The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. Opinions are all over the place, but I think the common thread through most comments is that we should have this information, but a stand-alone list isn't the best way to do it.

It sounds like there may be some technical issues to be solved with merging this and making the resulting list sortable by age, so we'll need somebody with a little more than average technical skills to set up the table. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:04, 19 January 2016 (UTC) reply

List of United States Chief Justices by age

List of United States Chief Justices by age (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Similar again to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Chief Justices of Australia by age and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Chief Justices of Canada by age but for the US now. Again, I see zero connection between age and being the Chief Justice. This is not related to length of term or the like (although these are lifetime appintments so they are related) but it is in actuality a list of old people who happened to have been Chief Justice. Maybe length of term could be relevant but given that there are just 17 people involved here, there's only so many ways to sort these seventeen names and this one seems trivial to me since as the others, unlike term which is based on both when they were appointed and how long they lived, they is solely based on their longevity which while interesting, is not particularly relevant about them. Ricky81682 ( talk) 22:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete this can be easily seen in other lists. Trivial intersection of data not encyclopedic. Legacypac ( talk) 22:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep: it gives interesting information in a format not duplicated in other lists. Jonathunder ( talk) 22:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Ricky81682 ( talk) 01:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ricky81682 ( talk) 02:04, 12 January 2016 (UTC) reply

If the info is at all useful it should be merged into the nice table at Chief_Justice_of_the_United_States which could benefit from birth and death dates. The calculated age at death column is of little value. Legacypac ( talk) 22:35, 12 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Propose: What about just having one list of Chief Justices, and use a sortable table, so they can be sorted in any way. Gamebuster19901 (Talk | Contributions) 01:47, 14 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete - A list of supreme court justices by age is not particularly significant; on the other hand, a list of supreme court justices by the length of their tenures on the court would be extremely noteworthy, and indeed notable per Wikipedia's notability guidelines, because U.S. Supreme Court appointments are so-called "lifetime appointments" with no mandatory retirement age. Long-term influence of a justice is often tied to the length of tenure on the court, and is often discussed that way in legal, political science and history journals and books, as well as the mainstream American media. The best suggestion I've seen on this page is that of Gamebuster19901 immediately above: the main List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States should be sortable by length of tenure; indeed, I believe it was intended to be structured that way -- but the sortable column for "active service" does not work properly and needs to be coded and the data entered in a simple manner such that it is sortable within the wikitable. If someone wants to add another sortable column for the ages of the justices at the time of their deaths, I would not object to that, either. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 03:59, 14 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• For one example of how this might be done, see List of Justices of the Supreme Court of Canada. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 04:14, 14 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep: I think the intention behind this list is constructive and the list useful since Chief Justices serve life terms. There is always ongoing speculation about how many Chief Justices may be replaced shortly, which obviously has significant impact on the court. The list's value is clearly historical since current judges' ages are listed here: Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States#Membership. But this list has value as it relates to the history of the court's members, and it's encyclopedic value rests in the life appointment nature of SCOTUS--i.e., there is always discussion about whether a nominee is too young or too old, how long they likely will serve, etc. Orthodox2014 ( talk) 16:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Support Gamebuster19901's proposal, which is "just having one list of Chief Justices, and use a sortable table, so they can be sorted in any way". Therefore, merge/redirect to Chief Justice of the United States#List of Chief Justices. Cunard ( talk) 23:03, 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. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:10, 19 January 2016 (UTC) reply

List of Chief Justices of Canada by age

List of Chief Justices of Canada by age (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Chief Justices of Australia by age, I see zero connection between age and being the Chief Justice of Canada. This is not related to length of term or the like (although it seems like these are life positions so they are related) but it is in actuality a list of old people who happened to have been Chief Justice of Canada. Maybe length of term could be relevant but given that there are just 17 people involved here, there's only so many ways to sort these seventeen names and this one seems trivial to me. Ricky81682 ( talk) 22:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete as this is trivial, not discussed outside WP, OR, and the info can be easily gotten from the list of CJ of Canada if desired. Legacypac ( talk) 22:27, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Ricky81682 ( talk) 01:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Ricky81682 ( talk) 02:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• • Delete as per nom. EncyclopediaUpdaticus ( talk) 23:23, 12 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:21, 13 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete - All of the non-redundant data concerning age of all justices -- not just chief justices -- can and should be folded into the main List of Justices of the Supreme Court of Canada. What is required is proper organization of the data -- not multiple lists where most of the data is duplicated from list to list. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 04:12, 14 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Support Dirtlawyer1's proposal "What is required is proper organization of the data -- not multiple lists where most of the data is duplicated from list to list." Dirtlawyer recommended folding the information into List of Justices of the Supreme Court of Canada, but since Chief Justice of Canada exists, I recommend folding into there. Therefore, merge/redirect to Chief Justice of Canada#List of Chief Justices. Cunard ( talk) 23:11, 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. That said, I've histmerged the article into Aenox's copy (required for copyright attribution) for consolidation as discussed. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 11:04, 19 January 2016 (UTC) reply

List of Chief Justices of Australia by age

List of Chief Justices of Australia by age (  | 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 makes less sense than the political ones like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Ministers-President by longevity being discussed. I see zero connection between age and being the Chief Justice of Australia. This is not related to length of term or the like (although it seems like these are life positions so they are related) but it is in actuality a list of old people who happened to have been Chief Justice of Australia. Maybe length of term could be relevant but given that there are just twelve people involved here, there's only so many ways to sort these twelve names and this one seems trivial to me. Ricky81682 ( talk) 22:17, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete as there are no RS that discuss this topic. Legacypac ( talk) 22:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Ricky81682 ( talk) 01:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Ricky81682 ( talk) 01:59, 12 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete, I've made a userspace copy of this. I suggest consolidate the two columns: Age at appointment, and Age at retirement into the Chief Justice of Australia article; along with a snipit of lead section text. Aeonx ( talk) 09:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete and consolidate the two columns suggested by Aeonx. Length of term is a relevant detail, so it would be good if that column could also be added to the table at Chief Justice of Australia and the table made to be sortable. None have died in office in the past and there is now a mandatory retirement age, so in my opinion the death and lifespan information is unnecessary trivia. AtHomeIn神戸 ( talk) 01:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:21, 13 January 2016 (UTC) reply

I like the consolidation idea a lot. Legacypac ( talk) 03:18, 17 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Support Aeonx's and Athomeinkobe's proposals. Since Aeonox wants to use a snippet of the lead section text for Chief Justice of Australia, finds the information in the table useful, and saved a userspace copy of this, I do not think it would be helpful to delete the article's history and content. Therefore, to satisfy Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Attribution is required for copyright, merge/redirect to Chief Justice of Australia#List of Chief Justices of Australia. Cunard ( talk) 23:16, 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 speedy delete under criterion a7 -- Y  not? 21:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Isaac Donald Curtis

Isaac Donald Curtis (  | 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:NACADEMICS Ueutyi ( talk) 21:50, 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) AtHomeIn神戸 ( talk) 01:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Terry Scanlon

Terry Scanlon (  | 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)

I couldn't establish that he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG, Google search showed lots of semi-notable people with this name. Has been unref and tagged for notability for 8 years; hopefully we can now resolve this one way or the other. Boleyn ( talk) 21:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CatcherStorm ^talk 21:54, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep, but maybe cut it back somewhat. There are sufficient sources to confirm that Terry Scanlon was, as the article says, an Australian comedian who lived from 1913 to 1996. There are materials about him in the National Library of Australia [1] and a short bio at the Australian Variety Theatre Archive notes that he had his own TV variety show at one point. [2] Google turns up assorted mentions in news and book references such as [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. So: very likely notable, but the online resources seem to be sketchy. Maybe someone else can come up with a more detailed obituary or other material. If not, some of the unverified detail might be cut back. -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 22:35, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Arxiloxos ( talk) 22:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep - 355 newspaper article hits at Trove, see particularly: W.A. COMEDIAN HAS MADE THE BIG TIME (1950), which confirms many biographical details included but not referenced in the article. Subject clearly notable and article can easily be improved to reflect this. -- Yeti Hunter ( talk) 23:31, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Withdraw nomination I'm convinced by the hard work and good arguments of the editors above. If anyone has time to work on it, great, but it now seems notable. Boleyn ( talk) 07:44, 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 -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 21:13, 16 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Vidya Shah

Vidya Shah (  | 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:BIO Fiddle Faddle 11:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:18, 5 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:18, 5 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:18, 5 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Nothing to suggest fully satisfying the applicable notability guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 22:32, 5 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Obvious Keep – Does anyone actually search for sources anymore prior to nominating/!voting for deletion, as per WP:BEFORE section D? Also see WP:NEXIST, where it's clearly stated that topic notability is not based upon the state of sourcing in articles. There's plenty to suggest fully satisfying the applicable notability guidelines. The subject passes WP:BASIC comfortably. Almost all of the following sources were very easily found by simply selecting the Google News and Highbeam links atop this discussion and then actually viewing articles about the subject. Here are some sources; several more are available: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4], ^[5], ^[6], ^[7], ^[8], ^[9], ^[10], ^[11]. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:11, 7 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Despite this list I see a BLP with one citation and many facts asserted but not verified. Fiddle Faddle 09:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep - not all the sources above are the best WP:RS but there are enough there to show notability. JMWt ( talk) 20:34, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep with appreciation for the improvements by Northamerica1000 that demonstrate notability. -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 20:35, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep As per North America passes WP:BASIC. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 03:52, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 ^Talk 23:41, 17 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Kara Lindsay

Kara Lindsay (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete: as non-notable actress. Likely just too soon. Quis separabit? 18:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep - passes WP:NACTOR, maybe somewhat weakly. Has had a significant role in Newsies on Broadway ( [9], a role created for her if I'm reading this right) and one of the leads in Wicked on Broadway and on tour ( [10]). Those are both very major productions. Ivanvector 🍁 ( talk) 19:28, 4 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Human3015 ^TALK  19:35, 4 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Human3015 ^TALK  19:35, 4 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete: Does not pass WP:ACTOR, and therefore, is just TOOSOON. Delta13C ( talk) 16:20, 5 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete for now at best and draft & userfy as "Kara Lindsay actress" found several links including a few of the above apparently, at News, browsers and Highbeam but perhaps nothing to solidly and comfortably satisfy WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 20:06, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep. As Ivanvector says, the sources indicate she is a notable stage performer. Some additional sources with substantial biographical content: Calgary Sun/ Toronto Sun [11]; Pioneer Press [12]; WNBC [13]; The Wall Street Journal [14]. -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 21:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep – Meets WP:BASIC: [15], [16], [17], [18]. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:59, 12 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep: In addition to others' notes, she also meets at least WP:MUSBIO criteria #1 and #6 (and possibly #4 but not yet #5 having only had 1 cast album so far). ^~~ Hydronium^~Hydroxide^{~ (Talk)~~} 14:16, 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 speedy keep per WP:SK#1, an invalid deletion rationale "proposing an alternative action such as moving or merging" — David Eppstein ( talk) 01:42, 14 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Henri Hauser

Henri Hauser (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Inadequately sourced stub biography. I suggest that it be deleted to make way for Draft: Henri Hauser, which still needs a lot of work but is better than this stub. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC) reply

The draft bio reads like a machine translation from French. Currently I disagree and would say the stub is superior. In the draft, grammatical errors are rampant and it currently doesn't meet style guidelines. I'll fix it up if no one has any objections. I'm a native English speaker and published. While the writing in the draft is outrageously poor, I wholeheartedly agree that the content does seem markedly better except for the "Bourgeouis Jewish" part. I assume the draft article writer is French. It might be the translation, too. In English, that sounds mildly offensive. Hauser's connection to the Annales School and Bloch really need to be emphasized, as well. Hauser is unknown in the Anglophone world, so connections to better known groups and movements are necessary to put him in context. Guinness4life ( talk) 21:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Thoughtful Keep because although the draft is better, its contents can simply be merged and improved to this current mainspace article as regardless the subject seems notable not only with the listed information and also because for its timeline (19th-century), there will likely be solid sources and even the currently listed source is acceptable. Notifying librarian DGG for further analysis. SwisterTwister talk 06:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep This is not the appropriate way to expand a current article. New material should be added (preferably gradually) to the existing article, if and when it is in coherent English and properly referenced. The draft appears to be a verbatim but poor translation of the French Wikipedia article ( fr:Henri Hauser) which, while lengthy, is highly disorganized, repetitive, and devoid of inline citations. I agree with Guinness4life that placing it "as is" in the article would be a detriment rather than an improvement. In the meantime, I have expanded the article beyond a stub with the key biographical details and added three references, two of which can be used to source substantial further expansion. Voceditenore ( talk) 16:32, 13 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep. and expand. In general, if there is an inadequate article in the en WP and an adequate one in another WP, the two should be merged, or even the original one replaced by a decent translation of the article from the other WP, but thee is no need to actually delete the history of the enWP article, and therefore no need to use a deletion process. (The exception is of course total copyvio or vandalism where nothing can be properly saved). The translation from the other WP, in any case, must be edited into some approximation of normal English It doesn't have to be perfect, but it has to be better than a straight Goggle translation. It does not take a native or near-native knowledge of the foreign language to do better than Google. It's only acceptable to copy in a straight translation, if one sets about immediately improving it, but at least the basics is necessary. Anyone who cannot do that much should ask for assistance, DGG ( talk ) 17:52, 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. G11 DGG ( talk ) 20:58, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

HIV Multiple AIDS

HIV Multiple AIDS (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Original Research; not sourced. //nepaxt 16:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 16:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Strong delete. Clearly unsourced WP:OR per nom. I also do not really understand what the article is trying to say, even though I've graduated in the life sciences. Also, the creator has been frequently blocked on fr-wiki for ajouts intempestifs récurrents de ses théories très personnelles et farfelues dans les articles, TI flagrant, autopromo, spam site perso ("recurring unwanted additions of his very personal and outlandish theories to articles, blatant OR, self-promotion, spamming his personal website"). - HyperGaruda ( talk) 17:26, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete - this is WP:OR Kansiime ( talk) 17:51, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• undelete The virus has a clock-- 2A02:1205:504B:AF10:986F:6C17:ABAC:F55F ( talk) 18:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete G1, G3... etc JMWt ( talk) 20:38, 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) 00:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC) reply

NBA league average height, weight, age and playing experience

NBA league average height, weight, age and playing experience (  | 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 trivial in nature and fails GNG and NBASKET. I would not be opposed for the article's creator to house this in a user subpage, but this should not be in mainspace. Jrcla2 ( talk) 15:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Jrcla2 ( talk) 16:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 16:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 16:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete. This is just a relisting of charts found on the NBA web site. Also, the NBA apparently stopped publishing these tables in 2007, so it's unlikely that the article could ever be brought up to date, at least not without an editor doing their own research and calculations. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 18:58, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Apparently the NBA still calculates this data and names a "Mr. Average" in connection with its annual roster survey, although the information is perhaps not as conveniently located online as before. See for example "Danny Green is NBA’s ‘Mr. Average’" (2014), "Why Evan Turner is the most average player in the NBA" (2015). -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 20:57, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

My recommendation was based on an assumption that this list couldn't easily be maintained. Your searches convince me that I was wrong about that and I've stricken my recommendation. I do sympathize with the notion that this list is unencyclopedic trivia and might merit deletion for that reason alone. But as DirtLawyer points out below, there is a lot of this stuff spread out over the various sports subjects. Maybe it all does need to be cleaned up (i.e., deleted), but I'm not sure that AfD is the way to do it. I'm going to stay neutral on this one. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 19:31, 15 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete run of the mill trivia. Occasional blog citing NBA info doesn't constitute significant coverage. Nwlaw63 ( talk) 22:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete, WP:NOTSTAT should cover it. Since this list was created by a sockpuppet, it wouldn't help to house it in the creator's userspace. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 00:09, 12 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete Not worth the effort to bring it up to date. The fluctuations in the table are generally pretty trivial; most people can't visualize the difference between 6'7.62" and 6'6.30". And even within a single season, different NBA publications may list different heights and weights for a single player, so who knows how accurate these numbers are, anyway. (I remember there was once a lot of kvetching over Jonas Valančiūnas' height/weight in his infobox, since the Raptors' official pre-game notes at one point contradicted the NBA.com player profile. Or something.) Zagalejo ^^^
• Delete - Non-notable list of trivia. Subject does not satisfy WP:GNG or WP:LISTN, with significant coverage of the specific list subject in multiple, independent, reliable, secondary sources. It also violates WP:NOTSTATS, with a long list of non-notable statistics, which are mostly unexplained with accompanying text. We really need a house-cleaning of similar lists throughout our sports subjects, as a well as a more logical and consistent basis for dealing with sports stats lists. Right now, our standard for sports stats list is a little too close to "I like it" and "I don't like it" to explain to anyone outside the sports projects. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 18:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete - per nom. Cubbie15fan ( talk) 22:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete per above reasons. DaHuzyBru ( talk) 18:53, 15 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete per NOTSTAT. ~ EDDY ^{( talk/ contribs)}~ 03:23, 17 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete per all of the above reasons. → Call me Razr Nation 05:59, 18 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete per above Fails WP:LISTN and WP:GNG. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 23:08, 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. joe decker ^talk 21:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Planetfesto

Planetfesto (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Orphaned article since September 2008. That's not a criteria for deletion, as such - but useful background. The article deals with a Web 2.0 project from 2007, seeking to promote environmental awareness. There appears to have been a little bit of coverage, mainly local and blogs, when the project began, and then.... nothing. I see no continuing coverage, no evidence of notability for the project. Sources shown are pretty much it, and most of them are not reliable sources as such. Happy to be proven wrong, but I don't see how this meets our criteria. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:43, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 16:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 16:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 16:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete as quite nearly even speedy material, best deleted for now with there being nothing salvageable and this can be restarted if better. SwisterTwister talk 07:59, 12 January 2016 (UTC) reply

I considered that, but figured that it's sat for 8 years - one week won't hurt anything. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:26, 12 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete. I couldn't find sources, even on the web archive. -- Sammy1339 ( talk) 19:24, 15 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Could not find any reliable sources to establish notability. Unable to deorphan. ~ Kvng ( talk) 16:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete I was unable to find reliable sources. → Call me Razr Nation 05:59, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 ^Talk 23:42, 17 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Anthony Fiorillo

Anthony Fiorillo (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Subject does not appear to meet the WP:GNG or WP:ACADEMIC guidelines. Two citations in article are directly related to Fiorillo, and a search of his authored papers does not turn up anything with very significant citations. FuriouslySerene ( talk) 15:24, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep per the publications. Curro2 ( talk) 15:26, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Which publications? FuriouslySerene ( talk) 15:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Doesn't "An experimental study of trampling: implications for the fossil record" with 143 citations seem significant?-- Jahaza ( talk) 16:52, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 16:33, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Comment. It does not appear this is an obvious case either way, e.g. on publications (WoS h-index 15, citations: 60, 56, 54...). But he is listed as Chief Curator of the Perot Museum of Nature and Science. This could render him notable per se according to PROF c6, if Perot is considered to be a "major institution". Agricola44 ( talk) 00:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC). reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep. He meets WP:GNG; I have found and added several secondary reliable sources that provide significant coverage. He is also a fellow of the Geological Society of America.— Gorthian ( talk) 19:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep perhaps based from the current article and sourcing. Notifying librarian DGG for further analysis. SwisterTwister talk 02:39, 13 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep. on the basis of the books and the GSA Fellowship. Many areas of geology have low citation figures, and paleontology is one of them. (In fact, the descriptive sciences in general have much lower figures than the experimental.) DGG ( talk ) 04:47, 13 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Yes, GSA fellow ... aplogies for not noticing this. Agricola44 ( talk) 15:56, 13 January 2016 (UTC). reply

Comment: I'm okay with GSA fellow being a sufficient keep criterion, but I'd like the implications of establishing the precedent to be clear: about 4% of all GSA members (incl. students) are fellows. I googled 20 of the 75 new fellows for this year who were affiliated with US universities: two named chairs, two associate profs., one research scientist -- the rest full prof. but non-named chair, or emeritus. I think that this is the correct level for WP:PROF and the Average Professor Test, but I think that it's substantially below what I've been seeing required of people in non-science fields at AfD lately or what the examples on WP:PROF suggest. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 17:12, 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. joe decker ^talk 21:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC) reply

NonStopTech

NonStopTech (  | 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 and fails WP:GNG AdrianGamer ( talk) 15:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete - no indication of notability per WP:CORP, and no significant coverage online from WP:RS. Speedied twice today already on grounds of notability. NeemNarduni2 ( talk) 15:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete per above. My searches turned up no reliable sources to create an article with. FuriouslySerene ( talk) 15:26, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete "internationally based" is code for this is self-promotion. Curro2 ( talk) 15:27, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete Article states they are a multinational media company but right now NonStopTech is a tech review website run by a collaboration of tech YouTubers. I find no independent coverage of the website. The creation of the Wikipedia article happened the day after they launched their new version of their website. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete, no indication of notability.- KH-1 ( talk) 01:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete per others, small non-notable company, article creator is SPA with apparent COI. Citobun ( talk) 05:33, 16 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete No indication of notability. → Call me Razr Nation 05:59, 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 redirect to Joel Veitch. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 ^Talk 23:42, 17 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Spongmonkeys

Spongmonkeys (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Short-lived advertising gimmick characters, no apparent notability. Article is sourced to a single opinion piece on Slate. No lasting notability for a puff piece on characters in an ad campaign. Scr★pIron ^IV 14:06, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 14:43, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 14:43, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Joel Veitch. Curro2 ( talk) 15:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Redirect as unlikely better notable and improvable from its current state and is likely best connected to him. SwisterTwister talk 07:11, 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; consensus is clear. Mojo Hand ( talk) 04:06, 19 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Al Salehi

Al Salehi (  | 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:Vanispamcruftisement for non-notable politican per WP:POLITICIAN. I've removed the worst of the promotional language about him "sharing his vision with the voters", but he's only ever been elected to minor offices. The rest of the article is a load of unreferenced claims that he's a "research analyst and an expert of Iran's government" (he appeared on Fox News once to talk about Iran), a company chairman, a medical doctor, and an inventor of technologies used by Apple, Microsoft, Cisco, and the University of Phoenix. The names in the references vary, oddly: the article and some of the references one reference says his name is Alan Salehi; the patents are for ‎Ali Abdolsalehi, and the doctor's office is for Ali Salehi: unclear what his real name is, and whether these are all really the same person. His one claim to fame seems to be the OC Register article about him forcing an election for the Orange County community college district. No significant coverage about him online from WP:RS. NeemNarduni2 ( talk) 14:04, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. NeemNarduni2 ( talk) 14:05, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. NeemNarduni2 ( talk) 14:05, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep - Thank you for revising the article. It has helped a lot with clean-up. Alan has appeared on Fox News more than once (really? does every appearance need to be cited?). So what he has only been elected to "minor" offices. "Minor" is defined however you want to define it. The claims are not all unreferenced. It is difficult to find references for everything Alan has done in his career. Not everything is public. This forced election is a big deal (notable itself). There is a conspiracy going on at the North Orange County Community College District and everyone is against Salehi for forcing this election, but the people in the college district appreciate Salehi's ambition to make things right at the college district. Al is short for Ali; Salehi is short for Abdolsalehi. He has changed his name on his voter registration cards over the years. You can see that starting from election records back when he ran for Laguna Beach School Board under the name Ali Abdolsalehi, ^[1] Buena Park Library District under Al Salehi, and most recently the NOCCCD race under Alan "Al" Salehi. This is public information. You can check various sources online such as smartvoter.org and ocvote.com. In short, Al Salehi's full name is Ali Abdolsalehi, but for the current college district race, he is running as Alan Salehi. Jacobaultman6 ( talk) 14:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Speedy delete Curro2 ( talk) 15:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Comment @ Curro2: Please provide a legitimate reason backing your proposal for a speedy delete. Jacobaultman6 ( talk) 22:46, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Zero indication of notability. Curro2 ( talk) 23:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Being the first Persian-American to be at a statewide office indicates zero notability? Calling for a college district special election due to proven conspiracies indicates zero notability? I think not. Jacobaultman6 ( talk) 00:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• There's nothing in the references about him being the first Persian-American anything, and nothing about him holding a statewide office: he's been elected to a local district board. NeemNarduni2 ( talk) 09:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Firstly, that statement is a fact that I personally did research on; there is no reference for that claim because it is simply true. Secondly, as I have said countless times before, the Buena Park Library District is part of California's Special Districts, which is a form of government that is statewide. Salehi is notable, period. Jacobaultman6 ( talk) 10:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Unfortunately, on Wikipedia original research is unacceptable as a source, particularly in biographies of living persons. Also please note that saying something countless times does not make it any more true: please supply a reference to WP:VERIFY the claim. Thanks, NeemNarduni2 ( talk) 10:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• The "statewide office" criterion refers to the jurisdictional area of the body itself, not to the prevalence of its class of thing. For the Buena Park Library District to constitute a statewide office, the Buena Park Library District would have to be a statewide body in its own right, not merely a local division of a statewide structure of local divisions. California has a statewide system of city councils, too, but that doesn't make every individual city councillor in California a statewide officeholder — the city council itself would have to be a statewide body, not merely one exemplar of a statewide system. Bearcat ( talk) 20:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete. There are specific notability requirements, in order to make this kind of decision as objective as possible. WP:POLITICIAN defines what kind of office confers notability: "international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office". A special district board in California is, at most, a branch of a statewide office, it is not a statewide office itself (by definition, since it's local.) And calling for a local election is also not a claim to notability unless there's been significant coverage of the fact in multiple independent sources. There is no such coverage of him, which also means that the general notalility criteria are not met. -- bonadea contributions talk 16:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Serving on a local public library board is not a claim of notability that gets a person into Wikipedia — but this article makes no other credible claim of notability for anything else ("first person of X ethnicity ever to hold an otherwise non-notable office" does not confer a notability freebie on a person who hasn't garnered nationalized coverage for that fact, per WP:POLOUTCOMES). The sourcing is parked almost entirely on primary and unreliable sources, and simple namechecks of his existence in articles which are in no way substantively about him. Furthermore, this is essentially a recreation of an article previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Salehi — while this version is written and sourced differently enough that it would be a tossup whether it qualified for G4 or not, the basic claim of notability hasn't improved and neither has the overall quality of the sourcing. But regardless of whether we go with speedy or allow this discussion to run its course, it's a clear delete either way. Bearcat ( talk) 19:54, 16 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Comment Al Salehi (Ali being his real name) was nationally recognized on January 16, 2016 by Secretary of State, John Kerry, for helping with the release of the 4+1 Iranian Prisoners. In Kerry's speech, he stated "Dr. Ali Salehi has worked diligently with Secretary Moniz to find creative solutions to difficult technical challenges." ^[1] Jacobaultman6 ( talk) 05:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC) reply

That's clearly referring to Ali Akbar Salehi. Completely different person. Nothing to do with subject here. NeemNarduni2 ( talk) 07:46, 18 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete non notable local small time political wannabe. Per Bearcat above. John from Idegon ( talk) 08:05, 18 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Comment I've moved the article from Alan Salehi to Al Salehi: none of the references cited refer to him as "Alan". NeemNarduni2 ( talk) 09:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Comment In speech, it is clear that he is not talking about Ali Akbar Salehi. Show me an article or a source that says that John Kerry was speaking about Ali Akbar Salehi, and not the Ali Saleh we are talking about right now. Until that point, my claim is valid and true. Also, there is more than one source notating his name change in the recent election. Please do more research before changing the entire framework of the article. Notable, period. Jacobaultman6 ( talk) 15:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC) reply

No, the burden of proof is upon you to show that Kerry was talking about some guy in Orange County who once appeared on Fox News, and not Ali Akbar Salehi the Head of the Iranian Atomic Energy Organization who has worked closely with Kerry's throughout Iran nuclear negotiations. A quote from Kerry that doesn't make the distinction clear is hardly proof. NeemNarduni2 ( talk) 15:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Sorry, but NeemNarduni is correct, both about where the burden of proof lays in a matter such as this (it's on you to prove the affirmative, not on anybody else to prove the obverse) and about which Ali Salehi Kerry was talking about. This source confirms that it's Ali Akbar Salehi and not the library board member. Bearcat ( talk) 20:59, 18 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete - As others have pointed out above. Non-notable "politician". Sorry but being a trustee for a Library District does not qualify you as a politician. Meatsgains ( talk) 19:45, 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 speedy delete. WP:CSD#G7 at author's request JohnCD ( talk) 15:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Ignalina Czeslaw Kudaba progymnasium

Ignalina Czeslaw Kudaba progymnasium (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Page English translation inadequate. It must be in the original language. For as in the original language ( LT) created villages and so on. so here originally. L.ukas lt 13 --Talk 13:37, 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. joe decker ^talk 21:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Rondo Adventure

Rondo Adventure (  | 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. Non-notable video game failing WP:GNG with no reliable independent in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. The references in the article as of nomination are not reliable sources as their authors have no credentials or industry writing experience that I can see. —   HELLKNOWZ  ▎ TALK 13:11, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. ( ?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. (Agreed that the refs used in the article are not reliable sources.) There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ ping}} me. czar 13:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 13:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 14:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 14:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete Fails WP:GNG. -- The1337gamer ( talk) 20:14, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete for now and draft & userfy if needed as the sourcing is noticeably not convincing enough and there's no further better coverage to suggest otherwise. SwisterTwister talk 07:58, 12 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Insufficient coverage for GNG. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete. nn Staszek Lem ( talk) 23:00, 12 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete No indication of notability. → Call me Razr Nation 06:00, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 ^Talk 23:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Jordan Alan

Jordan Alan (  | 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 film director. Part of a series of self-promoting articles. Calton | Talk 12:34, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 12:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 12:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep but barely. This seems marginally notable. Curro2 ( talk) 15:31, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Based on what? -- Calton | Talk 06:52, 12 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep per meeting WP:BASIC and WP:FILMMAKER in that he or his works have "received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Other article issues notwithstanding, this fellow has recognition and requisite coverage. IE: Indie Wire and more. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:48, 12 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Based on what? You've got an interview in Indiewire, and a bunch of stories about him marrying a TV actress. And his "recognition" is a single award from "WorldFest Houston" -- whatever the hell that is -- given (so IMDB says) in 2000 for a film released in 2003, which is quite the neat trick. Perhaps you have WIkipedia confused with a indie filmmaker's directory or IMDB? -- Calton | Talk 06:52, 12 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Some might choose to read up on "WorldFest Houston" to learn just "whatever the hell that is". And winning an award for a festival screening in 2000, does not mean a film cannot possible have a later "official" release date after a retitling. And I am unable to ignore his works having coverage, as ignoring coverage does not make it non-existent... IE: Terminal Bliss (1992), Kiss and Tell (1996), and The Gentleman Bandit (2002). Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:33, 12 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep per Schmidt. Passes WP:FILMMAKER with wide margin, almost all his films are notable and "have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" as prescribed by our guideline. Cavarrone 12:08, 13 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep per the well-reasoned rationale by MichaelQSchmidt. Meets WP:FILMMAKER. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:29, 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. joe decker ^talk 21:55, 18 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Nikolina Lončar

Nikolina Lončar (  | 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:NMODEL and the article contradicts itself as to if she even won her local pageant. Not notable anyway. Legacypac ( talk) 10:17, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 12:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 12:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete. I'm not seeing the contradiction, as the article does say that she "won the right" to represent her nation in the world-wide pageant. But that's neither here nor there, because there's not enough notability for a stand-alone article. She's listed on Miss Montenegro and a separate article is not appropriate. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 19:05, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete as fails NMODEL & GNG. – Davey2010 ^Talk 19:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Unlikely anything of this better satisfies WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 20:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete No indication of notability. → Call me Razr Nation 06:00, 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. joe decker ^talk 21:55, 18 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Sabina Särkkä

Sabina Särkkä (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

1st runner up in a pageant. Fails WP:NMODEL Legacypac ( talk) 10:14, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 13:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 13:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Curro2 ( talk) 15:31, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete as fails NMODEL & GNG. – Davey2010 ^Talk 19:55, 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 'Redirect to Graduate school per WP:BOLD. If sources can be presented that show a sufficient difference between Grad Schools and Graduate Universities, then you might have an argument for a subsection at Graduate School. In the meantime, the term is a reasonable redirect to Grad School, given the similarity in names. If the only distinction is that Graduate Universities don't themselves grant Bachelor's degrees, than consider adding a line somewhere at Graduate school that reads "Some (but not all) Graduate Schools are found at Universities that also grant Bachelor's Degrees..." or some such. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Graduate university

Graduate university (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

It look like duplication of Graduate school Arthistorian1977 ( talk) 09:51, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Graduate School which covers the topic more fully Neiltonks ( talk) 12:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 13:01, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 13:01, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Easy redirect. (Next time be bold and try it redirecting before coming to AfD.) czar 13:54, 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator. Rlendog ( talk) 23:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

List of oldest living Major League Baseball players

List of oldest living Major League Baseball players (  | 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 a list of people who happened to be ball players who happened to live into their 80's. There is no intersection between playing ball and long life, so it is basically an indiscriminate collection of information not discussed anywhere else in the world. RS for a topic as a topic are required, not just RS for the data pulled together by Wikipedia editors. The whole list is therefore OR. Legacypac ( talk) 09:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep A google search for oldest living baseball player demonstrates plenty of interest in the topic in reliable, third-party sources, both in terms of the subject in general, as well as features on individual "oldest" players that discuss their longevity. This justifies the existence of an article on this topic on Wikipedia. Canadian Paul 17:04, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• @ Canadian Paul: CP, could you please link to two or three examples of significant coverage in independent reliable sources of "oldest living baseball players" being discussed as a group or class? Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 17:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Sure. Oldest Living Baseball Players, Oldest Living MLB Player at Baseball-Reference.com, Baseball's oldest living Hall of Famers. Canadian Paul 17:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Definitely not a topic I'd track, but since there are RS that do cover it, I'm willing to Withdraw. Legacypac ( talk) 17:54, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep I really don't understand why this list draws so many peoples' ire. Alex ( talk) 22:44, 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. joe decker ^talk 21:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Alyssa Wurtz

Alyssa Wurtz (  | 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:NMODEL. She actually never even won a pageant according to the article. She came in 4th in Miss France, was appointed to go to a second tier pageant Miss Earth, and lost that too. Legacypac ( talk) 09:17, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 13:01, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 13:01, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom - Fails NMODEL & GNG. – Davey2010 ^Talk 19:57, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete not notable, no winning in pageants. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:28, 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 redirect to Estée_Lauder_Companies#Brands. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 ^Talk 23:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC) reply

La Mer (cosmetics)

La Mer (cosmetics) (  | 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:NCORP. Maybe someone else will have success but I couldn't cut through the promo pseduonews and passing mentions of celebrity product use to find any substantial sources. Brianhe ( talk) 08:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 13:04, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Redirect perhaps for now to Estée_Lauder_Companies#Brands although I would've also considered deleting as there's simply nothing to suggest a better article regardless. SwisterTwister talk 07:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete or Redirect to Estée_Lauder in the absence of evidence that this particular brand is notable, as per WP:PRODUCT. AllyD ( talk) 07:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:02, 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. Michig ( talk) 09:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Mic Diggy

Mic Diggy (  | 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 article lacking subject notability. Article's text was originally on https://micdiggy.wordpress.com/about-mic-diggy/, but was removed by author before Admin confirmed the G12. (This was prety much confirmed by [19].) I was also assume this is a coi given the change to the subject's website. reddogsix ( talk) 06:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CatcherStorm ^talk 07:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CatcherStorm ^talk 07:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CatcherStorm ^talk 07:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 07:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete. An autobiography promoting the creator. The article indicates that his [first] album was released 3 days ago, so unless notable for something else, we can presume this is the typical up and coming next big thing. The references do not show substantive treatment in reliable, secondary sources that are independent. And most are not being used as actual references at all. Rather, they are just the front pages of websites verifying the existence of something mentioned in the text, but in which this topic does not appear. Note that the profile at Lusakatimes is user-generated; a site that "provides a platform for any Zambian who want their article published..." Meanwhile, at least the low hanging fruit of Google Books and News return zero results.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 22:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete as mentioned, none of this suggests a better notable and improvable article for the guidelines. Notifying local user Wikicology. SwisterTwister talk 05:58, 12 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete Another vanity page with no evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gy ^{t@lk to M£} 07:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete No indication of notability. → Call me Razr Nation 06:01, 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 speedily deleted by User:Jonny-mt under criterion G12. (Non-admin closure) " Pepper" @ 15:14, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Ali & Associates

Ali & Associates (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Unremarkable organization due to the fact it has no references to assert its notability. CatcherStorm ^talk 05:58, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 07:04, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 07:04, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 07:04, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Speedy Delete no notability at all, and no article links here. Umais Bin Sajjad ( talk) 07:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete, probably by speedy G12: A page on a firm going about its business, without evidence of WP:CORPDEPTH. It is effectively a copy of the text from [20] with some but not all of the first-person plural text changed. AllyD ( talk) 07:41, 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. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 09:02, 19 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Pig with the Face of a Boy

Pig with the Face of a Boy (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

nn music band - üser:Altenmann >t 05:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 07:05, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 07:05, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete, article doesn't explain why the band is notable and the first four results on a Google search are the band's website, Facebook page, YouTube video and their blog, so it's unlikely that they're actually notable enough.  Seagull123   Φ  21:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete as mentioned as simply none of this suggests better satisfying the notability guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 05:55, 12 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep, consider refocusing article and moving to A Complete History of the Soviet Union, Arranged to the Melody of Tetris. This is interesting. The band is a one-hit wonder: their first song, A Complete History of the Soviet Union, Arranged to the Melody of Tetris, garnered over five million Youtube views, became quite an Internet hit, and may well be notable enough for a standalone article (much like many of the songs listed at List of Internet phenomena#Music). However, per nom, it's not certain that the band itself meets Wikipedia's notability standards. Thus I suggest keeping the article, but seriously consider moving it and changing its focus to that one song. Chessrat ^{( talk, contributions)} 04:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I'm far from convinced the song deserves its own article but anyone deleting this article should certainly quickly put the song on Internet Phenomena/music. Neutral on deleting this article. Blythwood ( talk) 07:27, 13 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Do you have any reliable sources about the song besides YT stats and self-bragging? - üser:Altenmann >t 07:32, 13 January 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Self-bragging? I don't understand how you think I'm bragging? Confused here. Reliable sources about the song? It's referenced on plenty of websites; just try a google search. Don't know how many of those constitute reliable sources, though // The main issue with creating an article for the song is not finding sources; that's easy. The issue is proving that the song is notable enough for its own article. (and, if not, should it be given a section on List of Internet phenomena#Music?) Chessrat ^{( talk, contributions)} 11:48, 13 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Per WP:GNG and WP:BAND. While there are plenty of websites that you can visit to listen to their music, there doesn't appear to exist any secondary reliable sources that cover this band in-depth and to the point where no original research is needed to write an article on them (see significant coverage in WP:GNG). The closest sources I could find were here, here, here, and here. These sources cover Tetris and merely mention the band once - this is not in-depth coverage. I saw two sources within the article that looked promising, but this source just displays a blank page, and this is a dead link. Hence this article fails WP:GNG. Looking at WP:BAND, it seems that this band does not meet any of the criterion listed (and note item #1). Hence I believe that this band also fails WP:BAND. This band may be gaining traction in the music world, but it is WP:TOOSOON for an article at this time. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:01, 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 redirect to The Haunted Hathaways#Cast and characters. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 05:26, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Breanna Yde

Breanna Yde (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete: as non-notable child actor. Way, way too soon. Quis separabit? 05:25, 4 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 05:41, 4 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 05:41, 4 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete only one major role in The Haunted Hathaways, however WP:NACTOR requires multiple major roles. LibStar ( talk) 06:10, 4 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• As before, Redirect to The Haunted Hathaways#Cast and characters until subject gains more than insular circular Nick fame; most of her roles outside of HH have been the usual "other cast member from other show guest stars" work. Nate • ( chatter) 06:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Redirect for now as I would've also considered simply deleting given she has only had 48 episodes and hopefully this will not be restored too soon. Notifying past contributors Tokyogirl79, Mrschimpf and Boleyn. SwisterTwister talk 01:41, 6 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Redirect. I remember this - I'd declined the speedy since there was an assertion of notability for her as an actor. What kept me from outright redirecting it was that she was going to be starring in the upcoming TV adaptation of School of Rock and there was a decent amount of coverage to this end. I have no problem with this redirecting to THH for now - if/when the TV series airs we can always un-redirect since she looks to be one of the central characters. via articles like this one. I think that leaving the page history intact would be helpful, since it'd allow us to have a base to pull on if/when she gains more coverage and major roles. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:00, 6 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Redirect per Tokyogirl. Boleyn ( talk) 08:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete/Redirect, too soon. Aeonx ( talk) 13:16, 9 January 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:17, 19 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Design42Day

Design42Day (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Can't find any reliable sources about this company beyond a single interview in Vogue; not notable as far as I can tell. Sam Walton ( talk) 00:00, 26 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete Fails WP:GNG. Dat Guy ^Talk _Contribs 20:33, 26 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:48, 26 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:48, 26 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Not only was this accepted in July 2012 as this, it has not considerably improved despite all of the listed links, so this is best deleted for now until a better article can be made. SwisterTwister talk 08:05, 28 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep, if I am not missing something, in addition to the already mentioned Vogue, the article contains multiple reliable sources, such as two articles from Corriere della Sera ( [21] [22]) and an article from TgCom24 ( [23]). The fact they are in Italian does not make them unreliable (eg., Corriere della Sera is the major and most authoritative newspaper in Italy). Cavarrone 15:14, 4 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Could you clarify whether the second link is a blog post? The Google Translated page seems to suggest so but it might just be a bad translation. Likewise, the third article reads like some kind of press release, but may also just be down to the translation. Thanks, Sam Walton ( talk) 15:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC) reply
    • If you read WP:BLPSPS, there is a difference between "self-published blogs" (personal and group blogs, unreliable) and online columns hosted by news organizations and also called blogs, yet with editorial overview and written by professional journalists (reliable). Solferino 28 anni is an online column of the Corriere della Sera website Corriere.it focusing on themes of interest for under-thirty-readers and written by several professional journalists who are also active in the printed newspaper (including the author of the piece, Chiara Maffioletti). It even hosts articles just signed as "Redazione" or "La Redazione", which means "The Editorial Staff". And no, the article is not a press release, it is partly an overview of the company and partly an interview with the founders. Cavarrone 16:41, 4 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH, albeit on the weaker side: [24], [25], [26], [27], [28] (short article). The article would benefit from copy editing. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:42, 19 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 Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 ^Talk 20:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Hillary Clinton presidential campaign

Hillary Clinton presidential campaign (  | 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:TWODABS CatcherStorm ^talk 03:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:27, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:27, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep as disambiguation. TWODABS only makes sense if there's a clear primary topic, see Barack Obama presidential campaign or Mitt Romney presidential campaign as other examples. Which campaign would you consider her primary one? -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 07:37, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep Ricky81682 hits the nail squarely on the head – there's no point in deleting this, as neither article would be moved to this title, nor would be appropriate to redirect it to either one of the two. Number 5 7 09:48, 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. Pam D 10:14, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep CatcherStorm, did you mean WP:TWODABS? If you click on it, you'll see it only refers to disambiguation pages with "(disambiguation)" in the title list only two meanings, one of them being the primary topic, which doesn't fit this. Perfectly valid dab page. Would you consider withdrawing nomination? Boleyn ( talk) 12:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep per the above. If one of the campaigns fizzled early, you might have an argument. But with this candidate, both campaigns are noteworthy. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:54, 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 Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 ^Talk 20:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Barack Obama presidential campaign

Barack Obama presidential campaign (  | 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:TWODABS CatcherStorm ^talk 03:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:27, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:27, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep There's no point in deleting DABs like this, as neither article would be moved to this title, nor would be appropriate to redirect it to either one of the two (I don't believe there's a primary topic). Number 5 7 09:49, 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. Pam D 10:19, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep: neither of the pages is an obvious primary topic under TWODABS. Lincolnite ( talk) 10:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep CatcherStorm, did you mean WP:TWODABS? If you click on it, you'll see it only refers to disambiguation pages with "(disambiguation)" in the title list only two meanings, one of them being the primary topic, which doesn't fit this. Perfectly valid dab page. Would you consider withdrawing nomination? Boleyn ( talk) 12:56, 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 redirect to Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016. Hatnote added to 2016 article for 2000 article, as suggested below. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Donald Trump presidential campaign

Donald Trump presidential campaign (  | 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:TWODABS CatcherStorm ^talk 03:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• I'd suggest withdrawing this. WP:TWODABS only applies if one article is the primary topic and the page therefore has "(disambiguation)" in the title, which is obviously not the case here. The last sentence if TWODABS reads "If neither of the two meanings is primary, then a normal disambiguation page is used at the base name." Jenks24 ( talk) 03:51, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Well, obviously this isn't going to be withdrawn. I think it's pretty clear there isn't going to a consensus to delete, mainly for the common sense reason that typing "Donald Trump presidential campaign" (or linking to it) should get the reader somewhere. Personally, I don't much mind between keeping the dab as is or redirecting to the 2016 article and adding a hatnote to it – if I must be counted one way or the other though, I guess redirecting as a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT would be my slight preference. I disagree with the idea of redirecting to Donald Trump#Political career, that seems least likely to help the reader get to the article and information they want. Jenks24 ( talk) 16:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep not seeing a problem with this. Legacypac ( talk) 04:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Donald Trump#Political career. WP:TWODABS doesn't apply, but it's still an unnecessary disambiguation due to the fact that the same information can be found in more detail at Trump's biography. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 04:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• I'd also support a redirect to Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT (I thought I had already mentioned this, but apparently not.) -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 00:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:27, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:27, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Support. The key question at this juncture is whether one or the other of these campaigns is the one people will look for now and into the future. The 2000 campaign -- for a third party shot which never materialized -- was already much shorter and less consequential than the current campaign. No need to inflate its import. Pointing this to the politics section of the bio works just as well. Pandeist ( talk) 05:45, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

@ Pandeist: @ Jenks24: I really don't think this page is necessary. Searching "Donald Trump presidential campaign" will show only 3 results, which are links to both his campaigns and then the disambiguation page. This would be the same with all the other presidential campaign DAB pages I've nominated for deletion. If someone is looking for Trump's campaigns and they search "Donald Trump presidential campaign...", the search bar already clearly notates both of his campaigns. A disambiguation page would therefore be unnecessary. CatcherStorm ^talk 06:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Yeah, but come on, we all know that 99 times in a hundred they'll be seeking the current venture. Pandeist ( talk) 06:33, 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. Pam D 10:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep CatcherStorm, did you mean WP:TWODABS? If you click on it, you'll see it only refers to disambiguation pages with "(disambiguation)" in the title list only two meanings, one of them being the primary topic, which doesn't fit this. Perfectly valid dab page. A redirect to Donald Trump#Political career makes it hard for people to find these two pages on the topic, which is the opposite of what we aim for. If the articles themselves are not worth it, that's a discussion for elsewhere, a merge/redirect to Donald Trump#Politics. While the articles on these precise topics exist, we should make them easy to find. Additionally if it's the 2016 campaign you're interested in, there's a bit of scrolling down before you get there from that link, which isn't very user-friendly. Would you consider withdrawing nomination? Boleyn ( talk) 12:57, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• I don't think it's quite right to say TWODABS only applies to dabs with (disambiguation) in the title. Sure, if we had a Chingford (disambiguation) that listed the London suburb and a non-notable song, as opposed to a hatnote, that would be wrong, but it would be just as wrong if I moved the page to Chingford, London and made the base title a disambiguation page. (I'll start a discussion about this language at WT:MOSDAB.)

That being said, there's nothing wrong with this page in particular assuming there isn't a primary topic between the two campaigns. I think you can make a pretty strong argument that the current campaign is primary, however. The 2000 campaign was a blip—there was only one highly notable third-party campaign that year, and it wasn't Trump's. And when I created this page as a redirect to the current campaign article, there wasn't one for the 2000 campaign. I don't doubt the earlier campaign is notable, but count me pretty skeptical that it has anything like parity with the current one. Yeah, actually, the more I think about it, the more I want to say redirect to Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. No need to delete either way. -- BDD ( talk) 14:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Comment WP:TWODABS starts: Some disambiguation pages with "(disambiguation)" in the title list only two meanings, one of them being the primary topic. In such cases... These are the only ones it discusses. It could be redirected, but then the 2016 page would need to be moved to the primary page, and a hatnote to earlier campaign added. Boleyn ( talk) 14:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Comment: We're beating the WP:TWODABS horse to death here, but usually when I see someone cite WP:TWODABS in this situation, what they usually actually mean is that they think there is primary topic that would create a WP:TWODAB situation if rectified (ie: in this case, the primary topic would be Trump's 2016 election, which would create Donald Trump presidential campaign (disambiguation) once redirected there, and that would be the WP:TWODAB. Since I believe we're actually talking about a WP:DABPRIMARY situation, could those who !voted "keep" without addressing the redirect suggestions to either Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 ( WP:PRIMARYTOPIC) or Donald Trump#Political career (no primary topic, but redirect to a subject that covers both articles) explain why a straight-up keep is better than any of those suggestions? Thanks, -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 14:57, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• I originally closed as Snow Keep as nominator's AFDs so far have been obvious Keeps however in this case I clearly should've left it open so I've reopened it. –Davey2010^Talk 20:58, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - I'd say the article should be expanded to include all his flirtations with running for president (2012, 1988, etc). - mattbuck ( Talk) 21:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

I think that's the idea behind Tavix's redirect proposal. Such an article wouldn't really belong at the current title. Donald Trump presidential campaigns, perhaps, or Political career of Donald Trump. -- BDD ( talk) 00:26, 12 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Redirect I understand the reasoning behind this nomination, as his 2016 campaign is far more widespread and notable than his 2000 Reform Party run. However, his 2000 campaign is also notable. So my recommendation is to redirect this article to his 2016 campaign since thats what the majority of the people are looking for when they land on this disambiguation, and add a hatnote there informing readers about the existence of his 2000 campaign. → Call me Razr Nation 06:05, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 ^Talk 23:45, 17 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Ryan Ochoa

Ryan Ochoa (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete: as non-notable performer. Possibly just too soon. Quis separabit? 03:31, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• weak keep usually I'm all over WP:TOOSOON but this article has been around almost seven years and he has front-line roles in Disney TV programs. I can absolutely agree on needing more sources/references.-- ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 03:37, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep If he were just notable for the one show I'd have voted to redirect, but he's also played a fairly major role in a few notable movies, most specifically the Christmas Carol and Mostly Ghostly movie. It looks like he was also fairly highly billed for The Perfect Game, but I'm basing my decision on the TV series and the other two films I mentioned. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Weak keep – just one significant role, and it was as a supporting player, on Pair of Kings. Probably enough for now (it's probably just under qualifying vis a vis WP:NACTOR, but I'm usually willing to overlook that for a main role on a single longish-running TV series). But I'd be willing to revisit this one in 5 years if nothing else of significance happens in the meantime, and reconsider then... -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 05:08, 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 delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 08:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC) reply

The Oslo Times

The Oslo Times (  | 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 article for non-newsworthy publication. I am unable to find third-party sources about this online-only "newspaper" that establish notability. Here are the criteria that are laid out for notability of newspapers: WP:NNEWSPAPER and WP:NMEDIA. I fail to see how this source meets these criteria. No significant impact, no major awards, not used as a frequent citation source in major scholarly works, no evidence that this is a major source in its field, etc., etc. The Wikipedia page for the editor of this paper, Hatef Mokhtar, apparently had his article started by a marketing company [29], and I suspect that this article for The Oslo Times serves the same purpose. Recently it was noted that an individual with the user name Prabalta has been editing the article, perhaps under more than one username; the managing editor of this publication is named Prabalta Rijal. Bueller 007 ( talk) 17:36, 4 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Hi, There were maintenance issues on the wikipedia and citations needed to be added, all I did was add the citations and the photos of the activites done by the oslo times that I hold the copy right for, when I visited the wikipedia page, I saw it required the citations and the logo issues, everything was a mess, so I mostly just added the citations which were mostly from independent sources. If I had known that not anyone who wants to help cant help than I wouldnt have added the citations, but if trying to help an article meet wikipedia standards is wrong than I am sorry. Secondly, if this wasnt an innocent effort to improve the article so that all the information about it listed there than I would not have added my designation in the organization in the page if I had any intention of giving misguided or false information,but my efforts were made to help this article meet the wikipdeia standards and not otherwise. Similarly, in regards to Oslo Times notability WP:NNEWSPAPER and WP:NMEDIA as mentioned the oslo times has helped in creating an impact as journalists and human rights activists can voice their views ^[1], the interviews conducted by oslo times with various human right activists have been republished by other media organizations as well ^{[2] [3]}. The stories done by The Oslo Times have been used to campaign for the freedom of political prisoners like Zeynab Jalalian ^[4], To say that the oslo times does not meet the newspaper or media criteria would be wrong. Just because it is not as famous as other media houses featured by the Wikipedia does not mean that it is not notable. It has been used as a source even in news reports and articles by other media houses ^[5], ^[6], ^[7], ^[8], ^[9] these are all independent sources with no links whatsoever with the oslo times. It has also been appreciated for its efforts in protection of the Hauge Log Church National Historic Site, ^[10]. The Images used by the oslo times reports have also been used by other media sources like the Mirror Daily including NATO ^[11], ^[12]. An interview done by The Oslo Times has also been cited as a reference in the A Discussion Guide for Study and Action - Filmcentralen filmce ^[13]. Similarly, along with other media reports the Oslo Times report on the sex trade has been used as a reference by 'Equality Now', to campaign against the sex trade ^[14], Also the Oslo Times has been referenced in The Plough Share Monitor of Spring 2014 volume 35 (Viewing nuclear weapons through a humanitarian lens,by Cesar Jaramillo ^[15]. I think this page should be fixed not deleted. There are issues and the tone of the article has to be fixed, but to delete the article instead of fixing it would be wrong and unfair.I really hope that this article is not deleted. Prabalta ( talk) 13:35, 5 January 2016 (UTC) reply

With the exception of a single citation from NPR, none of those sources are major or newsworthy. And of the ones I clicked on, they are not about The Oslo Times, they merely cite it for some random fact. For instance, among your links that supposedly establish notability, you have included this one, which is a link to a thread on a no-name racist forum that calls blacks "niggers" and Muslims "mudslimes" and cites the Oslo Times offhand about one random fact. In other cases, the article has merely copied an image from The Oslo Times. My own academic publications have been cited more often and in more noteworthy sources than The Oslo Times; that does not make me worthy of a Wikipedia article.

Now here's an example of the quality of the paper, which just reads like advertising space. This is literally the first and only of today's articles I clicked on. [30] Look at the "editor's note" editorializing about what an incredible individual this is. Nowhere does this article even mention that Stian Berger Røsland has not been the governing mayor of Oslo for months. Raymond Johansen has been mayor since October. So the only purposes that the article serves are promotional: 1) to make it look like The Oslo Times got an interview with the sitting mayor (which he is not), 2) to advertise what a wonderful person Stian Berger Røsland is. Bueller 007 ( talk) 20:22, 5 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete Curro2 ( talk) 03:19, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• See WP:JUSTAVOTE. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:34, 19 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Noticeable even G11 material, nothing to even suggest minimally solid salvageable material. SwisterTwister talk 08:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete  This article has a problem with promotionalism.  I looked at one of the above sources that mentions "NATO", and the entire relevant content is a picture caption which reads, "<name of a person in the picture> (Source: The Oslo Times)".  Sources 4, 5, and 6 in the article are a blog and two youtube links.  I also tried to look at the "About Us" page at the official web site, and it had no prose, rather a menu with the title "Explore the Oslo Times".  Unscintillating ( talk) 03:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete Promotional article about what appears to be a non notable topic. → Call me Razr Nation 06:11, 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. joe decker ^talk 21:53, 18 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Hatef Mokhtar

Hatef Mokhtar (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Looks like biographical spam. Individual is not noteworthy (for now). References on the article include primarily links to his own writings; was unable to find non-trivial references that establish him as being the subject of news himself. He is the editor of a minor publication, has written some articles for even more minor publications, and he won a minor book award (in a contest that you pay to enter, which are generally self-promotional opportunities or scams to rip people off). The book's other "major" accomplishment is that it can be found in a library that has >250,000 holdings. Has started minor non-newsworthy or article-worthy organizations. He has 190K Twitter followers, but presumably these are fake/purchased since he never gets more than one or two likes/favourites, and they don't establish notability in any case. (And his own former homepage is no longer up and running, so on his Twitter he treats this Wikipedia article as his homepage. In other words, he uses it for marketing.) The article was started by a user named "Engageinfomedia", which is the name of a marketing company. Bueller 007 ( talk) 17:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete: I adopt @Bueller 007's rationale. The article is more autobiographical than encyclopaedic. Quis separabit? 17:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete Curro2 ( talk) 03:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete for now as mentioned as the article would appear acceptable at first given the listed sources but then I see it is not actually as solid as it could be. Also, there are no signs yet this better satisfies the applicable notability guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 07:45, 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 redirect to Jessye Norman. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 ^Talk 23:45, 17 January 2016 (UTC) reply

This Christmastide

This Christmastide (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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