Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Latzke
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable relational article. Merely having relations does not make it notable. Tavix : Chat 23:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
previously speedily deleted, recreated page still lacks 3rd party references, band has not received significant coverage. RadioFan (talk) 23:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdraw due to expansion of disambiguation. Tavix | Talk 16:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is an unneeded disambiguation with no incoming links. 98.6 links to the normal human body temperature article and if someone wants the song, there is a hatnote on that page. I figured this would be uncontroversial, but my prod tag was removed. Tavix : Chat 22:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 04:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable tour that mostly consists of a setlist and tour dates. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 21:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Pink Floyd Dark Side of the Moon Tour 1972-1973. MBisanz talk 04:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable tour that only consists of a setlist and a list of dates. Nothing to suggest that the tour is notable on its own per WP:NOTINHERITED. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 21:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Pink Floyd French Summer Tour 1974 . MBisanz talk 04:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable tour. While the band is certainly notable, the article is just a list of tour dates, with nothing to suggest that the tour itself is notable as per WP:NOTINHERITED. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 21:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 04:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable; Article centered on a small subset of a definitions section of a standard, apparently only to reinforce the creators in an everlasting Wikipedia Manual of Style debate SLi (talk) 21:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory and Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information this is a table of the Chinese names of all stars. There isn't any commentary or history to the names. MBisanz talk 21:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The article has not shown much improvement and is not likely to do so in the future; there is simply not enough possible content to merit an article. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable relational article. Just because these two entities have relations, doesn't mean there should be an article for them. Tavix : Chat 21:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No notability. Tomdobb (talk) 20:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
no references, notability not established, no useful mention found GDibyendu (talk) 20:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. already deleted by User:Thingg - WP:CSD#A7 — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 05:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very spammy article created with a conflict of interest about a nonnotable website that fails WP:WEB. The site has recieved no coverage in the news nor can any reliable sources be found in a google search to prove its notability. ThemFromSpace 19:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete by Manning Bartlett as A7. (NAC) Pastor Theo (talk) 01:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, COI R3ap3R.inc (talk) 19:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Arnold Meri, since opinions seem split between keep and delete, redirecting until more sources become available seems to be the middle path. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The sources given aren't enough to prove the existance of this organisation; the article lacks in content and lists a person who recently died after being very ill for a long time as the leader of the organisation. DubZog (talk) 19:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Or redirect. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:N, and overrall is short and lacks the amount of information needed for even a C-class article. The only review I have been able to find is this [27], and it's unclear whether or not it should be considered a reputable site for reviews. Even still, I've searched high and low for other reviews and have come up with nothing. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 18:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete under criterion A7. An unsourced article about a high-school athlete falls well short of the assertion of significance. —C.Fred (talk) 18:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Fails to assert notability. Truthbanks12345 (talk) 18:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. AfD apparently withdrawn by nominator DGG (talk) 20:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gaaah. Original research, virtually all uncited and much of it is not about a stereotype but just people with Jewish mothers. I'm sure the stereotype may exist, and that can be noted in an article on stereotypes or on Jewish parenthood, but I am equally sure that this isn't an article and that no article could be written without violating WP:OR and WP:SYN.
(This survived a deletion attempt in 2005, which can be found on talk, but I think we've matured since then, and 4 years of existence shows there's little cause for thinking this will improve with age.) Scott Mac (Doc) 17:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated for deletion by User:Grarap, who then forgot to write the actual nomination. I am doing it for him. No vote. JIP | Talk 17:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was CSD#A7, article is about a person as much as a horse with no assertion of notability, no keeps at AfD, earlier declining admin agrees it is speedyable. No prejudice against recreation with sources demonstrating notability. Chillum 20:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pulled from ((db-context)) queue. "Jack Horner (horse)" gets exactly 1 ghit; "Jack Horner" isn't a helpful search (it's a Mother Goose character); no ghits for "Singland Stud"; no recents Gnews hits for ["jack horner" horse]. Odds seem high that we're not going to achieve notability. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 17:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Non-admin closure FunPika 19:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing the claim to notability here, although I am quite confused by the wording of the lead sentence. Article appears to have been written by the subject, contains unsourced claims, and needs to be cleaned up if kept. لennavecia 16:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Athos, Porthos, and Aramis (talk) 19:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete at G7 by TexasAndroid. (NAC) Pastor Theo (talk) 01:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced BLP. Assertion of notability as a professional hockey player. No sources, can't verify via g-search. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 16:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Already referenced elsewhere, and the page in question is written in unreferenced gibberish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by R3ap3R.inc (talk • contribs) 2009-04-04 15:34:55
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable, the creator of the article is promoting his own software. (see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JLearnIt and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JLearnItME). Simeon (talk) 13:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 22:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be an unlicensed U.S. radio station, according to the little I could find via Google (none of the sources qualify as per WP:RS standards). Does not appear to meet WP:N requirements. Pastor Theo (talk) 13:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. There's not a tonne of independent coverage, but there does seem to be consensus that he meets the general notability guideline. Given that, whether he meets or fails to meet WP:ATHLETE is of no moment. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 22:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails Wikipedia:ATHLETE. Subject has never played at the fully professional level of a sport. Closing comments from past AfD said "I have no issue with Mr. Luellen's article getting renominated if in fact he, as a signed free agent, never in fact makes it off practic [sic] squad for the Chargers." He never made it off the practice squad so I am nominating it for deletion. Esasus (talk) 11:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 04:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable enough. I visit all major Finnish newspaper websites daily , and I've never heard of this organisation eventhough I know all the news subjects this is covering. It is not a registered organisation either, which is not much demanded. All it has is a blog and one moderately famous member. Shouldn't that biographical article cover this as well? I clicked all the links in the article I could, but didn't find a mention of this "organisation", only about events it is described to relate here. So it is unsure if it's more than just a blog and "organisation" of the same level as LAN video game players of the local village. Pudeo⺮ 11:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced, most dancers on the list aren't notable. Guy0307 (talk) 02:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete g1, nonsense neologism. NawlinWiki (talk) 11:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced Neologism (at best).OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 10:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Person does not seem notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Although, the person has won an award, that does not necessarily meet Wikipedia's notability standards. WackoJackO 09:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Consensus is that the article fails WP:SYNTH. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:((subst:spa|username)) ; suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)) ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)) . |
This information would seem to belong in the article about India and/or State terrorism. OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 08:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 13:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And one more thing, instead of worrying what is baseless and what isn't, I think you ought to get back on the actual discussion, which is based on this article because this argument can go on and on. While Indian users will of course, have exceptions, I think it is neccessary to get "third-party" reviews. 123.211.83.75 (talk) 11:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)— 123.211.83.75 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The result was delete. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 21:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The subject does not seem to be notable. I originally asked for a speedy deletion, but the template was removed by another user with a comment that "nobles are notable". I couldn't find a guideline though that all people of noble birth are inherently notable. And, since there have been millions of nobles throughout history, such a rule would make no sense. — Kpalion(talk) 08:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete as A7 by SchuminWeb. (NAC) Pastor Theo (talk) 12:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does not appear to meet notability WP:BAND. The band is ubiquitous in a google search, but I couldn't find any WP:RS. OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 08:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was already deleted. Bearian (talk) 18:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
doesn't seem to meet wp:n for several reasons uncited and seems to be in concern to a family or organization this article failed to meet csd A2 Staffwaterboy Critique Me Guestbook Hate Comments 07:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unremarkable comic book character OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 07:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete Mfield (Oi!) 05:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing to assert WP:CREATIVE. JaGatalk 06:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete both Mfield (Oi!) 05:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related page:
Both articles seem to be violations of WP:NOR. These are definitions that are not notable enough to merit their own articles. Nick—Contact/Contribs 05:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to The Foreshadowing. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable musician. Fails WP:MUSIC GtstrickyTalk or C 12:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that in future, you add references to an article when you write it, rather than pitching up afterwards to make sarcastic comments to other editors who are unaware of what refs you have used because you were too lazy to add them in the first place.
When you create an article, there is a clear warning above the edit box: "When creating an article, provide references to reliable published sources. An article without references may quickly be deleted". Which part of that sentence was unclear to you? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're still at it now, pouring out more personal abuse, contrary to WP:NPA. If you want the article to be kept, please provide evidence of substantial coverage in reliable sources, rather than sniping. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No support offered for notability or significance. Author(s) continuously delete maintenance templates. Google hits appear inconclusive. JNW (talk) 22:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of notability; development ceased on 2006-Oct-01, according to the newest file timestamp in the source archive -- Dandv (talk) 20:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable independent record label, fails WP:COMPANY. Karppinen (talk) 17:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was 'Delete' Mfield (Oi!) 05:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable software with no third party reliable sources. Was prod'd and deleted but restored even though user states the product is not notable and must use wikpedia for advertisement [User_talk:Xymmax#Zena Removal] 16x9 (talk) 15:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of current third-party references is due to the fact that there has not yet been any official stable release for zena. As a developer of zena, I want to make sure the tool is stable and secure before making a lot of noise about it. I would really like to avoid having angry users because they lost valuable data.
From this, we could argue that the page should be removed until the software is properly announced. This argument holds, except that there is a gap between "lot's of public noise even if the tool is totally immature" and "no visibility until stable release". We happen to stand in this middle place because invisibility is too hard for the moral of the troops when you don't get paid for your work. But this is just a matter of months since the stable release should be announced before summer 2009. Gazoduc (talk) 07:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can't see the notability of this student's organization. Punkmorten (talk) 16:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't what I wrote (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Verdi_NTNU) good enough arguments for this article to exist? What kind of "notability" are you looking for? Jhannisdahl (talk) 18:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is secondary sources in Norwegian, like these:
I can probably find more. Verdi NTNU is a local organization with a national reach, and as our members scatter aorund the world for employment and further education, I figured that an english article on WP would be a good source of information on the organization. Jhannisdahl (talk) 22:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no more arguments. Delete if necessary. Jhannisdahl (talk) 14:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. I will userfy the article for improvement upon request. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 21:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Essay-like WP:OR filled look at something that isn't easily understandable from the article. It reads more like a dissertation than an encyclopaedia entry. Ironholds (talk) 13:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The entries "Network Monitoring" and "Internet Traffic" could be linked to the "Traffic Measurement and QoS Monitoring" article but the content of this one does not fit into any of them. MOMENT is a project like ETOMIC, MOME, etc that have their own entries in Wikipedia. The contents of the article "Traffic Measurement and QoS Monitoring" has been modified to fulfill WP style although it could be improved, but, if you think mentioning MOMENT is a reason to delete it, I will accept and let interested people in its development and achievements consult MOMENT web site directly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cvillarro (talk • contribs) 10:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Worse yet, it's not even factually correct. For instance, the introduction describes MOMENT as providing data from "MOME, LOBSTER, ETOMIC,DIMES, BART, RIPE, [and] GEANT2/Perfsonar", suggesting that these are all "projects [...] to deal with IP traffic measurement", when, in fact, many of them aren't: for instance, GEANT2 is a research network, RIPE is a network policy group, and BART is an application used for measuring point-to-point bandwidth.
In short, while there might be an article to write at this title, this isn't it. (And, as Ihcoyc notes above, there are articles with much better titles which need expansion first, like network monitoring.) Zetawoof(ζ) 00:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Zetawoof removed [72] and reworded a key portion of his argument after Spasemunki left the "per Zetawoof" response below. Tothwolf (talk) 21:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is a partial copyvio of [73] - it's likely the whole thing was lifted and patched together. Would need an overhaul of overhauls to stay. Raymie Humbert (local radar | current conditions) 05:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is wikipedia coming to when we have articles on just any advertising character that kids find "funny"? Yes, I realise that this character has a sizeable internet following but most of it is along the lines of "who would you rather bang, Flo or Erin Esurance?" What's next, an article on the Free Credit Report.com singers? My God! Delete post-haste. Silk Knot (talk) 05:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hoax. No refs. Google has never heard of it. The description seems very dubious. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 04:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article cites no sources, and, searching, I can find no sources at all, anywhere, documenting any such thing. This article is unverifiable, which is our standard for hoaxes and falsehoods, just as verifiability is our proxy for accuracy. No sources, therefore no article, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 05:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. And potentially rename. After reading through the discussion, I've found no consensus to delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This topic is about a non notable neologism. Further some of the sources used to support the topic, while reliable, often don't even use the term "bacon mania" in them or use the term "bacon mania" only in passing. The article is really the product of original synthesis. There is not enough independent coverage of this term where the term itself is the main subject of the source to establish notability. It appears that this is a media buzz word which may or may not have a lasting use. Other media has chosen the term "Bacon Nation" instead of "bacon mania". If you notice, all of the sources using "bacon mania" are from the last several months, so its a very new term. Broadweighbabe (talk) 03:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete (by DragonflySixtyseven). --Ixfd64 (talk) 04:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Future operating system being developed by students.
No sources to even verify this is being developed, let alone notability requirements. <ref>http://linux.org/</ref> was added by author while removing proposed deletion tag, but there is nothing on that site about this OS. —SV 03:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's just a broadcast schedule, nothing more. In my eyes, flies in the face of WP:IINFO. fuzzy510 (talk) 02:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRYSTALBALL - Speedy delete was removed with the following edit summary: "the album is set to be released May 5, and can be found on CDUniverse.com and Amazon.com-if you have a fetish for deletions, let's get consensus and take it fo AfD!" Untick (talk) 02:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pure original research, no references. fuzzy510 (talk) 02:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Assisted listing that was requested at WT:AFD by Headbomb. Headbomb's rationale there was "Vanity page for a corporation". I personally have no opinion on this deletion discussion and my listing it should not be taken as a !vote either way. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 02:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn. Withdrawn MBisanz talk 00:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I myself am neutral, but I'm concerned about this being a vanity page for whoever is making this product. Not too sure about notability either. Listing for discussion. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 02:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Nom withdrawn after evidence that player passes WP:ATH. Black Kite 23:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Carlos Borja appears to be an athlete who has never competed in a first-division professional league or represented his country at the national level. He does not seem to meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for athletes. faithless (speak) 02:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to The Lower Elements. MBisanz talk 00:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've been thinking about WP:WAF, and I think that this page perfectly represents a page that should not exist. It has zero notability outside of the book series it's in (which is fiction). Should it go, or not? That is the question. Calvin 1998 (t·c) 01:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Autobiography that has been recreated 3 times now. IMHO fails Bio Notabliity has no reliable sources Skier Dude (talk) 01:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. WP:SNOW. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've decided to hit this article up for deletion on notability concerns, because a Google search didn't turn up many results for this competition. Maybe someone else can have better luck, but as of right now this article is completely unreferenced, so verifiability is a concern as well. Tavix : Chat 01:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can't find any suitable net references as to notability, no reviews, no write ups from reputable sources, no indication of sales Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 05:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The work by Annie Locke, that has been listed, is what she produced before the Web began so it should come as no great surprise that you haven't been able to find much about her on that basis. There were no New Age charts to speak of back in the 80s. I know Hearts of Space did play her music but we don't have data as to how often. There are one or two hard-copy write-ups kicking around from the 80s that I may be able to find if I dig around.
As I stated in the article, she has sold in the region of 100,000 albums across her three titles. Inner Harmonies Music, UK; Serenity Music, USA; Fonix Musik, Denmark; Aquamarin Verlag, Germany; New Age Media, Australia; all distributed her music back in the 80s to early 90s. She appeared on a number of radio shows - Michael Van Straten, LBC, comes to mind, also Tina Baker on Radio Leicester - I can dig around for more.
After a 20 year or so break she is relaunching her music career this year - with a new piano album.
Questions:
* It would help me to know how much evidence you consider would be enough to substantiate the article. * Should you decide to delete the item, Annie Locke, can I ask what rights I have to claim back her photo.
I hope we can work something out.
Thanks for your feedback.
Francis O'Neill (talk) 23:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylanfromthenorth (talk • contribs)
Comment Thanks for your advice. I've taken a look at the page - very useful.
If I read it correctly, I have 5 days from notification before this article is deleted. Also that I can continue to edit to bring up to requirements. However I anticipate it will take me a little longer than what remains of the 5 days to acquire the info I need for this.
I'm anticipating it might be better to rewrite/resubmit this article at a later time. Can you confirm that one can resubmit, given that the updated item meets requirements? Also will it still live in my personal area after being deleted from the public area?
Francis O'Neill (talk) 19:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. This needs cleaning up, but a look through sources sees that he is a member of a notable music duo and has played around Europe as well as his other activities. Enough to be going on with, I think. Black Kite 23:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable musician CTJF83Talk 19:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 21:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
declined prod; signed with a pro team, on their website, but apparently hasn't played a game with them yet. On the cusp of WP:ATHLETE, but seems just on the nn side. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 08:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't appear to be notable. Only one source is given. Campaign manager for one unsuccessful local campaign. Jd027 (talk) 22:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 08:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet WP:Creative. The only google results are this page and wikipedia mirrors. This was already deleted on the Italian wiki [91], and if he isn't considered notable by Italian speakers, how can we consider him notable in this language? Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 03:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 08:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This was nominated for speedy deletion per WP:CSD#G4, because of the previous discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astriga Film Industry. However, the new article is substantially longer than the deleted version, so I'm taking it to AfD instead. This is a procedural nomination; I take no position myself on whether it should be deleted. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 08:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can find no notability for this band; a my space link and a youtube video do not qualify. Further, this article lists "friends and associated artists"; this leads me to believe this is some rinky-dink group that is trying to be famous. They aren't there yet. Further, this article's orphan status leads me to believe this article is purely self-promotion. Timneu22 (talk) 16:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete per nom. Poorly written too. Deletion Mutation 15:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC) N.B. !vote of sockpuppet of blocked user struck through. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Article is not being worked on, which was the main reason the previous AfD was closed as no consensus. If someone does want towork on it, it can always be userfied and resurrected when it is significantly improved. Fram (talk) 11:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There was no consensus on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laura Davis (Female Comedian), in part because of a Keep without Prejudice !vote based on an editor's assertion that the article would be improved. It hasn't. Editing has ceased (except for a SPA who tried to remove the birthday). This is a non-notable stand-up whose claim to notability is "won the Raw Recruit in the 2008 Raw Comedy competition." Judging by how few of the previous winners of the overall competition have gone on to independent notability, it's quite questionable whether winning Raw Comedy is a "notable award or honor," but even if it were, she didn't win: she got a consolation prize as the best first-time entrant--a prize that isn't even described in the Raw Comedy Wikipedia article. That's twice-removed from notability. There is no substantial independent press coverage, and it reads as a cross between an advertisement and a directory entry. All the sources are press releases or a sentence or two in a larger article. This isn't going to improve unless lightning strikes and she's the one in a thousand standups who becomes notable. THF (talk) 11:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As for "there are no reliable sources" — I accept that you can't find any (and I can't find any either), but it's a logical fallacy to assert that because we can't find sources, sources don't exist.
I agree with you, and I've always agreed, that the article should be deleted if no sources appear in a reasonable space of time. All we're disagreeing about is whether the time since the last AfD is "a reasonable space of time".—S Marshall Talk/Cont 18:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was already deleted. by User:Jimfbleak per WP:CSD#G11 — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 17:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not entirely clear what this article is about but I think it is an advert for a software package. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 00:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 00:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another on-the-cusp WP:ATHLETE; he has played a pre-season game in a fully professional league. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 08:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
contested prod; there is more here than usual for a short-term football head coach. He coached a few seasons, including a Sun Bow appearance. Is that enough? You decide. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable radio show, fails our notability standards. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 19:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Declining db-spam and taking to AfD; a "cultural sensitivity" judgment call, since this is a Malaysian philanthropic/fraternal organization. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 15:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 23:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sufficiently notable to qualify under WP:AUTHOR - has only published a handful of books which dont seem to be well known. AndrewRT(Talk) 00:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus or "nomination withdrawn". There's no point in letting this nomination collect dust for another 4 days (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No claim to significance or notability. Refs are ambiguous: some appear to be public relations releases, others refer to 'top 100 rankings' within the industry--perhaps someone knowledgeable in this field can speak to the sources' import, but I think this is questionable enough to merit discussion. I speedied this as an anonymous IP; template was removed and management team was added. JNW (talk) 14:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 23:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable band. Fails WP:MUSIC GtstrickyTalk or C 12:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 08:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how notable or encyclopediac this is; also is a stub with no sources. Cssiitcic (talk) 21:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete - Nabla (talk) 00:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet notable NationalTreasure (talk) 19:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Almost certainly a hoax, as the second sentence proves. Black Kite 23:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
it's either a hoax or made up event, no notability whatsoever. Skarebo (talk) 00:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Adverty bio totally self-referenced, does not appear to have done anything on his own or is notable in his own right. MBisanz talk 05:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Little discussion, but an unsourced BLP that makes no assertion of notability. Can always be resurrected if sources are found. Black Kite 23:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Disastrous. A "needs more refs" tag and an "expand" tag have adorned the article since January 2007, and the last edit was in November 2007 (a wikification.) Nothing to show notability...does this deserve to stay? Raymie Humbert (local radar | current conditions) 05:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 08:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He wrote a few books, and that's about it. What demonstrates notability? Here, the trio of templates are gravy. Raymie Humbert (local radar | current conditions) 04:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 08:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no notability asserted. Because I have little info, I thought an AfD best. Raymie Humbert (local radar | current conditions) 04:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 00:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:ORG LibStar (talk) 03:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 08:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some college club, several self generated wiki-like mentions around, but no reliable sources to establish notability. Telegraph article linked in article does not mention this group. Could get one sentence in article about University I suppose, but again no notability to be found. 2005 (talk) 01:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See: http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/2914856 http://topokergames.com/poker_night_3_churchill_regular_association_for_poker_crap http://www.chu.cam.ac.uk/~gw288/constitution.pdf http://jcr.chu.cam.ac.uk/theforum/index.php?topic=3428.msg%msg_id% 88.109.252.59 (talk) 02:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_University_Automobile_Club http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_University_SPS_Society http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_Philosophical_Society http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_University_Law_Society http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_Apostles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CICCU http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pembroke_Players —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiWebbie (talk • contribs) 02:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 08:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable radio show. Fails to meet WP:NOTE. No significant coverage or reliable coverage. ttonyb1 (talk) 23:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was closed as keep, nominator withdrew. Non admin close --Staffwaterboy Critique Me Guestbook Hate Comments 01:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable commercial event, with no history (first year), no substantial claim to the name "World" and no independent coverage. Scoop reference is a reprinted press release, as is nzlive.com. Infonews is a "publish your own news" website dramatic (talk) 23:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]