Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 January 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 9 January 11 January >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Filippo Ongaro[edit]

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

Non notable doctor that does not meet GNG. Delta13C (talk) 23:56, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not notable. Curro2 (talk) 03:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:SCHOLAR. Google search finds only promotional and self-referential links, all in Italian. Google Scholar finds nothing in particular, and he does not appear to have any academic connection. For what it's worth, I note that he does not have an article at the Italian Wikipedia. --MelanieN (talk) 03:00, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Insufficient references to establish notability. Orthodox2014 (talk) 20:42, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. As per the policies and regulations set by the community at-large, notability is known to be not inherited. Any information about named items attached to another subject are to be retained in the parent article (in this case the roads that form the intersection), until they are shown to have formed enough independent notability. Which, in this case, has not happened. Therefore, the article is found to not meet the requirements of our notability policy at this time. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 14:11, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kreuz Oldenburg-Ost[edit]

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

Contested prod. One of a number of non-notable interchanges, which some feel are notable simply because they are named. No evidence of coming close to passing WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 16:43, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: This is one of a group of disruptive nominations for deletion by the two systemically biased editors above, who have a fixed agenda of wanting all articles about Autobahn interchanges in Germany to be deleted, even though they have carried out no research into whether the subjects of the articles pass WP:GNG or not, and are therefore contending that they are all "non-notable" without regard to whether that contention is true or false. For that reason alone, this nomination should be withdrawn or should fail. See also my more detailed comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kreuz Kaiserberg.
As I have observed in a recent comment in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kreuz Chemnitz, all German Autobahns and their interchanges are engineered, built, and operated, not just as a mode of transport, but also as a form of landscape architecture, and that fact is the subject of detailed discussion in the Reichsautobahn article. Thus, articles about interchanges between two or more German Autobahns (such as this one) should be presumed to be of (at least) architectural interest and therefore notable, even if no similar presumption can be made about interchanges in other countries (which, as far as aesthetics are concerned, have not followed the German model (see Reichsautobahn#Influence)).
In August 2015, the two editors above engineered the deletion of a large number of similar articles on the (alleged) basis (unsupported by any research) that their subject matters were not notable, even though only one of those articles had been tagged for deletion, and therefore reasonable notice had not been given to other editors about the proposed deletions of the other ones. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dreieck Potsdam. After the two editors above had failed, due to "no consensus" (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dreieck Ahlhorner Heide), in an attempt in October 2015 to have a second group of similar articles deleted on the same basis (again unsuppported by any research), one of the above editors later tagged a third group of similar articles, including this one, with WP:PROD tags, which "must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected". Meanwhile, a yet another group of similar articles was tagged with an AFD tag linking to an AFD page making a false statement (and one that would have been misleading even if literally true) about the reason for the failure of the October 2015 attempt. Additionally, neither of the above editors has denied my contention, made before this nomination was made, that their unqualified assertions of non-notability of these articles are not based on any research and are therefore being made without regard to whether those assertions are true or false. These matters alone are sufficient to justify the inference that their move (similarly unsupported by any research) to have this article deleted is being done in bad faith, and that is yet another reason why it should fail. Bahnfrend (talk) 19:09, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment nothing in the lengthy rant above goes to show that this particular interchange passes WP:GNG. Searches show only trivial or routine mentions of the interchange. Onel5969 TT me 19:39, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:44, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  This is like several other recent AfDs I have seen.  I think that a force behind the view to deletion is that the topic is not like other articles on Wikipedia.  This argument is conjoined with an argument that such coverage is WP:INDISCRIMINATE (that the topic is like thousands of others), implying that we already have too many other articles like it on Wikipedia.  The two ideas are mutually opposed.  I recall only one other intersection on Wikipedia, one in Iran that I tried to get deleted.  As the above "rant" explains, each of these autobahn interchanges are expensive, well-researched, well-maintained, engineering marvels documented by multiple cartographers, and well-known to news media and the public at large.  WP:Notability is easily shown as I have done at other similar AfDs, but focusing on wp:notability, as I have also said at these other AfDs, misses the point.  It doesn't matter were this topic to be non-notable, as the "penalty" for non-notability of merge-able material; as per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, and WP:Editing policy; is merger.  The key questions to be considered here are WP:V and WP:NOT.  I've already in a limited way addressed WP:NOT, and turn to WP:V.  I see 10 references in the article, being used to make 11 citations.  With this quick review, all looks to be in order, and the article has a map and a picture.  In my opinion, this work is a valuable addition to our corpus.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:44, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Going over this run of articles, all created by the same person from what I can see and many of them in broken mixes of English and German, the big problem continues to be the unsupportable assertion that all of these are notable as a general principle. If that principle existed, we wouldn't be going through this but it doesn't exist. From what I can see, there may be as many of these stubbish German articles as there are of all other highway interchanges put together; there is no guideline which says that highway interchanges are notable by default. And so once again we have a pretty ordinary cloverleaf with no claim that it is somehow remarkable. It would have been far less disruptive to pick out specific exceptions whose notability could be demonstrated, but instead we're having to go to the mat on every article over a nonexistent guideline. Mangoe (talk) 03:40, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mangoe, WP:N says, "Article content does not determine notability".  WP:Editing policy says, "Preserve the value that others add, even if they 'did it wrong' (try to fix it rather than delete it)."  Respectfully, Unscintillating (talk) 00:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • My impression too.  German engineering of these roads seems to be a cut above what we know in the US, and they were doing what we call interstate highways 20 years earlier.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - but WP:ILIKEIT isn't a valid argument based on policies or guidelines. This is very simple: does it meet the notability criteria or not? The answer, which has yet to have a valid argument put forward to contradict it, is no. Onel5969 TT me 03:12, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say that you have yet to make an argument for deletion, so your own nomination seems to be indistinguishable from WP:IDONTLIKEIT.  One reason for this is that absence of evidence is not evidence of absense.  If you've done GNG analysis, if you show your work other people can duplicate your search results.  Have you looked at all of the sources in the article?  Unscintillating (talk) 04:05, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Sorry you're having so much trouble understanding WP:GNG, which has been cited numerous times, and has been the overriding factor in dozens of these non-notable interchanges being deleted. Onel5969 TT me 10:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry that you think I'm having difficulty in understanding our policies and guidelines.  I asked you a policy question at one of the AfDs, and you didn't respond.  You know by now that as per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE, and given the possibility of redirection, non-notability is not a valid policy-based deletion argument, yet you've gone back to mass nominations of Autobahn intersections where redirection will be possible to one of the Autobahns.  Your reference to other AfDs seems to be an assertion that your WP:VAGUEWAVE nominations have not been challenged in those AfD closes.  Here is text from WP:VAGUEWAVE, "While merely citing a policy or guideline may give other editors a clue as to what the reasoning is, it does not explain specifically how the policy applies to the discussion at hand. When asserting that an article should be deleted, it is important to explain why." 

    This article has doubled in size since your nomination.  Have you looked at all of the sources in the article?  Respectfully, Unscintillating (talk) 12:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have looked at the sources. The question is, have you? One is self published, the main one is not an independent source, and the others a simple mentions. It's really time you WP:DROPTHESTICK. Your arguments on these AfDs have pretty much been completely discounted at this point. And since I did describe the reasons it does not pass WP:GNG, so your above comment regarding Vaguewave is incorrect, at best. Onel5969 TT me 12:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I analyzed the verifiability of the sources in my !vote.  Was there any specific source that you want me to review?  Your entire nomination rationale for deletion was, "No evidence of coming close to passing WP:GNG.".  Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  So no, I don't at all agree that this is not a WP:VAGUEWAVE.  I treat you with respect and make policy based arguments, and I often spend considerable amounts of time in preparing responses.  I would appreciate the same in return.  Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 16:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I do not find the keep arguments convincing enough to close this as "no consensus"; let us have some more opinions on whether the references are substantial enough to meet WP:GNG. JohnCD (talk) 23:01, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JohnCD (talk) 23:01, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:GEOROAD and due to autobahns (Bundesautobahnen) classification.--MurderByDeletionism"bang!" 05:50, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - you do understand it's not a road, right? Georoad actually doesn't mention interchanges. Onel5969 TT me 10:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Are you saying it's a walkway? That no cars are allowed? Because according to the article it's a cloverleaf interchange between two Autobahns and usually (perhaps not always?) that involves a road.
I do not understand why deletionists get so mad that an article they believe must be deleted might possibly not be deleted. Is it because they hate the creator of the article? Whelp, oftentimes that's actually correct. Do they just enjoy running off new editors? Perhaps. Will they win the lotto? Doubtful. Are they getting angry over nothing? Yep!!! --MurderByDeletionism"bang!" 16:16, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not inherited, and the fact that certain roads are generally considered notable doesn't imply that their intersections are notable. Mangoe (talk) 03:33, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Essays are not rules! fyi - Believe it (or not) I spent a bit of time checking into the evidence before making my decision. --MurderByDeletionism"bang!" 07:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No one said anything about inheriting notability.  If you want to explain why autobahns intersected are not autobahns, then do the analysis and advance the discussion.  Anyone looking at a map of either a Dreieck or a Kreuz will see two autobahns.  My above post at 00:02, 11 January 2016 uses "roads" as the common language to describe the object.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Inherited notability is precisely the argument being used by MurderByDeletionism. Neither you, nor they, nor the other keep !vote, have addressed the lack of notability of this interchange. Onel5969 TT me 12:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, nothing was said about inherited notability.  It is an argument called a straw man.  This could be an interesting and relevant discussion with some analysis to explain multiple viewpoints.  As it stands right now, notability seems to be shown for this topic by WP:GEOROAD.  Respectfully, Unscintillating (talk) 16:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
An interchange is not the same thing as a highway, and the GEOROAD guideline addresses highways. The presumption is that that articles can be built about major highways which demonstrate notability because the sources are as a rule available which show notability. Personally I think this tends to be pushing matters and that the presumption is often not played out in practice, but be that as it may, too many people are objecting in these AFD discussions that the presumption of notability for highways does not extend to (or in other words, is not inherited from) the interchanges which are among their components. A presumption about which there is no consensus cannot be taken as a guideline; the interchange articles have to satisfy notability the old-fashioned way. The persistent failure to assert notability within the articles or to provide more than basic stats is strong evidence that there is no basis for a principle that highway-to-highway interchanges should be considered to be notable by default. Mangoe (talk) 18:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe you (and the other deletionists) have already achieved your goal of running off another content creator so congrats! --MurderByDeletionism"bang!" 18:26, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your initial argument to the effect that "An autobahn interchange is not the same thing as a autobahn", uses logic that would also be saying, "An autobahn interchange is not the same thing as two autobahns.", yet it is proper to say "An autobahn interchange is two or more autobahns." It is still not clear here whether the concept of "autobahn" is somehow limited to long numbered roads as opposed to "Bundesautobahnen" classification. 

    The wording in WP:GEOROAD says "International road networks (such as the International E-road network), Interstate, national, state and provincial highways are typically notable."  I think this means that WP:GEOROAD says that kreuzes and dreiecks are typically wp:notable.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • An autobahn exchange is not two autobahns any more than a bend is two ropes. Nor is an interchange a road network. Mangoe (talk) 23:36, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issue here, again and again, is that nobody defending these articles is making any attempt to show notability. I've just made another quick search of things, and what I'm finding are routine traffic reporting and highway repairs material, and what are essentially copies of this article or passing references in articles about the intersecting autobahns. I don't see my obligations as going beyond that, and in any case the argument always comes back to "we presume autobahns to be notable, so interchanges between them are notable too." That is not a demonstration of notability. The position that has prevailed on US interchanges has been that only a very few notorious interchanges (notoriety being in its way a form of notability) merit articles, and the only argument presented that isn't a failed analogy with the US situation is that autobahn interchanges have names, whereas US interchanges are at best numbered. I just don't see how this variation in naming creates notability, and every other positive argument has been based not on the actual notability of any individual interchange, but on some consistently rejected notion that as a class all these interchanges to be presumed notable even though so far not a single one has been proven notable on its own. Mangoe (talk) 19:47, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Mangoe, If wp:notability is your concern, why aren't you !voting to merge?  You want to delete an article with 10 references, 11 citations, and a detail map; while leaving A 29, which has zero citations, one external link, and a location map.  Merge satisfies your wp:notability viewpoint, but the effect of your current !vote inexplicably puts a hole in the encyclopedia.  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 01:55, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete yet another run of the mill interchange that fails WP:GNG. there is no inherent notability of interchanges. LibStar (talk) 01:39, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The article as-written doesn't demonstrate that WP:GNG is met, but given the size of the project, its impact on the local area, and the creation of the associated artificial lake, it seems very likely that it was covered by reliable sources at the time when it was built. WP:GEOROAD doesn't explicitly mention intersections but it seems like a reasonable position to hold that a major named intersection between two notable highways would be subject to the same reasoning that makes the highways themselves presumptively notable. There is also the possibility of a cultural mismatch here; German editors (and readers) may have a completely different view of the notability of an intersection from the US-based editors who dominate these discussions, based on genuine historical and geographical factors. The tendency to name intersections and make them into parks does rather suggest that this is the case. All in all, I don't think it is possible to say that there is a clear "policy" or "precedent" argument here for either keeping or deleting, but I prefer the "keep" argument on the basis that the GNG could almost certainly be met if someone spent the time pouring over German newspaper archives from the late 70s. Thparkth (talk) 06:37, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As with the other generic interchange articles, my view on this remains: On the English Wikipedia, we don't automatically presume that generic interchanges are notable, and there's nothing particular about this one that would cause it to stand out above the 1000s of others. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 03:59, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:32, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ellie Chidzey[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:19, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - cannot find substantial coverage in RS. TheBlueCanoe 23:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bob McMahon (politician)[edit]

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

Mayor of city of about 5k. Fails to meet WP:POLITICIAN or WP:BIO requirements. reddogsix (talk) 20:38, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOLITICIAN. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:15, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mayors of places this size can clear the inclusion bar if their articles can be substantively written and sourced, but they do not get an automatic inclusion freebie just because they exist. Most of the sourcing here, further, is to invalid primary sources which cannot confer notability at all — and the few properly reliable sources are not sufficient in number, or sufficiently extralocal in scope, to claim a WP:GNG pass in lieu of NPOL. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 21:47, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not solidly satisfying the applicable notability guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 03:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:10, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:10, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of fraternities and sororities at University of California, Berkeley[edit]

List of fraternities and sororities at University of California, Berkeley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable, unencyclopedic list that fails NOTDIR. Deprodding justification was that list contents have articles; however, those articles are about the national organizations, not about the generally non-notable local chapters at the school. Regards, James(talk/contribs) 20:36, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator. Highly unencyclopedic list. This is a category, at best. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:37, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No claims of notability, no sources, nothing. Just a list of arbitrary stuff. Nwlaw63 (talk) 23:21, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:36, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:37, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 04:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

International American Council[edit]

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

copyviol Rathfelder (talk) 19:28, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Rathfelder, if this is a copyvio, then it should be tagged for speedy deletion with WP:CSD#G12. Personally, I'm only finding Wikipedia mirrors that are too close in phrasing; where do you believe the source of the copy-vio is? Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:36, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Much of it seems to be from http://iaccouncil.org/about/ Lacks even basic information about the organisation otherwise.Rathfelder (talk) 20:42, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The article is found to meet the notability requirements of WP:GNG. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 14:13, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Storm Eva[edit]

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

Non-notable storm. Aside from a few rivers bursting their banks, this storm's only claim to notability is that it was named by Met Eirann. I don't think this is enough for it to be notable and should follow suit with the rest of the non-notable storms listed at 2015–16 UK and Ireland windstorm season and be summarised there. See also Talk:Storm Eva#Eva and the subsequent Atlantic depression Jolly Ω Janner 18:42, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  Seagull123  Φ  19:05, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  Seagull123  Φ  19:05, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions.  Seagull123  Φ  19:05, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are many instances of the media wrongly attributing Storm Eva (22 Dec) to the flooding that occurred by an unnamed storm that followed afterwards (25-26 Dec). The Independent article is dated 25 Dec; the Guardian 26 Dec etc. Jolly Ω Janner 19:41, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jolly Janner: Then there are still the news results for before the 24th. "Over 6,000 without power as Storm Eva hits", "Environment Agency warns North West to brace itself for Storm Eva" just to name a few.  Seagull123  Φ  19:46, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is that this may leave the precedent that all the storms in the season are notable enough for their own article. We will end up with many stubs. I guess if you think the flooding and power outages from this storm alone are notable for an article then fair enough. Jolly Ω Janner 19:56, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you do a news search for Storm Barney - the first result is about Storm Frank and the second one is about why we name storms. For Storm Clodagh, the first result is the naming article and then the second one is one of a few about the storm itself. I understand that the weather from 25-26 Dec has been misnamed, but Storm Eva has still received a large amount of coverage in reliable sources. The fact that media sources have misnamed it should be put in the article, saying that the Christmas weather was misnamed and that in fact it was an unnamed storm.  Seagull123  Φ  20:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per above. Most laughable nomination I've seen in a long time, absolute nonsense nomination. Try reading the article first and doing some research on sources before erroneously tagging articles for deletion, and especially, try living through the storm yourself. Regards, Buttons0603 | talk to me | 19:35, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is a certain amount of crystal ball to the the naming system, as you'd expect from a warning scheme. The criteria are broadly similar to those employed by List of European windstorms where for several years we've generally added those investigated by the insurance industry aggregator Perils AG (http://www.perils.org/web/news/event-investigations.html) and only created articles for storms which have exceeded their investigation criteria, as being notable enough for an article, and as providing enough information for a decent article.Lacunae (talk) 20:35, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - the storm caused significant disruption, some of which will be felt for more than a year. WP:GNG is met, article is adequately sourced to demonstrate this. Mjroots (talk) 22:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mjroots: The last point of GNG leads onto WP:NOTNEWS which states " However, not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia." and "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion.". Considering that every source in this article is a news source (except the Met Office forecast), what are your thoughts? Do you think it is at least worthy of discussion, rather than simply speedying it? Jolly Ω Janner 23:01, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jolly Janner: - you were quite within your rights to nominate the article for deletion. It doesn't meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion. Now you've nominated it, let the discussion continue. There is no need to challenge every !vote that you disagree with. The closer will take all !votes into consideration and decide on whether or not the article is kept/deleted. Mjroots (talk) 23:28, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was just very surprised that such an experienced user such as yourself supports this being speedy kept, despite policy suggesting this would be impossible. Jolly Ω Janner 23:38, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I might have meant "snow keep", but it was late last night and the beer was starting to kick in. Have struck the speedy. Mjroots (talk) 06:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A notable storm. Substantial article content removed a couple of days ago. Szzuk (talk) 00:33, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That content was unrelated to Eva as a storm, and related to rainfall from a front associated with another area of low pressure entirely.Lacunae (talk) 09:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree the content was unrelated to Eva. I read the removal rationale on the talk page and thought it was bogus. Szzuk (talk) 10:58, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link doesn't mean anything. The key question is addressed in the first sentence of the delete vote directly below - I have a different view. Szzuk (talk) 16:43, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The key question is whether the flooding in Lancashire and Yorkshire was directly related to Storm Eva. I believe there is a strong argument that it was not. The depression named Eva passed to the north-west of the UK and Eire on the night of 23-24 December bringing a few hours of strong winds to some parts. Most of the UK then had a clear/cold night 24-25 December due to a transient ridge. The next area of low pressure (unnamed) moved in early on 25 December bringing prolonged and heavy rain to northern parts of England which was the prime trigger for the floods over Lancashire and Yorkshire. By early 26 December the depression which had been named Eva was located north of Norway as shown in the Met Office synoptic chart with only a lengthy and tentative frontal link to the weather system bringing the heavy rain to the UK at the time. Thus it is appropriate that the details of the flooding are included in the 2015–16_Great_Britain_and_Ireland_floods page and not a separate Storm Eva page. As others have noted, the media widely attributed the Lancashire and Yorkshire floods to Storm Eva, but the question is whether Wikipedia should reflect this misconception or correct it. I believe it should do the latter. The details of Storm Eva (e.g. power outages due to strong winds in parts of the Eire and Northern Ireland on the night of 23-24 December) can be adequately covered in the Storm Eva section of the 2015–16_UK_and_Ireland_windstorm_season page if necessary with a pointer to the 2015–16_Great_Britain_and_Ireland_floods page for anyone who expects to find details of Lancashire and Yorkshire floods of 25-27 December. Revelina (talk) 13:58, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Revelina: but then again, Storm Eva received a high amount of coverage in reliable sources. Whether or not the media was correct to call it Eva, there is still the coverage. I understand that it may not be correct, but we can't just say that as the media were wrong, we rule out all the incorrect sources just because we believe them to be wrong. Isn't that WP:OR?  Seagull123  Φ  18:43, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that the media did "misrepresent" Eva. Looking back to the revision prior to trimming out post Christmas impacts, very few sources claim Eva as the cause. I think it was original research to link the flooding after Christmas to Eva in the first instance. Jolly Ω Janner 18:52, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jolly Janner: Original research to suggest that the post Christmas flooding was Eva? You've already said that Eva was around the 23rd to 24th and that the media had got it wrong about 25th to 27th (or words to that effect). And I could show you a whole load of media sources that would not be original research (unless sources that do their own research come under this policy now as well) that say the post Christmas floods were Eva, look here and here and here (that last one, look at the dates on the map for storm Eva). I think that even though the post Christmas floods may not have been Eva, we - as Wikipedia editors - can't just ignore them because we don't believe them to be correct. It is not our place to conduct our own research into which sources were correct, we just try and make a verifiable encyclopaedia based on the sources we have available to us.  Seagull123  Φ  19:10, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's an important statement from that third source about the flooding "That was followed by heavy rainfall in Wales, England and parts of Scotland - but the Met Office did not specifically define this as part of Storm Eva." I'm on the opinion that our article on the December flooding does a far better job of documenting the event (including Eva and how it was involved). I see Eva rather as a part of the flooding than having any individual notability as a windstorm. The only windstorm-related event of Eva was the 6,000 people in Ireland without power. Indeed, the BBC article in questions groups all the December storms into one single article. Jolly Ω Janner 19:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jolly Janner: But still, there has been the mass of coverage from media sources which talk about Storm Eva. And I still have not seen any source that specifically says that the post Christmas weather was not part of Eva. All I've read about that has been on this discussion and on the article's talk page. The BBC source above is slightly vague - I read it to mean that the weather in Scotland and the mentioned areas experienced at the same time as the other weather was the part not part of Eva (sorry that explanation was quite vague). But why is it that you're just ignoring the sources from after the 25th, saying that that bit of weather was not part of Eva - without citing a source at all? If I could see a source that clearly explained that the secondary bits of weather were not part of Eva, and that the media got it wrong, then your claims would be verifiable. But without this, I'm just relying on your statements, that "There are many instances of the media wrongly attributing Storm Eva (22 Dec) to the flooding that occurred by an unnamed storm that followed afterwards (25-26 Dec). The Independent article is dated 25 Dec; the Guardian 26 Dec etc." [according to whom?] Who says that the media got it wrong?  Seagull123  Φ  21:27, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Met Office make it clear in this particular statement in their News Release issued on 31 December:
"The Christmas period was also unsettled, wet and mild. Storm Eva brought gales and heavy rain on Christmas Eve with another Atlantic depression bringing heavy rain and flooding to north-west England, north Wales and parts of Scotland through 25th to 27th. Storm Frank then dominated the headlines by 30th." Revelina (talk) 22.30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
@Revelina: OK then, this claim has one source. But I would still say the storm's pretty notable if it could affect a country's GDP, RSA Insurance and Aviva share prices hit as experts warn Storm Eva could knock 0.25 percentage points off UK growth, wouldn't you? Or if that by news outlets, it has been listed with Storm Desmond as a major source of economic costs and damages, UK floods: Cost of Storms Eva and Desmond could top £1.5bn (the WP page at 2015–16_UK_and_Ireland_windstorm_season#Storm_Eva says that it will cost £500-£800 million - that's not non notable). Or if that it caused a COBRA meeting and the deployment of soldiers? Flood warnings as Britain is braced for torrential Boxing Day rain. This is not just a storm where there were a "few rivers bursting their banks, this storm's only claim to notability is that it was named by Met Eirann" as Jolly Janner put it. This storm is notable, whether or not you include the post Christmas weather.  Seagull123  Φ  23:58, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite apparent that all of these sources are about the flooding caused by a subsequent storm, not Eva. I'd even argue that the COBRA meeting was for the subsequent flooding too (its timing lined up with the issue of weather warnings). I will admit that it does appear as though soldiers were deployed to help with Storm Eva. It makes no sense to merge a subsequent storm with Eva on this page when we have exactly that (and more) at 2015–16 Great Britain and Ireland floods. I'm very grateful for the efforts in expanding Eva, but this article can still fit comfortably as a section of 2015–16 UK and Ireland windstorm season without the need to split. Jolly Ω Janner 01:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jolly Janner: but there's still all the sources from before Christmas (here) which should be talking about what you say was actually called Storm Eva. And I haven't seen proof that there were only a "few rivers bursting their banks, this storm's only claim to notability is that it was named by Met Eirann". What I've seen seems to prove otherwise.  Seagull123  Φ  18:39, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the media reports in this link are speculation/predictions of what Storm Eva may bring over Christmas, not actually reports of what it did bring. Given all this speculation prior to the event, it is understandable that when the floods of 25-27 December did occur they were naturally linked to Storm Eva even though they were primarily related to the subsequent low pressure system (named Daniel by FUB). Some of the pre-Christmas reports do include details of the localised flooding which occurred in the 21-23 December period in parts of Cumbria (e.g. Glenridding). This was as a result of rain from fronts associated with the complex low pressure system which FUB named Arend/Bjarni. At this time the depression which was named Eva by Met Eireann (and subsequently named Chuck by FUB) was still developing in Mid-Atlantic. Revelina (talk) 09:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying that all of the news was wrong?  Seagull123  Φ  18:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And anyway, isn't it WP policy that we listen to sources and only report what they say? "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves." And the raft of sources that are on the current article (and on google) suggest otherwise. The sources provided by you are generally primary sources that say when the storm was or some weather maps of northern Europe. Which WP policy/guideline says that the news sources should be ignored because a Met Office table or a synoptic chart - which are primary sources (that require "original analysis of the primary-source material") say otherwise? Why is it our place to ignore the sources that say Storm Eva was notable - whether or not the media got the naming right - Storm Eva was all over the news around Christmas and so (I believe) we should consider the topic notable because reliable sources say otherwise. Wikipedia's place is not to disseminate new research not done by reliable, secondary sources; but to report on what those sources say.  Seagull123  Φ  19:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Met Office and Met Éireann are probably the best sources of information on this topic. The Met Office dates its impacts on UK and/or Ireland as 24 December (URL) and Met Éireann as 23 December (URL). These are both secondary sources and not taken from synoptic charts etc. I'm aware that some sources bundled the flooding caused by Eva and Daniel into one. Some sources grouped the entire December flooding into one article. Considering the close timing of the storms, would it not be better to group all the flooding into one article and simply redirect this article to there for the sake of clarity? This article ticks most of the reasons for a merger at Wikipedia:Merging. Jolly Ω Janner 20:48, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The answer to your question is a simple no. Articles are created and evolve for a reason, that evolution has been fundamentally altered and resulted in this AFD despite ample RS. You're trying to argue for the 'truth' of the Met office - but we don't deal in truths, only verifiability. The article should be put back as it was and then all of the inconsistencies highlighted in this afd explained in the article. Szzuk (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/merge - part of a long series of extreme rain and weather events over this winter. Better considered as part of the winter storms than as a separate event. Blythwood (talk) 07:29, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Whether or not individual incidents are attributable to Eva or not is a moot point and one we can hardly settle here, the event was widely reported by the UK media, any issues relating to relations with other storms should be dealt with within the article. Mtaylor848 (talk) 02:00, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - multiple independent reliable sources have written about something called "Storm Eva". That makes it notable per WP:GNG. If there is a verifiable controversy about whether the storm did or did not cause particular impacts, that would only tend to add to the notability. Thparkth (talk) 06:20, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Wrong forum  As per WP:Deletion policy, "...content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used first, such as listing on Wikipedia:Requests for comments for further input. Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an uninvolved editor, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum."  Unscintillating (talk) 05:55, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Storm Eva has been discussed in the BBC, The Guardian, The Independent, and ITV News among other sources. These sources are all in the Wikipedia article. WP:NOTNEWS is not applicable because the storm was "widely reported by the UK media" as noted by Mtaylor848 so is a significant event. Cunard (talk) 22:35, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. On the advice of CU, the IPs that participated were given no weight and this was treated as a unanimous delete closure. Mkdwtalk 04:23, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Ridpath[edit]

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

Despite the claims made, this person is not notable by our standards. I had cleaned this up some but a few editors re-added stuff without the benefit of knowing what WP:RS says. "References" added include such videos (?) as this ("All The Gold You Can Eat") and self-published books like this one (which doesn't even mention our subject, according to the "search inside" function). This person is so not-notable, and the article in previous versions (and its current version) so obviously unencyclopedic, that words really fail me--the article doesn't contain a single reference to a reliable source, and Google produces nothing at all. Drmies (talk) 17:09, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I don't find reliable sources, and the sources in the article mainly consist of name checks. In fact, I failed to find his name in some. LaMona (talk) 17:37, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:07, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:07, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:07, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as my searches found nothing better and this article is still questionably solidly notable. SwisterTwister talk 19:08, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Not sure if any of the above users are in information security but within the subculture of cypherpunks and hackers Ridpath is very well known and thats why the article was created in the first place. As he's listed as one of the top Social Engineers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_engineering_(security) for years and was removed due to not having a wiki so we tried to pull together what we could find on the internet about him and he's mentioned in multiple books and videos. The books you search when looking at the article are citing the products he create called Liquid Chi Jablestech talk8:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC) *Keep Both the documentary and the specific health book mentioned was trying to show he's not just a computer security lecturer, expert and social engineer. I know nothing of computer security communities he is or not part of but I do know that he's the keynote speaker for multiple Alchemy Conferences throughout the world and that he's well known within the esoteric communities i.e. rosicrucian and gnostic. Trying to locate source as I believe he's a bishop. From what I found online he's lecturer and member of multiple high IQ societies and given multiple information security presentations. Wikignome420 talk 9:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep The article meets the minimum requirements. It does have news articles, videos, and books citations. Did Google search "Mike Ridpath Social Engineering" however I don't think he's notable in anything else other then computer security and the article owner should clean this up. 24.22.134.18 (talk) 21:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agreed Michael is noteable. Owner needs to rewrite it according to guidelines. 63.147.70.46 (talk) 22:48, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is this user's only edit on WP. LaMona (talk) 16:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

54.240.196.185 (talk) 01:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC) *Comment I believe the article would be limiting to just one facet of who he is if we focused on the security expert and social engineer. He’s published in a number of journals and articles regarding leadership, business process, and manufacturing - for example, this ("YourWorkplace"). To more esoteric type things such as reviewer of the ("Alchemy Journal")[1]. He's created a bunch of different things we can find online and was trying to reference in the previous article such as his DVD series, Alchemy stuff, businesses etc. Also found multiple reference to High IQ involvement as an example and he’s an administrator for a scholar institute for High IQ Societies here. Wikignome420 (talk) 02:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There is enough here to show that Mike Ridpath is an expert in Social Engineering. The problem with the wiki that I'm realizing when searching for him is that he's done a lot but he doesn't seem noteworthy in anything but social engineering and computer security. I do understand the authors' intent but I believe a rewrite is needed with emphasis in this and nothing else is my opinion. 64.134.159.176 (talk) 03:09, 14 January 2016 (UTC) This is this editor's only edit on Wikipedia. Onel5969 TT me 13:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC) [reply]
  • Keep I don't think the article needs to be redone just needs the references in the right places. The man has many that could be used just locate the ones that are more appropriate for each part. I just saw one of his talks for the first time at Zoncon (modeled after BlueHat I believe) this year. He also created the CTF and ran the Lockpicking booth. Jack of many trades. I'm connected to him on Linkedin. 54.240.196.169 (talk) 06:07, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Checkuser note: Wikignome420 and Jablestech are  Confirmed socks of Johntame. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Johntame. I haven't struck any votes, but I would give no weight to the votes and comments of the IPs.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:23, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I hadn't realised there had been an SPI. I've struck keeps and comments except for that of Johntame. Doug Weller talk 16:12, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Drmies fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:11, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly no evidence of WP:BIO notability. OhNoitsJamie Talk 03:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 13:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  08:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent falling[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for more than a year. This may be interesting and funny, but it is not a notable theory. StAnselm (talk) 22:26, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep - While perhaps when originally tagged (Nov 2014), there were limited secondary sources (outside the original satirical Onion piece), that may no longer be the case. The limits and applicability of a WP:GOOGLETEST notwithstanding, there would seem to be some use of the term outside the primary source in the period since the original tag was added. (search <=12mo) That said, searches on news sources primarily match blogs, opinion pieces and associated comment sections - which would seem to erode a broad SIGCOV claim. (news search) Hence proposed "weak keep". If it is considered that the subject doesn't meet the same GNG criteria as other similar subjects, then the content would ideally be summarised/merged/redirected to a related article. Per WP:PAGEDECIDE the merge/redirect might be to Religious satire, Parody religion or similar article. If it is considered that the subject does meet GNG, then it might be appropriate to modify the article slightly - to highlight when, whether, and in what context the term has been used. (As it stands the article mainly focuses on the original coining/use in the Onion piece - hence I guess why the original tag was applied). Guliolopez (talk) 23:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 01:41, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 01:41, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Intelligent design. This is not really a topic, it is a joke, a parody of a real topic; so I think it would be quite appropriate given a brief mention under a new section of ID / criticism / parody. Imaginatorium (talk) 06:34, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 16:56, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. We do have other articles of similar notable parodies (e.g., Russell's teapot, invisible pink unicorn, flying spaghetti monster), so being a parody in and of itself cannot be a reason for deletion. As a general rule, I do not think merging parodies into serious articles is a good idea. It could be that there exists some other reason for deletion (e.g., lack of secondary sources on the subject), but the Google test would seem to argue against this. However, I am unable to find any sources that I really feel are a slam dunk for GNG. This is mentioned, briefly, in "Atheism for Dummies", and a number of other Google books hits of lesser pedigree. There are plenty of iffy sources on a Google search, a couple of passing mentions in various news sources. There is this mention in Nature Physics. The original Onion article was reprinted several places, including the New York Times (e.g., http://www.quixoticpedagogue.org/satireself.pdf). Sławomir
    Biały     10:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep after some thought. TL;DR: the problem is reliable sources that establish notability, "reliability" is dependent on what the source is supposed to support, and sourcing is adequate for notability in consideration of WP:WHYN.
Source analysis: The wording "intelligent falling" seems to have originated with the 2005 onion piece. Though parodies based on "gravity denial" existed before, none seems to have achieved a similar status. IF seems to me to have achieved demonstrable internet fame, e.g. an entry in Urban Dictionary.
The mentions in the main press, while multiple, are fairly minor and refer to the Onion piece (e.g. this piece from a guardian.com columnist); I do not think a notability claim can be made resting on them being mentions in established media sources.
Policy analysis: A parody does not have weaker or stronger case for standalone notability based on the topic it makes fun of (WP:INHERITED). For instance, the Flying Spaghetti Monster passes notability and deserves a separate article even though it could be mentioned/redirected/merged into an appropriate section of Creation–evolution controversy.
I do not think WP:WEBCRIT is really relevant here (that guideline is written for websites, not really for website content). The problematic point for a WP:GNG claim is the "reliable source" part. However, per WP:WHYN the "reliable source" requirement in GNG is there so that two kind of things are not admitted: (1) information of dubious factual accuracy, (i.e. non-verifiable) and (2) true but indiscriminate information (i.e. non-notable).
By the very nature of the topic (a pop culture thing), I doubt there are "reliable sources" about IF in the sense that they are demonstrably free of (1). But that is irrelevant, since the factual information of the article is not in doubt here. I would argue that sources such as Urban Dictionary (which is hardly a reliable source for factual assertions, since the editorial review process is based on upvotes/downvotes from visitors) establish that IF is famous and has been so on a reasonably long period of time. Sustained interest from a large subset of internet users makes in my view the subject "notable" per the WP meaning of the word.

Tigraan (talk) 15:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I fail to recognize a WP:RS featuring this topic as the subject. I see mentions and sources which do not meet WP:RS. Can someone identify the 2-3 best sources, if this is to be kept? Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:06, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sources don't have to be about the subject. They just need to discuss the subject. An example of such a reliable source is this thesis published in Nature Physics. Human Origins: What Bones And Genomes Tell Us About Ourselves by deSalle and Tattersall. Sławomir
Biały 00:27, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(Comment) Right, and Lawrence Krauss no less. But he gives "Intelligent falling" a passing mention in a discussion of "Intelligent design", and that is what it deserves in WP -- a passing mention somewhere in Intelligent design. Imaginatorium (talk) 04:16, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unconvinced that discussing parodies in a serious article is appropriate under WP:WEIGHT. Sławomir
Biały 14:00, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and potentially mention in an appropriate intelligent design article. The term does not appear to have significant coverage and only passing mention as satire compared to something like flying spaghetti monster. This would appear to be covered enough for content about a fringe subject per WP:PARITY, but not for a standalone article at this time unless it gets more coverage. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:30, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is significant coverage in secondary sources: [2][3][4][5]. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
#1 merely mentions it in passing as a Pastafarian belief; #2 similarly only has one line about it - hardly significant coverage; #3 is a self-published source (Xlibris); #4 also mentions it in passing as part of the Intelligent design debate. So no - there's no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. StAnselm (talk) 00:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to WRTC-FM. MBisanz talk 04:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Greasy Tracks[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. There are no independent, reliable sources that have covered Greasy Tracks as their primary topic. We'd need to see a substantial news or magazine article, book chapter, or other major medium that has covered this as the main subject. Usually we need to see more than one such source. There is passing mention in routine coverage like local news event schedules, but that is not sufficient for general notability. Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:42, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:29, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:29, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:29, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - I do not believe WP:ORG applies here, but WP:NMEDIA does. Unfortunately, the individual program does not have enough coverage to make it independently notable. I recommend a merge into WRTC-FM. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:51, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Hi .. just adding my brief thoughts on this article being considered for deletion. I wrote the piece about the program (Greasy Tracks) as well as the entry for the station from where it is broadcast (WRTC-FM). I have added links to 10-plus news sources that covered Greasy Tracks and have updated the site. This is non-commercial station, there is no advertising, just to be perfectly clear about that. I trust you will notice the writing is solid, clear and concise. There is good background on the program, its history and related guests from the music and literary world who have appeared on the the air. Please read again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greasy_Tracks ... I would ask that you respect the time and effort put in and not delete the content. This is exactly what makes a venue like Wikipedia a great outlet to post informative pieces. Please contact me directly at greasytracks@aol.com if you have specific areas you would like addressed. I have to admit, I am a bit puzzled at what could have possibly caused this to be put on the chopping block, but hopefully the addition of coverage sources will shift your views. Thank you for your consideration. -Chris — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radioeditor1 (talk • contribs) 01:14, 4 January 2016‎
    It appears the article's creator is an single-purpose account who is here to promote the radio station and its programs. Note that it's irrelevant that it's non-profit; advertising for a non-commercial radio station is still advertising. What's really lacking is non-WP:ROUTINE coverage in independent sources. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:26, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dennis and others involved in the review. First and foremost, I want to make it clear, there is no advertising of anything related to the program I have hosted, "Greasy Tracks" or the radio station (WRTC) that it has aired on for more than two decades. There is no advertising. This is just a historical overview of the program, some highlighted features and guests (musicians, authors, etc). There is nothing saying anything related to "Listen to this, check this out, tune in on this time or date." There is NO advertising. Now, in regards to not getting regular coverage from independent sources, I hate to say it, but coverage of radio programming is something that does not happen that often in many newspapers and periodicals. When many would have weekly radio columns, those are things of the past. I listed a number of past coverage from a number of different sources including two of the largest papers in Connecticut (Hartford Courant and New Haven Register.)

Again, there is nothing being advertised, if there is something that comes across as advertising, please let me know as I have more than 25 years experience in communications and public relations and if anything, this is an historical overview of a radio program.

Again, let me know what needs to be changed, but I really cannot see what could possibly be a problem with the information, I am trying to figure out how to work with the group of you who appear to have the ability to make editorial cuts, thus are the decision makers, so I ask that you let me know, so I can make any edits that would be needed. Trust me, I'm trying to learn what all of the rules are here, so bear with me if I am not up to date on all of the "wiki" language. Thank you! -Chris

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 16:56, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to WRTC-FM, where it is already covered. The only sources here are primary or local media, so this doesn't meet GNG. LaMona (talk) 17:42, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as mentioned, several sources but still questionably notable for a separate article considering it's only a local one-station radio show. SwisterTwister talk
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 18:57, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Llangallo[edit]

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

This place does not exist - it's a typographic error for Llanallgo, which does, and on which we have a stub article. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:38, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:55, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I also find it's an occasional typo for the church of St. Crallo, Coychurch (Llangrallo). I'd just get rid of it. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:37, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 16:56, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete perhaps if it is an unlikely search. SwisterTwister talk 19:25, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Non-existent place. Probably could have been CSD's under G6. And I agree with SwisterTwister that a redirect is not necessary. Onel5969 TT me 13:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. This closure overturns a previous non-admin closure (see WP:NACD); see also Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 February 5.  Sandstein  20:00, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3G Boss[edit]

3G Boss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article, created by 2.28.93.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and substantially edited only by that IP and Quattrostagioni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (one assumes they are one and the same), has superficial referenciness, but the references are to thinks like LinkedIn profiles, the producer's own website and press releases. The only actual RS is [6], which namechecks the show once. Overall there is no evidence that this meets WP:GNG. Guy (Help!) 14:25, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the source mentions the show in reference to one of the students is itself significant. It did briefly describe the show, but you must understand that it would not be able to release lots of information due to confidentiality reasons. Quattrostagioni (talk) 16:48, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[7] is fully independent and bases its whole article on the show. I also noticed there was a Wikipedia entry previously [8] which was requested to be deleted by its author, but it passed draft review stage and was on the mainpage for a while. Despite using only one source, it was considered notable enough. Quattrostagioni (talk) 16:48, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It may or may not be independent, but it is not reliable. See WP:RS. Guy (Help!) 01:46, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What about the previous article which was deleted by its author? Quattrostagioni (talk) 10:47, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep the article. It is a significantly notable topic and the information about the show will help people understand. It also serves a summary article similar to The Apprentice (UK series eleven). 2.28.93.248 (talk) 17:10, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is an absolutely classic case of WP:OTHERSTUFF. The Apprentice is a series on national TV, syndicated internationally, and fronted by entrepeeurs of international standing and Donald Trump. This knock-off doesn't seem to have paid the licensing fee for the format, and has no substantive coverage in reliable independent sources. Guy (Help!) 01:45, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For your information, 3G Boss is also a series on national TV and is the flagship CSR project of the Canary Wharf Group. 2.28.93.248 (talk) 10:48, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Channel S is the UK's most watched Bangladeshi channel. And a licensing agreement is not required as it has a different format because of the target audience. It is not a mere 'knock-off' but a big achievement for the Bangladeshi expatriate population. Quattrostagioni (talk) 10:59, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some independent newspaper sources now. Quattrostagioni (talk) 10:48, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Using what sources? You are the principal author of this article and you keep adding more and more non-RS sources, or sources that are not actually about the subject. Guy (Help!) 11:32, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2.28.93.248 and I am the principal authors. This user has barely made any edits or changes Quattrostagioni (talk) 14:24, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, LinkedIn is credible, but not as a source. The sources the article contains say basically nothing about the subject. Guy (Help!) 11:32, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Independent newspaper sources are credible in my opinion. As marked on the article, citations relating to these newspaper sources need to be completed and they will be soon. Although they are supported by internal sources, the newspapers are the reliable sources. I will find some external AV media sources as well. Quattrostagioni (talk) 14:24, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unremarkable TV show on minor satellite TV channel that hasn't received significant coverage in reliable independent sources. --Michig (talk) 08:10, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as article topic has received coverage in several offline reliable independent sources - lack of reliable sources when searched on internet is not argument against notability. Quattrostagioni has said they will add more independent source citations and complete existing references in the near future, and I will do the same. The TV show is not unremarkable; it is a big achievement for the community, and although not an argument to keep in its own right, pageview stats verify article popularity.2.28.93.248 (talk) 09:19, 3 January 2016 (UTC) — 2.28.93.248 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:31, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:31, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:31, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 09:37, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:GNG for lack of available reliable sources. That's not surprising since it began airing less than four weeks ago.- MrX 15:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 16:55, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As mentioned above, this is a show that has aired for 4 (!) weeks, so if nothing else this is way too soon. Not only that, the article reads like a full web site promotion for the show, not as an encyclopedia article. There are lengthy plot descriptions that almost make watching the show unnecessary. None of the content is based on what third-parties have said about the show. It's all primary, and it's a huge advertisement. From the comments by the creators, I believe that they have misunderstood the purpose of an encyclopedia. LaMona (talk) 17:54, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at best as simply none of the sourcing is even minimally consistently solid, with noticeable press releases, primaries and social links SwisterTwister talk 19:01, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The sourcing is terrible, It may be a good show, but not all shows are notable. The creator could move the content to his/her sandbox.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 04:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed from mainspace back to draft Quattrostagioni (talk) 19:56, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Portal:India/Anniversaries/January/January 1. Per current standing consensus, all requests for merge are formally granted by the community. (Once the merge is complete, please tag the pages for deletion, or contact an administrator.) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 14:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 1 in India[edit]

January 1 in India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
January 2 in India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
January 3 in India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have several issues with this series of articles:

  1. The articles have been split, without acknowledgement, from January 1, 2 and 3.
  2. They increase the possibility that notable events in India will be noted in the "in India" articles and omitted from the main calendar articles.
  3. They increase the possibility that non-notable events will be noted in the "in India" articles just to fill them out.
  4. They increase the possibility that globally notable events will be overlooked by Indian users because they're only looking at the "in India" articles.
  5. They represent a major new solo initiative which, if carried through, would involve the creation of more than twice as many articles as the editor has made edits in total over the last two years.
  6. The initiative not been discussed with either of the obvious projects, Wikipedia:WikiProject Days of the year, and Wikipedia:WikiProject India.

DGG suggested there may have been previous related discussions - these are the only two I've managed to find, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Days of the year/Archive 8#Potential for other DoYs and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/February 7 in baseball. Bazj (talk) 12:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 12:43, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 12:47, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 12:47, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been flagged up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Days of the year, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject India. Bazj (talk) 12:48, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 16:55, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was a snowball keep. Consensus is that the subject's appearance for his national team meets notability guidelines. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:55, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel O'Shaughnessy[edit]

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

O'Shaughnessy has yet to play a game in a fully professional league. His matches for Klubi 04 and FC Metz II were in the Kakkonen and the Championnat de France amateur respectively. He has yet to play for the full Finland international side either. Beatpoet (talk) 16:42, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:19, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Matches can still be sanctioned outside the regular calendar. You'll note FIFA lists the match among Finland's fixtures and results here. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The FIFA calendar lists dates during which a club is obligated to release a player called for national team duty. Outside those dates, a club is not obligated to release those players. — Jkudlick tcs 05:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick tcs 05:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick tcs 05:39, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick tcs 05:39, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Meets WP:NFOOTY having made his senior international debut. The article has been updated to reflect this. — Jkudlick tcs 05:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick tcs 05:41, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick tcs 05:41, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 18:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of films relating to Christmas[edit]

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

Fails WP:LISTN. Note that this list is distinct from List of theatrical Christmas films. Instead, it is a list of "feature films in which Christmas is more incidental to the plot." In other words, it's a list of films set in December. It includes, for example, 12 Monkeys, a film in which Christmas is so incidental that it's not mentioned at all in our article for the film. This is not a recognized genre, and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Pburka (talk) 16:42, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this naughty list per nom. Choosing films by unimportant elements? Don't think so. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:13, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree that this seems like an indiscriminate collection of films that have at least one scene set in December. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:45, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I did a lot of work on this page a couple of years ago, and I might have even created it. The reason for it was because the list of Christmas films was filled with movies that were not Christmas films but had scenes relating to it. Since I worked on the page, it has been filled up with movies that have even less to do with Christmas. I suggest removing the films that have very minimal Christmas elements but keeping the page. Dilute13 (talk) 19:11, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is essentially synthesis of unrelated material (films about Christmas, films whose timeframe includes December, films set in fantasy universes where neither Christmas nor December exist...) under a very vague headline—case in point, although Christmas is arguably about one Jewish superhero, I'm surprised to see The Hebrew Hammer included. GRAPPLE X 11:32, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 04:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mizta Decoder[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG .Subject is 21 years upcoming and recently released his debut studio album N E G A T I V E.It is case of WP:TOOSOON. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:32, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Definitely TooSoon -- from what I can tell his debut album hasn't debuted yet. The article relies heavily on the use of famous names to bolster this person's profile, yet there is no actual connection shown. One of the few possible RS, The Hindu, is about someone else and doesn't mention him. LaMona (talk) 18:00, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:59, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:59, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not yet anything for a better notable article it seems. SwisterTwister talk 18:59, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to Radisson Blu. Michig (talk) 18:50, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Radisson Blu Hotel Tallinn[edit]

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

Entirely non-notable and unremarkable hotel. Wikipedia is not TripAdvisor TheLongTone (talk) 14:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. sst✈ (top/bottom) 14:51, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. sst✈ (top/bottom) 14:51, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, redirect; it would have the advantage of preserving the architect's name.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for considering my redirect suggestion. Cunard (talk) 02:06, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:34, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you and E.M.Gregory for considering my redirect suggestion. I appreciate it. Cunard (talk) 05:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for considering my redirect suggestion! Cunard (talk) 06:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 14:20, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alesia Riabenkova[edit]

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

Collection of gossips and non verified information from different fashion blogs. The only verified source is for her lawsuit against some fashion photographer. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:07, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. The existing sources either don't actually discuss Riabenkova in significant detail, are just pictures of her, or are from tabloids. For context, this appears to be a puff-piece that has been repeatedly submitted as a draft by someone with an admitted PR relationship to the subject. This article appears to be a duplicate of the draft.
A WP:BEFORE search (Google News/Books, Highbeam) reveals nothing but tabloids (Daily Mail, New York Post, Inquisitr et al). Does not appear to meet WP:GNG, WP:NMODEL or even WP:BLP1E. /wiae /tlk 14:26, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. sst✈ (top/bottom) 15:02, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. sst✈ (top/bottom) 15:02, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 15:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only notable for one incident of alleged rape. Delete per WP:BLP1E. sst✈ (top/bottom) 15:08, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete only real WP:RS is for the being the WP:VICTIM, repeatedly declined at AfC.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 16:00, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this is another example of a draft being moved to articlespace and there are simply not enough coverage sources to suggest solid notability and acceptability. I also mentioned that this needed further coverage to the author. SwisterTwister talk 18:53, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to Coffeehouse as mentioned, I was frankly going to comment but this seems obvious as to not keep going for a week (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 07:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Book café[edit]

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

Dictionary article Rathfelder (talk) 13:46, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:33, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:33, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Where I go many bookshops include a cafe. It isn't really a useful concept.Rathfelder (talk) 10:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not meet the requirements for notability, set out at WP:GNG. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 14:24, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kreuz Weinsberg[edit]

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

Non-notable interchange. Nothing in article asserts anything notable, and searches did not turn up anything to indicate notability. Onel5969 TT me 13:46, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Here is the snippet translated, "Autobahnkreuz Weinsberg is well known, an accident black spot, especially for trucks, which was why in 1993 a 6-lane expansion was classified as an 'absolute priority'."  Please take a look.  Unscintillating (talk) 08:13, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. sst✈ (top/bottom) 15:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. sst✈ (top/bottom) 15:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—as written, this fails the General Notability Guideline, as it does not display "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject". Of note, the one source is self-published, and thus fails the RS prong of the GNG test, and the other is just a compilation of statistics, and not "significant coverage". Imzadi 1979 → 23:43, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:N#Article content does not determine notability.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:29, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The one source"?  This article has unique sources not mentioned.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:29, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are just two footnotes. Of them, the first is self-published and the second is the compilation. Does that clarify my original statement? Imzadi 1979 → 07:02, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am aware that you've been marking the SPS.  I was referring to the Literature (Der Bundesminister für Verkehr/Federal Minister for Transport) which has 2 references, and the Weblink section with 4 references.  Unscintillating (talk) 11:01, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • A government agency wouldn't be "independent of the subject" since they own the structure in question. That doesn't help to establish notability under the GNG. Imzadi 1979 → 10:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't think it is that simple.  A government also represents the people at large and has many agencies and multiple layers, local, state, and national operating independently.  Unscintillating (talk) 06:53, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  WP:Editing policy#Try to fix problems point 9 states that one way to fix problems is, "Merging the entire article into another article with the original article turned into a redirect as described at performing a merge".  At the top of the page, the WP:Editing policy nutshell states, "Preserve the value that others add, even if they 'did it wrong' (try to fix it rather than delete it)."  If any editor believes that this topic is non-notable, the fix is merge.  Since WP:Notability only applies to the topic of the article, the fix in Point 9 does not apply literally in all cases of non-notability.  !votes for non-notability must also consider policies to handle the content of the article.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:29, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Unscintillating -- you need to take it down a notch and stop hectoring other editors. You are not acting in good faith and are promoting and pushing your POV. Quis separabit? 06:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • So I make one edit to this AfD and I'm "hectoring"?  FYI, I respect the two editors to whom I initially posted questions.  Could you explain what "hectoring" means?  I'd look it up, but I sense that you are looking forward to making another response at my expense.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:56, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  I used Google maps to measure the size of Kreuz Weinsberg and came up with 2 km x 1.5 km.  Kentucky's Kennedy Interchange, which connects three interstates, is only half that size, so however the comparison is made, Kreuz Weinberg is a massive structure.  Shamrock Hub (or Cloverleaf Hub) is listed on both Google books and Google scholar.  Based on the German Wikipedia, the publisher is part of the same group that publishes Nature and Scientific American.  You can see in the quote from the snippet that the book says that this kreuz is "well-known".  I also looked at one of the galleries from the State Archives of Ludwigsburg, which again shows that this topic attracts the attention of the world at large over a period of time (WP:N).  I don't really oppose a redirect to A81 with option to merge if that builds consensus, but this material IMO is better standalone.  Unscintillating (talk) 11:01, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since when is size a measure of notability? Looking at the Kennedy Interchange, there are a handful of newspaper and magazine articles in that article. A brief search of the The Courier-Journal finds that it's been in the news, as the subject of its own newspaper articles periodically over the last decade. That's "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject". I'm not seeing that with the interchange nominated in this discussion however. Imzadi 1979 → 10:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are of course correct that size isn't listed as a wp:notability factor, but your statement here is a contrast with your recent statement of 14 January about kreuzes and dreiecks, "These are run-of-the-mill items though in road networks...That's a lot of interchanges in a relatively small network jammed into a relatively small area."  Unscintillating (talk) 13:16, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • If non-notability is your issue, why are you !voting to delete when you could be !voting to merge or redirect to one of the autobahn articles?  Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 13:16, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • If a subject is not notable, it does not warrant its own article. Merging could be an option, but in this case, I don't feel it's warranted, which means deletion is the appropriate end result, in my opinion. Imzadi 1979 → 11:31, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not really seeing how this one is notable. --Rschen7754 20:10, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As with the other generic interchange articles, my view on this remains: On the English Wikipedia, we don't automatically presume that generic interchanges are notable, and there's nothing particular about this one that would cause it to stand out above the 1000s of others. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 04:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. The promotionalism seems to have been expunged in the current version.  Sandstein  08:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sandella's Flatbread Café[edit]

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

Article has been edited by a blatant COI and another editor who stopped editing after this page. It was completely unsourced with sygary platitude articles in the EL secion. Doesn't seem to meet notability as any restaurant (even a chain) doesn't warrant inclusion by merely existing. Lihaas (talk) 12:34, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:06, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:06, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:06, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the sources listed at the previous AFD and the sources on Google now [9]. –Davey2010Talk 13:37, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as Davey says, there are sources on this sandwich shop trying to become a national sandwich chain, quite a number of articles aboub outlets opening in various cities. see this search: [10] more come up as I vary keywords. Furthermore the 2011 AFD closed as Keep I see no reason to be doing this again. notability is NOTTEMPORARY. Article needs sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:42, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not seeing suitable sources here. There are brief news articles in various local papers, and local-only doesn't confer notability. (And I mean "local" like Lubbock, TX with no insult intended to Lubbock.) The NYT article is very brief and a "name check in passing." The more substantial articles are all in trade magazines, and discussions at wp:corp have gone against accepting articles where the only substantial sources are niche trade sources. LaMona (talk) 18:24, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now at best as I only found about 15 sources overall at Books, News and Highbeam but none of it solid coverage, mostly listings and passing mentions. SwisterTwister talk 18:58, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandella's Flatbread Café participants: Phantomsteve (talk · contribs), Jerem43 (talk · contribs), Ihcoyc (talk · contribs), HeartSWild (talk · contribs), Noleander (talk · contribs), Metropolitan90 (talk · contribs), Stuartyeates (talk · contribs), BusterD (talk · contribs), Meelar (talk · contribs), and Richwales (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 01:52, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per Metropolitan90 there appears to be something fishy here. Either this isn't a chain in the normal sense, or there has been some radical organisational restructure or some of the apparent sources are misleading (or being misled). Stuartyeates (talk) 08:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The above delete assertion appears to have copied and pasted from the previous deletion discussion, including the previous datestamp. BusterD (talk) 00:13, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The objections I raised in the 2011 AfD no longer apply. At that time, I found it hard to believe the restaurant's claim to having over 100 locations because some of the addresses they provided were "College Location, Dubai, UAE"; "Office Building Lobby, Dubai, UAE"; and "Residential Shopping Center, Dubai, UAE". But not long after that AfD, they resolved that problem, and now have a proper list of locations. My guess is that this chain consists mostly of food court locations at colleges and corporate cafeterias, based on that list of locations, but I don't see anything "fishy" here. Rather, this is just a plain issue of notability, which this chain appears to pass given its presence in five countries. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:05, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Where did all the sources go that were in the article in 2011? If we now have only a single reliable source and no others can be found, I'm inclined now to recommend deletion. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 02:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The chain appears to be real and the sources provided appear to come from reliable publications. It needs to be expanded, but i am not up to that at this time as school is demanding more of my time. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 08:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Primarily an advertisement, "Stimola says, "Today, many of the products being sold as flatbread contain preservatives and fat to make them flexible; not ours" . A moderate size like this for a chain can indicate s possibility of notability, but it isn't the only factor. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is a good reason for deletion. . Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encyclopedia DGG ( talk ) 20:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is largely my fault by simply applying as external links sources found by another user at the last AFD, not applying the many others I saw at that time in the press section of the company's website (their website is now restyled), and not incorporating those sources into the body text as citation. If by "completely" unsourced the nominator chooses to ignore the applied citation, I'd assert QSR is a food service industry-wide magazine (if a "niche", a two billion dollar one, just in restaurants), and the article quoted from it directly details the subject at some length. Restaurant News is another industry wide journal. The article from the Houston Chronicle is drawn from Associated Press, not hayseed.com. If GNG means what it used to mean, those sources by themselves put this well past "borderline notability". I concur that promotional sounding language doesn't become a high quality article about a notable company, but as many have said in these processes "AFD is not cleanup". Allow me to provide a number of other independent reliable sources directly detailing which demonstrate GNG: Gulf Business News, QSR again, Louisville student newspaper location review, Birmingham News (largest newspaper in AL) location review, picked 21st this year in Restaurant Leadership's Future 50. That took me all of five minutes, clicking the links at the top of this process. Easy keep. BusterD (talk) 23:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' mostly they're PR releases and the student paper is just a local review not a notable instance of its existence. there are hordes of restaurants that operate more than one facility, but that doesnt make them notable enough for WP. Not to mention the sources are woefully represented on the page for actual content (mostly unsourced) and said releases in EL.Lihaas (talk) 00:18, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The nominator has chosen to delete all the external links, peremptorily declaring them PR. Here is the version WITH the links, sources User:Lihaas apparently doesn't trust participants in the process to evaluate for themselves. BusterD (talk) 00:43, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored the external links. If the nominator or anyone else wants to assert that these sources are overly promotional or lack significant content about the subject, that's fine. In fact, I would agree with that at least to a certain degree. But while an article is up for deletion, I don't think it's appropriate to delete relevant sources from the article to make the article worse. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dušan Knežević[edit]

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

Fails WP:NHOOPS; the player did not play for NBA or other named league, and refs are to generic player directories and/or player's own agent. Brianhe (talk) 10:27, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. sst✈ (top/bottom) 12:19, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. sst✈ (top/bottom) 12:19, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete cannot find signficant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Does not have notability by virtue of playing for a professional league, as per nom. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:32, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable Serbian basketball player. Fails WP:NBASKETBALL and WP:GNG. Subject plays for a team in the Macedonian First League, and that ain't exactly the NBA or any other top-tier pro league. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:47, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails NBASKETBALL. Non notable player. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 20:11, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 15:23, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Huckabee presidential campaign[edit]

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

Unnecessary disambiguation page, searching "Mike Huckabee presidential campaign" in the search bar will show results for both of his campaigns. Just "Mike Huckabee" in the search bar only brings 3 results, which is Mike Huckabee's article, and his two presidential campaigns. For another example, searching "Donald Trump presidential campaign" in the search bar will already denote and clearly show both of his presidential campaigns, 2000 and 2016. CatcherStorm talk 09:49, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment SSTflyer, have you read WP:TWODABS? It doesn't in any way fit that, e.g. it isn't a dab with its title ending in (disambiguation) for starters, which is what WP:TWODABS looks at, not pages like this. Boleyn (talk) 13:12, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Tavix. Yes, there may not be a primary topic, but when the purpose of this disambiguation page has already been covered by another article, there is no reason to have such a page. sst✈ 14:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The purpose hasn't been covered. The purpose is to find any articles entitled 'Mike Huckabee presidential campaign.' We should let reade4rs find them. Boleyn (talk) 14:46, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and they can do that at Mike Huckabee#Political career, which explains his political career and links to both presidental campaigns in case they want more information about either of them. When we have a single target that addresses the purpose of a disambiguation, but in a better, more-meaningful way, the term should be redirected there. -- Tavix (talk) 15:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. sst✈ (top/bottom) 12:21, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Mike Huckabee#Political career. Yes, it's an unnecessary disambiguation, but it's unnecessary because the information someone is looking for can be found at Mike Huckabee's bio article. I would oppose a straight-up deletion because I do think that it's a plausible search term, especially for some short-sighted folks who forgot or weren't aware that he ran in 2008. -- Tavix (talk) 04:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: TWODABS does not say there should be no disambiguation pages with only two entries: it refers to cases where there is a primary topic plus one other, which can be better handled by a hatnote. WP:TWODABS says: If neither of the two meanings is primary, then a normal disambiguation page is used at the base name. PamD 10:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@PamD:We've established that WP:TWODABS doesn't apply here and the editor that mentioned it has changed their position. Could you explain why a "keep" is better than a "redirect" to Mike Huckabee#Political career? -- Tavix (talk) 15:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because there are two articles, disambiguated by date, which the dab page lists. Yes, they can also be reached by following a link to his political career, and ploughing through that till you spot the "Main article" links: but that's no reason not to have the dab page. PamD 17:50, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep valid dab page. There are two articles entitled: 'Mike Huckabee presidential campaign', it's a dab's job to note that there are two and point readers towards them. If it's an unnecessary dab, it would be because the articles are unnecessary, and that's a discussion for elsewhere (AfD, merge). We also don't delete dabs because the search box brings them up. Boleyn (talk) 13:10, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Neither is a primary topic. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:09, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (author comment). MB298 (talk) 01:03, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Closing as Speedy Keep as LISTCRUFT doesn't even apply here!, I question whether the nom even knows what "Listcruft" even is!, Obvious Keep is obvious (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 13:41, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Walajabad taluk[edit]

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

WP:Listcruft CatcherStorm talk 09:44, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:44, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep – Listcruft is not a valid rationale for deletion, and the topic passes WP:GEOLAND as a populated, legally-recognized place by the Government of India: [1][2]. Furthermore, a list of villages is certainly not "listcruft". See WP:FIVEPILLARS, where it is explained how the encyclopedia functions in part as an almanac. North America1000 11:58, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Census of India 2011 – Tamil Nadu. The Registrar General & Census Commissioner. Government of India. p. 11, pp. 22–27, 40...(et al.)
  2. ^ Aalphabetical list of towns and their population. The Registrar General & Census Commissioner. Government of India. Entry #668.
  • Keep - this article isn't inherently just a list; it's fundamentally about a taluk (an administrative division) and hence inherently notable per WP:GEOLAND as a legally-reconized place. Granted it could use some expansion to add some extra info about the taluk itself, but I don't see that as a reason to delete. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 12:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was : Speedy Delete per User:CatcherStorm. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 09:59, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

श्री मार्तंड अध्यासन[edit]

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

Incorrect language Jamesbushell.au (talk) 09:30, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete, under A7. I translated the article's contents and it appears to be about an unremarkable person. Provides very little context as well. CatcherStorm talk 09:38, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 04:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Benlevi-Zeff[edit]

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

Promotional bio with no actual claim to notability. Being a guest speaker at notable institutions, or presenting notable people, does not confer notability. Sources are mainly primary, or they talk about her website and not about her. bonadea contributions talk 09:23, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 18:27, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This person is clearly a social-media whiz because she's on EVERYTHING, even music sites (and there's no evidence that she has anything to do with music). However, I can't figure out what it is that she does "as a business" perhaps because "expert in the digital recommendation space" is pretty vague. In any case, I found no reliable sources, only social media. When I tried searching on her business (JULIB) I got very very few hits - a handful. And the only non-social media was a PRNewsWire article. LaMona (talk) 18:35, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as none of this suggests a better article yet. SwisterTwister talk 18:51, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. My searches for sources returned mostly press releases like this and this.

    There is insufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Julie Benlevi-Zeff to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 01:48, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. North America1000 23:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TMate[edit]

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

I have tried GNews (2 mere mentions) and GBooks (used once as a manual without covering the program itself; other hits are again short mentions or unrelated), but was unable to find significant coverage in reliable independent sources, i.e. fails WP:GNG HyperGaruda (talk) 09:10, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. HyperGaruda (talk) 09:10, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My usual search for software info (name + "review") got nothing. This is more evidence that we need some better policies on what to do about software, especially newly issued software (which this probably was in November 2005 when this article was written). Most "hand-crafted" software dies a pretty quick death, but often get some "launch" notices. This is especially true today because of app stores and online sites that review everything that issues forth (often based on the app's own description). LaMona (talk) 18:42, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as none of this seems to better suggest better satisfying the software notability. SwisterTwister talk 19:00, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Could not establish notability or deorphan. ~Kvng (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 15:24, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Denial eSports[edit]

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

Thesources do not indicate the claimed importance in this extremely detailed article which ends:" they are looking for new players ." DGG ( talk ) 05:36, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MusaTalk ☻ 06:56, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. sst✈ (top/bottom) (edits) 07:41, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep especially if it can be improved as the listed sourcing seems convincing enough. SwisterTwister talk 07:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Allthefoxes but trim considerably to maintain a proper article. ansh666 01:14, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#A7 JohnCD (talk) 17:12, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Ali (programmer)[edit]

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

Contested Prod.Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:RS and is a case of WP:TOOSOON and also the claim to notability is creating a website which does not have a corresponding article WP:WTAF. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:31, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MusaTalk ☻ 06:57, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. MusaTalk ☻ 06:58, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - Maybe I'm missing something, but this seems more than eligible for CSD A7. Being founder of a non notable website and being mentioned on a radio show doesn't make any attempt at being notable. --allthefoxes (Talk) 07:07, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - he's just a child. Only one source and definitely doesn't show notability to have his own Wikipedia article. CatcherStorm talk 09:40, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not bad achievement for his age, but not enough notability shown for an article here. Some day, maybe. Now, no. Peridon (talk) 13:26, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 18:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elevation Fight Team[edit]

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

MMA fight team with no significant independent coverage. Only receives passing mentions in articles about its members. Fails the GNG and WP:NORG. Jakejr (talk) 14:02, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:48, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:38, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:39, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I didn't find any significant independent coverage about this team. Everything is passing mentions like "so-and-so is a member of Elevation Fight Team".Astudent0 (talk) 19:53, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 03:26, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The team doesn't inherit notability from its members. It needs coverage specifically about it.Mdtemp (talk) 19:52, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 10:34, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ATW Assembly & Test Worldwide[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to have met WP:COMPANY and reads like an advert. —UY Scuti Talk 08:15, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:41, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:41, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:41, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as simply none of this suggests a considerably better article yet. SwisterTwister talk 20:14, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:15, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 03:24, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to BBC Radiophonic Music. No requests for this article's retention have been made in over 3 weeks. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 14:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Radiophonic Music[edit]

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

No evidence that this term is used in English, only French. Content could be potentially merged into other articles such as the musique concrète and BBC Radiophonic Workshop articles. (The author and sole editor has been banned for operating sockpuppets, although this article does not seem related to that.) Blythwood (talk) 22:23, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 08:37, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:16, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 03:24, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The term does have some use in English-language media, albeit in discussing situations in France and Germany: "...the radiophonic music research [at WDR] had long been history (...) it wasn't an electronic recording in the sense of their radical concept of radiophonic music, as Stockhausen called it". (Interview with Burnt Friedman in The Wire April 2006, p20) "In 1982 he founded La Muse en circuit his own studio/association to advance electroacoustic and radiophonic music" (Article on Luc Ferrari in The Wire April 1999, p28) AllyD (talk) 08:56, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to BBC Radiophonic Music, limited general usage, not a clearly defined term and somewhat anachronistic, can mean a number of different things. Not synonymous with musique concrete, as the article suggests, so this is misleading. Semitransgenic talk. 19:07, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:01, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Patriot Capital[edit]

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

Non-notable private equity company. Cloudbound (talk) 22:11, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:58, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:21, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Quite amusing article to stay like this for several years but there's simply nothing to suggest even minimally better notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:05, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:14, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 03:23, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Highbeam shows some coverage of Patriot Capital Funding, Inc. (PCAP) a company based in Westport, CT, but I am not seeing coverage of this Baltimore firm, just routine announcements and listings. The article text also indicates a firm going about its business without making claims of encyclopaedic notability. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 08:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Reads as an advertisement, along with not having reliable sources. Possibly could have been speedied. LaMona (talk) 18:45, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:56, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ABR Holdings[edit]

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

Nominated on grounds of low notability. Cloudbound (talk) 22:03, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I can't find suitable references. It appears in [Marketwatch] but that just confirms that it exists as a company. There are other investment articles like this and this. However, other than being a business, there doens't seem to be much to say about it. LaMona (talk) 16:57, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:02, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:02, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:02, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:02, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as none of this suggests a minimally better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 19:03, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.

    Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations says (my bolding):

    There has been considerable discussion over time whether publicly traded corporations, or at least publicly traded corporations listed on major stock exchanges such as the NYSE and other comparable international stock exchanges, are inherently notable. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports. Accordingly, article authors should make sure to seek out such coverage and add references to such articles to properly establish notability.

    Editors coming across an article on such a company without such references are encouraged to search (or request that others search) prior to nominating for deletion, given the very high (but not certain) likelihood that a publicly traded company is actually notable according to the primary criterion.

    1. Cai, Hao Xiang (2014-01-16). "Looking for a place to park $63m". My Paper. Archived from the original on 2015-01-01. Retrieved 2016-01-01.

      The article's first two paragraphs:

      ALMOST two years after selling its regional chocolate retail line for a pretty penny, mainboard-listed ABR Holdings, which runs the profitable Swensen's franchise of ice-cream restaurants here, is still hunting for a suitable place to park a sizeable cash stash.

      The group last reported cash and equivalents of $63.5 million on its balance sheet - no mean feat for a company flying under the radar and worth around $150 million on the market.

      It then goes into detail about how the company's holdings are doing:

      Meanwhile, the company has become more risk-averse in regard to its operating businesses.

      Its main Swensen's business in Singapore and Season's confectionery in Malaysia are profitable, but minor brands Gloria Jean's Coffees, Oishi Japanese Pizza and Tip Top Curry Puffs are in the red. Caution is thus the word of the day, rather than "being aggressive", Mr Chua said.

      It also provides substantial detail about ABR Holdings' history:

      ABR Holdings has been around in Singapore since 1978, holding the franchise for Swensen's. In 1992, it listed on Sesdaq, the precursor to the Catalist board on the Singapore Exchange. It entered the mainboard in 2008.

      In the 1990s, two thirds of ABR's revenue came from Swensen's and one third from Europa Holdings, a chain of pubs and discos that was eventually closed by the early 2000s. Since then, ABR has tried its hand at other businesses.

      Its most notable success was Focus Network Agencies (FNA), known for its chocolate retail chain The Cocoa Trees.

    2. Hunt, Alison (2014-03-06). "3 Things You Should Know About ABR Holdings". The Motley Fool. Archived from the original on 2015-01-01. Retrieved 2016-01-01.

      The article notes:

      ABR Holdings Limited began life in 1978, as the owner and operator of the first, full-service Swensen’s restaurant in Singapore after obtaining the franchise from its parent company in the USA.

      ...

      ABR Holdings took on the franchise for the Canadian frozen yoghurt company “Yogen Fruz” and Singaporeans were soon queuing for its made-to-order Frozen Yoghurt (FroYo) cups, complete with fresh fruit toppings.

      From then on the company continued to take on F&B franchises. In 2006, it took on the Japanese-style pizza delivery business Oishi Pizza and broke into the increasingly popular coffee culture market by buying a 50% stake in the master franchise of Australian chain Gloria Jean’s Coffee.

      The company followed up with the acquisition of popular Parisian Restaurant Grill Hippopotamus and local snack chain Tip Top Curry Puffs in 2010.

      ...

      Today, ABR Holdings remains a food and beverage company, managing, franchising and operating a portfolio of well-known brands including Swensens, Earle Swensens, Hippopotamus, Yogen Fruz, Gloria Jean’s Coffees, Oishi Pizza, Tip Top Curry Puffs and Season’s Cafe in Singapore, Malaysia, Brunei and China. It is also involved in the processing, baking and trading of bread, cakes and confectionery.

    3. ABR Holdings is a publicly traded corporation. According to Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations: "sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports."

      http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/analystResearch?symbol=ABRH.SIWebCite lists several analyst reports about ABR Holdings:

      1. Published 25 Dec 2015 by Reuters Investment Profile (12 pages). "ABR Holdings Ltd: Business description, financial summary, 3yr and interim financials, key statistics/ratios and historical ratio analysis."
      2. Published 19 Dec 2015 by Wright Investors (54 pages). "Wright Investors Service Comprehensive Report for ABR Holdings Limited."
      3. Published 13 Nov 2015 by Thomson Reuters (9 pages). "Thomson Reuters Stock Report - ABR Holdings Ltd (533-SG)."
      4. Published 27 October 2015 by Sadif Analytics Prime (3 pages). "ABR Holdings Ltd: Downgraded to Average."
    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow ABR Holdings to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 06:14, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per new sources presented in the discussion. North America1000 07:11, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:11, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 03:21, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - After that heck of a vote, I would be inclined to agree. WP:42 is appeased and there are sufficient sources to show notability. --allthefoxes (Talk) 07:12, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources. While Cunard's research is admirable, I wouldn't consider their first two examples "in-depth" coverage, rather simply routine mentions of the business dealings of a corporation. Business listings in business magazines are almost always never a good rationale for notability. Onel5969 TT me 13:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The My Paper article goes beyond "routine coverage" by discussing the company's history in detail.

    Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations says (my bolding): "sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports."

    The 12-page Reuters Investment Profile analyst report, the 54-page Wright Investors analyst report and the 9-page Thomson Reuters analyst report are "in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources".

    The guideline says "analyst reports" are acceptable sources and I've shown here that ABR Holdings has received substantial coverage from analyst reports.

    Cunard (talk) 18:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 18:03, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Late Late Show guests[edit]

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

The list is WP:INDISCRIMINATE trivia. Koala15 (talk) 03:18, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:28, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:28, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Names of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The Bushranger One ping only 22:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Un-Islamic Non-State[edit]

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

This article has been created using classic WP:OR and WP:COATRACK procedures. While it is true that many muslims claim that ISIS is not a muslim organization, it does not mean that they are calling them by the name "Un Islamic", rather it is an adjective used by muslims. Furthermore Ban Ki Moon used this word only once and WP:NEO clearly says that we cannot use this kind of use to create article about neologisms. In addition to this many people call ISIS by a plethora of names, such as a "the Salafist Terrorists" and others, but it will be against common sense to create an article for every name that ISIS is called. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:39, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect this term was widely reported and is used in the main Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant article, so it makes a resonable redirect. I can't imagine a valid case for separate articles on even much more common names for ISIL then this such as ISIS or Daesh Legacypac (talk) 05:51, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Legacypac: Are you suggesting a Merge & Redirect? Mhhossein (talk) 05:54, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
yes, though the core of the article about this term is (or was) in the ISIL article already. The parts about Cameron etc could be compactly added as well in an appropriate section. Are you good with that? Legacypac (talk) 05:58, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm...I think "Un-Islamic Non-State" is not comparable to 'ISIL', 'Daesh', 'ISIS' or other alternatives because "Um-Islamic Un-state" is not really a name commonly used. In the article, there's absolutely no mention that Muslims are calling them 'Unislamic' and it's importance is only due to being largely reported by WP:RSs. I don't support separate articles for all the titles, too. Mhhossein (talk) 06:07, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
major sections of ISIL still stand as I drafted them, so I know a lot about the topic. The content is important and belongs in the main article not in a small side article. Daesh is an assigned name ISIL hates too but it should not have a stand alone article either. Legacypac (talk) 07:01, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
LegacypacThanks to your efforts, I had also major contributions to the main article. I wanted to say that "Un-Islamic Un-state" is different from other titles. Anyway, I support the merger. Now I think the Un-Islamic Non-State needs more reflection in sources to be regarded as a stand alone article. Mhhossein (talk) 08:13, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest Speedy Close as Withdrawn. The only editor now supports turning this into a redirect and adding info to main article. Let's let him do it. Legacypac (talk) 10:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy deletion. As pointed out above by PanchoS, the same subject is already covered in another article. So even if we do accept it as a valid alternative name, it would not be a new article but a mere quick reference in the already existing article. Having said that, the fact that Ban Ki-Moon called it that, does not make it so. Likewise, if suddenly someone pointed out that the Holy Roman Empire was neither Roman nor holy, does not mean that we go and create an article. Same goes for names such as Burkina Faso, which means Land of the Upright and by the same tokenLand of the Rising Sun (Japan), etc. These are all merely names, with little significance beyond a dictionary entry as pointed out above. Such names are often devoid of any legitimacy, having been created by a single individual such as Mobutu (Zaïre) and Banda (Malawi). Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 16:39, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What do you say about Great Satan or Zionist entity? Mhhossein (talk) 16:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't see a problem with the article. It has merit and presents significant comments from the UN, certain Muslim groups and CAIR. In reference to the comments from CAIR of ISIL being anti-Islamic I think that it is fair to say that many of the various sects and subsects of Islam are anti each other in addition to their scripture based prejudices to others. They do however adhere to an interpretation of Islamic fundamentalism and, while the cited comments are notable, in reality it is more accurate to say that ISIL are not representative of Islam. It certainly does not represent a "state" relevant for the shia. GregKaye 08:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nannadeem (talk) 21:32, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 03:17, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

um, the creator of the article supports merging this. The title is a fine redirect. Legacypac (talk) 14:50, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Agree to the above version. Nannadeem (talk) 20:09, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect. A neologistic alternative name for a topic that already has an article at another title is not a thing that warrants a standalone article as a separate topic from the thing it's an alternative name for; it merits mention in the main article, but is not a good basis for a spinoff as a separate thing in its own right. Bearcat (talk) 21:53, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Don't really understand why The Bushranger relisted this one. Without a single rationalized keep, and with the original author supporting a merge, the consensus should be more than clear. --PanchoS (talk) 11:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge and redirect to Names of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant per the original author. --Lockley (talk) 19:33, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The general opinion here is that the sources provided by Notecardforfree are sufficient. That being said, there is also agreement here that the article needs serious editorial work. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Institutionalized Riot Systems[edit]

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

WP:NEOLOGISM. KDS4444Talk 07:56, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there going to be any voting, if this article will be kept or not. May I know the reason why this article is nominated for deletion Wikipedia:Deletion_policy ? I have already provided the reference to the work of the author who invented this term. In future I will further expand it by providing appropriate references. Bhvintri (talk) 08:24, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This article needs work (perhaps even WP:TNT), but this does appear to be a concept that haas received coverage in reliable sources (see, for example, this book, this book, this book, and this book). Bhvintri, if you are the author of this page, you should incorporate the sources I cited in the previous sentence (per WP:V) and you should restructure the article pursuant to MOS:LAYOUT. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:33, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Easy to find discussions of this theory on G-Scholar. Still considered new and all still mention the originator, but it's getting attention. Article needs to add some of the discussion (pro and con). LaMona (talk) 19:58, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:38, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:38, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:PAGEDECIDE, a standalone article for this topic is appropriate because the concept of "institutionalized riot systems" was developed in a series of articles and studies that predate the publication of The Production of Hindu-Muslim Violence in Contemporary India. See, for example, this 2001 article (tracing its origin to a 1998 study) and this 1998 article that discusses Brass' theory (note: subscription required). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:38, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Afd is not a clean-up service. notable subject, article needs to be improved but clearly plenty of sources are available.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete although I do see discussion of the term on g-scholar, it's not a lot for a term put forward in a 2004 book, and, a term that, according to comments above, was used in even earlier articles. More to the point, even where it is discussed, it is the context of discussion of the originator's book. WP:NEOLOGISM applies because the gauge to judge whether a neologism is working it that it is being picked up by other scholars and applied to new contexts. I see no indication that this term is being used outside of the narrow context in which it was put forward by the term's originator.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:21, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
E.M.Gregory, WP:NEO also states that "when secondary sources become available, it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic". Many of the sources cited in this discussion talk about the article (rather than merely using the term), which WP:NEO identifies as one of the prerequisites for a standalone article about relatively new terms (see, e.g., this book, which analyzes the concept). Furthermore, other scholars (such as Ashutosh Varshney) have used the term outside the context of Brass' works (see, e.g., this 2012 book at p.22, citing Varshney's comparison between "institutionalized peace systems" and "institutionalized riot systems"). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:50, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Varshney mirrors Brash's focus on institutional production of Hindu-Muslim violence in India. I have looked at sources, and what I see is a number of authors, mostly on India, discussing Brash's model. What I do not see is much use or adoption of this term by scholars as a model to analyze conflicts and riots elsewhere, or even analysis that goes beyond repeating Brash's description.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:29, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 03:11, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sources provided by Notecardforfree demonstrate that the subject "institutionalized riot systems" has been analyzed by independent reliable sources. It has been discussed directly and in detail, and the sources are about the term instead of merely using it, so WP:NEO does not apply. Cunard (talk) 01:35, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - While I understand E.M.Gregory's point, I think that the citations provided by Notecardforfree show that it barely passes the notability criteria. The WP:NEO argument for deletion is well thought out, but the issue I have with it is that simply because the term hasn't been used outside of India (or rarely), doesn't warrant non-inclusion. Onel5969 TT me 13:44, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 08:05, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vikrmn (CA Vikram Verma)[edit]

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

Two sources, neither of which contributes towards notability. Paradoctor (talk) 19:49, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:59, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:59, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:01, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Of the two sources currently included, only the newspaper article from 2010 helps establish a case for notability. In addition to the two sources in the article, I found a few press releases republished, but I don't see that there is sufficient coverage of this person in reliable sources. Notability has not been established according to either WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. Drchriswilliams (talk) 17:33, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 04:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Establishment (Pakistan)[edit]

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

This is not encyclopedic. Establishment is used in every society to refer to the powerful status quo. This is not unique to Pakistan. The phrase has no special meaning in Pakistan. There already is a page for The Establishment which covers this topic in depth. Curro2 (talk) 19:30, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:33, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:09, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:01, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, sounds like original research--Ymblanter (talk) 10:18, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 10:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Lavallee (ice hockey, born 1985)[edit]

Kevin Lavallee (ice hockey, born 1985) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 21:54, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:10, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:10, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:10, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:10, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:00, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Çetin Akdeniz[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that Akdeniz meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Nothing more in Turkish-language article to suggest notability either. Boleyn (talk) 19:11, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:08, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:08, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:08, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:00, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 08:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abel Alizadeh[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that writer meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. No evidence of novel being bestseller or that award was notable. May be proved wrong as most sources will not be in English. Boleyn (talk) 18:54, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:01, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:02, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:02, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:02, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:00, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, zero hits on Azeri name and Azeri names of the publications. Might be a WP:HOAX. --Soman (talk) 11:30, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:49, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1500 Steps[edit]

1500 Steps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I could not establish that this meets WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. Seems to be promotional; evidence of coi. Sending WP:APPNOTE to Opencooper. Boleyn (talk) 18:27, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I cannot find any reliable sources on the topic either. While there are a few reviews by Christian media sites, none of them are known reliable sources. There is also no indication that the film has won any awards or has been screened at any major film festivals. Opencooper (talk) 18:35, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:20, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:20, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:01, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:00, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I unfortunately agree this falls of the wikipedia notability requirements. I couldn't even find a single independent critic review for it. Aeonx (talk) 10:30, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Michig (talk) 08:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Artie Wayne[edit]

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

Frankly I wasn't certain whether to PROD or AfD this as despite the article being fairly detailed, the best my searches found were only this, this and this. SwisterTwister talk 06:30, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:30, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:30, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:30, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:30, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article needs serious work. I'm not sure, since I'm doing a fast search, but I think he has also recorded under the names "Shadow Mann" and "Neil Sheppard."[20]. There may be another Artie Wayne out there, too, so careful searching. Here are some sources to look at: Billboard Article, Billboard Article, Bibliography listing (song credit), Billboard song credit, Billboard song credit, [21], mentioned here, Shadow Mann Megalibrarygirl (talk) 01:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think he qualifies under WP:COMPOSER criteria 1 "1.Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition", as he co-wrote "Little Christmas Tree" and "Touch the One You Love" for Michael Jackson here.He also received a gold record for co-writing "Midnight Mary" for Joey Powers and covered by groups such as the Rockin Berries, seehere. He also co-wrote "Flashback" for Cher that was also covered by Paul Anka,Tom Jones,Cilla Black. He also wrote songs for Helen Shapiro (Queen of the Night) ,Ricky Nelson,The Shirelles and The Magic Lantern.
I'm not sure if he qualifies under criteria5: "Has been listed as a major influence or teacher of a composer, songwriter or lyricist that meets the above criteria." as he tutored Diane Warren at a songwriting course. Found extra source -" My Extraordinary Ordinary Life" by Sissy Spacek ISBN:1401304273.Atlantic306 (talk) 17:58, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:53, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. This is a really badly written and poorly to unreferenced biography - much of it is essentially a close paraphrase of this. But, he is still notable, as a songwriter and publisher - [22], unlinkable article at Examiner.com, etc. I wouldn't lose any sleep if it was removed as a copyvio, but if so it should be rebuilt from scratch - I believe he meets notability criteria (just about). Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:51, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Its not a copyvio as the wiki article was created in 2007 and the website 2012 so it was probably copied from wiki.I agree with you 100% the article needs a lot of work - there are important events left out and lesser ones left in.Atlantic306 (talk) 19:27, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, but the article really needs to be totally rewritten from independent reliable sources. Much of the article remains unreferenced - and unreferenced material about living people should be removed. Parts are also inaccurate (such as claims he wrote two UK top ten singles - he didn't). Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America1000 22:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Theepachelvan Pratheepan[edit]

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

BLP article has own sources and unreliable sources. From 2013, the article has failed to prove the notability issue. AntanO 14:50, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:08, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:09, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:09, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:09, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:09, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:47, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 04:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chirimar[edit]

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

Not notable Bookish.krish (talk) 12:13, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:34, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:34, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:47, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – For what it's worth, this caste has existed, as verified by the 1891 census of India ([23]), and it has mentions in some book sources (e.g. [24], [25]), but not finding significant coverage after some source searches. It is sometimes referred to as "Chirmar" (e.g. [26]), so adding a find sources template below. North America1000 02:51, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
– (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:46, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Here is one book source:
    1. Singh, Kumar Suresh; Sharma, Madan Lal; Bhatia, A. K. (1994). Haryana. Vol. 23. New Delhi: Anthropological Survey of India. p. 122. ISBN 8173040915. Retrieved 2016-01-18.

      The book has a section called "Chirimar" starting on page 122. The book's snippet view notes:

      Chirimar

      The name Chirimar originates from chiri (sparrow-bird) and mar (to kill) i.e., one who kills or catches birds. They are also known as Bahelia. They use the term Bahelia as a surname. Others call them Chirimar. From times immemorial they have been engaged in this work. For catching the birds they claim that they can even step on any murti (god's statue). They originally belong to Uttar Pradesh from where they have migrated to the present areas. The migration is recalled in oral traditions. They are distributed in Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh. In Haryana they are confined to Ambala and have thirteen households only. They speak Hindi and use Devanagri script both at home and in relation to others. Men wear payjama and kameez, while women generally wear salwar and kameez. The younger generation have taken to the modern dress of pants and shirt. In food habits, the Chirimars are both vegetarian and non-vegetarian. Some are pure vegetarian, while others take eggs with vegetarian food. Non- vegetarians take mutton, chicken and fish. Women are also non-vegetarian. The consumption ...

    Cunard (talk) 01:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. postdlf (talk) 18:00, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of albums awarded Best New Music by Pitchfork Media[edit]

List of albums awarded Best New Music by Pitchfork Media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no signficant coverage by third-party sources of this topic (these few paragraphs by The L Magazine appear to be it, and this article is made up of nothing else but 549 citations to Pitchfork Media reviews) Dan56 (talk) 00:23, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. sst✈discuss 06:39, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. sst✈discuss 06:39, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Razr Nation 01:22, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:45, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Hmm, this is a tough one. While I do see the arguments on why there might be notability concerns with this article, I'm not so certain deleting the article would be the best option either, mainly for the reason that this is a list we're talking about here. If we're going to delete this article by reasoning of the nominator, it would have to mean similar lists like List of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles of the 2010s would have to be removed also for reasoning because they have no citations of sources from outside the primary publication. Not trying to make a Keep argument here either, but I'm just saying. 和DITOREtails 17:28, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@EditorE:, instances of a song going number one in the U.S. are often covered (or at the very least mentioned) by sources other than Billboard ([27], [28]). What third-party sources ever even mention this article's topic?? Dan56 (talk) 23:48, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Number-one singles on Billboard haven't been really mainly "covered" in reliable sources as much as they've been mentioned about, but this google books search and the L Magazine should be proof of the similar nobility between these two topics anyway. Again, I'm just saying.和DITOREtails 00:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another thing - If we happen to decide we keep this article, we should seperate this lists in subsequent lists for each year, as the more-than-500 citations on this list would probably be too much for one article to handled. 和DITOR[[User talk:EditorE|E]}tails 00:05, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So don't "keep" that article either lol. This deletion discussion is for this article (WP:OTHERSTUFF). Dan56 (talk) 00:57, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete To be considered significant coverage in reliable sources, it really needs coverage outside of just Pitchfork Media. If the Pitchfork list is being mentioned elsewhere, then the list concept is notable; if not, no. As mentioned above, the notability of Pitchfork doesn't just get inherited. Nwlaw63 (talk) 22:22, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I agree that Pitchfork Media needs no introduction, but I also agree with Dan – because it's just embarrassing to see all but one of the list's 550 references sourced from Pitchfork itself. (Is there really no one except for L Mag who's commented on the Pitchfork list?) The thing that changed my initial "Delete" to "Comment" here was following the Category:Lists of albums link and seeing NME Album of the Year. That was/is a highly prestigious awards list, which I can't see us wanting to lose, but all the results there are sourced to the NME – what do we do about that? JG66 (talk) 16:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The references I put there are really just to provide links to the Pitchfork reviews in question. If people agree I can just change them to be external links instead of references as I have already done here. AssortedLiquorice (talk) 06:11, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Here is a study which proves the influence the "Best New Music" tag can have on an album's popularity. Just because you can't find third-party sources doesn't mean they aren't there ;) Also many sources which state the influence of Pitchfork's high scores in the Pitchfork Media article don't mention the BNM tag, but most high scores are awarded with this tag anyway so there isn't a need for sources which specifically mention the influence of BNM. AssortedLiquorice (talk) 06:06, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@AssortedLiquorice:, that is a Brown University student's research paper for an economics class, not a published, reliable source. Double check your sources and read WP:THIRDPARTY: "Every article on Wikipedia must be based upon verifiable statements from multiple third-party reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (emphasis added ;) Dan56 (talk) 22:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to say, Dan, but last I checked, I saw a policy article that said academic journals were applicable as reliable sources. ;v) edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī 00:38, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. With the socks taken out of the equation, consensus to delete is clear. Michig (talk) 08:16, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Graig Weich[edit]

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage about him in independent reliable sources. Awards are not major. TV appearances are minor. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ssт✈(discuss) 17:17, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. ssт✈(discuss) 17:17, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now at best as the article is not a deletion priority at this time, the current version is acceptable.Delete for now at best as this is another case of an article seeming notable and acceptable at first but my own searches found nothing better than a few passing mentions. I change my mind considering where this is AfD is going and what has happened, instead consider draft and userfying for now. SwisterTwister talk 03:37, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 18:32, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 20:38, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete At first look seems to be notable due to the amount of sources that mention him, but a search finds nothing more than a few reliable sources. FiendYT 16:40, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep , though the subject may not be an A or even B list star, WP features many lesser known subjects, and subjects do not need to be stars, but simply notable enough sited by reliable sources that meet WP standards and because I see he has been featured recently in Newsweek, Yahoo, and before on the Howard Stern 100 show, Comic Book Men, E! Entertainment Television and is working with celebrities on TV and in media, IMDB, he is known beyond his field of work by continuing to appear on just enough main-stream media (as the sources cite) in the reference list, therefore he does meet the minimum required WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG.
Note: I will continue to search for more sources when I find more time later. I just saw a commercial featuring him for an upcoming appearance on WeTV David Tutera's show in 2016. Research confirms he is just known enough to be on WP and meet their requirements as mentioned. WP users can Youtube his video on the TV shows but cannot list his own Youtube channel as a source to cite because it's the subject's. Only list objective reliable sources.
Lastly, I spotted a "CNN I-Report" on the subject for winning the Urban Action Showcase Award at HBO but am unsure if that can be used to Cite as a source of reference, does anyone know if that comes from CNN directly or not?
baswana89 talk 08:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC) — baswana89 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
information Administrator note - Editor baswana89 began editing at Wikipedia yesterday, heading directly for AfD discussions, which is a peculiar place to start. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:30, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
information Administrator note - Struck as confirmed sock -- RoySmith (talk) 00:45, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
None of the current sourcing passes GNG, what is peacocked above as "featured" is not significant. You don't inherit notability from working with celebrities. Commercials are not independent reliable sources. Citizen journalism posted at CNN I report is not reliable, it's not by CNN. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But if you write comic books and cartoons that should be enough. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 07:41, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One last relist to gather more opinions.  Sandstein  17:46, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  17:46, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As said above. This seems to perfectly meet GNG. The person is notable and there seems to be enough coverage to keep it. --allthefoxes (Talk) 18:43, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How does he meet GNG? duffbeerforme (talk) 05:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Gave this a lot of thought and was going to say delete until I read the above comments that lead me to do my own further research which since then now make a lot of sense to consider keeping including watching the video on youtube as suggested above. Though I am new to contributing, I have been an avid reader of WP and take it very seriously hence I did not take it lightly to say keep but evidence in favor of keeping has been presented sufficiently. Lit1979 talk 23:20, 6 January 2016 (UTC) — Lit1979 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Struck as confirmed sock. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:24, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
information Administrator note - Editor Lit1979 began editing at Wikipedia yesterday, heading directly for AfD discussions. Note baswana69 above. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:42, 7 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete I don't see any non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. None of the awards are notable, and all of the RS links are just passing mentions (i.e., being briefly featured in a not-particularly-notable reality TV show). OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No real evidence of the necessary detailed coverage. Spartaz Humbug! 00:01, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Yeah, yeah, I know, the last relist was supposed to be the last, but let's let the Lit1979 sock investigation run to completion -- RoySmith (talk) 00:49, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 00:49, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 18:40, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kamil Grabara[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Hasn't played a single professional match. The fact that he was signed by Liverpool doesn't make him notable Dudek1337 (talk) 00:22, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Admittedly, he has not featured in a Tier 1 match but he has featured regularly for the Polish national team at youth level, including a number of UEFA European Under-17 Championship qualifiers. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 08:24, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. I should also point out that WP:NSPORT explicitly rules out youth football as a claim to notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:47, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Youth caps and appearances do not confer notability. Number 57 09:48, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2016_January_10&oldid=1142622811"