The result was keep. There is a clear consensus for a keep verdict. This also reflects the custom and practice that we keep articles on verifiable villages. NAC. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article was Created with a copy and paste from [1]. Without that, the article has no real importance and without any independent sources.intelatitalk 23:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was nomination withdrawn. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No significant third party coverage, the article does not appear to be able to move beyond a stub within the guidelines for article content Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 22:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. CSD G7 per the article creator's comment here. While there seems to be plenty of diverse edits, there is not much difference between the version created and the version nominated. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I found no significant coverage for this author and his books appear to be non-notable also. Fails WP:CREATIVE. SL93 (talk) 22:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Just FYI - Imdb is not considered a reliable source. v/r - TP 01:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voiced a notable character but it's his only role. No sources found. Last AFD was five years ago. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. While I sympathize with Basileias and Calabe1992, their rationale for keep is not related to the article. Consensus is to delete the article. v/r - TP 01:49, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not a notable person, most of article has no references, needed additional citations for verification for 2 years, books are not notable either Red-necked Grebe (talk) 22:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC) — Red-necked Grebe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete No reliable sources, non-notable article. --Cox wasan (talk) 09:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Cerejota (talk) 00:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced tangential mentions, redlinks out the ass. Amounts to basically "This has a Cthulhu-like creature in it". The article is inherently OR and synthesis since few to none of the sources confirm the characters as being Cthulhu or inspired by the same. Last AFD closed as delete but inexplicably overturned 3 days later. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Looney_Tunes_Golden_Collection:_Volume_3#Disc_3_-_Porky_and_the_Pigs. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 00:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No reliable sources, consists almost entirely of plot summary and of questionable notability. JDDJS (talk) 22:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. v/r - TP 01:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. v/r - TP 01:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retired minor league player with only routine coverage, not notable. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. v/r - TP 01:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed PROD. Original reason given for proposed deletion: Content-less listing of a soundtrack for a movie whose article does not exist. Singularity42 (talk) 21:25, 7 September 2011 (UTC) Given WTF's move and substantial change of the article (see below), I have changed my rational for deletion. Singularity42 (talk) 18:47, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
User:Wisdomtenacityfocus has moved the article to Death of an Indie Label. Singularity42 (talk) 18:37, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. v/r - TP 01:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod, reason was "no evidence of notability" which I concur with Falcon8765 (TALK) 21:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article on Rajput Ganpal Foundation is well written and quite true. I personally know about this Foundation and many hundred peoples in our country are beneficiary of this Foundation`s work. If you simply go to Google, you put the name of Rajput Ganpal Foundation or Rajput Ganpal, you will easily notice lot of evidences. Even you can phone or find their registeration certification on Governments website www.fbr.gov.pk and track there ( Liaqat Hussain or his CNIC number) with Rajpute Ganpal Foundation, and you will find their registeration certificate. If you need any proof, i can send you scanned email copy of their Registeration certificate too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sherryhome (talk • contribs) 12:56, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. v/r - TP 01:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Only one fight with a notable organization and five fights overall (fails WP:MMANOT) and also appears to fail WP:GNG. TreyGeek (talk) 20:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete at 11. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable, just a list of unrelated news networks. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 23:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article is about a footballer who hasn't competed in a fully-pro league or in a senior international match. It also fails the general notability guideline as the player has received only routine local coverage - mostly related to his exploits with the youth national teams. The article makes an unverified claim that Mr. Guma has played for the senior national team, but I researched and found that he has only played in the CHAN tournament - which are not FIFA "A" international matches. He has been called up for two Africa Cup of Nations qualifiers this year, but has not made the matchday squad yet. Jogurney (talk) 20:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. v/r - TP 01:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A painter from England. Unable to find any reliable sources on him. Almost all sources are derived from his Wikipedia page. Unable to find anything about the "Thomas Monnington Prize" in which he has won. The Boise Travelling Scholarship is real. It is around a £7,500 award given to students who have completed a degree at the Slade School of Fine Art. A previous incarnation of the article states that Maycock was at Slade from 79-83. Article states he is an instructor of Art at Dulwich College which the College's website confirms that he is an instructor with a Masters degree. Article has been around since 2006 and the prod was contested way back when. Bgwhite (talk) 20:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Metrology. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 00:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Prod contested. No such field. List is a synthesis of measurements made in medicine. Original research. Aside from some 19th century discussions about adopting metric measurements for reporting medical results, there are no publications on "medical metrology". Wtshymanski (talk) 19:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. v/r - TP 01:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deprodded a month ago with editor claiming that print sources could be found. Ain't nothing happened, so it's time to go or get off the pot. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete (A7) by admin Jimfbleak - non-admin closure. Whpq (talk) 16:57, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable individual - I can't find any RS for this individual. Cameron Scott (talk) 19:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 21:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominate for deletion Can find nothing in article or on Google to support WP:Notability. Has been tagged as of unclear notability for 4 years. Boleyn (talk) 19:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 21:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article reads like a resume and is mostly self promotion. It fails WP:BIO. TM 18:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources, non-notable article. --Cox wasan (talk) 09:14, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 21:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominate for deletion Can find nothing to support WP:NOTABILITY in article or on Google. Has been tagged as of unclear notability for 4 years now. Boleyn (talk) 18:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 21:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Interesting company, but this COI article doesn't pass WP:AUTHOR--I can only find one independent third party source (which is cited in the article), and it is more about his company and its products than it is about him. Like I said in my prod, come back in a few years when you're notable. And preferably let someone else write about you. Valfontis (talk) 17:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 21:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTGUIDE. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 17:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 21:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can find nothing on Google or article to suggest he is more than the average journalist (though very good, I'm sure!) This has been tagged as of doubtful notability for 4 years. Boleyn (talk) 17:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Closing as no consensus. There appears to be significant concern that the article was trimmed prior to AFD. In my opinion, a link to a prior revisions is plenty to carry on the discussion. However, there is sufficient concern in this discussion to warrent a close with no prejudice to renomination especially after WP:PAYWALL has been clarified to the nominator. v/r - TP 01:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Subject not sufficiently verifiably notable for dedicated article, which was written by a conflicted editor using original research and citing unreliable sources including blogs, event agendas, conference panels(!?) and/or irrelevant sources. The closest thing to a verifiable reliable source failed to satisfy WP:PAYWALL. Hence I propose:
I had a look at the paywall references that I could get at through IEEE and ACM access. [12] is a tutorial, not even peer-reviewed to conference standards; it gets cited by some of the other papers by Shan and a colleague. [13] and [15] are pretty much the same 2 page abstract reformatted for different events. There's nothing seminal in any of them. If you want something good, look at the paper Above the Clouds. SteveLoughran (talk) 10:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 21:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Previously deleted by PROD, but restored as per request at WP:REFUND. Footballer fails WP:NFOOTY notability as he has not played at a fully-professional level of football. Also lacks any significant media coverage that passes WP:GNG. --Jimbo[online] 16:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. The article has been improved since nomination and there is a clear consensus that the notability standard has bee met. NAC. Bridgeplayer (talk) 20:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominate for deletion Can find nothing in article or Google to support WP:NOTABILITY. Has been tagged as of unclear notability for 4 years. Boleyn (talk) 16:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 21:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm just interested in your opinions, assuming this article was reliably sourced, and in light of this team's tag title shot at Night of Champions would any of you motion to keep the article if they (a) won the titles? (b) did not win the titles (tagging together for the first time since their alliance) Starship.paint (talk) 00:04, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 21:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominate for deletion Doesn't seem to meet WP:NOTABILITY guidelines, from article and Ghits. Has been previously prodded for deletion, which was removed by creator (whose username has the same initials as the subject of the article). Has been nominated as of unclear notability for 4 years. Boleyn (talk) 15:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Courcelles 21:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No sources, poor content. Shrug-shrug (talk) 15:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 21:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unambiguously promotional article about a insufficiently notable person, apparently a club or fashion entrepreneur. Unambiguous promotion:
Offered references are to an interview on a blog, and in an incidental mention as the host of a "star studded event" on another bloglike news site. I am not finding anything better. Article is full of biographical detail that cannot be referenced to the offered sources, which raises both conflict of interest and living person biography issues. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Has been shown to meet WP:PROF from here and here. NAC. Bridgeplayer (talk) 19:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominate for deletion See ms to fail WP:PROF. Could find nothing to support notability, and article has been tagged as of unclear notability for 4 years. Boleyn (talk) 14:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. No consensus but deleting for WP:BLP concerns. v/r - TP 01:26, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Simply not notable for his own article - a name on a list Off2riorob (talk) 14:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It also's mention from the Spanish version Wikipedia http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Toro. -- Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 14:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Search engine optimization. Courcelles 21:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fork of search engine optimization, an unnecessary how-to article that should just be deleted. Any verifiable info on the topic can go in the main article. Jehochman Talk 12:59, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 21:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable theory that has far as I can tell has existed for a couple of months. Cameron Scott (talk) 12:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Alcatel-Lucent. I couldn't find a Alcatel-Lucent router's article for a merge but if someone can then this can be merged there. An article for the routers could also be created. v/r - TP 01:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability per WP:GNG. No signficant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Prod contested by anonymous editor. Gurt Posh (talk) 16:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. v/r - TP 01:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Political party that has never contested an election and no evidence provided regarding its notability beyond the fact that it existed. Number 57 11:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The content doesn't seem encyclopedic. Ratibgreat (talk) 11:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 21:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable album (?), unreferenced Pesky (talk …stalk!) 11:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. v/r - TP 15:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable album? Not yet released anyway, unreferenced. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 11:23, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to List of Dan Dare stories. Courcelles 21:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A non notable comic story without reliable third person sources to assert notability, Dwanyewest (talk) 11:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to List of Dan Dare stories. Courcelles 21:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A non notable comic story without reliale third person sources to assert notability, Dwanyewest (talk) 11:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to List of Dan Dare stories. Courcelles 21:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A non notable comic story without reliale third person sources to assert notability, Dwanyewest (talk) 11:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to List of Dan Dare stories. Courcelles 21:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A non notable comic story without reliale third person sources to assert notability, Dwanyewest (talk) 11:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks more like a Wiktionary thing to me! And no refs. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 11:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable? Non-English language reference sources, one of which is a fansite. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 11:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Wybunbury#Education. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable primary school. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 11:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to 2005 Dubai Tennis Championships – Women's Singles. v/r - TP 15:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is this actually notable, in and of itself? Pesky (talk …stalk!) 11:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable? And ref is to non-English language source Pesky (talk …stalk!) 11:03, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable? Only ref is to the library's homepage Pesky (talk …stalk!) 10:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Golden State (band). v/r - TP 15:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable? Pesky (talk …stalk!) 10:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was userfy and closed as moot. The page was a draft of a user essay. It may now be read at User:The Yowser/Obfuscation on Wikipedia. For what it's worth, I tend to agree. Author might want to have a look at the plain English essay as well. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I could not see a CSD for this type of thing? Personal essay, not suitable type. Cameron Scott (talk) 09:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. I've never seen two keep !voters argue about whose keep rationale is more right before. v/r - TP 15:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable? Pesky (talk …stalk!) 09:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As it happens, though, Richards is the fifth leading scorer in CHL history, and was named a First Team All-Star in 2007, so he passes Criterion #4. ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 05:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above rant aside, Powers, come on. Are you really claiming to be confused here? Are you genuinely claiming that you don't think that Criterion #4 sets down the notability standards for lower-level leagues? To be honest, this is an exercise in pedantry. It's unnecessary, it's tendentious, and I don't see its relevance to this AfD. ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 13:00, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(blinks) You think that "all-time top ten leading scorer" would possibly be necessary to cover players that "Played at least 100 games" didn't? Heck, there's only one player on the CHL's top ten scorers (for example) who hasn't played at least five hundred games in that loop. ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 13:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The subject matter is not notable; it isn't even close. Of its four cited sources, only one is reliable. The other three are not suitable for inclusion at this site. The so-called Libertarian National Socialist Green Party is nothing but a website, and its sole claim to notability is its peripheral mention in media accounts of the Red Lake massacre, which frankly isn't sufficient (and not surprisingly, provides its sole reliable source mention). A merger with Bill White (neo-Nazi) might be another acceptable option, but frankly a brief mention of the existence of this website (and rest assured, that's all it is; it is NOT a political party in any way, shape, or form, and it never has been) at both the Bill White article, and the Red Lake massacre article, should be more than sufficient coverage for this distinctly non-notable subject material.
The result was delete. v/r - TP 15:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Vice-President of Advertising Operations at The New York Times. Oi, in charge of advertising at a newspaper has to be one of the worst jobs right now. Unable to find reliable sources except for the one from the New York Times, which isn't exactly independent. Prod was contested. Bgwhite (talk) 09:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A musician who has released two singles this summer on a small independent label. Unable to find reliable sources about him. Prod was contested Bgwhite (talk) 07:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:CRIME. people get murdered by blunt objects all the time. a spike in coverage during the trial but no long standing historical notability about the crime or trial. LibStar (talk) 07:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete (WP:SNOW). -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:53, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article is almost pure original research. No citations of reliable sources are provided for novel theories. Moogwrench (talk) 07:23, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. v/r - TP 15:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not a notable person, no reliable 3rd party references, article appears promotional to sell books and DVD's. 2MPCMOS (talk) 06:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources, non-notable article.--Cox wasan (talk) 09:16, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Courcelles 00:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable? Pesky (talk …stalk!) 06:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Courcelles 00:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable? Pesky (talk …stalk!) 06:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Courcelles 00:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable? Pesky (talk …stalk!) 06:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not encyclopedic per WP:NOTGUIDE Racconish Tk 05:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Courcelles 00:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable? Pesky (talk …stalk!) 05:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Courcelles 00:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Virtually no content, has not been added to since creation - suggest move to AfC or merge into SAAF Pesky (talk …stalk!) 05:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Courcelles 00:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Virtually no content, has not been added to since creation - suggest move to AfC or merge into SAAF Pesky (talk …stalk!) 05:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Courcelles 00:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Virtually no content, has not been added to since creation - suggest move to AfC or merge into SAAF Pesky (talk …stalk!) 05:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. v/r - TP 15:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Has been thrice deleted under different names, under the first and fourth AFDs for Maravilla (which is now a disam page), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/La Maravilla. User attempted to create this through AFC, but when his request was denied, he waited until he had enough edits to be autoconfirmed, and then moved it into mainspace Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 05:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete all except K-1 World Grand Prix 2008 in Fukuoka – Japan GP -. v/r - TP 00:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
also nominating:
another useless series of qualifying event results with mainly non notable participants. fails WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 02:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Per WP:SILENCE. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such record of Sadabad State. The google book search comes to [38] zero. Further, an article page for same place Sadabad, Uttar Pradesh already exsists. Sadabad was probably an Estate and creator of the page if wishes can add his info to above page as history section. The page name Sadabad State gives a false notion that it was a princely stateJethwarp (talk) 04:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC) Jethwarp (talk) 04:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Noting that the creator of the page has not taken any interest in either improving the article or put his opinion forward. I have moved some of the contents in History section of Sadabad, India. As this page title Sadabad State' is wrong. It should now be deleted.Jethwarp (talk) 06:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Danpur. Nominator has copied some content from this article to the other page, so keeping history for attribution —SpacemanSpiff 11:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no mention of Danpur as a princely state in any search. The search result is [39] zero. The google gives result for a town with similar name Danapur in Bihar and not Danpur in Uttar Pradesh. Danpur may have been a estate and in present day a village or a town. The creator of the page may either change the page contents and page name or the page should be deleted, as it gives a false notion that Danpur was a Princely State. Jethwarp (talk) 04:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC) Jethwarp (talk) 04:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Pahasu. nominator has performed a copy-paste merge, closing as merge for attribution purposes —SpacemanSpiff 11:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no mention of Pahasu as a princely state of India. It was probably an Estate or Zamindari. The google search gives result [[40] Pahasu as princely state as zero. However, there are mentions of Nawabs of Pahasu, who were zamindars. Further, a page for same place Pahasu, already exists. Therefore, no need to create duplicate page. The creator may add his contents, as History section in Pahasu page. The page name Pahasu State gives a false notion that i.t was a princely state of India.Jethwarp (talk) 05:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC) Jethwarp (talk) 05:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)))[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 00:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HAMMER. Article on an untitled, yet to be released music album. Arguably unreferenced (references listed in the article is a BBC page which doesn't say anything about a new album, a YouTube channel, a Facebook page indicating that the band might be making a new video, and the band's Wikipedia page - quoting unreferenced content added by the creator of this article!) Singularity42 (talk) 00:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. v/r - TP 14:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if this meets the notability guideline, and the only references are books. Sunny222, please see the response on my talk page concerning the article. Nathan2055talk - review 22:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources, non-notable article. --Cox wasan (talk) 09:13, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. basically indiscriminate unsourced list DGG ( talk ) 06:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No sources verifying that any of these companies apply design management. The only source in the article does not contain anything to verify the information in this article. When I click on the URL, there is no mention of design management on this page at all. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 11:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was moot. Article already discussed and kept at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/F.C. Calcio Acri. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Same with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/F.C. Calcio Acri. Kosm1fent Won't you talk to me? 14:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete without prejudice . Can be recreated or restored by a request to WP:REFUND. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rather new journal, not notable yet. No third party sources, not indexed in any major selective databases (the only database in which it is currently included is the "Bibliography of Asian Studies"). Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Crusio (talk) 18:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mixtape from a barely notable group, containing basically nothing but a tracklist. I don't see how this is a very handy search term either. Delete. Drmies (talk) 02:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 00:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A compilation album that doesn't demonstrate significance. Also part of this nomination are Kevin and Bean: Last Christmas and Kevin and Bean: Santa's Swingin' Sack D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 00:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Prod removed. These tapes were sent to fan club members and sold at shows, but I can't find any coverage in reliable sources. Sources I could find, including trueknowledge.com and a wrestling wiki, just direct to or copy from this article. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 23:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If these items actually exist (which, as the nominator points out, is not proved) then they're minor items of merchandise with small-scale distribution. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 23:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Barauli Rao. nominator has merged content, keeping page history for attribution —SpacemanSpiff 11:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no mention of Barauli State google search is org.mozilla:en-US:official&prmd=ivnsb&source=lnms&tbm=bks&ei=O0FTTtL3HY3orQekpMDDDg&sa=X&oi=mode_link&ct=mode&cd=5&ved=0CA4Q_AUoBA&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=67060fe410784c67&biw=1252&bih=520 is zero. Web search is also [42] nil. As such article should be deleted as per wiki guidelines. During British India, there were many Estates, Jagirs, who styled themselves as Raja and Nawab. This does not mean that they were princely states.Jethwarp (talk) 06:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC) Jethwarp (talk) 06:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC) Delete: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=CJ4IAAAAQAAJ&q=Barauli,+Aligarh&dq=Barauli,+Aligarh&hl=en&ei=MkZTTs2mJ4ySgQfy8Zk1&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CDwQ6AEwBA doesn't see fit to mention it as a state at all. --Slashme (talk) 06:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There already exists page name Barauli. Creator of page can add his info to this page in its history section. As there is no historical fact of existence of Barauli as a State or Princely State. The page name lives a false notion that Barauli was a Princely State in British India. This page therefore should be deleted as per wiki polcy.Jethwarp (talk) 15:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Barauli Rao. Content was duplicate of Barauli State and that has now an attributed merge to Barauli Rao. —SpacemanSpiff 11:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The creator is creating mutiple pages with same contents, with some personal interest it seems. He has created page with same contents called Barauli State, which has already been nominated for AfD. It seems that he is writing about history of Bargujar clan. Then he should add relevant details with reliable citation to Brgujar page. No need to create multiple pages. Again zero result for title Rao of Barauli [43]. Jethwarp (talk) 06:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC) Jethwarp (talk) 06:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be non-notable internet video content. Speedy was removed without addressing concern, so article was Proded. It was then deproded by the article creator without addressing the issue. No claims of notability, and am unable to locate reliable source coverage to establish notability. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. v/r - TP 14:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
the books are self published. the references seem to be mainly interviews with him promoting his own work, or essays reprinting the contents of it . Possible G11, considering the tele-tale signs of as many related articles as possible, and listings of multiple repetitive material, including all his articles, but I'd like a community opinion DGG ( talk ) 19:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources, non-notable article.--Cox wasan (talk) 09:16, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notable band, not-notable song. Lachlanusername (talk) 20:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]