The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No indication of notability. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 23:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. — H3llkn0wz ▎talk 23:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Boldly redirected Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Individually non-notable Beanie Baby. Very short article, no sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to The Fame Monster. Merge can be made at editorial discretion. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this should actually be a redirect to The Fame Monster but my attempt to make that happen was reverted without discussion, which is why I'm taking this route. My understanding of WP:NALBUMS indicates that since this song has not charted, won a significant award or been performed by several notable artists, and since there is not enough verifiable material material to warrant a reasonably detailed article, this song should redirect to the album on which it appears. The single useful citation is one where the artist explains the meaning of the song on the MTV site and I believe this article is unlikely to grow beyond the stub that would be in place if the original research, unreferenced speculation, etc., is all edited out. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Autobiography of an amateur figure skater (see Adult figure skating for explanations) who organized a benefit in New York. Does not meet WP:BIO. References are either from M. David's website or about the benefit. Pichpich (talk) 22:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete per G3 (hoax) by JzG (talk · contribs). Non-administrative closing —Farix (t | c) 13:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Poorly written fancruft. Not notable outside existing Sode_no_shirayuki#Abilities. — H3llkn0wz ▎talk 22:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Milwaukee Brewers minor league players. Jayjg (talk) 00:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Prod removed but I'm still unsure. Lexis has tons of hits but they are either from his signing (along with all the other players signed) or trivial mentions from individual games. I still don't think that a member of the class-A ballclub passes WP:ATHLETE. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For Okip's sake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.172.199.187 (talk • contribs)
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Conflict of Interest -- Author of FASMLIB Wikipedia page is author of FASMLIB itself -- Wikipedia User Vid512 is Martin Mocko aka. vid. SpooK (talk) 21:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Desperately needs external validation. In current state appears to be nothing more than an advert. I can't even work out from the article exactly what it is supposed to be about. In my opinion it has no contribution to Wikipedia. Jonathan McLeod (talk) 21:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 23:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:ATH - Malawi league isn't as far as I can find out fully professional - he may also fail WP:GNG - can't find a lot of sources by a look around. Steve-Ho (talk) 21:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Jayjg (talk) 00:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Local Mayor - may not meet the notability requirements. I'd like the community's input on this. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to List of Ty Beanie Babies. Scott Mac (Doc) 21:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No qualification for what makes an individual Beanie Baby "special." Also a vandalism target as people keep adding some unverifiable entry on a mongoose Beanie Baby having a (funny but) "mean poem," for which I've found absolutely no verification. Son of a nutcracker, that "mean poem" for Runner actually exists.
Not to mention that there is only one source on the whole article and a large whack of OR. The few that can be verified (e.g. that super-expensive Peanut the Elephant) can be selectively merged to the main Beanie Baby article, which is itself a mess. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Withdrawn by nom. Sources added demonstrate notability. Non admin closure. Szzuk (talk) 07:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a non notable art organisation. There are two references in the article both offer trivial mentions. Szzuk (talk) 20:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC). Withdrawn. I'm withdrawing the afd nomination. The sources added since the afd demonstrate notability. Szzuk (talk) 07:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete - CSD G10. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be self-published information about a non-notable person. EuroPride (talk) 20:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Consensus is that clear evidence of notability does not exist. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can find very little evidence of notability for this individual. He is the president of a Canadian outfit called Friends of Science but appears to have no independent notability. There is a bare handful of mentions of him in Google News' archives [6] but he otherwise seems to have attracted little public attention. This biography is a stub, linked from only one other article in article space, with only one source and no references to indicate that he has any notability on relation to anything other than Friends of Science. I propose that it should either be deleted or merged into Friends of Science. ChrisO (talk) 20:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Several news articles mention Leahey, for instance, these two:
He has a Ph.D, has published numerous peer reviewed papers, and is president of a highly visible and controversial organization. The article has stood for over three years. I vote it be left as is. FellGleaming (talk) 20:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Closed early per the snowball clause, due to the strong and unanimous consensus that this is unsalvageably original research. ~ mazca talk 21:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced essay about a subject that does not really require an article. EuroPride (talk) 20:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Consensus was to delete. Rlendog (talk) 20:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A prod tag was removed without apparent improvement; the relevant policy, at WP:NALBUMS, says: "a future album whose article is titled "(Artist)'s Next Album" and consists solely of blog or fan forum speculation about possible titles, or songs that might be on the album, is a WP:CRYSTAL violation and should be discussed only in the artist's article, and even then only if there is some verifiable information about it. (See also WP:TenPoundHammer's Law.)" There will be plenty of time for this article if and when there is a title, track list, etc., all confirmed by "reliably sourced information about a future release". In the meantime, there is sufficient information at Lady GaGa that nothing would be gained by merging this material. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 23:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
neologism, prod removed without explanation Jac16888Talk 17:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 23:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity article about an obscure film production company that has yet to create any films that meet Wikipedia's definition of notability. Does not pass WP:CORP. Warrah (talk) 16:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as recreation of a page that was deleted via deletion discussion. — ξxplicit 20:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contested WP:PROD - Speculative at best - fails WP:CRYSTAL Codf1977 (talk) 15:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. One two three... 20:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTLINK. Wizard191 (talk) 14:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep. I see nothing deeply wrong with this list, as long as entries refer to organizations for which blue-links exist. There are far more disputable lists on wikipedia. Nageh (talk) 15:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to The Shak. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article of actor known primarily for one role in an Australian television show consists of list of roles of anonymous or "unknown" people and relying upon a self-published promotional site for the bulk of the citations. Not finding significant information about Nagorcka's notability outside of her role of Picasso in reliable sources I am still convinced that redirecting is the appropriate action. The article consists of a one sentence lede, a list of roles she played, and a two sentence mention of her leaving the show. Twice I've attempted to redirect to the series, but both attempts were reverted; so here it is. B.Wind (talk) 13:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Matt-tastic (talk) 02:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC) Matt-tastic (talk) 03:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC) Matt-tastic (talk) 05:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep The Nominator has since redirected other cast members of the shak Libby Campbell and Jacqueline Duncan and the user is showing intrest in Beau Walker's article claiming "notable outside of The Shak? Demonstrate it!"I tried to assume good faith however I will not allow notable articles to be deleted while some even less notable or simmilair articles such as
Remain Matt-tastic (talk) 06:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. NW (Talk) 16:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Declined PROD. Possibly fails WP:PORNBIO Polargeo (talk) 13:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was BLP Delete. While sourced, the article is primarily negative. The individual is covered in a mishmash of sources about his crimes, flight, etc., as well as his relation to a notable historical figure. The "keep" !voters and those who attempted to rescue this are commended for their sourcing efforts, but ultimately, this doesn't belong per our various BLP policies, most of which have been cited below. Jclemens (talk) 18:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have declined the WP:PROD tag as this needs more investigation. Yes notability is not transfered to relatives and WP:1E applies but there may just be enough coverage of this individual, just not in English. Polargeo (talk) 13:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a standalone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not.
Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example... minor news stories are... examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources.
The result was keep. Sources brought up at the end of the discussion seem to establish notability. I will gladly relist, however, if a user feels that this closure has been too disregarding of consensus (although note that nominator is neutral). Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural. Dealt with an IP at WP:AIV that was removing PROD tag. Since it shouldn't have been replaced regardless, bringing to AfD instead. Concerns; notability, references, COI, spam etc. I am neutral. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
* Delete promotional article. no coverage except press releases.--Sodabottle (talk) 14:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. NW (Talk) 16:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-Notable former president of the University of Sydney Union. Codf1977 (talk) 11:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. The article has been improved since the nom, now it is much better Tone 21:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Textbook WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:WI1E violation. The subject was not a notable journalist. --DAJF (talk) 11:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy close because the article in question was speedy deleted by Nyttend (non-admin closure). DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced and do not look notable per WP:BAND. Nsaa (talk) 10:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was KEEP Thanks for a comprehensive and civil discussion. Keeping for two reasons: 1) There's been substantially no change in policy since the 2nd AfD that would support deletion of the current article. Additionally, both keeps and deletes made cogent arguments, but IMHO and those promoting keeping think this article complies with WP:Lists, it has clear inclusion criteria and it is sufficiently well sourced so that individual entries may be challenged, but the list as a whole is encyclopedic and should stay. Mike Cline (talk) 20:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Random intersection of unconnected categories. No evidence is presented that there is any special significance to being both Jewish and LGBT. Even the existence of gay Rabbis is not considered shocking or unusual, and long may it remain the case. Guy (Help!) 09:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus, with a merge discussion highly encouraged on the article's talk page. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not appropriate for Wikipedia to have an article on this transient and relatively minor controversy. We're giving readers the impression that this story was much more important than it actually was. Prezbo (talk) 09:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Nominator has withdrawn but this discussion has been open long enough and has enough participation for a "keep" close. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable according to WP:ORG. Most references provided are to the org's own web site, others to *.blogspot.com. One points to a news article, but the organisation is mentioned as the workplace of a commenter exactly once. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 08:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 23:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable school of martial arts, poorly formatted article, no sources, and ther maybe copyright issues.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Still unclear as to why a legitimate Martial Art with members all over the US should be considered for deletion on Wikipedia. The article is currently in the process of being developed, so formatting is being taken care of. Sources are listed, there will be more as the article fleshes out. Ryulong please share your thoughts for the betterment of this article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Whiteeagle71 (talk • contribs)
This is a new article that is currently being built. I assure you these problems will be fixed in the near future as more people assist in its development. Personally I am new to Wikipedia and don't know all the rules, but does an article need to be complete in its entirety before posting to avoid deletion? I thought the goal was to encourage community support. This is a relatively new and growing American martial art with many members across the country and abroad who would benefit greatly from it being here. If this isn't enough for Wikipedia then I am sorely disappointed in what it stands for.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Whiteeagle71 (talk • contribs)
This is my ryu and I don't want to be listed here it appears there are certain parties who have a vested interest in keeping a new article from being developed— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoshinka (talk • contribs)
Hoshinka, I can quite understand your concerns, as I have had a somewhat similar experience myself. When I was new to editing Wikipedia I found that edits I made were being reverted for no reason I could see, and I thought at the time this was being done by an editor with a conflict of interest. However, I have now been here to realise that this was not so. "Anyone can edit Wikipedia" does not mean "anyone can put anything they like into Wikipedia". We have certain standards which subjects must satisfy if they are to be covered in articles. If an article does not appear to satisfy those standards then it is likely to be proposed for deletion. If you think the article should be kept then the things to do are (1) find out what those standards are, and (2) provide evidence that the article does satisfy those standards. If you can successfully do that then the article will be kept. Accusing other editors of having a secret ulterior motive for supporting deletion is not likely to persuade the administrator who adjudicates this discussion to support your case and keep the article, so, even if you believe you are right, doing so will not help your cause. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It appears I have been blocked from editing the Hoshin Budo Ryu page. Can you explain how I am can "fix" an article I cant access. I see that your policies say an article cannot be about a person, band, club, etc. There are thousands of articles about these subjects. PLease explain Hoshinka (talk) 13:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you JamesBWatson for your constructive criticism. Can you please provide a link to the standards you mention in your first point and so that I can satisfy the second?Whiteeagle71 (talk) 14:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Again, i was already listed on your Hoshin page. I am happy to allow outside editors to create/edit this article. Thank you for the clarification again. I will not contribute to this article if it is in violation of your rules. Again, I am new to all of this. Hoshinka (talk) 15:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey all, I've cited references throughout the article and added a couple more sources, please let me know if I'm headed in the right direction... Thanks muchWhiteeagle71 (talk) 03:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. No consensus to delete. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page or someone can be bold and redirect it to the existing section in the episodes article. Transwiki to the wikia site is not really an option since the article there exist and is farely comprehensive. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a single episode from season one of The X-Files but fails to show why the episode is notable, either with regards to importance in the "real world", or as an important episode of The X Files franchise, and thus fails to show why the article should exist.
Looking at the structure of the article, there is too much reliance on what is basically a scene-by-scene WP:PLOT recap rather than a short episode summary. There are two other moderately sized paragraphs about the production and reception, and that is it. In the reception section, it says "This episode was highly praised as one of the best episodes of the first season by its creators." Wow. The creators liked it. What about anyone else? What about "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."? That's not reception. That's just the production team practicing WP:PUFFERY. The article does mention that the episode earned a Nielsen household rating of 6.6 with an 11 share, and that 6.2 million US households watched the episode, but those are not notable figures.
I've looked in Google, and a few other places, and can find nothing to indicate that the episode ever received any third-party coverage or anything to establish Real-world notability. There are seven references in the article, and they point to three different books written about the overall X-Files franchise, but not the episode. Because they are written about the entire franchise, and all include episode guides, none can be used to establish significant coverage. One, by the way, is an Officially licenced guidebook.
Because The X-Files (season 1) exists, which has an adequately sized plot summary, there is only one outcome for this article, and that is to delete. Matthewedwards : Chat 07:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Marriage in the Bible (disambiguation). Tone 21:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
article previously blanked by a single user. I don't care to keep or delete, but the debate should happen here. UtherSRG (talk) 07:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. NW (Talk) 16:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Football player who does not meet WP:ATHLETE or WP:N guidelines. PROD was removed with the rational that he has professional caps, but these appearances were for a club that plays in amateur leagues in Ireland. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed prod. Non-notable book by non-notable author. Does not meet any element of the notability guideline for books. Only non-local/mainstream source is the Daily Mail article but that is a retelling of the story rather than a critique/review of the book which is only mentioned once in passing. Also appears to be the only title in the publishers catalogue[40] which doesn't speak to the notability of either the book or the publisher. Nancy talk 06:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Chengdu Blades F.C.. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, to be clear, this nomination is for the Hong Kong football (soccer) club, not the similarly named Sheffield United F.C. in England. Second, this nomination arose after I saw the statement "According to your reasoning we should delete Sheffield United (Hong Kong) as that is just a branch of Chengdu Blades" in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Irish Amateur (2nd nomination) with the implication that such a nomination would be a bad idea. Nevertheless, I do have some concerns about this article, which may be resolvable, but if they are not resolvable, the article ought to be deleted.
The only source provided is a link to the page about this club's senior affiliate, Chengdu Blades F.C., on the web site of the English Sheffield United -- but it does not feature information about Sheffield United Hong Kong. Furthermore, this article claims that this club plays in the Hong Kong First Division League, the top level of Hong Kong football -- however, this club isn't mentioned in Hong Kong First Division League, or Hong Kong Second Division League, or Hong Kong Third Division "A" League, or Hong Kong Third Division "District" League. And those are all of the levels in the Hong Kong football league system. Nor is this club mentioned in the Rec.Sport.Soccer Statistics Foundation archive page for Hong Kong. I realize that some of the sources about this club may be in Chinese, a language I can't read. Nevertheless, if this article can't even clearly establish what league this club plays in, and no relevant sources are provided, it ought to be deleted. Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 21:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This foundation is for a good cause (the victim of a fatal car accident), but the foundation seems to fail WP:ORG, and the person fails WP:ONEEVENT. Her name results in no Gnews hits, and the only regular hits I can find about the foundation is the foundation's own website. Erpert (let's talk about it) 05:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was SNOW redirect Jclemens (talk) 18:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Undeleted as a contested prod there nevertheless is no evidence of independant notability. I did Google, googlebooks and scholar checks and while there were a few passing mentions in books there was nothing in depth or specifically about the subject to show it passes N. Spartaz Humbug! 04:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Merge/redirect possibilities may be further discussed on the article's talk page. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Completely unreferenced WP:OR in the form of an essay. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 04:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete, per WP:CRYSTAL. Jayjg (talk) 00:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed PROD: This article is on a planned cruise ship which is not under construction, nor is even named. Therefore the title itself is WP:SYN, but the whole article is WP:CRYSTAL. There is also the issue that all of this can be better presented in the ship class article: Dream class cruise ship. It is also the desire/unwritten policy of WP:SHIPS that vessels are not notable enough for their own articles until they are named and under construction. -MBK004 04:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with MBK, this article is WP:CRYSTAL and purely speculative until construction begins (even once construction begins, most of the details currently stated as fact on the article could be subject to change) Not until she is completed does the majority of the data contained become fact. Currently the article reads like an advertising brochure and not like an encyclopaedia article. I'd suggest merging the content into Dream class cruise ship until such time as the ship becomes notable enough for its own page. (ie when construction begins) JonEastham (talk) 11:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Last no name user...Ship designs and plans that are approved and put on order can be considered as fact. Take fore example the Dream. Once the ship was ordered, the ship was built to specification and that data is as advertised. All wikipedia articles sound like advertising brochures when you think about it, so should we delete wikipedia? As I said before, the ship is fact already as it has been ordered and plans sent. Of course there might be minor changes to some data along the way but this can all be adjusted in the article as more information comes in. In fact every wikipedia article gets updated regularly when an new piece of information changes so why should this article be any different? CDN Traveller (talk) 11:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC) Strikethrough added as CDN Traveller has already !voted. Peridon (talk) 14:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 21:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Software with no assertion of notability, referenced only by primary sources. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 03:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to James Mitose. GedUK 09:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another non-notable/barely notable American martial arts school plagued with poor sourcing and poor formatting.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Consensus was to delete Rlendog (talk) 16:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article about a self-published book with no media attention that fails WP:N and WP:BK. Prod removed by creator. ThemFromSpace 02:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 23:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another migrant group which has not been written about at length by any scholars or journalists. This book mentions them briefly on p255. That's all the information I could find --- not enough basis to write an article. Similar content was previously deleted by WP:PROD about a year ago [42]. Thanks, cab (talk) 02:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated per the suggestion of User:Lyk4 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Italians in Pakistan.
The topic of this article, the Turkish diaspora (emigrants from the Ottoman Empire or the modern Republic of Turkey) in India, has not been written about at length by any scholars or journalists.
This article is part of a mass-produced boilerplate series of stubs about "Turks in Xyzland" which were created on the basis of a table of population statistics a year ago. Since then, no one has been able to find any real sources to improve most of them. The book that's been placed in the "Further reading" section to puff up the article, Keene's 1879 The Turks in India (reprinted in 2001), does not discuss the above topic --- instead it describes the Mughal conquest of South Asia. This is like trying to claim that "Icelanders in India" is a notable topic on the basis that the British once ruled India and Icelanders and Britons both have Viking ancestry. Modern scholarship doesn't continue Keene's practice of referring to them generically as "Turks" --- instead they're identified as Chagatays, etc. Thanks, cab (talk) 02:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was The consensus was to delete Rlendog (talk) 16:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Prod declined; previous version at this name was deleted CSD A7. This article with an abundance of puffery has questionable references (about a third of the links are dead) and not enough evidence of the subject meeting WP:MUSIC. If this is kept, it will need to be scraped clean and started anew. B.Wind (talk) 01:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. NW (Talk) 16:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. No clear evidence that MuzeTunes is notable, and as that's the only chart it's charted on, it fails NSONG. GedUK 09:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No notable charts, no awards, no cover versions. Fails WP:NSONGS. The only semblance of charting is a listing on MuzeTunes, which is a single-vendor list ("The MuzeTunes top ten streamed samples represent the most popular tracks sampled by consumers using the MuzeTunes streaming service at Muze customer Web sites"). Attempts to redirect have been thwarted by an IP under the misapprehension that WP:BADCHARTS is an exhaustive list of every bad chart. Given that I pretty much compiled that list, I can assure the world that it is far from being a comprehensive list of every bad chart. —Kww(talk) 01:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MuzeTunes is a subsidiary of the Billboard Hot 100, just like the Bubbling Under Hot 100 chart. I guess we'll have to delete every single song that has only charted on the Bubbling Under Hot 100 since MuzeTunes isn't allowed either. The song doesn't need a cover version or awards to be a single. MTV even released a review statement about the song. It even has cover art for the single. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.73.2.125 (talk) 02:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]