal's title, which is indeed in English, should also turn up sources that are not in English, too. --Randykitty (talk) 15:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Last time I checked, number of GHits does not translate to notability, unless some of those links provide independent in-depth coverage. --Randykitty (talk) 15:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep and strongly recommend a revamp. Deryck C. 21:58, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For a new user who only created and contributed to this article with this length which is impossible to write in the time between when he created his account and when he created this page, I am 99% sure that this is copyright, however I can't find the source. I believe it should be deleted anyways though because it probably is copyrighted. Dat GuyWiki (talk) 09:21, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also, the manual of style is unencyclopedic like and more essay-like, which also leads me to believe it's copy-pasted from a non-free source. Dat GuyWiki (talk) 09:22, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that it looks like a copy and paste, but as I'm only getting two Google hits (this article, and a Facebook page) for the name, it's not going to be easy to trace. This is possibly in part due to language and script problems, but I would expect there to be at least something somewhere. There's a little about the son (Bijay), but I can't even find his book about his father. This is very well written, albeit unencyclopaedic, and is not a machine translation from a Nepali language - at least, I can't find any clue that it wasn't written in English. This suggests to me that it was written by the son, who appears to be UK based, and that this might well be part of his book, although why I can't find evidence of the book is puzzling me. Possibly it was self-published through one of the companies that does little for the customer, or it hasn't actually come out yet. Peridon (talk) 14:10, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The surname appears to be Hitan, with Magar relating to an ethnic or geographical grouping. But I cannot find any GHits there either. The article has no references, so is in line for deletion as it stands; if refs emerge we may be in a position to track down what looks, I agree, like a cut-and-paste text. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 15:20, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I tried that too, and Jya- instead of Jay- as a pic has that in its title. Peridon (talk) 15:54, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - This looks very much like it has been copy pasted, or it is a some kind of translation. We should probably wait at least until the book surfaces, and then rewrite this. The subject of the article seems to be a notable person, however. WP:TNT. I could not find anything about him even by using variations of the name. Ceosad (talk) 15:27, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it isn't copyrighted, but it's still WP:COI. Dat GuyWiki (talk) 15:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If any of it has been published in different sites, then that statement is not enough to remove copyright worries. I take it to mean that the copyright belongs to the grandson and probably the son too - in which case WP:COPYRIGHT and/or WP:COPYVIO come(s) in. And the standard of English in the article and there are so totally different that I feel sure they are not by the same person. Peridon (talk) 21:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh great, so it is either conflict of interest or a copyright violation. It would be nice if we had access to those websites, so that we could at least machine translate them from Nepali language. This is just so severe case that I have to stay in support of the deletion. Anyway, this is an entirely unreferenced biography so we can simply delete it. If anybody finds the websites, I might be willing write a stub from them, after this copyvio mess is taken care of. Ceosad (talk) 00:50, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some activity on the talk page. Anyways, a short recap is that IP 94.13.94.126 has reportedly said that he is the son of the person this article is about. He also said that he "Wrote his biography and asked Nepal based friends to upload it for me." He also added that he took information from his fathers book and edited it. Later he added information about the book "This biography in Nepali version has been published in the year 2014 in the book called JAYABAHADUR HITANMAGAR BYAKTITWA RA KRITITWA edited by Bijaya Hitanmagar (ISBN978 9937 2 8974 0). °" Dat GuyWiki (talk) 15:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so the CoI is the lesser problem here. I would be fine with Keeping this article, if we can be certain that the copyright is not a problem. We should eventually Transwikify that Nepali language content that just appeared on the article. I would still like to see another reference on the person's life. I guess I need to spend some time googling, or we should just ask help from Nepali wiki's Teahouse. I can see the good faith in these edits. The webpage mentioned on the book cover has at least this obituary, but I still have to find one related to this article. http://magarsangh.org.np/2015/12/11/Ceosad (talk) 17:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This whole case might be a typical WP:INDAFD issue. It looks like no one in India and Nepal writes about books in the internet. This person is somewhat widely cited in Western books and papers concerning Maoism and ethnic activism among the Magar people, but there are only some passing mentions of him elsewhere. [33], [34], [35], I also found out this interview of his son, but Google thought it is Portuguese so I could not translate him. There is also this web source that looks like it is about the correct person. Ceosad (talk) 17:23, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here is another paper that cites him on the Jajanati movement, but this time it does not give any details. Ceosad (talk) 17:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY ScutiTalk 18:30, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Copyright violations should be fixed by editing not deletion. The article needs to be trimmed, but the subject is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:47, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like a copyvio, and completely unencyclopedic. Doesn't pass WP:GNG and even if they did, I think a TNT would be the only way to make this article okay. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:44, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Cleanup is not a reason for deletion by itself. It is a CoI case for sure though. Ceosad (talk) 08:18, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I finally made my mind about this article. It must be trimmed to get rid of the potential copyvios. Perhaps some of the sources I found would be enough to write a very basic stub at least? The book would be good source, but we do not have a copy of it, and it is endorsed by the Magar association so it can be assumed that it is somewhat reliable. Perhaps it could be moved to a further reading section until somebody (hopefully) obtains it. Ceosad (talk) 08:18, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Stub to match source and address copyright consensus, move to Jaya Bahadur Hitan Magar since the source in the article lists his name as that, and allow the article to be relisted at AfD under the correct name. I did a search and could not find any information on Jaybahadur Hitan Magar. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am not sure about the move, but I will not oppose it. I think I have seen both forms of the name. Sadly I have forgotten the exact Nepali forms I used, as some time has passed since I was googling his name a lot. I still wonder if the word "Magar" even is a part of the name, as it refers to the ethnicity. Ceosad (talk) 16:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13(talk) 09:59, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Use the link, luke. This is not the copyvio you're looking for. I'm pretty sure this is a translation of [36]. The English auto-translation is pretty rough, but you can pick out a few proper nouns here and there, and of course the photo. There may be all sorts of editorial problems that require cleaning up (and maybe even deletion for reasons that apply on en but may not on ne), but at least on it's face it's not a copyvio. Click me!. -- RoySmith(talk) 03:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I should amend that. It's entirely possible that the nepali source page is itself a copyvio of something. I would be looking for somebody who is a native speaker of Nepali to help sort this out. -- RoySmith(talk) 03:32, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, upon further investigation, the en version that we're talking about here was created on 13 December 2015. The ne version on 16 December (click here for the article history, then get chrome or whatever to translate it). So, if anything, the ne version was copied from us. I'm really in a dilemma here. On the one hand, we know that our coverage suffers from systemic bias which selects against non-anglo-european topics, and non-english sources. Deleting this might just be an example of that bias. On the other hand, what he have here passes the duck test for a copyvio and/or promotional article. It's almost completely unsourced. The one source given in the notes is [37] which is described as Collected writings of a political and social activist; chiefly on the post-1990 political and social conditions of Nepal.. Something described as collected writings doesn't sound like it would meet our criteria for a reliable, independent, source. In any case, it's a pretty obscure source; the library of congress is the only catalog I can find that has it. After all this, I think I'm going to have to go with a delete recommendation, or at least radical surgery to cut this back to a stub if no better sources can be found. -- RoySmith(talk) 20:20, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Cunard: you are often able to find sources when nobody else can. Perhaps you can help here? -- RoySmith(talk) 20:24, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, the article has many issues. It requires significant copy-editing, however my gut instinct is that the article is probably noteworthy. I'm not sure copyvio applies to translations? Unfortunately, as has already been mentioned we really need a Nepalese person to assist here. Failing that, it should be shortened into a stub. Aeonx (talk) 12:58, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 14:43, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"This material is technically unverifiable because its sourcing is unknown and the sourcing is unretrievable on attempting a reasonable search. Technically, unless an editorially reviewed journalist were to compile this in a proper WP:RS, and none has, only the organization itself could hope to generate or maintain a correct list that corresponds to its organizational rules and procedures, which can change (and actually have) over time. (For example, among many possible questions, if there were an available official tabulation by Miss Earth would dethroned awardees be counted or not?) As such, Wikipedia policy is for deletion here. Parenthetically, from a utilization viewpoint, this table has no encyclopedic merit whatsoever (I will keep this brief but I will expound in detail if asked). The sole purpose of this table is commercial promotion. The organization itself or a fan site could opt to host any definitive official data they wish to maintain for their commercial purposes."
Keep - the list is useful for people interested in the subject of Miss World. Article needs more verifications certainly but that is not a reasoning for deletion. --BabbaQ (talk) 00:01, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Any issue with all unverified material being deleted? The WP:BURDEN is on the people who put these unsourced claims in. Legacypac (talk) 21:45, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 1: Not referenced and not capable of being referenced, based on attempt to seek proper sources. 2: It is impossible with any proper duty to verifiabilty to try to correct the extensive errors in this table and keep it correctly up to date in the absence of a certified error-free baseline. WP:CALC states that "Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. That is not the case here.
(For the longer record, the mistakes include: See Russia: 2 plus 1 plus 5 is... 7? Hmmm. France: 1 + 3 + 2 + 3 + 2 + 14 is... 24. Oops, Ireland doesn't add up correctly either. Nor Spain. Dominican Republic is even further off regular old school math. But not as badly as Switzerland, where 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 24 is 8. Maybe someone snuck in 20 unreferenced Swiss semifinalists who never existed? Wales looks wrong too. And something's off with Hungary. Maybe these territories got their data swapped? Then we have another category of errors. Several like this, but for example, line 81 Ukraine has 4 semifinalists but edges out Vietnam on line 82 with 6. Nepal on line 110 is below an array of places with 1. Lines 111 and 112 look to be messed up, and Guatemala, US Virgin Islands, and Nicaragua all got stuck in wrong places. So would we just make a big crazy guess that the Swiss entry snuck in 20 extra semifinalists? Then we have an apparent third category of errors. Look at Switzerland again, with 1 each of 1st/3rd/4th/6th runner up on this table. Except that according to List of Miss World runners-up and finalists, Switzerland was 6th runner up in 1978 and 1985. Rhodesia & Nyasaland shows 2 on this table, but doesn't show at List of Miss World runners-up and finalists, at least not with the name Nyasaland or Central African Federation, or whatever, because this list expands to all semifinalists, using some source that is obscure enough not to be cited. Then we have a fourth error category: the definitions of placement have wobbled over time. And a fifth: nobody has ever endorsed this tabulation methodology for this list of existing and no-longer-existing nations and territories. We have UK, and also Scotland and England, and Wales and N. Ireland. And so on. And a sixth -- if you want, I'll point out several other mistakes, with columns rather than rows. Just ONE of these: if Bermuda and Grenada are 35th equal, then custom would have Colombia be 37, not 36. Etcetera.) FeatherPluma (talk) 07:03, 29 December 2015 (UTC) modest reformat FeatherPluma (talk) 21:12, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The most recent large edit... by a indef banned sockmaster of beauty pageants User:ColombiabeautyLegacypac (talk) 08:06, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:58, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. No reliable source discusses this concept, nor are the numbers on the page cited anywhere. This belongs on some Miss World fansite blog, not an encyclopedia. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. While there is a collection of her "non-art" material, I am not sure if that would fit the criteria #4 of ARTIST. There seems to be no clear consensus and it has been relisted twice, hence closing it with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure)Yash! 23:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have flagged this CSD G12 as the article text is copied from the subject's own site (with its claims also referenced to that WP:PRIMARY source). AllyD (talk) 07:40, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The article was initially speedy deleted per WP:G12 as unambiguous copyright infringement (diff). However, per messages received on my talk page (diff), Kristin Leachman updated their page at http://kristinleachman.com/info/ to read "Copyright Information: Copyright release for this page authorizes word-for-word distribution of the contents as long as citation and link back to this content has been provided within usage.". As such, the article is no longer in copyright infringement and the article has been restored. However, this does not negate the rationale of the deletion nomination itself. Notifying Derek Andrews and AllyD here so they are aware of this matter. North America1000 15:24, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13(talk) 07:52, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13(talk) 09:44, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. She arguably passes WP:ARTIST criterion 4 (one work in the San Diego Museum of Art; I could not verify the claim of the Smithsonian, since the link is dead, but if her work is indeed in the Smithsonian, then she passes the criterion). On top of this, we have an article in Los Angeles Times, which is a large step towards WP:GNG. I only used the material cited in the article, do not have time for an external search right now.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can't verify that her art is in the Smithsonian, but they have collected other non-art material related to her[38].--Jahaza (talk) 16:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Very badly written, vague allegations ("this unit was very secretive, and it had access to everything and everyone") without real references. Better delete the article entirely and redo from the scratch.
The article has been split from Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, where an unregistered user added it. [39] According to the article's creator: "Apparently, the source for the story is a CNN journalist named Lisa Ling, and she heard the story from Scott Barnes. After much online research, I found that Barnes is not very credible, and no one else ever heard of the story." - Mike Rosoft (talk) 08:34, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete This seems to be a piece of OR or who knows what, but I can't see how to justify this as a reliable article. Mangoe (talk) 18:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nakon 01:37, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence that this is a notable wrestler. Neither source seems like a reliable source on the matter. I believe this is the same wrestler as deleted in 2007 per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlie Cook. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:37, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Probable Weak Keep: ...but this would need specialist attention/rescue, since given the era sourcing would mostly need to be from wrestling magazines. I was thinking that he might have gotten in under WP:NGRIDIRON, however it appears that the NFL claim was kayfabe, ref the Steelers' PDFs. On the assumption that the Cagematch database is reasonably correct, he held multiple championships, all regional — but wrestling was very much regional in those days. He has a biographical entry in Black Stars of Professional Wrestling and a couple of mentions in Ric Flair's autobiography. Anyone who held multiple belts for reasonable periods must have had some kind of significant fan reaction, however: This indicates that he was a top Florida babyface and "an integral part of Florida wrestling", and this indicates that Ric Flair was booed when he faced him. There's a number of youtube clips that show that he appears to have had an extended televised wrestling presence. Per User:MadMax from the previous AFD, he was rated in the top 500 (alltime) in in the 2003 PWI Years list -- (again, on the presumption that that link is correct) I note that they've placed him only 10 below Mikey Whipwreck, and above Mark Henry. He also placed for their 1981 list of Most Improved Wrestler of the Year -- note the company he's in on that list, and that this was not an editorial award, but a reader award! ~~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~~ 12:33, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable wrestler who won several prominent championships. PWI Most Improved Wrestler of the Year in 1981. Sources have been added to help establish notability. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:12, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the sourcing -- Wikipedia as an antidote to the memory hole of an ephemeral Internet!~~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~~ 07:04, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Won numerous prominent awards in his profession, meets GNG.LM2000 (talk) 23:14, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a notability standard for professional wrestling? It seems to fall to WP:ENTERTAINER. I'd guess these awards fall under significant roles in stage performances. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In the past we have used WP:ENT as the guideline rather than WP:ATH.LM2000 (talk) 00:16, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's explicitly at Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Applicable_policies_and_guidelines. I'm just curious how the awards play into that interpretation; I may just withdraw the nomination if it makes sense. The awards are kayfabe in the technical sense but I presume they give an impression of the significance of his role within the industry or at least within the league. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:48, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Cook's article mentions that he won the Most Improved Wrestler of the Year award in 1981, but List of Pro Wrestling Illustrated awards and Cagematch state he was the third runner up. Does anyone have access to the reference in Cook's article that can do a quick fact check? Nikki♥311 18:38, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Response - Sorry about that. I'm not sure what I was thinking when I added that. I have corrected it. GaryColemanFan (talk) 07:04, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Nakon 01:36, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Original research. The article does not actually define the "rotational year", and references a calculation by William R. Livingston (who is that?) which does not define the term either. The other references are completely irrelevant - they do not mention the term. It doesn't appear to be established term, either; possibly a non-standard term for sidereal year. Proposed deletion removed by article's creator. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 07:05, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I support deletion because I've read quite a few reliable sources on the topics of astronomy and calendars, and have never heard of a rotational year. There are no reliable sources mentioned in the article mention "rotational year", so the article topic does not satisfy the WP:Notability guideline. A Google search does not produce any hits outside Wikipedia for this concept in the first few pages of search results. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:00, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would add that if one goes to the archive page cited in the article and then navigates to the PDF and examines the top of the first page, it will be evident that the creation of this article was a conflict of interest. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:47, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete different calculation of year length which does not appear to have acheived notability. If, by some lucky chance, a proper definition and secondary source can be found, add a section to Year#Astronomical years. Happy Squirrel (talk) 17:42, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My apologies to the Wikipedia community for starting a public page prior to being an expert editor or writer, and for not knowing if I should or should not be commenting here on this page. Wikipedia gives encouragement to new contributors by saying "be bold", and that is what I have done. I ask for your patience. I intend that the article will be completed prior to the end of the 7-day delete window; and I hope that you will refrain from final judgement until then, or even later. I am very happy that Wikipedia exist. I am also happy that articles must meet certain standards. I have been studying my topic for years, and I know that the rotational year article will add clarity to other Wikipedia articles which are related to my topic. signed User:bingston
Comment Based on the author's comments, I would suggest moving to draft as an alternative to deletion. I believe this is a case where the wp:articles for creation process might be very appropriate. @Bingston:, I am sure it is clear to you, but the exact nature of the topic (as compared to other year-length computations) is escaping all of us. Also you cite several international organizations' computations of year length, but it is unclear from the article whether they adopt the rotational year or some other computation. Happy Squirrel (talk) 02:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with Happysquirrel. This "rotational year" is clearly invented by Bingston. Only terms that have achieved substantial recognition in the astronomical community deserve a Wikipedia article. Thus this term does not deserve a Wikipedia article and any further pursuit of making it into an article is a waste of time. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:51, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I currently consider it unlikely that this will become an article. However, incubating and proceeding through AfC is quite harmless. It will not be passed unless notability is established. The "waste of time" to reviewers is minimal (given that AfC reviewers review based on the current state of the article and nothing else). The positive outcome I was thinking of was mainly the aspect of mentoring a new editor (sort of the difference between jumping into cold water and slipping in gently). Hope that clarifies. Happy Squirrel (talk) 01:30, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't consider the AFD process a waste of time, but I'm quite sure that any editor who searches for sources to establish the notability of the topic will not be successful. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:52, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI am appreciative of your suggestion. My first choice would be to keep the page active and public. However, if the article is too much of an aggravation for administrators, I would be very willing to move it instead of having it deleted. Do I need to decide immediately? Or can I wait for a warning from an administrator? Should I assume your comment is a warning, and move the page now? Thanks. Bingston
Comment The first draft of Rotational Year is finished. I will be appreciative of any opportunity to improve it. Signing off for a week or ten days. If it becomes clear that one of you will be pushing the delete button, I authorize any other one of you to save it from the aether by any means allowed. Time for a walkabout.Bingston (talk) 23:41, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unfortunately this is original research and the concept of a rotational year does not seem to appear in reliable sources. --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:22, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is not just OR, it is incoherent. Saying something is "mathematically derived" from something else tells us nothing, so from the very beginning the term is just undefined. Again, it means nothing to say some putative value is "compliant" with other values. The fact that there are two numbers, 365.xyz and 366.xyz, exactly one apart, suggests something to do with the fact that the stars appear to go around exactly one extra (or was it fewer?) times in a year. But this is just mystery making. Imaginatorium (talk) 16:15, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Has no notability outside of the Collingwood Football Club and fails to meet WP:GNG. There is a long list of awards at all club best and fairest awards night, and each award does not need their own article. A google search does not return any independent sources (only Collingwood website), the Fairfax Media archive returns only minor mentions in Collingwood B&F articles (no individual article about the notability of award) [40], and one result from News Corp Australia as a minor mention in a Collingwood B&F article [41]Flickerd (talk) 06:01, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
comment the last nomination of this award was added very late into the discussion of the AfD for the Joseph Wren Memorial Trophy and the Gavin Brown Award was never really discussed as to why it should be deleted/merged/redirected etc. apart from lumping it in with the original nomination of the Joseph Wren Memorial Trophy (where some case can be made for assessing them differently due to one being a B&F award and another one being awarded for one-percenters, which isn't even considered one of the main AFL stats). Flickerd (talk) 06:25, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is an important award, acknowledging courage and mateship. Is named after a famous player who captained the club for 5 years amongst other great achievements. --SuperJew (talk) 06:36, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – as Flickerd says, this award receives no significant coverage. Its only appearance in independent sources is as a minor mention in articles about the Copeland Trophy, and this fails WP:GNG, specifically "Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail" and "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention". Aspirex (talk) 07:31, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the text along with that of other minor internal awards to either Collingwood Football Club or (preferably) to a new article about CFC's awards since the existance of this award is of (minor) notibility, and Collingwood have a lot of club awards. Probably omit individual player listings for minor awards as those who want to see them can go straight to the source, assuming proper referencing. (nb: Gavin Brown (footballer) doesn't currently mention this award).~~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~~ 09:23, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Frankly, this is about as obscure an award as you can get and even most Collingwood supporters wouldn't have heard of it. In terms of Wikipedia notability, Flickerd and Aspirex have hit the nail on the head – this award has not received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. I wouldn't even support a merge because there are currently zero independent reliable sources in the article. Jenks24 (talk) 11:18, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep, I'm getting hits on Google. If it's promotional, that can be fixed without deleting the article. CatcherStormtalk 18:49, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. There is a strong enough consensus to delete the article. Nakon 01:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PROD was removed by Michig with saying that having ten albums with Massacre Records would satisy bands notability guidelines but I'm still questionable about that, as it could simply be that any available coverage is archived but that's an "if" of course", and since my searches found no better coverage and there are no obvious signs of there being any....here we are at AfD. Notifying past user Drmies in case he had any comments at the time. SwisterTwistertalk 20:20, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I hate the circularity in NBAND. A band is notable if it released a few albums on a notable label, and a label is notable if it has a couple of notable bands under contract--it's the closest thing to a walled garden we have on Wikipedia. So strictly speaking Michig is right, I suppose, but it leads to a ton of articles where we have nothing to write an article with, nothing reliable, but we can't delete it. Case in point: Creepmime, which lacks any verified content. And their 1993 album is boring, by the way. Drmies (talk) 21:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The BushrangerOne ping only 07:39, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:58, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I sincerely hope this can be relisted again as I was notified one heavy metal fan user is planning to comment here. SwisterTwistertalk 19:58, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Third relist per nominator's request. Mz7 (talk) 03:58, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 03:58, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While it might meet WP:BAND by the letter, just putting out a few albums that received a few comments at the time and no longer seem to generate any interest doesn't seem to meet the stated goal of Wikipedia notability. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:30, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - I think there might be a language barrier in play, but we need sources to write an article regardless of any technical claim to notability. If we don't have enough of them, even if it's notable there shouldn't be a stand-alone article. Sort of a WP:TNT. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 01:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep: The original version was awful, but WP:BEFORE really applies here given what's available (and visible but poorly or not available) on the web, and there are definitely references to inaccessible sources (and there should be more offline). Anyway, I've expanded the article significantly (still needs obvious work).~~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~~ 08:55, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as the updates by Hydronium Hydroxide explicate the notability. I had a look at the copy&paste issue, but found it's Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/Vwxyz#Worldheritage.org. Rms125a, you really need to start doing cursory searches for these topics that you want to nominate for deletion - Google Books says 40 books talk of this person, so WP:POTENTIAL is clearly there, you should instead mark for cleanup. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:56, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article looks OK now and notability seems unquestionable (WP:SOLDIER). GregorB (talk) 13:17, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly meets GNG in terms of multiple sources independent of the subject, as well as SOLDIER. Also has a profile in "Who was Who in the NDH" page 268. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:32, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article has been a work in progress for a few months now, and I don't feel it yet meets Wikipedia standards for notability of an academic WP:ACADEMIC. I've discussed the matter in the past with the editor/creator of the page, and have given him more than a month to address the concerns. There should be some record of this on the article's talk page. —Boruch Baum (talk) 03:00, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Five publications with over 100 citations each in Google scholar should be enough for WP:PROF#C1. The article does not look in particularly bad shape for an academic stub, so I don't agree with the nominator that it has severe enough problems to need deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This a stub, but properly sourced and the subject seems notable. The poor state of an article is not in itself grounds for deletion. Dimadick (talk) 10:57, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep. Concur. Accounting is not a high-citation field, so 5 papers having >100 GS cites is notable. Please close. Agricola44 (talk) 15:54, 6 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]
I'm the nominator and would like to withdraw my nomination, based upon the accumulated consensus. I guess that would be done using "speedy keep #1"; however, I'm having trouble finding out how to perform one. The pages WP:SPEEDY and WP:CLOSEAFD haven't helpful to me in figuring out the way to do this. —Boruch Baum (talk) 23:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Artist who appears to fail wp:artist, although there may be things in Turkish I just can't find. Seems to have participated in several exhibitions, but I can't find major contribution to a major exhibition. Happy Squirrel (talk) 01:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm afraid you're right. I've tried to encourage better sourcing from the article's creator. Am not sure we have media coverage or other sources (at least in English) to support notoriety. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 02:04, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The references confirm the basic information, but other than that just show someone going about the activity of the typical artist, with work in group shows etc. No evidence that the subject meets the (rather high) WP:ARTIST criteria at this point. AllyD (talk) 08:00, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was IAR/SNOW keep. This is clearly not going to be deleted. The nominator's rationale will expire in 150 minutes, nobody has advocated deletiomn, and this drama fest needs to be shut down. BethNaught (talk) 09:32, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This list is half-accurate—albeit with numerous reckless formatting errors—and half-not at all. It is not yet the year 2016 in all of North America or Oceania yet. For example, if the Governor of American Samoa were to resign or die in the next few hours, this list would be factually incorrect, false, erroneous, distorted, deceptive and thus misleading. I strongly propose in every single way, shape and form that we delete this article temporarily until all of the state leaders have reached to see in the New Year (of which should be within 12 hours). Moreover, the United States, arguably the most important country containing state leaders within the article, has not arrived in 2016 yet, they are still in 2015; this page would seem very odd and baffling to most American users, of which are the majority of editors on this site. The world does not centre around Zulu (UTC) time, there are plenty of time-zones which must be taken into account; any leader in the New World could leave office at any moment now, and, if this so happens, this list would be absolutely unfounded and lose credibility as an encyclopaedic resource. Neve-selbert 01:04, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How is it nonsense? Explain, please. Neve-selbert 03:07, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Are you aware that these discussions typically last seven days? --|Uncle Milty | talk| 01:57, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, I was not aware. I will probably request a speedy deletion, if this should be necessary. Neve-selbert 03:07, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Have requested WP:CSD, as the article is, for the next few hours, totally inaccurate in regard to the Americas and Oceania. A possible compromise would be to remove these three continents until they have entered the New Year, although I am unsure if this will be too much to handle. Neve-selbert 03:16, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will also note that the 2006 edition was created around mid-day on 1 January 2006, perfect timing; as practically all states had entered the New Year by that time. This should be a precedent that must be followed in future. Neve-selbert 03:32, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not sure if the nominator realizes it, but this is a wiki, and if the information about any country becomes incorrect before midnight in that country's time zone, then that information can and should be corrected, and doing so would be a trivial effort once a reliable source is found to confirm the death or resignation of the former leader. --Metropolitan90(talk) 05:25, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. There is no harm in having the article ready a few hours or even days, early. If you really insist, slap an {{under construction}} tag on it until the whole world has made it into 2016. — This, that and the other (talk) 05:33, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. May I just ask, could we make a rule for when pages like these should be created in the future? I was really hoping to create my first article with this page at midnight UTC, and I had proofread, scanned and checked my draft repeatedly—having also done the same with all of the List of state leaders articles of the 21st century, thus far. I was plunged into disappointment and despair—and, I admit, anger—when I found that the article had already been created almost a day before. I feel totally disconcerted, and am considering whether or not I should probably leave Wikipedia until 2017 eventually comes, so I can be the first to create that article. I am extremely saddened by this situation (an apology could make me bear this grievance, although I concede it is unlikely to be given). This, in my eyes, is simply a tragedy; there should be a stipulation made in future. Would it be wrong just to delete the article for a few seconds, and I can recreate it with my own proofread draft? If not, I concede, per my own disillusionment. Neve-selbert 06:09, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment He has been a second team all-star in the ECHL and the EIHL but otherwise he is not notable for anything else. If the previously listed accomplishments are not enough to satisfy criterion #4 then I would support deletion. Deadman137 (talk) 20:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A Second Team All-Star would not satisfy criterion #4, the level the ECHL is at. No evidence the player meets the GNG. Ravenswing 17:43, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass WP:ATHLETE. Delta13C (talk) 16:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Note: Have requested WP:CSD, as the article is, for the next few hours, totally inaccurate in regard to the Americas and Oceania. A possible compromise would be to remove these three continents until they have entered the New Year, although I am unsure if this will be too much to handle. Neve-selbert 03:16, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Done. May I just ask, could we make a rule for when pages like these should be created in the future? I was really hoping to create my first article with this page at midnight UTC, and I had proofread, scanned and checked my draft repeatedly—having also done the same with all of the List of state leaders articles of the 21st century, thus far. I was plunged into disappointment and despair—and, I admit, anger—when I found that the article had already been created almost a day before. I feel totally disconcerted, and am considering whether or not I should probably leave Wikipedia until 2017 eventually comes, so I can be the first to create that article. I am extremely saddened by this situation (an apology could make me bear this grievance, although I concede it is unlikely to be given). This, in my eyes, is simply a tragedy; there should be a stipulation made in future. Would it be wrong just to delete the article for a few seconds, and I can recreate it with my own proofread draft? If not, I concede, per my own disillusionment. Neve-selbert 06:09, 1 January 2016 (UTC)