The result was Speedy Delete. The article was speedied under WP:G8 for unrelated reasons some time after this AfD was created.
The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.
Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. (non-admin closure) jp×g 09:21, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is an area where neutral information is placed about a subject. The article for Hanadama is biased and directs end users to a website of a seller of pearls who is trying to privately brand pearls under a hanadama label fooling consumers in thinking that the pearls come from one sole authority in Japan that grades pearls when in reality, there are dozens and dozens of private companies that place a hanadama label on a wide range of pearls reflecting a wide range of qualities. Hanadama is not an official grade. Please see below:
Hanadama is a Japanese word that refers to "flower pearls". The Mikimoto pearl company that sells pearls sometimes
uses the term to describe their pearls. In fact, it is Mikimoto's use of the term Hanadama that made it popular in the jewelry
industry as it relates to pearls. There are many privately operated appraisal companies that place labels on their appraisal
paperwork with the word Hanadama. However, these companies are not affiliated with Mikimoto. Hanadama is not an
official grading system. The Gemological Institute of America does offer a grading system for pearls. In fact, from their
website it says "Over the past 100 years, discoveries in pearl culturing have revolutionized the industry, all but completely
replacing natural pearls with cultured pearls. By the end of the 20th century, several types of cultured pearls were being
produced in an overwhelming variety of colors, shapes, and sizes. In response, GIA sought to create a standard for pearl
grading and terminology—much as it had with diamonds in the 1950s. Its pearl-grading system, launched in 1998, was
based on GIA's 7 Pearl Value Factors™: size, shape, color, luster, surface quality, nacre quality, and matching." The very
best surface grade for a Hanadama necklace is "very slightly imperfect". Therefore the "Hanadama" label assigned by The
Pearl Science Lab is one label of many labels from many, many small private company that operates in Japan that each
appraise Hanadama pearls.
Not only does this contradict what is written on the Mikimoto website (http://www.mikimoto.com/uk/about_jewellery/pearls/index.html) "...hanadama, or 'flower pearls', which denotes the highest quality pearls.", it also contradicts what you posted on your own website (http://web.archive.org/web/20060207012322/www.americanpearl.com/collectionselection.html). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.62.150.82 (talk) 19:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be made-up term. No evidence that Evology actually exists, apart from one non-notable blog. sciencewatcher (talk) 22:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Arguments and close in analagous to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Prosapio. –MuZemike 23:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Advertisement for an un-noteworthy self-published ebook ReasonsAdvocate (talk) 23:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. –MuZemike 23:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a advertising page for a person who does not meet WP's Notability criteria. ReasonsAdvocate (talk) 22:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There has been coverage in reliable, secondary sources. Just being a new author (book published in July of 2010) should not be reason to discard. Keep Sjpnobull (talk) 22:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. –MuZemike 23:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article regarding non-notable company in Cambodia with significant WP:ADVERT issues. The article was created by user with WP:COI as there is a strong connection with the company's pricipal investor in the company. This user has also created articles about other non-notable Cambodia companies in which this firm has invesed (See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nautisco Seafood and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingdom Breweries) User may also have a WP:SOCK issue (See: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Douglasclayton) The article's brief references are all puff pieces by small local publications hosted on the investment firm's website. Searches show limited reason to believe this is a notable company (the only event of note for the company is the Leopard Capital investment) |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 22:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was withdrawn. Adequate sources added. (non-admin closure) — Timneu22 · talk 08:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PROD was applied because there are no sources provided, no indications of importance. Author removed without addressing these concerns. So here we are. — Timneu22 · talk 22:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article regarding non-notable company in Cambodia with significant WP:ADVERT issues. The article was created by user with WP:COI as there is a strong connection with the company's pricipal investor in the company. This user has also created articles about other non-notable Cambodia companies in which this firm has invesed (See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nautisco Seafood) User may also have a WP:SOCK issue (See: (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Douglasclayton) The article's brief references are all puff pieces by small local publications hosted on the investment firm's website. Searches show limited reason to believe this is a notable company (the only event of note for the company is that it was bought). To put the size of the company in perspective, the company was founded in 2009 with $2 million of startup capital |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 22:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedily Deleted by RHaworth (talk · contribs) per WP:CSD#G3 (blatant hoax) (Non-admin closure)WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Claims of notability in this article (signed to Universal Records label, CD sales in excess of 50,000) cannot be verified. For one thing, Universal Records no longer exists as an independent label. Also, any band selling 50,000 copies of a single CD would have made more news than this band seems to have. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Asserts notability but sources are almost nonexistant. Another user tried to nominate it but didn't finish the process, leaving me as the ONLY PERSON ON THE WHOLE WIKI who can finish redlinked nominations. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 21:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No third-party sources exist to establish notability. 黒い白い (KuroiShiroi) 21:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to The Boxer (Kele album). –MuZemike 23:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable unreleased single. 黒い白い (KuroiShiroi) 21:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Unisex. –MuZemike 23:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary at best. 黒い白い (KuroiShiroi) 21:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No hits online for "Three Headed Monster" + "Nicktoons." Not notable in any way. Tagged for cleanup since 2007. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 21:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here we seem to have somebody plugging their own website/blog. There is just enough claim of notability to avoid speedy deletion if feeling generous. It has interviewed famous people but notability is not inherited in that way. The guy who runs it was also on local radio, once. It was in a local competition, but it didn't win. It gets the most passing of mentions in Spin. I am not seeing any RS other coverage when Googling although the fact that other, more notable, things use the same name/phrase makes it hard to search. In short, almost certainly not notable. DanielRigal (talk) 20:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The arguments for deletion are much stronger and more policy-grounded than the reasons for retention given. –MuZemike 23:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:((subst:spa|username)) ; suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)) ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)) . |
Although I own the Antares trilogy, he's not really notable nor are any of his works. I could only find a short paragraph in a reliable source about the author, the rest is self-published or unreliable. Subject does not meet WP:GNG.
I am also nominating his novel which also suffers from a lack of notability.
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is an area where neutral information is placed about a subject. The article for Hanadama is biased and directs end users to a website of a seller of pearls who is trying to privately brand pearls under a hanadama label fooling consumers in thinking that the pearls come from one sole authority in Japan that grades pearls when in reality, there are dozens and dozens of private companies that place a hanadama label on a wide range of pearls reflecting a wide range of qualities. Hanadama is not an official grade. Please see below:
Hanadama is a Japanese word that refers to "flower pearls". The Mikimoto pearl company that sells pearls sometimes uses the term to describe their pearls. In fact, it is Mikimoto's use of the term Hanadama that made it popular in the jewelry industry as it relates to pearls. There are many privately operated appraisal companies that place labels on their appraisal paperwork with the word Hanadama. However, these companies are not affiliated with Mikimoto. Hanadama is not an official grading system. The Gemological Institute of America does offer a grading system for pearls. In fact, from their website it says "Over the past 100 years, discoveries in pearl culturing have revolutionized the industry, all but completely replacing natural pearls with cultured pearls. By the end of the 20th century, several types of cultured pearls were being produced in an overwhelming variety of colors, shapes, and sizes. In response, GIA sought to create a standard for pearl grading and terminology—much as it had with diamonds in the 1950s. Its pearl-grading system, launched in 1998, was based on GIA's 7 Pearl Value Factors™: size, shape, color, luster, surface quality, nacre quality, and matching." The very best surface grade for a Hanadama necklace is "very slightly imperfect". Therefore the "Hanadama" label assigned by The Pearl Science Lab is one label of many labels from many, many small private company that operates in Japan that each appraise Hanadama pearls.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pearleducation (talk • contribs)
Not only does this contradict what is written on the Mikimoto website (http://www.mikimoto.com/uk/about_jewellery/pearls/index.html) "...hanadama, or 'flower pearls', which denotes the highest quality pearls.", it also contradicts what you posted on your own website (http://web.archive.org/web/20060207012322/www.americanpearl.com/collectionselection.html). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.62.150.82 (talk) 19:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that it is non-notable. The term is, however, an important one in the pearl industry. A much more thorough book such as Strack, Elisabeth (2006), Pearls (6 ed.), Ruhle-Diebner-Verlag describes the terms and its usage in detail on pages 362-364. JPShepherd (talk) 22:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I was ambiguous. I am neutral on whether or not the article should be deleted. I think the term is important, but the way it is just floating out there without any real connection to another article doesn't make sense. It does seem more sensible to incorporate it into the Pearl page. JPShepherd (talk) 22:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Merge to Pearls after finding perfectly accurate referenced sources that fully comply with Wikipedia criteria for inclusion. See WP:RS, WP:CITE, and WP:V. The commercial links used as sources have been removed from the article. --Kudpung (talk) 02:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We believe the author of the Hanadama page created this page to redefine the meaning of the word "hanadama". All of the references the author uses for the term Hanadama are linked to a site called pearl-guide.com. Pearl guide is a forum run by an owner of a ring of of 10 or more pearl selling websites (pearlparadise.com, pearlsofjoy.com, the pearloutlet.com, etc...) whose messaging both on pearl-guide.com and the e-commerce sites is intentionally meant to make consumers think that the term "hanadama" is some kind of official term or official grade that designates the finest quality Japanese akoya pearls. Furthermore, the article says that all "hanadama pearls" are evaluated and certified by The Pearl Science Laboratory. This is false and a citation is needed. There are dozens and dozens of private companies in Japan that appraise pearls and place the "hanadama" label on them. In fact, in Japan, the grading of pearls and printing of the "hanadama" label on appraisals is becoming a big problem in the pearl industry as there are a plethora of private companies posing as laboratories issuing these "hanadama" labels on pearl strands. The Pearl Science Laboratory is not a Laboratory. It is a private, for profit company that makes a living on selling pearl appraisals. Unlike the Gemological Institute of America which is non-for profit.
The article also says that it is hard to find "hanadama" pearls in retail stores. This needs a citation as well and is written to lead consumers to the pearl-guide.com where the article links to under references. Mikimoto is the company that popularized the term "hanadama". Please see this link:
http://www.mikimoto.com/uk/about_jewellery/pearls/index.html
Because the retail chain of Mikimoto stores popularized the term "hanadama" to refer to their pearls (i.e, when you go to a Mikimoto store you get their selection which is "hanadama") as it is shown on their website, one must assume that it is not rare to find "hanadama" pearls in retail stores as Mikimoto is the largest seller of pearls in the world.
Furthermore, this article says that "Hanadama pearls typically rate higher in quality than AAA Akoyas." Again, this needs a citation. Mikimoto created the "AAA grade" to identify their highest quality pearl grade offered in their stores. Please see this link on Mikimoto's website:
http://www.mikimotoamerica.com/about_jewelry/pearls/grading_system.html
Therefore, one cannot help but determine that the author of this article is not being neutral and is trying to re-define the meaning of the term "hanadama". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pearlupdate (talk • contribs) 12:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirected. Secret account 02:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article is bare list of stats, per NOTDIR, NOTSTATS. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Auto Club 500 broadcasters. It's not actually a list of broadcasters, it's a list of commentators, which is trivia. A list of broadcasters could be dealt with in the main article in a sentence or two. It's not actually sourced, either (the links needs registration and is a forum anyway) but that's the least of its problems. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Copyvio from various pages http://www.pinoyexchange.com/forums/showthread.php?t=404007, http://www.titikpilipino.com/news/?aid=1223 Ronhjones (Talk) 20:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No indication of notability: reads like they may be big (and notable) one day but not yet. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 19:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted by Fastily as blatant advertising (G11) (non-admin closure) Pgallert (talk) 08:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Promotional article for a non-notable product. ("...it incorporates all its features to a reasonable price, $1050.- at its release in 2001, it is a great marketing success.") The company that makes this product does not even have its own article, so there is nowhere to merge this article per WP:PRODUCT. Per WP:NOTDIR, Wikipedia is not a sales catalog, nor is it a complete exposition of all possible details. SnottyWong squeal 18:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does not even come close to meeting the notability requirements for performers. Acting career consists of 15 bit parts in TV shows or movies; the "theatre", directing, and writing credits are unreferenced, and the "network marketing" is for a dietary supplement sold through a multi-level marketing platform. Also a likely CoI issue, because the creator of the article (and the primary contributor" is a SPA whose edits consist of this article, adding a link to this article on November 14, and an effusively promotional edit to the primary spokesman for the dietary supplement. Horologium (talk) 18:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the 5 years since this article was last nominated for deletion it has not been expanded. I believe this is because the article is not much more than a dictionary entry. Currently restoration has many links for articles that are about specific types of restoration, which is more than adequate. Wizard191 (talk) 18:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. –MuZemike 23:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A contested prod. Per note from the prod, "I cannot find any reliable sources about this show, I can find some directory listings but that's it. Fails WP:V and GNG." Kindzmarauli (talk) 18:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I originally tagged this article as CSD A7, as the subject was only announced yesterday and as such I feel it doesn't yet meet with the notability standards. The first prize has not even been awarded to a recipient yet. Torchwood Who? (talk) 17:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Heaven & Earth (Phil Wickham album). –MuZemike 23:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable song. Existing article on the album which contains this song is more than sufficient. Fails WP:NSONG. SnottyWong chatter 17:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. I think the consensus is clearly delete. As a suggestion, it might be possible to supplement the article on Bagrationi dynasty with one of the family in its post-dynastic period (i.e. 19th ,20th & 21st century) family, but not individual members unless there is significant actual individual notability . DGG ( talk ) 03:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-encyclopedic article full of POV, personal opinion, and external links that do little to prove notability. Seems more like a resume than anything else. Jmlk17 16:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dear OldManNeptune, thank you for your oppinion.Could you please help a bit to fix the article?We also will be working on it more today to meet high standards of Wikipedia.Thank you very much —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.73.13.200 (talk) 08:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it..Bagration is actually the Royal House of Georgia, which does not make neither Dimitry. Every lady who married a royal prince(no matter if the house is ruling or not)is already special due to her position.Apparently Karina Bagration(which singles her out and which is clearly seen from the article)managed to do a lot of notable things in her life by herself.In Ukraine with the population of 45,888,000 she is the one like that. (Lys Flower) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.26.54.105 (talk) 13:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But don't genealogy enthusisasts use Wikipedia Geneaology is a science like any other,it needs accuracy and reliable source of information.In this article? I found a lot of useful links for my personal research.I still find it opposes strongly to a huge number of impostors in Russia and Ukraine with their fake sites and investitures.True, Bagrations were once Kings of Georgia, so it is open to fruitless debate as to how "equal" or "unequal" they are to Romanovs.But that's not the point.What you should take to account is that" Bagration" name a long time ago grew a part of mass culture in Russia itself .Tobacconists "Bargration", restaurants,spirits, computer games, comics, business centers,-you name it.So everything which happens in real Bagration family is interesting and should correspond to WP:BIO(Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on the encyclopedic suitability of an article topic. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded."[1] Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular" although not irrelevant is secondary). Sergeydancer (talk) 14:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Person is a recent PhD graduate (2009) in Geography and merely a non-tenured Assistant Professor. He does not meet any of the notable academic guidelines. He is not an editor of any journals, does not hold any positions of note and has made no contributions to the wider discipline of Geography. This article must be deleted. --Waitingforever123 (talk) 08:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a preposterous entry and a blatant and shameless abuse of wikipedia. Since when is wikipedia used as a platform for the self glorificaition of an entry level academic? --Maling888 (talk) 08:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)--Maling888 (talk) 08:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Garry's Mod. Spartaz Humbug! 03:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:CORP as there lacks any form of significant coverage of the company. Codf1977 (talk) 16:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note : forgot to check if it had been deleted before, it has so may be it is CSD G4. Codf1977 (talk) 16:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was nomination withdrawn. This business probably is has borderline notability, though more for its sports sponsorships than its actual operations; without that. The article now actually contains an English language explanation of their business, and I've edited or simply removed some of the more over the top POV-pushing or meaningless language from the article body. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contested proposed deletion. Regardless of whether this business is notable or not, this article is unambiguous advertising. It is also patent nonsense. We're told that this is a business processing company and that it operates a global production model, which is all very nice, but we're still left wondering what its 8000 employees do for a living. We'd be better off not pretending to have an article about this business than having this pretending to be an article. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Overall the article is not written like an advertisement. The company is listed publicly in London and is in the FTSE250, which convinces me that it meets WP:NOTE. Miles Blues (talk · contribs) 15:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. –MuZemike 23:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:((subst:spa|username)) ; suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)) ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)) . |
This article has previously been deleted via a WP:SPA ridden AFD. Subsequently it was re-created and speedily deleted as "G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion." The WP:SPA editor who re-created it took the article to WP:DRV (discussion here) and it was restored to allow AFD discussion (again). As this is was essentially the same article with a few additional sources, I am sending it back to AFD. Toddst1 (talk) 16:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete Spam... not worth the time and effort Weaponbb7 (talk) 19:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Footballer fails WP:ATHLETE as he has never appeared in a fully-professional competition. Also fails WP:GNG due to a lack of significant media coverage beyond the odd WP:NTEMP stuff having been mentioned in a few minor news items. --Jimbo[online] 16:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"totally fanmade", fails WP:NALBUMS, not on website - previous AFD closed because of no participation Hekerui (talk) 15:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Article is about a software product with no reliable sources supporting it. I cannot find anything beyond press releases and marketing blurbs. TNXMan 15:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable for any reason other than being CEO of a company. No other public roles. Given this and the clear COI / autobiographical way the article was started I can't seen any reason to keep it. Biker Biker (talk) 14:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing to show this individual is notable. Sources given do not seem to cover the core assertions of the article - particularly the bit about being "the great grandson of Sir Currimbhoy Ebrahim, the only Muslim baronet.[citation needed]" and the grandson of Princess Shahnaz Husain"
IP keeps removing prod without explanation. Created by User:Sharikcurrimbhoy Scott Mac 14:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. –MuZemike 23:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable film lacking GHits and GNEWs of substance. Appears to fail WP:NOTFILM. ttonyb (talk) 14:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Intheshadows (talk) 10:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Vampires Suck. –MuZemike 23:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:ENT. One role in one film. We do not have sufficient coverage to write a reasonably detailed article. We know she was born circa 1987, went to college and had one movie role. That's it. Permenant stub. Prod removed without comment, but see talk. SummerPhD (talk) 14:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable a capalla group at a university. GrapedApe (talk) 14:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable student organization with just 1 local chapter. No coverage in outside sources. GrapedApe (talk) 14:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Spartaz Humbug! 03:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no references proving he is notable. No references have been added in the 5 years since this article was created. If he was that prominent, this article should be bigger by now. Beeshoney (talk) 13:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. –MuZemike 23:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable in itself. Should only be mentioned in Vladimir Putin article. Northernhenge (talk) 22:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence other than this article that this group or its related "Internet Journal of Intervention Medicine" actually exist. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article regarding non-notable company in Cambodia with significant WP:ADVERT issues. The article was created by user with WP:COI as there is a strong connection with the company's pricipal investor in the company. User may also have a WP:SOCK issue (See: (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Douglasclayton) The article's brief references are all puff pieces by small local publications hosted on the investment firm's website. Searches show limited reason to believe this is a notable company (the only event of note for the company is that it was bought) |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 13:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. No consensus to delete. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Intricate summary of opening title sequence from The Mary Tyler Moore Show. Main article already contains a section discussing the opening sequence with a sufficient level of detail.
The Mary Tyler Moore Show opening sequence is also mostly unsourced. The references in the article relate to very little of the actual content, instead discussing a bystander who appeared in a freeze-frame in the opening, the unveiling of a statue of Moore in Minneapolis, and a table in a restaurant appearing in the sequence for a second or two. Sottolacqua (talk) 12:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional Comment—The opening title sequence of this television program does not meet notability guidelines on a level that it should be a stand-alone article, and the article contains little encyclopedic info that could be merged into The Mary Tyler Moore Show#Opening title sequence. The first page of a Google search returns only links to video/fan sites and places like www.sitcomsonline.com. Sottolacqua (talk) 14:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Snowball keep. Non-admin closure. Chris (talk) 17:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No in-line citations. Doesn't conform to BLP or Verifiability guidlines. Beeshoney (talk) 12:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no indication given (or found on an online search) to show that this product is notable. As there is no Silvercrest article to redirect, deletion is the only alternative. The last AfD was in December 2006 and closed as no consensus. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to The Tree (2010 film). Spartaz Humbug! 03:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a child actor that does not establish notability. According to IMDB, she has appeared in two films. The article claim she plays the lead role in The Tree, however IMDB shows Charlotte Gainsbourg and Marton Csokas top billed, and then the rest of the cast is listed alphabetically. She gets lots of mentiosn as part of the cast of "The Tree", but there is no substantial coverage about her to establish notability, nor are two roles sufficient to establish her under WP:ENTERTAINER. Whpq (talk) 11:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Accomplishments as a singer/songwriter seem rather thin. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete by Dragonflysixtyseven. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Inappropriate DAB page. While funny, doesn't meet WP:MOSDAB requirements, among others. Shadowjams (talk) 10:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn - Article considerably different from the article that was nominated Codf1977 (talk) 08:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IP Contested PROD - WP is not a directory Codf1977 (talk) 09:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC) Article considerably difrent from the article that was nominated so withdrawing nomination, since no other delete !votes doing a NAC. Codf1977 (talk) 08:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article title wrong; Most list items have been mangled to remove macrons form the names; almost all items are unreferenced; these are long-standing issues as per talk page Stuartyeates (talk) 09:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. NW (Talk) 23:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Only one reference, mainly an un-source list. Beeshoney (talk) 09:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No references. Beeshoney (talk) 09:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's slightly difficult to find references when there aren't any, John. Surprise me by finding some yourself. This article is 4 years old and there is still not one reference! Beeshoney (talk) 13:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to show how scarce references are: There are less than 2000 English results for this person on Google - as you can see here. My own user name gets nearly 3 times more results (shown here). Even TFOWR (just shown as an example because you might think that "beeshoney" is common) gets over twice the results, as shown here. Beeshoney (talk) 13:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't explain in enough detail why it is notable, not enough in-line references. Beeshoney (talk) 09:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No in-line reference, no English references. It's important to note that the BBC reference is NOT in English. Beeshoney (talk) 09:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please read this and this. There are no English references for this article - I quote from Verifiability: "When citing a source in a different language, without quotations, the original and its translation should be provided if requested by other editors". I also quote from BLP: "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation". Unless the article is improved, I still say delete. Beeshoney (talk) 12:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I request a translation here. I also challenge all of the material in the article, as none of it has in-line citations. Beeshoney (talk) 13:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No ENGLISH references, terrible grammar. Beeshoney (talk) 09:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please read this and this. There are no English references for this article - I quote from Verifiability: "When citing a source in a different language, without quotations, the original and its translation should be provided if requested by other editors". I also quote from BLP: "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation". Unless the article is improved, I still say delete. Beeshoney (talk) 12:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, I request a translation of the references. It seems as if you don't read Wikipedia's guidelines yourself - all articles, especially biographies, need references. Simple as. Beeshoney (talk) 13:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You call that a translation? :O I don't understand it. The article still needs English references. I won't comment any more as I've put my point across. I still say delete. Beeshoney (talk) 13:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No ENGLISH references, doesn't seem very notable. Beeshoney (talk) 09:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 03:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article is written in an unencyclopedic manner, the subject matter is of dubious notability outside of the Richard Wagner article and was recently removed from that article under debate of the accuracy of the sources. In any event I feel this article should be removed and the subject matter should go back to debate at the main article. This is an unnecessary off-shoot. Torchwood Who? (talk) 09:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Local Police department stubs, no indication of significance, let alone notability as per either WP:GNG, WP:ORG or WP:CLUB (I am assuming that you can call a Police department a Non-commercial organization), contested speedy and PROD (Prod without explanation). As per WP:CLUB : Aim for one good article, not multiple permanent stubs: Individual chapters, divisions, departments, and other sub-units of notable organizations are only rarely notable enough to warrant a separate article. Information on chapters and affiliates should normally be merged into the article about the parent organization. as there already is List of law enforcement agencies in Nebraska in which these are listed and nothing other than contact details in an info box, there is nothing to merge and I don't see it as a likely search term they should be Deleted.
Also nominating :
Codf1977 (talk) 09:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
un-notable album, see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angela's Soul Melaen (talk) 09:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirected by creator. Secret account 02:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A little too early. No content here right now. Shadowjams (talk) 09:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
scarce notability: band founded in 2010, supporting references consist in lastfm, blog and myspace page Melaen (talk) 09:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 03:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article deals with a valid topic; however, right now it is just a collection of news to incriminate Royal Dutch Shell. The article serves as attack page and WP:POVFORK created by editor who has/had court case with Royal Dutch Shell. The article does not have any logical structure or references. Significant part of it is copy-pasted from different news which raise copyvio concerns. I thought a quite long time how to improve this article; however, having a painful experience with cleaning-up Sakhalin-II article overloaded similar stuff from the same editor, it seems that clean start would be better solution. It is also not clear if a separate article is needed or the safety issues concerning Royal Dutch Shell could be better addressed in Royal Dutch Shell or Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell articles (the last one is also messy and needs extensive work). Beagel (talk) 09:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete all g3, longterm IWE/Kev vandalism - these are all stuff this guy made up. NawlinWiki (talk) 13:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's no content here. I assume it's being setup for a future event, but there's 0 content and I don't see any explanation of why the article's notable. Creator removed the speedy but this is appropriate now. Shadowjams (talk) 09:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
wp:notdir violation - non-encyclopaedic cross-categorization. Unmaintainably large, and almost completely unsourced. Claritas § 08:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The subject matter of a song is integral to that song; it's what the song is about. Wikipedia did not invent the concept of grouping creative works by subject matter. This list further groups its entries by the specific killer; you can't seriously contend that one song about Charles Manson has no reasonable connection to another song about Charles Manson (particularly since you said you'd rather see all the sublists dumped into the articles on the killers themselves). Note that I'm assuming this list does more than just group songs that "mention" the killer, as you've instead characterized it; to the extent that's not true, the list needs to be pruned, but cleanup is not grounds for deletion.
Repeating your opinion ("cross-categorization"..."violated WP:NOTDIR") does not advance or strengthen your argument. postdlf (talk) 12:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No assumed notability; advertising-style tone. Raymie Humbert (t • c) 03:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. It has been pointed out that five goals from one player is a Premier League record, but consensus is that one notable element in the game does not make the game itself notable and that Shearer's goal scoring should be recorded in the his biography instead of in an article on the match. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Recent consensus is that high scoring games and games that set (share) records are not notable.Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tottenham Hotspur F.C. 9–1 Wigan Athletic F.C. I do think this is notable and hate to do it as a Newcastle fan but the community said no to a very similar article.Cptnono (talk) 06:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Clipping path. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially spam, by a promoter of a company that supplies such a service. Unsourced, and apparently nonnotable as a concept. Dicklyon (talk) 06:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If unfortunately, any information is or are related to show a company promotion, please delete this information in the article. As the new comer writer I have no any company promotion intention in the article -saiful_9999 Most probably Clipping Path Specialist and Clipping Path India references are making problem as a spam article. So I have deleted the links from External Link.
saiful_9999-Exist article “Clipping path” in the wikipedia is basically provided us definition type information on clipping path. On the other hand, the article “Clipping path service” is necessary in the wikipedia to know about the importance of clipping path service in the digital world and the exit article of clipping path service is written by informative information. So, in my view, the article should not be considered for deletion. The article can be edited or improved instant of deletion. I think this will be wise decision. —Preceding undated comment added 04:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC).
The result was no consensus. Quite frankly, I am wondering why this AFD is yielding a different result from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newcastle United F.C. 8–0 Sheffield Wednesday F.C., but I cannot in good faith say that I can see a consensus for deletion, and with the article being verifiable I cannot see a compelling policy based reason to overrule and the community and delete regardless either. If I had voted in this AFD, I would have gone with "delete", because a record for the top English league since 1992-1993 is a news story, not a sporting history story. In any league, one or more games during the last 20 seasons will be the largest victory, or the game with the most goals, or the game with the most red cards, and so on. The consequence is that any league will (in principle) be able to produce individual articles for all sorts of footballing records made in that particular league, and I am unconvinced that this is a good idea.
I find the keep votes here unpersuasive, as they are largely a version of "it's notable", or "it's a game I remember". But I didn't really find the delete votes convincing either, they are assertions of non-notability, and Google News hits is hardly in indicator of notability either. The "keep" side is clearly in a majority. In football terms on who's got the best points here, I would call this a 0-0 draw, which defaults to "no consensus". Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Recent consensus is that high scoring games and games that set share a record are not notable.Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tottenham Hotspur F.C. 9–1 Wigan Athletic F.C. Cptnono (talk) 06:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Largely unsourced BLP assertions, no apparent evidence of importance of faith as an issue in life of many of those listed rather than family tradition, no apparent ordering of theose included, very recentist, no qualification as to "notable", so presumably anyone who meets WP:ATH could be on it; destined to be perpetually and chronically incomplete, equivalent articles of lists of footballers by religion will presumably never be written, danger of becoming a pride list. Kevin McE (talk) 01:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The arguments given for deletion were stronger and more policy-based than the reasons for retention. Moreover, there is no way to ascertain where to move due to a lack of consensus of where to move to, plus the concerns given on the deletion side as far as POV and synthesis are concerned. –MuZemike 22:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article is basically a restatement of one source, with no evidence that the information within that source is particularly relevent outside of itself (i.e. independent coverage). A single news editorial uses the phrase "Zionist editing on Wikipedia" and someone appears to be trying to build an article about it. In addition, this is navel gazing of the worst kind, and really has no place in Wikipedia as an article. Jayron32 05:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quigley (talk) 23:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
this issue gets when we see what else like this is happening in the world. --Shuki (talk) 15:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
De prodded, but the external link doesn't actually say anything about her, and neither does anything else. She only ever played this one role, and because it was pre-internet, there's nothing out there. A brief mention in the Adrian Mole article would suffice. Chris (talk) 05:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
stray article mentioning a JAG officer on General Eisenhower's ETO staff; he left a box of papers at the Eisenhower Library consisting of "Stay Behind" copies of various orders. The external link in the article goes to the Library's Archivist's listing of the papers and nothing more. The article has been tagged for some 18 months with no subsequent activity. S. Rich (talk) 04:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete as the rough consensus and weight of arguments for deletion incidate. –MuZemike 22:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No third-party reliable sources to establish notability. 黒い白い (KuroiShiroi) 03:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article is just a collection of memories. There's no credible assertion that such a cuisine exists; there are many fine articles about the cuisines of better defined places. PhGustaf (talk) 03:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Just a list of songs supposedly played on HSN. Pure OR and unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a directory. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:GNG, WP:ORG or whatever other notability guidelines users want to pull out of the magician's hat. Ironholds (talk) 03:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I found no mention of hoobsoole on google, neither of Qudhbadin Bin Faqi Umar. unsourced Melaen (talk) 02:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From the deleted prod: Fails WP:NSONG, not currently release, unsourced. Eeekster (talk) 02:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
insufficent claims of notability, sorry Melaen (talk) 02:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Renomination of article. The earlier AfD ended in a keep because "coverage was available", but unfortunately, Googling shows that coverage is often contradictory (such as one claiming he is a "Buddhist educator" and another saying he "married into a political family" when the Post article says he makes medieval armor and married a nutritionist). Very few are RS, and the reasoning behind all the articles on him no matter where they are is because his father/family was rich, or he's the stepson of John Kerry, not because he is notable in his own right. In conjunction with the fact that no improvements were made to the article since the last AfD, it's still a case of WP:NOTINHERITED. MSJapan (talk) 01:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. –MuZemike 22:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article appears to be a synthesis of sometimes contradictory statements made by different authors. Should either be merged with Fascism or Fascism (epithet) or deleted as there is no comprehensive ideology called "Left-wing facsism". Dramedy Tonight (talk) 02:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Advertisement for non-notable company; PRODded by one editor (not me) and PROD seconded by another editor (also not me); PROD notice removed without explanation by article creator. TJRC (talk) 01:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Coloradorocket (talk) 20:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)Coloradorocket[reply]
The result was delete. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 21:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unable to find any reliable sources independent of the subject, a journalist/author, to sufficiently establish notability. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. J04n(talk page) 01:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Blanked by author Acroterion (talk) 01:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know where to start. Seems to be POV, cites no sources, and makes controversial claims. I don't think this falls in with the scope of lists on the project and if there is any reliable information in the article perhaps it should be moved to the main HSN article. Thoughts? Torchwood Who? (talk) 01:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unable to find any reliable sources independent of the subject, a poet and columnist, to sufficiently establish notability. Does not appear to pass WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. J04n(talk page) 01:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Many companies with a similar name. Can't find any information about this specific organization. Reads like advert spam. I'll withdraw if good sources can be found, but I currently feel it's not notable. Torchwood Who? (talk) 01:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable student fair. GrapedApe (talk) 00:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. There are differing pluralities within this discussion that, when taken with "uninvolved" editors, point to a lack of consensus to delete this article, but also a lack of consensus to keep the article in its current form. The nominator adopted an editor's proposal to move the article to the book's title and re-write, but that position cannot be said to have achieved consensus. Further complicating matters is the Arbcom involvement, which has resulted in topic bans for some of the editors commenting here. With respect to the bans, I did consider them in evaluating the discussion, here, but it did not affect my conclusion. Further discussion on the talk page should focus on how to reorganize this content in an appropriate manner. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 21:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about a little known advocacy paper that became a book advocating a point of view, the writing of which was supported by grants from politically oriented foundations. The article exists as a POV fork and does not meet the Wikipedia criteria for articles about books, but rather is an attempt to put undue weight on a non-neutral point of view into Wikipedia article text. WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 00:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In contrast, POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first, and is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article. As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be merged, or nominated for deletion.
Since what qualifies as a "POV fork" is itself based on a POV judgement, do not refer to forks as "POV" except in extreme cases of persistent disruptive editing. Instead, apply Wikipedia's policy that requires a neutral point of view: regardless of the reasons for making the fork, it still must be titled and written in a neutral point of view. It could be that the fork was a good idea, but was approached without balance, or that its creators mistakenly claimed ownership over it.
There is no way that this article is a POV fork because it was not created (and does not now function) as "another version of the article (or another article on the same subject)." There is no other "version" of the article. The subject is not discussed, in detail, in any other location on Wikipedia. There may be many reasons to delete this article, but calling it a POV fork is mistaken. David.Kane (talk) 17:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Basically I think the AFD should address whether this article should be a standalone or whether the material should be merged into some other article. I don't believe a full scale wipeout of this study from Wikipedia is at present feasible but I also feel that the standalone article gives too much weight, without context, to a single survey carried out 25 years ago. Wapondaponda (talk) 17:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neologism. Dictionary definition of non-notable acronym. Torchwood Who? (talk) 00:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There may be 1 article (paper) that asserts that a band which Carman was in had a high selling single; if so, the band may be notable, but Carman is not. There are currently no valid citations in the article--all of the previous citations failed to mention Carman's name. Even if the information here were verified, I don't believe Carman himself meets WP:GNG or WP:MUSIC (it is slightly possible his band Heartland meets WP:MUSIC--note that this is not the same Heartland as Heartland). Qwyrxian (talk) 00:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. –MuZemike 23:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what to make of this. I believe that the author is Bert W. Herring himself: thentor.com is a website that he made. I also have concerns with notability. I appreciate the reports (or an effort to find them) but find ultimately the COI-SPA and notability concerns too much. The New Raymie (t • c) 02:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This source seems to establish notability. BE——Critical__Talk 03:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Christopher Stasheff . NW (Talk) 23:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a single book which is not notable for its own article. The book is definitely not notable in my opinion. BE——Critical__Talk 03:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. I consider this to be a de facto WP:PROD - i.e, I'll restore on request. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 20:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mailing list software. No evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 05:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is a book called on mailing lists, http://www.amazon.com/Managing-Mailing-Lists-Majordomo-SmartList/dp/156592259X called "Managing Mailing Lists: Majordomo, LISTSERV, Listproc, and SmartList". I thought that since we have a category for "Free mailing lists" and that SmartList was fairly popular that it was worthy of mention in wikipedia. Somewhat confusing is the issue is the fact Smartlist shared a name with a now defunct PalmOS mobile app. Brandorr (talk) 10:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. I consider this to be a de facto WP:PROD - i.e, I'll restore on request. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 20:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Software product with no evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 05:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
if they do not warrant their own articles, i suggest placing a template at the bottom of the terminal emulator and ssh articles listing programmes of this type. google searches for other inter-connectivity, terminal emulation, ssh, and programming topics seem comparable, and show evidence of the package or components being used at large corporations and institutionsS3819 (talk) 01:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it 207.81.170.99 (talk) 06:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The WordsmithCommunicate 06:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1st century (Hebrew) (2nd nomination) for my opinions on the matter. As they uncannily take up space in that previous AfD discussion, unlike before, I don't think enumerating the years will be necessary. They stretch from 5600 (Hebrew year)—5800 (Hebrew year) and also, for whatever reason, contain 4965 (Hebrew year), 5573 (Hebrew year), 5825 (Hebrew year), 5853 (Hebrew year), 5881 (Hebrew year), 5909 (Hebrew year), 5937 (Hebrew year), 5965 (Hebrew year), and 5993 (Hebrew year) as well. The relevant templates are Template:Hebrew-year-stub, Template:Description of a Hebrew year, Template:Month Hebrew calendar, Template:Month Hebrew calendar/Help, Template:Month Hebrew calendar - detailed, Template:Footer Hebrew calendar, Template:Category and navigation for a Hebrew year, and Template:Header Hebrew calendar. Like before, they contain no useful information, and are more like repositories of templates if anything. And finally, the categories are Category:Hebrew years and all relevant subcats.
Please delete all of them, so that I don't have to list them again. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 00:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The above AFD includes several templates, which would properly go to Templates for Deletion. Since the templates were not in use, were only usable on these articles, and since these articles were deleted, I went ahead and deleted the templates as well. If there is concern over this deletion, please let me know. Thanks, UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 04:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Software product with no evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 05:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. None but the nominator opined in favor of deletion. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 15:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:N. Obviously he's widely read/quoted in some section of the right-wing blogosphere, but no reliable sources exist, so all Wikipedia can do is list places where his columns have been republished and summarize his views using primary sources. Prezbo (talk) 07:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The subject is not notable enough to have its own article, as evidenced by its lack of any independent references. Because the subject hasn't been covered by independent sources, the article only serves as advertising for the product--Lester 10:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No real notability shown for this band, lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Newcastle Music Directory and Unearthed are not independent. The AU Review and Central Coast Express Advocate coverage is not IMO significant. That leaves no significant coverage and I was unable to find any. Nothing satisfying wp:music. prod removed by articles creator ("Please let me know which references are not reliable and I will scale the article back. Some anonymous users have added information which may not be reliable, should I remove these?", replied at talk page.) duffbeerforme (talk) 11:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— Jazzychef (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The result was delete. While not devoid of sourcing, the consensus was that such sources as exist are insufficient to show notability. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 15:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Subject is a non-notable amateur, the claims of grandeur made on the page are not for major oganizations involved in his sport. Likely the author is the subject himself and that this is self promotion. DJSasso (talk) 13:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Reading Company. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. Lacks independent coverage in reliable sources. No indication of notability. Sources provided are: (1) a press release, (2) an SEC filing by the company, (3) an indication that one of their theaters is a venue in a non-notable film festival. SummerPhD (talk) 15:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced, reads like an essay. Was prodded and deleted earlier, but restored as a contested prod. —fetch·comms 18:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Opinion divided on whether importance within the subject's field can make up for a lack of sourcing . Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 15:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Organisation does not meet WP:ORG - the coverage in GNews Archive mainly consists of Press Releases, and "xyz is a member of AOTA" type coverage -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
References to the article are blogs, wikilinks, press releases, dead or passing mentions, subject appears not to be notable--he has written a lot and is sometimes quoted, but I haven't found significant coverage in reliable sources. Article needs a rewrite, but I thought to bring it here first to make sure notability can be established. Nuujinn (talk) 22:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a website that shows up in searches, however I haven't been able to find anything about the site in any searches. Google news searches return this site as the source/publisher for many articles. Most of the references within the article are about the topic of Microfinance, not about the company. The only references about the company are from its own website. Quite a few socks (CUd and blocked) have edited this promotional piece as well as that of the founder Vikash Kumar, repeatedly removing both regular PRODs and BLP-PRODs. —SpacemanSpiff 08:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reference have been edited and supported by other news sources. this wiki page is similar to other informative microfinance organisations like SKS Microfinance and Microfinance Information Exchange which are not subjected to deletion. no violation of WP:NPOV. 59.99.230.11 (talk) 11:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)wanki[reply]
Keep Page has been edited. waiting for discussion to be closed. Isabel chn (talk) 08:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sources are passing mention and press releases. I see no significant coverage in reliable sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]