< 22 October | 24 October > |
---|
The result was A7 Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet WP:BAND. Evil saltine (talk) 22:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Insufficient reliable and independent sources are available to demonstrate notability ~ mazca talk 00:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability, no refs, and reads like an Ad. Making parts for certain notable car makers doesn't make you notable IMO. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 22:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Insufficient evidence of notability per WP:CORP. ~ mazca talk 00:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Does not meet WP:CORP. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 22:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probable hoax. PubMed returns no results for "Pseudolina". Google returns few results, none about an herb. Almost wanted to speedy, but wanted to be completely sure. Evil saltine (talk) 22:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. There is a strong consensus here that this album has demonstrated sufficient notability, both through multiple reliable-source reviews and the general notability of the band. ~ mazca talk 00:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet notability guidelines wp:note Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 22:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 22:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NEO created by the author; WP:OR. I42 (talk) 21:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 21:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a research project to catalog mathematical objects called polychora. The notability of the objects themselves is not disputed but project is not notable in that it involves only a few people and the article does not list any third party mention of it, nor did a web search produce any such evidence of notability. There is some general information in the article but this is already contained in Uniform polychoron.
I agree on delete - I'm in contact with the participants, but existence itself is not notable. It makes no sense to have this poorly written article about it on Wikipedia. Tom Ruen (talk) 21:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete. Blog's "Chart" is not notable. Esanchez(Talk 2 me or Sign here) 23:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable list of records from the authors blog. Prod removed with no explanation Malcolma (talk) 21:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. I'm in the uncomfortable position of having to delete an article in the face of a substantial "keep" majority. But Whoosit is exactly right: this man may very well be notable, but as long as even the essentials of his biography are not verifiable (and they don't seem to be; the stub article is "sourced" only to an Amazon search results page) this WP:BLP must go. It may be restored as soon as a decently reliable biography of Mr. Mayo is found. Sandstein 22:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Previously deleted at Herbert Buddy Mayo as nonsense/attack. This version is better, but it still is dubious. G4 hangon'd, but after talking to an admin on MSN I (begrudgingly) agreed it was not G4. Author explained "The persons editing this page believe that Dr. Mayo belongs on the TCNJ Wikipedia page, under sub-heading "Notable Faculty", for he has had much to give back to the college, not including donating a generous amount to the school's Music Department to help renovate a concert hall" which I think is tenuous. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Sorry to be the doofus here, and please don't take this in the wrong way, but I could not find biographical references for this man. There's this [15] but that's all. Yes, his name is on a lot textbooks. But there is nothing written about the man himself. Can you guys explain to me how some author credits on Amazon.com and an email address on a college website pass muster for reliably-sourced material? There's simply not enough info available to properly source even this three line stub bio. --Whoosit (talk) 16:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Insufficient reliable source coverage to demonstrate notability. ~ mazca talk 00:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 21:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! Why delete? This is for hobby programmers. There should be article about free open source software for microcontrollers.
Keep: I just needed to find information on this language and the page is here, had it not been I'd have been left looking, okay I'm a very small sample but I doubt I'm the only one Hideki (talk) 15:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 22:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not able to find notability requirements for beauty pageant winners, but I don't think she is notable. Removed a gallery of copyvios, no references to establish any sort of notability, claim to fame is a win at a Russian beauty pageant. Says she "became the finalist of Miss Russia 2009", but appears to be representing Russia despite the loss in the Miss International 2009. I don't know. Maybe winning that will make her notable, but she's not there yet. Lara 20:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I placed this article because she is a contestant of the beauty pageant that soon will be held. The Internet don't have more detailed information about her, so this article may be useful for people who watch this pageant. I agree the information will be unuseful if she will not win. But now it is not right. User talk:Djyys 14:44 26 October 2009 (UTC)
What about this pages?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linda_Wikstedt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monica_Pastrana
They are also only contestants of the pageant User talk:Djyys 14:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Black Kite 11:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
reads like an advert and review of a product, insufficient references RJFJR (talk) 20:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Sandstein 22:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clear case of WP:ONEEVENT, and WP:NOTNEWS also applies. This individual apparently committed a number of unusual sexual assaults in the 1960s and 1970s. These crimes received some local news coverage. There is also a claim that a song and a film were inspired by them, but no sources are provided for these assertions. The only sources cited are local newspapers. There isn't enough material here for an article, certainly not a BLP. *** Crotalus *** 20:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 22:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
article does not cite notability. UltraMagnusspeak 19:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 22:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A non-notable declined copyvio speedy that consists of a listing various theories used in certain fields. Each sub-list is apparently a copy/paste from various places on the web (most of which aren't compatible with BY-CC-SA). Aside from the apparent copyright issues, this would appear to be violating WP:NOTDIR, as it just is a "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics". Bfigura (talk) 18:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. And redirect to Constantine I#Sickness and death for good measure. Sandstein 07:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No reason to have this as a separate article, re-stating info that is included, with far better context, in the main article on Constantine I. Constantine ✍ 18:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. NW (Talk) 01:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Blatant advertisement, including full street address. No assertion of notability beyond a list of musical acts who've performed at the club. King Öomie 18:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Long article on Canadian band, but nothing in it shows that the band meets WP:MUSIC. Prod tag removed without explanation. No reliable independent sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 11:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually yesterday this article was deleted, I removed the prod tag and I did include an explanation and then got the article proof read by User:RepublicanJacobite and given the OK. To summarize, I took an existing approved article on prog band thor (band) and changed citations and refs. The bottom line is that this article on empyria is by me user:empyria not affiliated to the band except that I know them. It has the same number of external citations and refs as the existing thor (band) article. I cite AMG and rockdetector as well as a discography. 2 of the founders of Empyria also play in thor (band). So if you feel this article should be deleted, please explain what makes thor (band) noteworthy of keeping or what I have failed to comply with in WP:MUSIC or what is the purpose of getting someone to proof read the article only for you to delete it. I cannot find the consistency in the logic Empyria (talk) 16:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that it initially fell under a Wikipedia:Other stuff exists argument, you will see Duffbeerforme that I have added a bio ref (ref 4), 4 refs to a known book (ref 2), a radio interview on national radio with the band (3rd link), members of the band also play in other notable bands (KF with Warjunk, PL supported Nickleback, April Wine and Colin James). They are distributed via Nightmare Records (U.S)., Scrape Records (Canada), and Sanctuary Music (Germany) and appear in BW&BK (Canada), Heavy Oder Was?!! (Germany), Sea Of Tranquility (U.S.), Burrn! (Japan ) publications. And in answer to Epeefleche - it would be WP:BAND criteria 1, 4, 5 and 12 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil1001 (talk • contribs) 07:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC) — Phil1001 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Wow user:Duffbeerforme cut some slack here... I understood that the idea of the Wiki was to contribute and add articles of interest, maybe not to everyones taste, the articles need to obviously be factual and unbiased and provide information.
I was asked to cite sources, I used Rockdetector, Allmusic (AMG) and last.fm - these are well used sources and appear both throughout and themselves in the Wiki which implies they are valid as citations although you have yet to be convinced, otherwise we need to perform a delete on all bands that use them as a citation and then remove their own wiki entries.
Furthermore a reliable source is relative, for a Genesis fan we might have a 700,000 articles - but for a small unknown offshoot of a genre we may only have 1,000 articles - so should this source be discarded?
You will see that 2 members of Empyria have gone on International tours with Thor (USA and Canada) this falls under the provision of WP:Band and members who are/were touring artists.
Empyria was interviewed and broadcast on the Drive FM, part of the Jim Pattison Group (National).
Albums have been released on Nightmare Records Inc (notable Indie) and distributed via Sanctuary Records (Iron Maiden's ex-Management group).
Under the Empyria notability tree see WP:MUSICNN
I am sure it is not supposed to be this hard to add an entry and that as long as the information is correct and unbiased it should be kept. Phil1001 (talk) 23:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK - deep breath.
Focusing on WP:BAND criteria
Phil1001 (talk) 02:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Expansion on what appears in Sharpe-Young Garry(2003) for Duffbeerforme
Phil1001 (talk) 22:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge and redirect since no one else could be bothered. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Par WP:BLP1E Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 17:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Inappropriate attempt for a bio (G10 / G3) Tikiwont (talk) 18:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Herbert Buddy Mayo does appear to exist, as a professor at the College of New Jersey. However, I can't find any sources confirming that he brought the United States out of the Great Depression, or that he is a person who would meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for academics. Prod removed without comment or improvement by creator. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. henrik•talk 11:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable per WP:COMPANY, borderline WP:SPAM, no significant coverage online in WP:RS. MuffledThud (talk) 17:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Content trimmed and reworked. All but one PR Web source is replaced. New sources showcase ligitimacy of Aspen Dental overall. Still working to learn. ~~BusinessBios~~ 09:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BusinessBios (talk • contribs)
The result was keep. Sandstein 22:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Only mentioned at this page. There is another "Levicar" here however it fails WP:SPS and is unrelated to this Ford version. [Belinrahs|talktome⁄ ididit] 17:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 21:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet notability guidelines, notable only for a single event RadioFan (talk) 17:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JamieS93 17:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maximalist and almost certainly COI article about a minimalist composer. Is he notable? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as a G11, unambiguous advertising. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as purely promotional and provides no references for notability. A little insignificant Talk to me! (I have candy!) 16:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. NW (Talk) 17:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable local enterprise lacking GHits of substance and with no GNEWS. Appears to fail WP:COMPANY. ttonyb (talk) 16:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. NW (Talk) 17:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
City council is not considered notable per se. Student7 (talk) 15:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to fail WP:POLITICIAN, as there is no significant press coverage. If some is found, please disregard this !vote. Sodam Yat (talk) 16:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus and defaulting to keep. There have been a series of related AFDs on other Black Spring prisoners, and they all have a similar result. I do find the argument set forth by the "keep" side more well-thought out, since they relate to the sourcing and international attention, rather than a quick reference to a policy. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability tied to just one event. Damiens.rf 15:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus and defaulting to keep. There have been a series of related AFDs on other Black Spring prisoners, and they all have a similar result. I do find the argument set forth by the "keep" side more well-thought out, since they relate to the sourcing and international attention, rather than a quick reference to a policy. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability tied to just one event. Damiens.rf 15:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus and defaulting to keep. There have been a series of related AFDs on other Black Spring prisoners, and they all have a similar result. I do find the argument set forth by the "keep" side more well-thought out, since they relate to the sourcing and international attention, rather than a quick reference to a policy. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability tied to just one event. Damiens.rf 15:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus and defaulting to keep. There have been a series of related AFDs on other Black Spring prisoners, and they all have a similar result. I do find the argument set forth by the "keep" side more well-thought out, since they relate to the sourcing and international attention, rather than a quick reference to a policy. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability tied to just one event. Damiens.rf 15:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Black Kite 19:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability tied to just one event. Damiens.rf 15:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The "keeps" are pretty tentative and the lvele of professionalism is in dispute - I'll happily undelete this page if RS can be found Fritzpoll (talk) 15:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Subject is non-notable. His only activity of notability is being a participant in the reality show The Ultimate Fighter 7 which he lost in the first round. Justastud15 (talk) 03:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. This is a duplicated article, and no useful rationale for merge has been given by any of the people supporting that outcome - this offers no new information that is not already included in Golok, and is not a likely search term. ~ mazca talk 10:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Copies text directly from Golok, and it doesn't make sense to use this particular article title as a redirect to Golok, either. Spring Rubber (talk) 10:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Golok.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 18:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a POV fork from energy superpower, it also contains original research, including the name of the article which is a neologism. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 22:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Icewedge (talk) 06:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See prior discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Millionaires (band). Cirt (talk) 19:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 22:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I nominate this article for deletion on the grounds it is extremely biased and the whole concept relies solely on one article written by a barely notable journalist. Freikorp (talk) 10:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 08:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article makes several claims to notability but fails to provide sources. I've only been able to locate the one from DailyCandy, an email newsletter. Conclude that he fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Favonian (talk) 08:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted (G3) by tedder (talk · contribs). –Katerenka ☆ 05:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
i cannot find anything about this release with help of google, discogs or amazon. i've also never heard of this release before. there are no references that show the existence of this release - SMESH (talk) 13:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Kevin (talk) 21:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Subject is non-notable. His only activity of notability is being a participant in the reality show The Ultimate Fighter: Heavyweights which he lost in the first round. Justastud15 (talk) 03:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. For, I think, fairly obvious reasons. Black Kite 19:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a cookoff with no assertion of notability nor reliable sources. Given that the the list of winners seem to have mostly the same last name I'm not convinced that it's anything other than a private family thing. While that's all well and good that doesn't fulfill Wikipedia's notability standards. TheLetterM (talk) 14:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Keep in some form, that is; whether and where to it should be moved or merged is not clear from this discussion and remains an editorial decision to be taken. But there's consensus that the general subject of flower pots (however spelled) is a fit subject for an encyclopedia article. Sandstein 17:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am proposing we delete this page as it is a non-term. I have never seen the term written without a space and is hence a non-specific adjective attached to a noun. The term is hence nonsearchable. Not much shows up on google either. Given this, the mere existence of the page's name is in some way Original Research. Some material could be salvaged but it needn't be at this article. A possible alternative is a new article at pot plant, which is currently a redirect to houseplant (although I don't view them as synonymous). Anyway, let's see what y'all think. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Sandstein 17:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find significant coverage for this band. Their albums Home Is Where The Hate Is and Nothing new since Rock 'n' Roll are part of this nomination. The previous AFD is here. Joe Chill (talk) 01:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Userfy to User:Fergananim/Fathadh mac Aonghus. so that it can be re-created if further claims to notability can be found Black Kite 11:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is barely asserted, and the main hint of an assertion of notability is though descendants. Notability is not inherited. Furthermore, the article itself states "he would be unremarkable were he not the purported ancestor to the Ó Fathaigh/Fahy family" but the linked town simply mentions that Fahy can be a surname as well. No prejudice against the fact that the name is red-linked; we are building an encyclopedia here, but when the assertion is that he is purported to be the ancestor of a red-linked family name, and there is no other claim to notability...I don't think our notability guidelines are being met. Frank | talk 13:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. SNOW close--clearly non-notable--if it were a bio, it would be CSD A7 DGG ( talk ) 02:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable neologism (possibly WP:MADEUP), no occurence in the web (besides wikipedia-related), I could not verify the existence of the sources (and the article seems to have been deleted via prod before) Antipastor (talk) 13:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to List of Air Training Corps squadrons#East Cheshire & South Manchester. Black Kite 19:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cadet units are not notable in their own right, it has been proded and changed to redirect in the past but it has been recreated. MilborneOne (talk) 12:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was AfD is probably not the right forum for this. I have closed it as merge to Thai pepper so that further discussion can take place as to whether these actually are the same thing. If it can be proved that they're not, then no merge need take place. Black Kite 19:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article was originally created as a redirect by User:Exec8 as a redirect to Thai pepper and nothing else. User:Lambanog expanded the article. Literally speaking, (as what the Siling labuyo lead wants to say), siling labuyo is Filipino term for Thai pepper. They belong to the same specie (both are Capsicum frutescens, and the C. frutescens article says that they are only one). Bird's eye chilies link on the lead was modified so it is ambiguous that it points to Thai pepper. Thai pepper common names section claims that siling labuyo is the Filipino term for the chili.
According to Lambanog, it is justifiable to create a separate article featuring Siling labuyo in Wikipedia because it is uncertain to taxonomist whether labuyo and Thai pepper (again, the union--they are translations of each other.) is under C. frutescens or not, but he did not cite any sources (C. frutescens article did not mention any disagreements). Finally, paraphrasing the last statement in the talk page: is that it is justifiable to create siling labuyo page because the Thai pepper article is a mess.
I add this to AFD because former PROD nomination was deleted by Lambanog without addressing any concerns.
If ever this article won't deleted, I suggest merging this to Thai pepper, especially that Siling labuyo is Filipino term (not Filipino version nor variant) of it. JL 09 q?c 12:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Non-notable - as nearly every university team in the UK would be. Black Kite 19:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable amateur football team - plays outside national pyramid in intra-university competitions. Dancarney (talk) 11:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Superficially impressive if mostly unsourced, but reading more closely nothing that approaches WP:MUSIC is here - one section admits that his group performed at "casinos and corporate functions" and being a backing musician for a blue-linked performer who appears barely notable themselves doesn't clear the bar either. Black Kite 19:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No links to establish notablity RandomTime 10:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Fairly straghtforwardly fails WP:WEB Black Kite 19:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A article about website without any assertions of notability. Provides no sources or references - and I can't find any. Not mentioned in any books or news. Only 340 google hits gives a additional clue that this site is hardly notable. GreyCat (talk) 09:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Sandstein 17:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:N. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus, and defaulting to keep, though I note the concerns of Smerdis of Tlön regarding the writing style of the article. In terms of "vote count" I am seeing 2-2 (it is unclear if the nominator Ged UK is arguing for deletion, but the statement makes it look like an office job rather than a call for deletion), and I need to evaluate the arguments somewhat. DustFormsWords' argument about the software being a run-of-the-mill product, with no assertion of notability does not cover the awards the product has received, and which Joe Chill's link appears to confirm. The lack of coverage noted by Smerdis of Tlön also appears to be somewhat due to the incorrect spelling ("ProjektronBCS" rather than "Projektron BCS"), as noted by Chris Johnson. Since independent coverage on the topic has been presented, which refutes part of the deletion arguments, I cannot read a consensus to delete here, but I cannot rule out this being revisited in the future. I will also move the article so that the title reflects the sources covering it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy earlier declined as software. Article then PRODded, which was contested via the talk page (and a hangon tag). Thus bringing to AfD for decision. GedUK 07:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus.
Given the contentious topic, the various comments about either the article's contents or this nomination for deletion being intended to push a particular political point of view may well be right, but they are immaterial to the AfD closure, which works by assessing consensus by weighing the comments submitted in the light of applicable policies and guidelines (notably WP:V and WP:N).
Since WP:V is a non-negotiable core policy, the article would need to be deleted if no references to reliable sources are provided to verify the existence of the subject. The references now provided in the article, which go to what seem to be websites not meeting WP:RS, fall short of this, as do the hand-waving references to WP:GHITS. But SmokeyJoe has provided a link to a published book, with an ISBN, that has the subject as its title. The concept of "Northern Artsakh" as a region is therefore verifiable and the article escapes mandatory deletion.
This leaves me to determine whether there is consensus that this source is not, in fact, reliable; or that there are other policy-based arguments for deletion. I find that this is not the case. The clearly on-topic source provided by SmokeyJoe is not addressed by any other contributor, and neither is the issue of notability or any other inclusion criterium. As I've already mentioned, the various opinions alleging political motivations, but providing no policy-based rationale for retention or deletion, are discounted. This leaves us with no consensus for or against inclusion, and accordingly the article is kept by default. Sandstein 16:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This page was kept on 29 July 2009 as no consensus (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northern Artsakh). Since then no sources have been provided, the article still remains an original research. According to WP:V: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it". Moreover, the article creator repeatedly tried to remove the tags from the page without any explanation, which does not appear to be a good faith attempt at resolving the problems with this article: [33] [34] [35] (User:Wikistreet is the same person as User:Elegant's, he changed his name in the Russian wiki). It is also worth to note that this page was deleted from the Russian wikipedia, where it was originally created. Grandmaster 06:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Black Kite 19:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article was deleted by myself after a previous AFD for poor sourcing and further sources have been provided to me. They are non-english, but that's not relevant and the provider had written a short summary to allow us to understand them. I'm satisfied that we should consider the sources but I don't think it is my right to set aside the previous AFD without allowing further discussion by the community. Therefore a procedural relisting to garner opinion on the sources provided. As the closing admin of the previous discussion I add no opinion on the outcome of this one. Spartaz Humbug! 06:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me like people want to delete this article because Mr. Malagurski won awards for his student films in the past. So what if he made student films in the past? Lots of people make student films and never make it in a single newspaper, TV channel or film festival. This guy is considered very notable in the Balkans, his work was shown on television, newspapers wrote about him and he was interviewed a bunch of times: *Literárky V Síti, Ministry for Kosovo of the Republic of Serbia, Novinar, Czech Free Press, Bas Biber, Radio Television Vojvodina, International Radio Serbia, Novine, The Diocese of Ras-Prizren and Kosovo and Metohija, Georgia Straight, Edmonton Journal, etc. etc. This guy definitely passes WP:CREATIVE, maybe not with flying colors, but enough to have a page on Wikipedia. Keep this page. --Bolonium (talk) 18:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
appears to be just a defunct myspace band. Is an allmusic entry sufficent testament to notability? precious few Ghits for 'Ligeia band'. Also nominating Bad News (Ligeia album) Ohconfucius ¡digame! 06:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)|cat=m))[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unsure if this is an article about a class of companies or a group of companies or whatever, but as of now this seems to be a sneaky way to insert links to the website of several companies. I don't know what's best to do with this one. Nominating to generate discussion. I'm leaning towards delete for now, but I'm also open to other suggestions. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 05:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Makes some pretty bold claims of importance, but I'm not really finding anything online to back them up. Parts are close paraphrase of his myspace, but considering it is almost certainly an auto-bio I wouldn't consider it to be a copy vio. ThaddeusB (talk) 05:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Black Kite 19:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is effectively a guide to instruments in the game, and violates WP:NOT#GUIDE and WP:GAMEGUIDE. Examples or family classifications can be outlined in the main article, but need not list all. MASEM (t) 04:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Practically no coverage, almost all unsourced and makes little claim on WP:N. Black Kite 19:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Makes no claim to notability at all and lacks third party sources. Was previously deleted via a PROD under Impact Pro Wrestling (New Zealand) hence the AfD on this occasion. It's sister promotion Impact Pro Wrestling (Australia) was deleted via AfD. Badly fails WP:ORG !! Justa Punk !! 03:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORG. The sources used are not reliable third party sources due to the small size of the industry in New Zealand (only three feds it appears). There needs to be wider coverage provided. The fact that it exists is irrelevant like Nikki said. It must pass WP:N as well as WP:ORG and at present it doesn't. RICK ME DOODLE YOU DOODLE 06:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No need for a disambiguation page when no articles by its title exist. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lo dicono a Signa. 17:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. henrik•talk 11:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Technical nomination only. AfD tag was added by an IP who couldn't create the discussion. Eastmain (talk) 03:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Material already covered completely in other articles; physics is okay, but most cites are to a quack theory book SBHarris 01:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep and change to title to include verified.--Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from the fact that this is technically a list of verified supercentenarians who died in 2009, and not a list of anyone who claimed to be 110+ who died in 2009, I believe that this list violates WP:SAL, which requires that lists of people are selected for notability. Many of these individuals have little-to-no non-trivial coverage about them, aside from the occasional local news stories, and those that are notable have the same amount of information available on them on this page as they would on any of the pages located at Template:Longevity. Cheers, CP 23:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, it should be mentioned that supercentenarians are extremely rare, much rarer than, for example, 'actors' or 'college football players.'Ryoung122 20:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep How is this any different from the other lists of supercentenarians who died a certain year? Longevitydude (talk) 21:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If we delete this, then we should delete all the other lists of people who died, how does this fail Template:Longevity or anything else you mentioned, there is no good reason for this afd, I think the real deal here is that CP just doesnt like articles on old people, I ask once more, KEEP THE ARTICLE!!!!!!!! Longevitydude (talk) 21:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We shouldnt delete this article, a lot of people like it. Longevitydude (talk) 02:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How is this list any different from all the other lists? If you delete this, youll hava to delete all the other lists of supercentenarians who died in a certain year as well as anything else that lists dead people, and any other list in general for that matter. Longevitydude (talk) 19:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but living to be a supercentenarian is very notable, not very many people accomplish such an amazing feat. Longevitydude (talk) 17:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just because there are some who accomplish something aren't notable doesn't mean that the accomplishment isn't notable. Just because not all of the supercentenarians are notable doesn't mean being a supercentenarian isn't notable.Think of actors, for example, not all of them are notable enough for articles, but isn't being an actor still notable? The point I'm trying to make is that something can be notable even if there are some who accomplish it that aren't notable, you say most supercentenarians aren't notable, well not all longevity claims or myths are notable, but that doesn't mean longevity claims and longevity myths aren't notable. I hope you understand by now that even though most supercentenarians aren't notable doesn't mean supercentenarians aren't notable.The list of examples are endless, but one thing they have in common is that even though most who accomplish them aren't notable, the subject itself is still notable. Longevitydude (talk) 21:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Listed for 14 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough participation to determine consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable website can't find sig. news coverage. references itself and another non notable site. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. No arguments to keep - treating as an uncontested PROD Kevin (talk) 01:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A PROD tag was removed without discernable improvement or the provision of any reliable sources. There is some claim of notability but the cited website for the Prince's Trust contains no entry for the word "Herkomer"; similar searches revealed nothing that would clarify the notability of this individual. Of course one does not inherit notability from one's ancestors. Accounting4Taste:talk 00:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 12:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NOTE, violates WP:NOR, cites other Wikipedia articles, and basically all around reads like a POV homemade family website, which is to be expected due to conflict of interest. Cirt (talk) 00:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolution of the Senate of Puerto Rico #3603 Reference: In spanish PDF. Thank you- Antonio Martin (talk) 01:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Antonio Martin (talk) 02:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It should not be diffcult to understand that a former head of state, former President of the United States Bill Clinton, New York State Senator Hilary Clinton (a presidential candidate at the time) and the President of the Puerto Rican Senate would not pose with my father for an official photograph, unless he were notable. Thank you Antonio Martin (talk) 04:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. Resolution of the Senate of Puerto Rico #3603 Image:2Resolution 3603.jpg an important honor bestowed upon him in 2007, by the Government of Puerto Rico, making him the first known person to be honored by a government for his work in "Wikipedia" File:Tony with Representatives2.jpg. He is notable enough to have been included in a Memorial Day speech made by the President of the Puerto Rican Senate and transmitted by radio stating how through Wikipedia he helped in identifying various soldiers of Puerto Rican descent whose names were to be inscribed in “The Monument of Rememberance” File:Discurso del Senado.jpg.
2. He is notable enough to have been once again included in the 2008, Memorial Day Speech by the government File:Memorial Day (2008) Speech.jpg, to be presented an award this time by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Honorable Jose Aponte File:Apnote, Tony and McClintock.jpg and important enough for the former President of the United States Bill Clinton and family to take an official photo with him during his tribute in the State Capital File:Tony and Clintons2.jpg.
3. He is notable enough to be referred to in speech by a member of the "United States Congress", Congressman Luis Fortuno File:Speech by Luis Fortuno.jpg.
4. To receive a United States Marine Corps Unofficial Letter of appreciation for his work in Wikipedia File:USMC_Letter.jpg.
5. And to be awarded the Joint Task Force Commander's Coin File:Joint Task Force Commander's Coin for Excellence.jpg and Certificate for Excellence File:Certificate JTF Guantanamo.jpg by the Deputy Commander of the Joint Task Force Guantanamo, which is an impact award given by the Joint Task Force Commander to those soldiers and civilians he deems worthy of immediate recognition. [57]
He did not seek these recognitions, which were bestowed upon him before I wrote his article. However, I did so because I truly believe that he is notable and the newspapers, photographs and documents which I have provided should serve as proof to that fact. As Dark stated above: if minor porn stars from Japan have wikipedia articles, I do certainly think Tony Santiago should be covered by the encyclopedia.. Comparing the notability of a porn star to this is completely bewildering. Thank you, Antonio Martin (talk) 09:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, yes Cyclopia, I totally agree with you. If the article is kept I will stay out of it and request that my father do the same, thereby eliminating the COI issue. I will keep a watch for any vandalism which may come up, and handle it just as I would any other article. Antonio Martin (talk) 21:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for one.
The Resolution bestowed upon the subject by the Government of Puerto Rico is a notable award and recognition which required the approval by vote of the majority of the members of said legislative organization and is not given to just anyone. The section "Resuelvese Por El Senado De Puerto Rico" states the following: "1. The Senate of Puerto Rico would like to express it's recognition and appreciation of Mr. Antonio Santiago for his disinterested dedication to the cause of informing, through the news means of electronics, information in regard to distinguished Puerto Ricans, particularly those who served with distinction in our military."
2. Sources
The resolution document Image:2Resolution 3603.jpg is a secondary source and not a primary source because it is not a document created by such a person (subject). Plus, the following is a newspaper source written by someone not related to the subject. "Phoenix Republic" - Author details contributions of Puerto Ricans, by Alison Stanton.
His recognition's came about as a result of being a "Wikipedian" and should serve as an inspiration to us all that our work here does make a difference. I mean, just think about this for a moment, how many "Wikipedians" have been honored and received an important award by a government or whatever for his/her work in Wikipedia? Antonio Martin (talk) 00:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 18:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article about a nonnotable organization which fails WP:ORG as it has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources, nor has it made a significant impact in the corporate world. My searches for information to evidence notability led me mostly to Wikipedia mirrors and other non-reliable sources. ThemFromSpace 05:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. No arguments to keep - treating as an uncontested PROD Kevin (talk) 08:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Subject seems to fail WP:ENT. Career basically consists of bit parts with only one credited role (which was very small). <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 23:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
“ | Tanya Chisholm is a notable American actor. Chisholm's credits include parts in Disney's High School Musical and Cory in the House.
Her part in the High School Musical franchise was as Jackie, the lead "Sharpette". |
” |
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 18:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: this is not my AFD, I'm good-faith submitting it for the IP who wanted it.
Fails criteria for music singles. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 20:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC) tedder (talk) 17:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 08:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apparent neologism, cannot find reliable sources to establish notability of this outside of Mr. Urban. tedder (talk) 21:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. No, not a neologism. Over 5800 hits on Google. While the article is far too centered on this Prof. Urban, it is definitely a new concept in marketing. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Kevin (talk) 08:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:GNG \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 21:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find significant coverage for this album. Joe Chill (talk) 21:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find significant coverage for this album. Joe Chill (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence to verify degree of this "influential" band. Had one notable member (not two as required at WP:BAND). Various google searches ([62], [63], [64]) yield nothing relevant that isn't MySpace, Wikipedia or websites with dubious verifiability or [[WP:|RS|reliability]]. Nothing to suggest this band was influential. Fribbulus Xax (talk) 23:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Pat Pantano. The assertion of being influential does not appear to be supported. IOf they really were influential, I would expect there to be documentation of it in news articles or music books discussing the 80's. I can find no such sources. As such a merge is appropriate to the only member of the band that has an article. -- Whpq (talk) 16:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]