< January 16 | January 18 > |
---|
The result was speedy deleted --Aude (talk) 08:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Personal essay, rife with original research, POV and unencyclopedic language with no attempt whatsoever at referencing, categories or plain readability. Nothing of any value whatsoever. Please delete. roleplayer 23:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn. Schuym1 (talk) 03:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. The main reliable sources that I can find are just instructions. It was previously nominated for deletion here, but in a big bundle nomination. Schuym1 (talk) 23:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 03:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One of several contentless articles created by same editor about minor Tamil Tiger figures. Flunks WP:BIO because not the subject of significant independent coverage from reliable sources; mentions in passing do not add up to notability no matter how often the adjective "notable" is used. Wasn't even notable enough to get a phony-baloney "Colonel" title. THF (talk) 22:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 03:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One of several articles created by same editor about minor Tamil Tiger figures. Flunks WP:BIO because not the subject of significant independent coverage from reliable sources; mentions in passing do not add up to notability no matter how often the adjective "notable" is used. So unnotable that his name is unknown. Nothing here that isn't redundant with 1987_Mass_Suicide_of_Tamil_Tigers. THF (talk) 22:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Nomination withdrawn, all comments for keeping. Fram (talk) 14:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One of several articles created by same editor about minor Tamil Tiger figures. Flunks WP:BIO because not the subject of significant independent coverage from reliable sources; mentions in passing do not add up to notability no matter how often the adjective "notable" is used. So unnotable that his name is unknown. Nothing here that isn't redundant with 1987_Mass_Suicide_of_Tamil_Tigers. THF (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment Untill appropriate RS sources are found, this should be redirected to 1987_Mass_Suicide_of_Tamil_Tigers. Taprobanus (talk) 23:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Icewedge (talk) 07:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a fan-made anime character. No notability hits via Yahoo search (which I didn't honestly expect) and nothing to keep it for. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 22:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Slow speedy, or snow. StarM 04:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is now a new List of health topics and this sub-list, and those below, are no longer needed. See Talk:List_of_health_topics#Merge_proposal for more info
—G716 <T·C> 22:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 03:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One of several articles by the same author about a minor Tamil Tiger; the articles are devoid of biographical detail; cursory passing mentions of pseudo-position are not the "significant" coverage required for notability meriting separate article. This one doesn't even have the fellow's first name. THF (talk) 21:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 03:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One of several articles by the same author about a minor Tamil Tiger; the articles are devoid of biographical detail; cursory passing mentions of pseudo-position are not the "significant" coverage required for notability meriting separate article. This one doesn't even have the fellow's name. THF (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. — Aitias // discussion 11:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One of several articles by the same author about a minor Tamil Tiger; the articles are devoid of biographical detail; cursory passing mentions of pseudo-position are not the "significant" coverage required for notability meriting separate article. THF (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not delete until agreed by Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation members. -Iross1000 (talk) 22:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 03:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One of several articles by the same author about a minor Tamil Tiger; the articles are devoid of biographical detail; cursory passing mentions of pseudo-position are not the "significant" coverage required for notability meriting separate article. THF (talk) 21:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One of several articles by the same author about a minor Tamil Tiger; the articles are devoid of biographical detail; cursory passing mentions of pseudo-position are not the "significant" coverage required for notability meriting separate article. THF (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. All the reliable sources that I can find are just instructions. In a previous AFD, an editor brought up that it was mentioned in a book. There is no way to find out how big the mention in the book was. The previous AFDs are here. Two of the three nominations had many articles nominated at the same time. Schuym1 (talk) 21:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BIO. No assertion of independent notability. THF (talk) 21:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 03:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Flunks WP:BIO. Prod removed because her death was in the Huffington Post, but the Huffington Post has lots of non-notable people in it, and besides, WP:NOTNEWS. Her claim to fame is that she edited the non-notable Resident Journal for the non-notable We the People Media and she ran the non-notable Beauty's Ghetto Bus Tours. There's nothing to write an encyclopedic article about, and there's a good reason this article is doomed to remain an orphan. THF (talk) 21:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Tells a religious story rather than reporting on the story. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now in the morning, when He was returning to the city, He became hungry. Seeing a lone fig tree by the road, He came to it and found nothing on it except leaves only; and He said to it, “No longer shall there ever be any fruit from you.” And at once the fig tree withered. Seeing this, the disciples were amazed and asked, “How did the fig tree wither all at once?” And Jesus answered and said to them, “Truly I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what was done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, ‘Be taken up and cast into the sea,’ it will happen. And all things you ask in prayer, believing, you will receive.”
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 03:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence this is a notable book or meets the low bar of WP:BOOKS. Prod removed because the book garnered a single book review. Amazon.com Sales Rank: #1,389,356. THF (talk) 19:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wellock, Thomas. 2008. "Conservation Fallout: Nuclear Protest at Diablo Canyon - By John Wills". The Historian. 70, no. 3: 565-566]. That last point is enough to justify the article. Using amazon to judge the notability of academic books, either to show them notable or to show then non-notable, is not a good way of doing things; instead, try WorldCat. DGG (talk) 01:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 03:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Found no "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". Many hits on Google, but most are either articles by the subject, passing mentions, or his own account at various sites. --aktsu (t / c) 19:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 03:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned article consisting of a one-sentence definition of a cooking by-product (water drained from cooked rice) - otherwise non-notable Geoff T C 19:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Malayalam word not used in any other language. Tintin 10:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything that indicates the site is notable enough to merit its own page. JaGatalk 19:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. CLoudy with a chance of SNOW. StarM 02:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Chock full of original research and reads like it was written by a corporate middle-manager with too much time on his hands. Ironholds (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An essay chock full of original research. Ironholds (talk) 18:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The content is already covered in the articles on the Ba'ath Party and the histories of Iraq and Syria respectively. As a struggle for power not limited to one particular location and occurring at different times this will be next to impossible to write a decent combined article on. Ironholds (talk) 18:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Policy: Deletion should be a last resort |
---|
|
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 03:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability, page appears to have been written by a close associate who has written much of the material about said person that I could find via google, potential conflict of interest Reboot (talk) 18:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can find no RS indicating notability for this video. Ghits reveal some download sites and plenty of Wiki mirrors. Perhaps it's a language thing, maybe an Arabic search would reveal something, but I cannot. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 03:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unnotable manga series. Unlicensed and no significant coverage in reliable third party sources. Fails WP:BK and WP:MOS-AM#Notability. Only minor not of notability is that its last volume was #12 on the Oricon comic rating,[7] but no other volumes placed and it has no other news coverage or other accolades/reviews. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 03:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unnotable manga series. Unlicensed and no significant coverage in reliable third party sources. Fails WP:BK and WP:MOS-AM#Notability. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 03:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable Tamil Tiger, article devoid of biographical detail; cursory passing mentions of pseudo-position do not add up to notability meriting separate article. THF (talk) 18:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 03:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable Tamil Tiger, article devoid of biographical detail; cursory passing mentions of pseudo-position do not add up to notability meriting separate article. THF (talk) 18:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 11:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have done Google and Google News searches for "national sovereignty party" -russia -welsh -wales -canada -afghanistan -wiki -poland -brazil -turkish -turkey -croatia, (there are lots of "National Sovereignty Parties" around the world!) and have looked at every single hit generated. There is no evidence whatsoever of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. The author of the page should identify some grounds for inclusion prior to recreating the article next time. Bongomatic 17:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete - would make a fine article if it expanded its text to include sociological ...things Xavexgoem (talk) 20:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dictionary definition. Unexpandable. Graymornings(talk) 17:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 03:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is an smear page insinuating that birth control advocate Margaret Sanger wanted to exterminate the Negro population, discredited information repeatedly removed from the Margaret Sanger article. See Talk:Margaret Sanger#Negro_Project for background. Delete this POV fork as WP:CSD#G10 and create redirect to Margaret Sanger. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cross-wiki spam, no sources, does not meet WP:BIO — NickK (talk) 17:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a student of Lama Shamota Tala Rinpoche, I am understandably sad to see this go, but I can see the reasons are genuine, and that in it's current state it is not suitable for Wikipedia. It is therefore with regret that I also say we should delete this article. Peter Robinson Scott (talk) 13:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable label, doesn't even meet the low bar created by WP:MUSIC. THF (talk) 17:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet WP:BIO notability requirements; also WP:COI (page created by subject). OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not michael scanlon I am Matt Kelly- one of his former coaches and an administrative member of the chicago area rugby football union. I am an old timer and dont know much about computers and used his name because i only joined to write this artice and simply dont know what im doing but I wrote it because of the impact he has made in our community and in all of USA Rugby nationwide now. He has been highly influential and if you cant recognize that than its just simply arrogant of you guys. And I followed the link to change my username and i dont understand- i cant figure the damn thing out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelJScanlon (talk • contribs) 02:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. The Nordic Goddess Kristen Worship her 00:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article was previously WP:PRODded, and I was considering a speedy A7 at first, but this article doesn't clearly fall into any of the categories and even if it clearly did, I probably would not have due to the iws. However, upon closer inspection, I can't find reliable sources that would make this holiday notable, and the iws seem to be direct translations, all made by one user. I suggest this article, which lacks reliable sources, be deleted as not notable. Maxim(talk) 16:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By Harold J. Greenberg (Majorca Daily Bulletin, Palma de Mallorca, January, 18, 1990)
The "School Day of Non-violence and Peace" is held on January 30 every year, on the anniversary of the martyrdom in 1948 of Mahatma Gandhi, the great apostle of non-violence.
It will be celebrated, as always, in Majorca. The intiative for this "School Day of Non-violence and Peace" originated in Spain.
In Majorca, it was Llorenç Vidal in 1964 who founded the School Day. He now lives in Cádiz. He was influenced by Lanza del Vasto, a direct disciple of Gandhi. Del Vasto visited Majorca about 15 years ago, and his book "Le Retour aux Origines" ("Return to the Sources"), had an inmediate influence.
The basic message of the "School Day of Non-violence and Peace" states: "Universal Love, Non-violence and Peace. Universal Love is better than egoism. Non-violence is better than violence. Peace is better than war". Non-violence is the attitude of renouncing killing and inflicting pain on all breings in thought, word and action.
The "School Day of Non-violence and Peace" is a non-governmental, international and pioneering initiative of Pacificatory Education in which educational centres of all standards and of all the countries are invited to participate.
It is a practical activity which has neither official programming nor structural lines of action, because the message is one which maintains a permanent nucleus of basic aspects, and permits the free application of each educational centre according to its particular manner.
Professor Eulogio Díaz del Corral has written: "The 'School Day of Non-violence and Peace' was founded in Spain in 1964, when neither in Spain nor abroad did a similar initiative exist. It was maintained through hell and high water in very difficult circumstances, and it is considered the most important pioneering experience of Pacificatory Education of our time, as well as a dynamic nocleus of its promotion at a national and international level".
The "School Day of Non-violence and Peace" is a seed which is planted and cultivated in the hearts of the students. It is a bright, new and positive way of looking at the word and preparing for the future.
Harold J. Greenberg (Majorca Daily Bulletin, Palma de Mallorca, January, 18, 1990)
--Ayounali (talk) 21:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Ayounali (talk) 16:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was IAR speedy delete both, as it is obvious the author's intent was promotional--something which can't be tolerated on Wikipedia. Author also blocked. Blueboy96 18:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a how-to manual. « ₣M₣ » 15:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indiscriminate list of information, misspelled title: WP:INDISCRIMINATE Davidelit (talk) 15:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Policy: Deletion should be a last resort |
---|
|
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 03:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
previously added CSD, author removed tag (nb. no warning notice left), brief google search reveals only foreign results, not a lot indicating notability. Olly150 15:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I apologies for deleting that tag, didn’t know what I was doing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caxus (talk • contribs) 15:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 11:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jarrett Brown - Reed Williams - Dorrell Jalloh |
Another non-notable WVU Mountaineer. (See Brandon Hogan, Darryl Bryant, Jock Sanders, and more — the article's creator has a habit of creating articles for WVU athletes of borderline notability.) This guy, while he plays two sports, isn't notable. My gosh, the INTRO says he is a backup. And his basketball stats? 1.0 points per game. The article should be deleted. Timneu22 (talk) 14:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Original research. Sandstein 23:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not publish original research; this is not verifiable from independent reliable sources. The articles are by Ramssiss (talk · contribs), the author of the theory they describe; the book referred to does not appear to have been published, see Google Books Amazon, and a search for Infinium finds nothing relevant. JohnCD (talk) 14:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable promotional pseudoscience. Tim Ross (talk) 16:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here is what it says on the COI
Conflict of interest often presents itself in the form of self-promotion, including advertising links, personal website links, personal or semi-personal photos, or other material that appears to promote the private or commercial interests of the editor, or their associates.
Examples of these types of material include:
- 1. Links that appear to promote products by pointing to obscure or not particularly relevant commercial sites (commercial links).
- 2. Links that appear to promote otherwise obscure individuals by pointing to their personal pages.
- 3. Biographical material that does not significantly add to the clarity or quality of the article.
The R function and infinium articles are not advertising links, or personal web site links, semi-personal photos or any of the above. They're simply scientific theories set forth as described in the books (the links to which are provided). And the R function is provided with proof I might add to those who understand Math. The content is CLEARLY not COI material and deleting it won't do more than deprive the public of access to it. I value editor input, they keep the articles sharp and the writer from straying off course. But all of this seems like repetitive COI that nobody can show applies. I'm for editing but not for keeping some trigger happy editors from getting riled up. Sorry guys, I think the articles should stay, until someone can disprove the R function or point a scientific flaw in the theory of infinium. When so, I'm all ears. Ramssiss (talk) 22:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ramssiss (talk) 22:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Self-published work is acceptable to use in some circumstances, with limitations. For example, material may sometimes be cited which is self-published by an established expert on the topic of the article, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. For example, a reliable self-published source on a given subject is likely to have been cited on that subject as authoritative by a reliable source.
Self-published work by non-experts may also be used in limited circumstances, as described below.
The opertative word in what you quoted being "USUALLY" not always! After that it adds
Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:
the material used is relevant to the notability of the subject of the article; it is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reason to doubt its authenticity; the article is not based primarily on such sources;
If you can point to where my articles are against what I just quoted in YOUR SOURCE, then I'd be closer to agreeing with you. But for now, I'm afraid you're quoting what should make you give up your deletion Request, John. In addition, the sources were provided in the form of a website that provides the contents of the book as well as other info for those looking for verifiability (even if anyone can put up a website). For those needing more than that, a free E-Copy of the book was made avaiblable. It doesn't get much more verifiable than that and the source doesn't get anymore reliable than the text itself. Finally the only the ground you may have in contesting (not deleting) the article is if "there is reason to doubt its authenticity" which makes me revert to what I said earlier. You're welcome to point a flaw in the theory of infinium or disprove the R function, at which point I'll be obliged to change or omit whatever you can prove. This is science authorship after all, and you need more than misquotations to make a point. I'm sure an editor like yourself can agree. Ramssiss (talk) 23:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Self-published work is acceptable to use in some circumstances, with limitations...
and
Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves...'
There is no "burden of proof" as you seem to have gathered. The only proof involved is if you can find one against the theories cited in the material. This again makes me revert to what I said earlier "You're welcome to point a flaw in the theory of infinium or disprove the R function, at which point I'll be obliged to change or omit whatever you can prove. This is science authorship after all, and you need more than misquotations to make a point. I'm sure an editor like yourself can agree." Besides, both theories were scientifically proven and you're welcome to the article you've taken issue with to verify them numerically if you haven't done that yet. As for why is there a link on the article. Well humorously enough, there's a link there because people were complaining that there wasn't one (unlike you). The purchase only points you to outlets like Amazon and such.you can't purchase the book on the site as you should have seen.
Then there's the curious statement that the article is about "3+4=7". I think even the guy who mistook it for Rhubarb knows that it is pretty faraway from that!
Finally and as I said many times before I value editorial input. But I need to stress that the discussion forum is not a venue to level personal attacks on people or articles you dislike or for users to play cat and mouse games with authors by coming up with side issues all the time (like you're doing Novangelis). I addressed all of your issues convincingly and in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. Being wrong happens. Now get on with life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramssiss (talk • contribs) 00:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Peridon (talk) 16:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Self-published work is acceptable to use in some circumstances, with limitations. For example, material may sometimes be cited which is self-published by an established expert on the topic of the article, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. For example, a reliable self-published source on a given subject is likely to have been cited on that subject as authoritative by a reliable source. Self-published work by non-experts may also be used in limited circumstances, as described below.
Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: the material used is relevant to the notability of the subject of the article; it is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reason to doubt its authenticity; the article is not based primarily on such sources;
And again John you keep reading just what you want in the sources you quote. In your source WP:OR you should have read: This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing their sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramssiss (talk • contribs) 23:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
About Fuhghettaboutit's comment. I get your point everybit and I appreciate it a bunch. But I strongly disagree with it. You seem to be of the opinion that new material is not allowed on Wikipedia regardless of its quality or validity. And you are just wrong on that point. Here again are the policy quotes:
Self-published work is acceptable to use in some circumstances, with limitations. For example, material may sometimes be cited which is self-published by an ....
Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, ....
This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia,...' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramssiss (talk • contribs) 23:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Self-published work is acceptable... Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information... This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their ...
mean as opposed to what they say as (in your own words): we would rightfully be arguing to delete that article because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a tertiary source, only publishing material already the subject of reliable independent secondary sources. We do not announce new things here.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramssiss (talk • contribs)
Not notable, not verifiable. Perhaps if it some day gets the cultural penetration that Time Cube has gotten, it will deserve a mention. ... You probably already noticed this, but Ramssiss has "voted" keep about a dozen times in this discussion, mostly unsigned comments.
Me, unhinged and Calm Down!? Come on...
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 11:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jarrett Brown - Reed Williams - Dorrell Jalloh |
Another non-notable WVU Mountaineer. (See Brandon Hogan, Darryl Bryant, Jock Sanders, and more — the article's creator has a habit of creating articles for WVU athletes of borderline notability.) This article does not seem notable. The MVP of a single game and all-academics teams don't make a player worthy of inclusion on wikipedia. Timneu22 (talk) 14:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jarrett Brown - Reed Williams - Dorrell Jalloh |
Another non-notable WVU Mountaineer. (See Brandon Hogan, Darryl Bryant, Jock Sanders, and more — the article's creator has a habit of creating articles for WVU athletes of borderline notability.) This article does not seem notable; he is a senior with no achievements. Timneu22 (talk) 13:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 03:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article is nothing more than a dictionary definition, for a term that probably doesn't need one. The occurrence of the phrase in some of the sources does not make this worthy of inclusion. Drmies (talk) 05:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article goes beyond the definition and DOES provide significant description ABOUT the character of events the term defines. In regards to (WP:AGF), you were the one who admitted to your prejudice against this subject matter in your first response. If you are prejudiced or even ill informed about a subject, should you be actively seeking to quash its content on WP? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trackinfo (talk • contribs) 02:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 03:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. This software has received insufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources to pass WP:N. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete, G12 (blatant copyright violation) per evidence from Baileypalblue. Blueboy96 18:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable political advocacy group. No evidence provided that the group is in any way notable or significant. The two people listed as supporters of the society probably require better referencing,
Note: there is also the Flag Society of Australia, a seemingly separate group as they claim a "a strict neutrality with regard to the continuing "Great Australian Flag Debate" - the question of whether or not the Australian flag should be changed", certainly not the position of this article. Nor is it the Australian National Flag Association, which has a substantially similar polict position but claims to be founded in 1983, 20 years before this group. Mattinbgn\talk 12:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lacks notability, per WP:BIO. Only known for being the nanny of Michael Jackson's children. Note: Grace rwaramba (redirection page) will also have to be deleted. Pyrrhus16 (talk) 12:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 03:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of notability, in spite of the article's being more than four three years old. (This is one of a large number of articles, created at that time, about Disney executives who got some notice on Disney websites but little or none elsewhere.) —SlamDiego←T 12:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lists of "unusual" things are having mixed fortunes in the article namespace currently. Some have been deleted; reasons cited include that they are "unencyclopaedic", that "unusual" is in the eye of the beholder and thus contravenes our neutral point of view policy, that such lists are not verifiable, and that such a list amounts to original research. I have no opinion on this subject, other than our deletion decisions in this area should be consistent, and so I'm adopting a neutral stance. Note however that this deletion nomination seeks to establish community consensus for this article, not for others. There have been previous deletion discussions for this article, which have resulted in its retention. SP-KP (talk) 12:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 11:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No appearances in professional competition, although his is a professional sport. Fails WP:ATHLETE and principles established at WP:FOOTY. Kevin McE (talk) 11:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep, nomination withdrawn. (NAC) --J.Mundo (talk) 13:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article doesn't assert the topics notability. It has one reference that indicates that the subject exists (but not notability), the external links appear to be links to blog coverage of the subject which may not meet WP:LINKS and don't appear used as references in the article.Kraftlos (Talk |
Contrib) 11:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. While there is some discussion on whether this article should be kept or redirected, all commenters have unanimously agreed that the material should remain in some form. (non-admin closure) Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a dictionary - and this seems to be just an expanded list of definitions, most of which don't agree with the lead. If expanded even more it would be at least 5 articles. dougweller (talk) 11:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep, nomination withdrawn. (NAC) --J.Mundo (talk) 14:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article makes no assertion of notability. References only refer to the fact that the comic was published. Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No appearances in professional competition, although his is a professional sport. Fails WP:ATHLETE and principles established at WP:FOOTY, and although there is a reference, it is from his university , which does not seem sufficiently independent to establish notability. Kevin McE (talk) 10:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete - it's snowing. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another non-notable drinking game. No references, only links to a myspace website, essentially entirely written by a single user. Delete. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 09:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. The Nordic Goddess Kristen Worship her 00:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A Minor promotional award that Major League Baseball did back in 2006, fewer than 60 direct google hits, most of it are wikipedia mirrors and promotional material from MLB.com themselves. Fails reliable sourcing and notabilty guidelines Delete Secret account 23:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 03:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Google came up with only one hit: a French-language article that features a mere mention of the subject's name and nothing else. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 07:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's because you searched for his full name. Search for B S Dwarakanath. You'll get lots of hits. He has over 150 publications and international awards to his credit. Radiation Biology is not a glamorous field. Moreover, due to discrimination, many Indian scientists cannot publish in journals like Nature etc. And most importantly, DRDO labs do not advertise their scientists' on the web. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.68.29.162 (talk) 11:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you baileypal. I do not know how to reference. I'm quite new to Wikiepedia. Also, organisational references are not available due to above mentioned reasons. I checked the page of the Society for Cancer Research and Communication's webpage. They still have not updated their webpage with this year's winners.
I have links for some of the other awards but I don't know how to reference. Could someone please help me out here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhilashdwarakanath (talk • contribs) 15:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Scopus is not the be all and end all of scientific publications. I must stress that due to various constraints, scientists from the third world do not get as much exposure as the ones from the first world. If you look at the awards list, quite a few of his awards have been international ones. Scopus gives a list of 51 papers. However, Dwarakanath has more than 150 papers to his credit. He is the Jt Director of the world's first institute wholly dedicated to Nuclear Medicine. And one more thing that has been skipped by the author in the page is that Dwarakanath is one of the advisors to the Ministry of Defence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.68.29.162 (talk) 05:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@ Americanmetrosexual: Yes please look carefully at the scientist's name and the author's name. They are two different names. B S and Abhilash aretwo different names. I think Abhilash is his son. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.68.29.162 (talk) 05:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Biotechnology in Health Care is a book coauthored by Dwarakanath, R K Sharma and Lazar T Matthew. It is indeed sad that quite a few good Indian publications do not receive the kind of attention they deserve in the Western World. If you carefully peruse Biomedexperts, Dwarakanath is listed as one of the world's top 50 authors for work related to Gliomas and 2-DG.
If anyone here has access to the NIHs at Bethesda, you could inquire. Dwarakanath and group have strong collaborations with the NIH and they concluded one quite recently. Dwarakanath's group also has research collaborations with Dr Joe Mantil's group at the Kettering Institute in Dayton, OH.
And if I'm not wrong, Dwarakanath delivered a Keynote address at the International Conference on Radiation Biology at Jaipur, India this November. You don't get to do that unless you're a highly noted academic in that field.
strong keep oh do keep this page. one never sees indian scientists on wikipedia, and heaven knows they deserve to be there. at least Dr. Dwarakanath does. he is immensely cited, and has his brilliant work on 2-DG to his credit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.142.8.172 (talk) 11:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment - The west has the propensity to conveniently ignore or dismiss publications in national journals and citations gotten from them. For the record, I haven't seen many brilliant radiation biologists on Wiki. Wolfgang Pohlit and Viney K Jain are conspicuous by their absence.
comment Do I need to provide an entire list of his publications in which he's the first author? Never claimed he's a 'founder' his field. Unless I'm very much mistaken, even scientists who have notable contributions and are not founders of their field can be on wikipedia. Is wikipedia becoming elitist now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.68.29.162 (talk) 14:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I once again stress on the fact that defence scientists' work in India are kept quite hush-hush due to various reasons. Moreover, I ran a search and it is quite surprising that the citations and impact in national journals are NOT accounted for. Anyways, when we informed him that he has a page on Wikipedia, he was quite agitated and requested us to withdraw it ASAP. So you can go ahead and delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.68.29.162 (talk) 18:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Sex (book). MBisanz talk 03:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Extremely limited promo release only. In fact can barely be called a promo released as it was given away free with a book. Paul75 (talk) 07:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Civil aviation authority. (non-admin closure) — neuro(talk) 14:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redundant page. Same thing as Civil aviation authority. Parler Vous (edits) 07:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete, WP:CSD G12. (NAC) --J.Mundo (talk) 15:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently fails future film notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources indicate that filming has already begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 11:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No notability asserted. Wikipedia does not exist for self-promotion. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Akira (film)#Live action film. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Explicitly fails future film notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources indicate that filming has already begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Explicitly fails future film notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources indicate that filming has already begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Minor academic. No indication that he meets any of WP:ACADEMIC#Criteria (let alone verifiably so), and in any case appears to fail the "It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject." clause. Only source given is to the topic's webpage at the institution which employs him. HrafnTalkStalk 06:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A reimplementation of TeX but no evidence that anybody is using it. Apparently the latest state is an alpha release made in 2000 - not exactly an active project. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 05:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 03:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Previously speedied by me for lack of assertion of notability; re-created today so I figured I'd refer this to the AFD community for resolution. If this article is to be included in Wikipedia, then we would be opening the door to having an article on every sportscaster on every major network. Richard (talk) 05:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(1) She is linked to by many articles already and mentioned in a bunch of others, so people obviously feel there should be an article on her,
(2) She is one of the only ESPN personalities without an article (See: List of ESPN personalities, List of ESPN College Football personalities, etc.).
(3) I certainly do not feel it would be "opening the door to having an article on every sportscaster on every major network", as the nom said; at least not any more than it has already been opened by the so-mentioned personalities already described. (in the lists, and other places) There is already a large president for people as notable as this to be included. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 05:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unnotable list of "equipment" used within the Gantz manga and anime series. No significant coverage in reliable third party sources. Fails WP:N, WP:WAF, and WP:PLOT. Would also fail WP:FICT and contains an excessive amount of non-free images along with some WP:OR Self-admitted by creator that he restore of information that was properly removed from the main article in August for being excessive plot/in-universe detail and unnecessary to the series' overall understanding.[56][57][58] Removal had clear consensus,[59][60] but creator disagreed and made a new split, adding in additional information taken from the Gantz wiki and the images. Note, article has frequently been tagged for various issues ("owner" quickly removes any tags), and was prodded in October, but again the creator removed that as well under the claim of "I disagree. Post your reasons on the talk page and we'll discuse it though. A series with millions of fans will have a list of things in it, just as other popular series have." -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 11:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apparent hoax chart. No sources, and I can't find a trace of this anywhere. —Kww(talk) 04:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 11:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does not appear to be notable. Only refs are from apperently self-published sources and google doesn't turn up anything better. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 03:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Both sources are from myspace and google only turns up 100 hits and change ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 03:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 11:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC and general biographical guidelines. JBsupreme (talk) 03:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Receptionist. MBisanz talk 03:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is, and has been, a strange entry and my rationale for putting it up for AfD is not as clear cut and policy based as it would normally be. I prodded this some time back and it was deleted, then I noticed it was recreated so I prodded it again and the prod was removed after a source was added.
The main argument I have here which I hate to fall back on is that this is in some way "unencyclopedic." For one thing the real title should be "hotel front desk" which really should not be an article (maybe a section of the article on hotels). Because of course there are all kind of places that have "front desks" in a manner of speaking though they are often called something different like a "reception desk" (which redirects to receptionist).
To me this would be like having an article on "restaurant dishwashing area" since that is an aspect of restaurants and presumably there are some things out there written about it (I could tell y'all some stories from my high school days!). Or we could have an article on "circulation department" (for a library) or "counselor's office" (for a school) or "receiving committee" (for the huge food co-op of which I am a member)—all of which are departments or offices unique to a particular industry or business. But I just don't think we want that kind of thing in this encyclopedia, though admittedly I can't cite a policy on that offhand (WP:NODEPARTMENTS?).
If there's a creative way to turn this into a viable article then fine, but otherwise I think it's going to look like it does now, i.e. more like a job description you get when you go in for an interview. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Article about an online game that is about to shut down. No assertion of notability, and no available data on Alexa. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 02:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
not notable; fails WP:FICTION. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 02:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was 'delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Likely hoax. Google yields zero hits both for current title [66] and Cyrillic version [67] M0RD00R (talk) 22:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted as an expired WP:PROD, restored per request. — Aitias // discussion 19:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:NOTABILITY. Iamawesome800 Talk 01:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep: plays (or played) for a fully professional team, exactly what WP:ATHLETE requires. Ironholds (talk) 02:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC) Delete per comments below. Ironholds (talk) 21:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 11:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced future single, not one source to back it up. Most certainly a hoax. See also WP:Articles for deletion/Hotness (album), the alleged album this song is part of. Fails WP:V, WP:NSONGS. PROD declined. Amalthea 15:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
^DELETE-It fails to agree with WP:MUSIC # Songs as JBsupreme says. It is also not notable enough to stand alone in one article. Kikkokalabud (talk) 03:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 03:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No appearances in professional competition, although his is a professional sport. Fails WP:ATHLETE and principles established at WP:FOOTY, and although there are some references, they are from his university and his club, for whom he has not yet played: these do not seem sufficiently independent to establish notability. Kevin McE (talk) 01:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through and cleaned up the article and made it fit into the footballer template before reading this. The young man is notable and will play for his club when the season begins. American footballers should be considered differently because of the structure of the college game/youth clubs in my opinion. There is nothing that presumes he won't be a professional as he is now about to sign his first contract. Morry32 (talk) 02:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:V and WP:N, non-notable open source project that is no longer actively developed according to the official website. Based entirely on original research; a quick scan through Google News Archive returns absolutely nothing. The second half is clearly vanity; the last person to edit prior to this AFD was this Greg "Oracle" Copeland guy mentioned many times in the article. I know he's a Battle for Wesnoth developer, but notability is not inherited. Tuxide (talk) 04:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 03:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article seems useless - it's bascially a summary of a single video game mode and seems more like an FAQ than an encyclopedia article. WP:Not a game guide? ZXCVBNM 01:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Magioladitis (talk) 14:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy tag removed by an IP. Real-estate company with no assertion of notability, one employee. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 01:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 11:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Spam. Article created by an spa who repeatedly spams the company on the Wheelchair ramp page, removes the notability and refimprove tags from the article, and refuses to discuss, or to provide, reliable sources. AnyPerson (talk) 00:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unable to find a single review from an independent reliable source (there is one from the channel that aired the film). IMDB cites no reviews or awards. Searching in Google finds nothing more than mentions of viewing schedules with the occasional plot snippet from press release summaries. I originally tagged this article three months ago hoping that there would be some sources identified. But unfortunately there aren't. Bongomatic 05:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 11:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced list of nonnotable objects in Artemis Fowl. I see no potential for expansion, as this topic is not covered in third party sources - in other words, it's not notable. Bsimmons666 (talk) 00:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Arina Tanemura. MBisanz talk 03:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unnotable manga series of unknown length that fails WP:BK. Series has only just started serialization this month with only two chapters publisher. First volume released. Obviously no notability whatsoever. Prod was removed with reason that author's other works have articles (not a valid reason to keep per BK). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable video game. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 11:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep - Per Zachary crimsonwolf. Livna-Maor (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 04:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 04:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Subject does not meet the notability criteria for politicians. —Snigbrook 17:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
nn unreferenced article also fails wp:bio Oo7565 (talk) 18:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 03:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Article is about a non-notable magazine. Just began publishing in 2008. No reliable sources provided, none found beyond blogs and forum posts. No bias against recreation once magazine is more established and better covered in reliable sources. TN‑X-Man 20:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 04:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable local councillor who fails WP:POLITICIAN as he has not been elected to any national or regional office. Being related to someone famous is not sufficient grounds for inclusion. Valenciano (talk) 21:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 04:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable local councillor who fails WP:POLITICIAN. Just being related to someone does not confer notability. Valenciano (talk) 21:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
no evidence of multiple significant roles in notable productions WP:ENTERTAINER. lacks coverage in independent reliable sources, only non trivial independent source appears to be this one WP:N. also note that primary editor is User:Mrspeed who may be Benjamin Speed, partner of Horne WP:COI. Duffbeerforme (talk) 11:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Running of the Santas
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 04:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability concerns - lack of significant coverage independent of the subject in reliable sources. After excluding facebook, I only found a single reliable source, and that was a trivial mention. PhilKnight (talk) 17:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]