![]() |
< 19 January | 21 January > |
---|
The result was delete. Mkativerata (talk) 04:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article fails to meet WP:BIO#Basic_criteria. The sources (provided in the article) do not, in any way, substantially deal with the subject of the article. The sources are details of difference of opinion between the then Govt. of Kerala and Shabarimala Temple priests. The subject of the article is mentioned as the spokesperson of the Priest family. Suspected promotion. Wikieditindia (talk) 10:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. There are valid concerns regarding lack of reliable sources, however there is not clear consensus to delete, and most commentators have indicated that the article needs work rather than deleting. Work done on providing adequate sources would be helpful, and might prevent the article being nominated for deletion again in future SilkTork ✔Tea time 19:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article has not improved. It needs a deletion, or to be trimmed back and folded in to Independent Catholic Churches. I propose that it be nominated for deletion again, as it is not a source of any actual information, let alone accurate or verifiable information (due to the dearth of references: what few there are are not reliable (WP:RS), or are unverifiable, or are not readable: what is cited is self-verified WP:SPS or similar).
As far as I can tell, from the repeated citing of the same online "reference", it lacks notability. It's not encyclopedic (although superficially Wikified), and is poorly written, as an apologetic advertisement, without a single sentence that isn't POV-pushing or at best uncited: no actual knowledge is lost by deleting something in such a state.
Edit: it actually doesn't make sense in many places, either, to an unsalvageable degree:
From reading the talk page, it appears that a member/founder was heavily involved in making it. JohnChrysostom (talk) 00:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Maternal bond. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 14:04, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dicdef, has not seen any growth since creation in 2004. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mkativerata (talk) 04:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable young player who fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 22:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 20:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article without source about an album with release limited and promotional for Pepsi. The article provides only the list of music and basic information about the EP, not entered into a chart or won an award, album without notoriety. Lucas S. msg 22:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 19:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting crime but WP:NOTNEWS should apply IF the story is true. This article has been tagged for over two years for its lacking citations. I've done a preliminary search of google, google news archive and Aviation Safety Network and came up with nada for the name of the pilot, one of the supposed quotes, and one of those arrested. [[WP:Hoax]] might also apply. William 22:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Jumeirah Lake Towers. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lacks substantial non-trivial RS coverage in and of itself (as distinct, perhaps, from all towers in all sectors, combined, of JLT). Tagged for zero refs for well over 2 years. Created by an SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 06:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This organization does exist, but lacks substantial independent non-trivial RS coverage. Tagged for reliance on primary sources for over 4 years. Created by an SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 05:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This person fails WP:BASIC: he is not the subject of substantial, in-depth coverage by multiple reliable sources. I removed some cites that had nothing to do with the claims made; please keep in mind the citations provided might be bogus. Through searching, I can't find any particular basis for notability. JFHJr (㊟) 18:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR Stifle (talk) 19:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced biography of a living person. Notability per WP:NMG questionable, to say the least. bender235 (talk) 13:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:43, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No notability whatsoever, per WP:ANYBIO or any other guideline. bender235 (talk) 13:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Kubigula (talk) 16:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable software product. PROD removed in conjunction with source clean-up, but remaining sources don't establish notability. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 21:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But, I do have links for reviews and discussions. Am I too list them in the article as opposed to using them as a reference? Is this correct? TabithaFournier (talk) 17:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You should add the link to the ADL where the Thinking Cap LMS is listed as a certified LMS. It was only the 3rd LMS to be certified as SCORM 2004 Certified which is notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.124.216.90 (talk) 14:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 19:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This author lacks substantial RS coverage, from what I can see on gnews and gbooks, and his article has zero refs. Tagged as an orphan for nearly 3 years, and for lack of refs and notability since October. Created by an SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 06:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Subject appears to be a non-notable software company. The organization lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources, and fails to meet the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 01:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) Bryce (talk | contribs) 09:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This page has a lack of real world notability. It's entire page consists of plot summary and character profiles. There is nothing more to add. Everything about this article that needs to be said is already on the V.C. Andrews page. The entire Casteel series is listed on that page. There is nothing else to add. Lorilei Mackenzie (talk) 02:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Vote: Delete There's simply no strong justifiable reason to keep this article. Lorilei Mackenzie (talk) 21:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (I read German and confirm that the German sources cited do appear at first glance to be substantial coverage.) Sandstein 08:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Computer program with dubious notability. Zzarch (talk) 00:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed some of the links. Can only do the rest on the weekend.
Current google hits: (from germany) 160K, more when combining check_mk + nagios.
Please feel invited to verify the notability by digging deeper, i.e. many blog and forum articles. If using Google for research, please note the google correction for the spelling. It's "Check_MK", not "Check MK" :) I hope people verifying this know a little about Nagios? Another thing in terms of notability: AFAIK it is the only completed tool which can do fully / dynamic rule-based configuration, which goes well with the typical DevOps admin toolset, and it's the only one that gives realtime access to Nagios' internals. There is a reason why other projects like shinken, thruk, iciniga ... are used with this software. Fheigl 01:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Noted, while reading other discussions here. I didn't mean the number of hits is the point. The point is that using gooogle people verifying notability should be able to dig out things like i.e. the nagios portal section for check_mk. I have later added this as an external link in the article. Fheigl (talk) 14:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.244.202.4 (talk) 13:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose the deletion of this Wikipedia page. Check_mk is a great tool that makes Nagios even more powerful yet saves resources. It simplifies Nagios and the multisite is by far the best I have used. Please keep!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.217.24.11 (talk) 02:52, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mkativerata (talk) 04:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Completely non notable team, from a town in Libya which isn't notable enough to even have a page. I think lots of these Libyan football clubs should be deleted, but I have no idea how to go about nominating the 50 odd clubs that aren't notable. Jeancey (talk) 19:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Probably qualifies for speedy delete under A7 too. Cloudz679 21:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:42, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD, does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 13:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Michig (talk) 08:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
May be worthy of being saved, but there appears to be little info to rely on other than the company's own web site. Has an "advert" feel, and is without valid references. Possible WP:COI Taroaldo (talk) 19:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Costa Concordia disaster. per WP:SNOW Salvio Let's talk about it! 01:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Opening a more formal AFD based on cycle of redirects and replacement of that redirect with short biographical articles which essentially summarize the target of the redirect Costa Concordia disaster. While this person is known worldwide as the captain of this wrecked cruiseship, this is all he's known for and there isn't sufficient material to draw on outside of this event to overcome WP:BIO1E. RadioFan (talk) 19:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mkativerata (talk) 04:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whether senior lecturer or associate professor, neither are top level professorships needed to satisfy WP:ACADEMIC. Has no highly cited papers either according to GS. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 18:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 21:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hoax article, no Indonesian international player named Hilarius Widya. The references in the article are a personal website and a wikipedia content hosted by other website — MT (talk) 18:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 21:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unnotable fan-made game. The article contains no sources, and when I searched, I could not find a single reliable third party source that mentioned the game. The article was previously turned down as a Speedy Deletion, however I still feel that it it eligible for deletion for failing Wikipedia: Notability Rorshacma (talk) 17:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Sources found... add them to article. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter (warn) 21:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Already twice deleted for lack of sources. I've removed a reasonably legitimate CSD from this latest creation due to the discussion on the talk page, but rather than PROD it (one deletion was through expired PROD) although I do realise that AfD is not a call for sources or clean up, I'm going to let the community decide. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 08:29, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Page consists almost-entirely of a collection of commercial links a13ean (talk) 16:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 21:40, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Vermijl has never played a competitive, first-team match for a professional club, neither is he notable for any other reason, meaning that he fails both WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG.
– HonorTheKing (talk) 16:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 13:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Results page for second highest division in a sport in one country. Tagged as unreferenced since October 2006. Does not appear to satisfy verifiability or notability. Edison (talk) 14:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 13:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not indicate that she passes WP:NACTOR. Additionally, it is a BLP sourced only to IMDb. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 13:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to fail WP:NACTOR. Most of the claims made (e.g. "important stage actress") have no real support. Additionally, it is sourced only to IMDb. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn per SL93 Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence that this passes WP:NFILM (it is actually a play) or WP:GNG. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:23, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 08:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. Advertising. Most of the "award" actually are only nominations Philafrenzy (talk) 11:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 02:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not annual, since it has only happened once. Local coverage only. From the one local RS it has a $15 registration fee, it doesn't take out permits with the cities it runs through, there's no title sponsor, and the 13 finish lines are hand-drawn orange chalk lines on the streets. Maybe someday it will be notable, but right now it was a one time event that got one local article, making it short of WP:N. WP:TOOSOON applies. Dennis Brown (talk) 11:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
((cite web))
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(help)The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This software doesn't look notable. I can't find any sources on Google News, Books, or Scholar, and it doesn't seem to pass WP:WEB. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 09:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Artticle's principal contributor appears to be in conflict of interest. I don't see any sources that would attest to its notability. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 07:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR Stifle (talk) 19:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable record label/company. Was initially a 1 line stub until user 'Doublemoon' wrote the remainder of the article between 2007-09. No independent sources. No WP article exists on Turkish WP for Doublemoon or its parent company. I can find no significant online coverage that isn't a mirror of the English WP article. NB all the signed artists are non-notable and/or self-cited. Sionk (talk) 12:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Michig (talk) 08:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing novel here. Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. By definition, as this has been on AFD for just short of a month. Stifle (talk) 19:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Liner notes and Youtube videos aren't enough to establish notability based on the requirements of WP:NALBUMS Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 02:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would normally agree with this question of notability if it was a standard, commercially released LP and had ample oportunity for peer review. I have now added review/documentation information, as much as is out there with a google book search.
1. The liner notes are done by Leonard Feather who was notoriously picky about doing liner notes and how he did them. Feather himself dates back to the days of being a big advocate of Charlie Parker and jazz musicians of the Be-bop and post bebop era.
2. There is a unique set of young musicians that came through this 'jazz program' sponsored by McDonald's corporation; it was one of kind that will never come again. This LP was a unique set of up and coming 'jazz greats' who had been able to achieve a very good first start on this band. The playing on the LP surpasses a great deal of professional level groups; it honestly does not take a music critic to even hear that.
3. Curnow had to place the group in a specific set of concerts and oportunities to perform (or record) and this was as per McDonalds, the McDonalds Marching Band, and the school schedules of the high school kids involved. This is a musical equivalant of being a McDonalds All American Basketball player or footbell player and then eventually going onto the the Los Angeles Lakers or the Green Bay Packers. Greg Gisbert alone (off this LP) is one of the most sought after jazz trumpeters living in New York; Harry Allen sits at this level too. The recording documents some unique music from a once in a lifetime set of kids. Jcooper1 (talk) 06:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If an article is done on the group itself then why would this not be a derivative or subpage of a page on the McDonald's jazz group? I am not sure why this would need to be merged rather than kept and then used as a sub-page. Yes, by the logic used there would be need to be an article on the group itself that this might 'flow' from. Jcooper1 (talk) 14:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Through different word combinations and other search engines I found:
Jcooper1 (talk) 15:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 08:34, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable despite some press coverage of events and openings etc. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to A Shot at Love with Tila Tequila. There is a consensus, that a separate article for this actor (at least currently) isn't warranted. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 13:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:NACTOR, no significant coverage in reliable sources Hekerui (talk) 18:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. No consensus again... Arguaments are all outweighing each other, nobody can agree. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter (state) 21:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This was tagged for speedy deletion. In my opinion it fully qualifies for speedy deletion, as it makes no claim of significance. However, I see that there was previously an AfD discussion on this article, in June/July 2010, so I thought it better to relist it here, rather than speedily delete it. The article is completely unsourced, despite being tagged for sources for a year and nine months. The article has a few peacock-worded attempts to make the band sound notable, such as "steadily gaining prominence and popularity", but nothing objective to suggest significance. This is an insignificant band, which does things like releasing a recording limited to 100 copies. The only reason I have not speedily deleted it is that I think doing so is dubious after an AfD has failed to result in deletion. (Note: The previous AfD was closed as "no consensus", but two people argued for deletion, and nobody suggested keeping the article. I can only assume that the closing admin thinks there is some sort of quorum for a deletion discussion.) JamesBWatson (talk) 21:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to List of Tetris variants. Content can be merged from history as desired. Consensus is that this is not independently notable. Sandstein 08:37, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable video game - does not satisfy the general notability guideline. SmartSE (talk) 09:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 08:37, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Appears non-notable. Two sources cited in article, both of them press releases from the company itself. The first hundred links turned up by a Google search for "stealthedeal" yielded no evidence that the company has been covered by reputable media. Ammodramus (talk) 01:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 13:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable person. Only possible claim of notability related to being 1 of 6 original members of a fraternity. I'm sure there are some felicitous fraternity sources extolling his virtues, but those do not satisfy WP:N's "requirements of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" GrapedApe (talk) 00:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 13:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing notable here. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Times Online link is now under a paywall and the Google Books link is no longer working, but at the time, I found significant coverage about Martin Randall Travel in the book "A History of Western Architecture". Cunard (talk) 01:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]*Keep Appears to be a somewhat notable company. Using a Google News Archive search, I've found several articles that are about this company, Times Online, The Age, Travel Trade Gazette UK & Ireland, Telegraph, The San Francisco Chronicle, and The Mail on Sunday. This company has also received significant coverage in a history book, titled A History of Western Architecture. Even if the AITO Travel Company of the Year Award is non-notable, Martin Randall Travel has received some coverage for this award. The significant coverage of this travel company indicates that it is notable and passes WP:COMPANY. Cunard (talk) 23:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Has been rewritten; can be renominated if still deemed problematic. Sandstein 08:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned uncategorized dead-end page with no verifiable references. The PDF at the National Commission for Backward Classes link is irrelevant; as the article itself says, the group is not counted as a Backward class. It's unclear if this is a duplicate, subset, or superset of Namdhari (or entirely unrelated). Articles which list similar groups don't mention this one (e.g., Vaishya, List of Indian castes, List of Scheduled Tribes in India, Forward caste, and so on).
Additionally, much of this article appears to be a copy-paste from page 12 of this PDF. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 05:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an article on Nagartha caste with information about Namadhari and Siwachar Nagarthas. A southern Indian caste is unlikely to be related to the Sikhs. There is plenty of information about the Nagarta, and an article on en.wikipedia is appropriate. Also, the lack of an entry about a South Indian topic in an en.wikipedia article is surely not a criteria for deletion. Pseudofusulina (talk) 22:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 19:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to fail WP:NCORP. Subject gets only 3 gnews hits, out of which at least two are press releases. Article sourced to subject's site, founder's personal site, an award list which is just there to support that founder won an award for something unrelated to subject, and now the one non-press release gnews hit, a six-sentence piece on a german music business site. Nat Gertler (talk) 14:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 19:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. All the sources cited in the article are primary. Google searches failed to turn up anything useful. Previous AfD outcome in 2007 was keep, but only because it was a brand-new article, not because there was evidence of notability. Msnicki (talk) 10:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete, let them make a revision The Qi Programming language is an important conceptual development. It brings types and logic progamming to functional programming. It might not be the most efficient logic programming language implementation, but it might give a good future prespective a possible integration of both worlds. It is in competition with other approaches such as Closure/Kanren and you name it. Janburse (talk) 14:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: Hi Andy,
I guess Qi and Shen are supposed to be two different products although not independent. They share some properties:
http://www.shenlanguage.org/Documentation/shendoc.htm#Shen%20and%20Qi:%20differences
So they can be both notable independently, Qi is even supposed to have its own license. But on the other hand we find the verb superceded here:
http://www.lambdassociates.org/wiki.htm
Which indecates that Qi and Shen are not branches, but Shen is a subsequent release of Qi. Janburse (talk) 15:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 20:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet WP:N guidelines AKS (talk) 11:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge (and Redirect) to Marriage loan, which article was created as a result of this discussion. Herostratus (talk) 14:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Dicdef, move to wiktionary Gsingh (talk) 06:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 13:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Advertising. Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Article was speedied yesterday as an A10 duplicate of an existing article. And in looking at the deleted article, I agree. I am now closing this AFD as moot. When a name for the Yash Chopra untitled project can be confirmed, THAT article can be moved to the new title. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this article for deletion due to the following facts:-
Technically, this falls under A10 criteria of "speedy deletion". I request this page to be deleted with immediate effect, as it constitutes multiplication of the same topic.
AnkitBhattWDF 10:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 21:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Company has no reliable sources to corroborate notability - which hasn't been established too well, either. Since it's 1st nomination - how exactly has this article improved? -- MST☆R (Chat Me!) 08:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. G12 - The article as it stands is a verbatim copyvio from [41] and [42] and the copyvio goes back to everything but the first revision that includes nothing more than the title, so deleting as copyvio. —SpacemanSpiff 07:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A quick search regarding http://www.indiancitationindex.com/ shows an Alexa rank of over 4M and no independent GNews hits. This suggests that the subject does not meet the notability criteria at WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Significant promotional tone as well. PROD was contested by the author. VQuakr (talk) 08:10, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 13:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Bryce (talk | contribs) 11:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 08:29, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline G11, no evidence of meeting WP:CORP or WP:WEB, sources listed are either press releases, one passing mention, or no mentions at all of the company in the source Delete Secret account 05:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Hybrid Theory. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 13:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Never released as a single, not noteworthy. Perhaps redirect to Linkin Park or Hybrid Theory. Calabe1992 04:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mkativerata (talk) 04:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable bus system for East Carolina University. Only 27 routes--isn't large enough to be notable without the evidence of sources, per WP:GNG. Supposedly "one of the largest transit systems in North Carolina" but that dubious claim is unreferenced. Wikipedia is not a directory of bus routes. GrapedApe (talk) 04:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete (CSD A7). Jeremy (talk) 04:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bringing to AfD discussion after article creator declined PROD. The subject is not notable and falls under something that was made up one day. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mkativerata (talk) 04:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at google (first couple of pages), Googles News, Books and Scholar and found zip RS that discusses "Shao Quan" as a martial art. In fact, News, books and scholar don't mention it in the context of a martial art at all. The only reason I haven't gone for a hoax CSD is that it is possible that Chinese sources may exist and listing for a week might give them time to emerge. Otherwise, appears to be non-notable at best. Spartaz Humbug! 04:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 21:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dicdef Spartaz Humbug! 03:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) Spartaz Humbug! 02:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We have one local source and zip in google news, scholar or books and the first couple of main pages show nothing reliable. Looks like this simply isn't noteworthy enough for an article. Suggest delete and redirect to Helena, Montana or merge if there is salvageable material. Spartaz Humbug! 03:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn Good save there. Can someone close this now please? Spartaz Humbug! 14:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 13:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BLP1E applies - since we already have the article at The_Family_(Australian_New_Age_group) we have no need for this and it should be deleted and then redirected there. Spartaz Humbug! 03:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Michig (talk) 08:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BLP1E applies. Notability for only one event. Spartaz Humbug! 03:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 13:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced article, appears to fail the notability guidelines. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 07:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 21:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This website doesn't look like it passes WP:WEB. None of the sources in the article look like they pass our guidelines on identifying reliable sources, and I can't find any sources on Google News or Google Books. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 01:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 21:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fails to establish notability per WP:GNG I failed to find any indications of notability in the wild. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Passes WP:NBOOK (non-admin closure) Bryce (talk | contribs) 11:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a book of poetry. Notability is not inherited either. Just because someone is a famous poet does not mean there should automatically be an article about every poem he wrote. This "article" is nothing more than a simple statement that he wrote this poem along with the poem itself. This can just as easily be included in a list of his poems, together with an external link. Stedrick (talk) 19:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Savannah-Chatham County Public Schools#Schools. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 23:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I found nothing that puts this beyond an average middle school. Non-notable. SL93 (talk) 23:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was wrong venue, speedy deleted at MfD, non-admin closure –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Personal Page Andrew Kurish (talk) 02:23, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. Speedy keep. We've covered this ground. Nominator's account possibly compromised. Drmies (talk) 03:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The references provided for this article do not satisfy the requirements for notability. Many of these references are by-lines. These are not secondary sources. Further, they are not about the subject, they only contain contributions by the subject, and do not establish notability. Several of them do not meet the reliability test because they are not accessible. No listed source "addresses the subject directly in detail", which is the first requirement for notability in WP:NOTABILITY.
I think it is important to note that while this article has survived several nominations, its subject (and frequent editor) is an administrator here, and as such, should be held to a very high standard. He is free to share this information on his user page, and on Linked-In, but this does not belong in the main wiki. Fortheloveofbacon (talk) 01:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to List of schools of Winnipeg. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 13:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An average non-notable middle school. Fails WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 01:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 16:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Zero references to third-party sources to establish notability. Created and edited solely by its employees. Max Semenik (talk) 15:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter (chat) 21:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I found zero significant coverage for this camp. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 01:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there evidently was a significant report about Backwoods Camp in Birding World in 2000. However, the remainder of the online coverage is self published reviews and commercial travel agencies. Maybe the best thing to do would be to delete this stub and mention the Camp in Bhagwan Mahaveer Sanctuary and Mollem National Park. Sionk (talk) 22:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. No prejudice against early recreation with verifiable sources. Unfortunate that sources don't exist for an encyclopedic entry... Wifione Message 09:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I only found unreliable sources that point to Wikipedia. This might be notable, but it is more than non-notable as it stands. It is unverifiable. Fails WP:N and WP:V. SL93 (talk) 21:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Based on comments with respect to sources added Wifione Message 09:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Offer to delete this article because there are no verifiable resources which can be used for corporation(according to Wikipedia:CORP) Namalex0111 (talk) 12:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Namalex0111 (talk) 04:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Wifione Message 08:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dictionary definition (see WP:DICDEF). Sole reference is a Google search link. Possibly this would be a useful redirect to Game pie. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
((cite book))
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(help)((cite book))
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(help)The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Self-promotional article about a recording studio. Article has been written and maintained by a series of obviously self-promotional single purpose accounts for several years. No sign of independent media coverage; all three refs are clearly promotional and dependent on the subject. No sign of notability. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Clearly snowing (NAC} (non-admin closure) Spartaz Humbug! 04:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This website doesn't appear to meet the requirements for notability namely: "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works". Looking at the references it would seem that Wikipedia Review is only really mentioned in passing, it is not the principal subject of any of these references.
Given that this article has only really been the subject of one AfD back in 2005 which resulted in delete and was only restored via a deletion review in 2008. It could stand a debate as to whether it really meets with the WP:WEB guidelines. Rabbit:Farmer:Gun:Run... (talk) 00:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]