The result was delete. Courcelles 21:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable individual being spammily recreated. Afd will allow speedy deletion in the future. Active Banana (bananaphone 21:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Fails WP:SYN, cannot find the term in any WP:RS LFaraone 02:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neologistic name for a non- (or not-yet-) notable branding concept or theory. No identifiable Google results or independent coverage of this concept. Contested PROD. Glenfarclas (talk) 22:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The title of the thesis includes the phrase 'Myths, Symbols and Branding' and the words 'national identity', I don't believe you can argue that every wikipedia article title should exactly match a name or phrase from a particular reference but rather it should concisely communicate the intention of the article.
If you have any suggestions to reference the material in a manner that will be suitable for a wikipedia entry as well as any editing that is applicable to the text, then please make them.
I believe the concepts and information contained in the article make a worthwhile contribution on the subject.
David Cameron
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.127.204.107 (talk) 08:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The National Library of Australia does not have a copy of the thesis in paper or electronic form, they only have the abstract details, so it is no surprise that you can't find a match.
David Cameron
Query to Jimmy Pitt and A Macedonian, a Greek
Do you have any suggestions concerning the referencing and textual content of the article, it is difficult know where alterations need to be made without some reference point. :-)
David Cameron
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.127.204.107 (talk • contribs) 2010-12-22 05:57:42
Query to UncleG
David Cameron
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.127.204.107 (talk) 03:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note to A Macedonian, a Greek
The thesis has been published by Deakin University and subsequently by VDM Verlag ISBN 978-3-639-15905-9
David Cameron
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.84.48 (talk) 07:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to The Santa Clause. LFaraone 02:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced, unsourced and i have reason to believe a majority of the info is creator speculation. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 18:12 20 December 2010 (UTC)
The result was Speedily deleted by The wub.
This is a made-up word that is not yet notable. The creator is not notable either. T3h 1337 b0y 20:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. LFaraone 02:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 21:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No references and seemingly no notability, just someone doing their job. Heiro 21:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 03:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does fulfill neither of the criteria of WP:COMPOSER. No sources exist on the subject itself, no way to expand the article. Prime Blue (talk) 17:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Banking in Armenia. Spartaz Humbug! 03:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PROD removed. Single source, close to spam, WP:N, probably also WP:V Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 17:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What I don't understand is how one could get from this content to a "delete" !vote; that just seems bizarre.—S Marshall T/C 19:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article has several issues, including
This article was changed to a redirect on December 11, and then submitted to RfD by another editor on December 15. To avoid any appearance of a backdoor deletion, the RfD has been closed, the article restored, and this AfD discussion opened. I personally favor deletion of the article for the reasons stated above. –Grondemar 17:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC) –Grondemar 17:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 21:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unremarkable company with only minor mentions in the press marking the opening of the two centres. Notability is not asserted by the article and having just two centres does not make it a chain. Simple Bob (talk) 16:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 21:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fails notability. This is a single character in the book. There is no reason for separate orphaned article. --ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 16:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. LFaraone 02:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fails Wikipedia:Notability --ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 16:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I found 13 significant 2 unique news articles on Temple Riders, but all of them argue that the group is remarkable because they defy the "biker stereotype" that "Bikers are supposedly foulmouthed, freewheeling, hard-drinking highway desperadoes", and instead they are law-abiding, sober, well groomed and clean, and they proselytize their religion. The first problem with that claim to notability is that Google News archive has perhaps 3,400 articles about various groups that also "defy the biker stereotype": many of them religious, some oriented to women or law enforcement or the military or retirees or just regular people who like motorcycles. There are news articles dating back 30 years, at least, announcing the remarkable existence of motorcyclists who are not stereotypically thuggish. It's clear that non-stereotypical motorcyclists are not remarkable at all. There is a significant body of writing about the myth-making involved in spreading the biker stereotype, which is covered somewhat in the WP articles Outlaw motorcycle club, Motorcycle club and Hollister riot. This coverage could be expanded, obviously. How and why a media myth exists is notable and well documented, but how does that make Temple Riders notable?
What if we just accept the news articles at face value, and say that Temple Riders are notable because they are motorcycle club that obeys the law, and does not flout social convention. The problem there is that the reason Hells Angels, Bandidos, etc. are notable is because they break the law and raise hell. How can motorcycle clubs be notable for being stereotypical bikers and also be notable for not being stereotypical bikers? Does this mean motorcycle groups are notable no matter what they do?
Temple Riders articles |
---|
MormonTimes.com: Temple Riders rally in central Utah. Andrew Marshall Deseret News. Deseret News. Salt Lake City, Utah: Aug 5, 2008. p. WEB
Motorcyclists promote Christian values. Kathryn Jones. The Salt Lake Tribune. Salt Lake City, Utah: Oct 26, 2006. * Temple Riders defy biker stereotype. The Salt Lake Tribune. Salt Lake City, Utah: Oct 26, 2006.* Temple Riders not your typical biker club. Kathryn Jones. The Salt Lake Tribune. Salt Lake City, Utah: Sep 28, 2006.* Motorcycles, but not mayhem, drive the Temple Riders. Kathryn Jones. The Salt Lake Tribune. Salt Lake City, Utah: Sep 14, 2006. * Temple Riders defy biker stereotypes. The Salt Lake Tribune. Salt Lake City, Utah: Sep 14, 2006. * Mild-mannered motorcyclists promote Christian values. Kathryn Jones. The Salt Lake Tribune. Salt Lake City, Utah: Aug 31, 2006. * Bike Gang Blends Leather And Book Of Mormon; [METRO Edition]. Associated Press. Orlando Sentinel. Orlando, Fla.: Jan 29, 2000. p. E.7 ** Bikers Take Book of Mormon on Road; [Bulldog Edition]. Hannah Wolfson. Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, Calif.: Dec 26, 1999. p. 53 ** Bike gang blends leather and the Book of Mormon. Hannah Wolfson The Associated Press. The Grand Rapids Press. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Sep 28, 1999. p. C.2 ** Mission to ride Mormons on motorcycles aren't out for a Sunday drive; [FINAL AM Edition]. Hannah Wolfson. Fort Worth Star - Telegram. Fort Worth, Tex.: Sep 24, 1999. p. 23 ** Temple Riders - leather, bikes, religion They're older and ride with copies of Book of Mormon. Hannah Wolfson. Idaho Statesman. Boise, Idaho: Jul 4, 1999. p. 10.a ** Motorcycle Mormons Take the Righteous Ride. Hannah Wolfson. The Salt Lake Tribune. Salt Lake City, Utah: Jul 3, 1999. p. C.1 ** * Reprint of same article. ** Reprint of another article. |
While we don't have a page for Azuza Street Riders, we do have Bikers for Christ, Tribe of Judah Motorcycle Ministries, God's Squad and Jewish Motorcyclists Alliance, all of which barely, if at all, pass the bar for notability, and none of which includes much critical thought, in violation of the neutrality policy. It might be better to think about merging all of these motorcycle ministries into a single page that summarizes the redundant information about them, along the lines of Christian metal, Christian hardcore etc.
A merged page would also give room to talk more plainly about the practice of infiltrating and co-opting subversive cultures for the purpose of proselytizing, in much the same way that Harley Owners Group has been an extraordinarily effective marketing tool by co-opting the outlaw biker style in the name of commerce. --Dbratland (talk) 17:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 03:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PROD was contested, opening up AFD. With no press release or officially released information, all details are speculative. While it's possible for an album article to be created before its release, the claims on Turbulences are not verifiable. The entire article is being sourced from an alleged setlist posted on a user-generated wiki-style website. Both WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER apply. Fezmar9 (talk) 15:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 21:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article fails the WP:WEB and WP:NSOFT guidelines. After removing forum links, the only remaining sources appear to be either tangential mentions or game reviews that could be found for almost any computer game. Note, this article has previously been created and deleted under the name Dark Orbit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Fæ (talk) 15:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as G2, test page. Largely a duplicate of Markus Persson. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This may very well be an A7 article. The "sources" provided are to blogs and such; there's not indication that this person meets WP:GNG. Reads more like a vanispamcruft or a resume than a valid encyclopedic topic. — Timneu22 · talk 15:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 21:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reposted article about a Christian hip-hop record label; no independent sources. No significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Some of the label's artists appear notable, so the label name is mentioned in passing in sources about the artists -- but no substantial coverage of the label as such. Large number of GHits, but once such passing mentions are subtracted -- along with blogs, twitter/myspace/facebook links, commercial links for purchasing records, and content mirrored from this very Wikipedia article -- there's virtually nothing left. I can't find any independent coverage in reliable sources. -- Rrburke (talk) 15:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 21:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
bloggy, prosy nn vanispamicruftisement Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 21:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable Nitack (talk) 14:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 21:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
chatty and name-dropping, but nn Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 21:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable holiday, was created this year, was a redirect but reverted several times. Hopefully this will stop it Delete or redirect and protect. Secret account 14:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. treating as a soft deletion so can be restored immdiately if anyone finds another decent source Spartaz Humbug! 03:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does fulfill neither of the criteria of WP:COMPOSER. Only one single reliable (but primary) source on biographical information. Article otherwise based on unreliable source (Wikia) and trivial coverage (composer credit). No way to expand the article beyond a simple credits list. Page has been deleted before, too. Prime Blue (talk) 14:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 21:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unremarkable game. — Timneu22 · talk 12:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Thomas Eagleton. history is intact if anyone wants to do a merge Spartaz Humbug! 03:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP1E, no sources apart from that one event. JN466 12:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily deleted (A7) by RHaworth. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 22:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PROD removed by creator. I haven't been able to find significant coverage of this software in reliable sources, to meet our notability guidelines. Still not sure why we don't have a speedy criterion for software that doesn't assert notability. ThemFromSpace 12:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was result was Non admin closure keep by the nominator. This was a bad nomination on my part.
Not sufficiently notable for coverage. Shadowjams (talk) 11:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 16:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not enough third party sources. Shadowjams (talk) 11:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 21:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Prod was challenged. Has appeared for a third tier Swedish club and an Icelandic club. Don't believe he meets notability guidelines. EchetusXe 11:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 21:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Conspiracy journalism was closed as "no consensus to delete". Following the closure, I have moved the page from the incubator to the mainspace so that the community can evaluate whether the changes have addressed the concerns raised at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conspiracy journalism and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 March 24. Cunard (talk) 10:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From the talk page of the article:
Discussion about suitability as an article
|
---|
Article incubation assessment
|
Cunard (talk) 10:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 00:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fails even the most basic requirements for WP:BASIC and WP:BLPPRIMARY. First part is the interpretation of a primary sources document followed by a list of individual with the same name or similar name that might be the person that was mention in the primary source. IQinn (talk) 08:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 12:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fails Notability criteria for films. Jeffro77 (talk) 08:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 12:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Autobiographical article of person who is not notable Bkingshott (talk) 07:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 12:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some editors cannot deal with a redirecting so now its nominated for deletion. Fails WP:NSONGS; has not charted on any major chart, has not even been released, has not won or been nominated for any major awards or been covered by other notable acts. STATic message me! 07:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 12:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable book lacking GHits and GNEWs of substance. Appears to fail WP:NOTBOOK. ttonyb (talk) 06:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Probably not an hoax but an hopelessly non-notable YouTube video character, — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable animated series lacking GHits and GNEWS. Appears to fail WP:NOTFILM. ttonyb (talk) 06:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 12:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tag placed for sourcing in february 2010, which was not addressed properly since then. This article has -almost- no source other than YouTube videos basically only linking to sections describing the videos that in turn amount to WP:OR. The notability of the subject is itself very border line per WP:ANYBIO. Thanks - [CharlieEchoTango] 05:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Courcelles 00:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List does not cover a notable topic (ie, a topic the subject of significant discussion in reliable independent sources.) The entries on the list are themselves non-notable, and a list of non-notable streets is essentially a street directory, which Wikipedia explicitly frowns on. Initial prod was removed with rationale "No reason to delete this list!" - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete, WP:CSD#G11.--Chaser (talk) 06:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable individual lacking Ghits and GNews of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. ttonyb (talk) 05:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 12:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article has no sources or citations to establish the notability. I doubt that the episode is notable, the article currently fails WP:GNG. JJ98 (Talk) 04:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 12:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable county road in Florida. A Google search gives no related hits that aren't from Wikipedia. The only possible claim to notability is as a "scenic route", but we'd need a source to substantiate that. Imzadi 1979 → 04:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. LFaraone 02:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This has been around for a week or so but doesn't seem to be evolving into anything other than a personal essay. The material on it is more than adequately covered on other pages including those on HTML 5 and Flash. Tom Morris (talk) 04:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 00:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Business jargon. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Feezo (Talk) 04:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Spartaz Humbug! 03:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural nomination. Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_December_12#Rappelz_.28closed.29. I am neutral. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
:Spieletipps
- gamers.at
- pcaction.de
- printed article: Alexander Wenzel, 2008: Rappelz: Revolution, PC Action 09/2008 [18]
- onlinewelten.com
- Computer Bild Spiele
- online article: Test: Rappelz, 30.06.2009 [21]
- online article: Rappelz: Ein abgespecktes World of Warcraft, 06.03.2009 [22]
- online article: Rappelz: Tipps zum kostenlosen Online-Rollenspiel, 06.03.2009 [23]
- those articles were also printed: Test: 12 kostenlose Onlinespiele, COMPUTER BILD Ausgabe 12/2009, pp. 86 [24]
- Company: [25] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.160.173.224 (talk) 19:40, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- A add to the articles listed above, but now more scientific and not so much from the few point of the players, is found in the Google scholar search provided in the start. In the article Gyuhwan Oh and TaiYoung Ryu, Game Design on Item-selling Based Payment Model in Korean Online Games, DiGRA 2007, Rappelz is used on page 651, as an example for online games that provide their services free of charge. However the author made a typing error and the connection is only made if you follow up the references to number 17: "Rappelz". Available at http://www.rappelz.com/. The article over all covers quite well the business model used in Rappelz. - 194.160.173.224 (talk · contribs)
The result was delete. Notability isn'tclearly established but there seems to be some consensus that a new more focused article might be more acceptable then the current one Spartaz Humbug! 03:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COI article by Masreliez promoting his estimation of Kalman filtering. Not generally a notable algorithm and not encyclopedic. jps (talk) 03:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Nomination withdrawn. LibStar (talk) 06:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see this as WP:NOTNEWS. given that it happened so long ago it will be harder to find sources. but the current articles sources a blog which may be unacceptable under WP:SPS. LibStar (talk) 03:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 00:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mixtapes are usually not notable, Google shows only the WP article. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 00:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Renomination, to clear up several malformed and incomplete nominations by other ed. I have no firm opinion, but I see some major problems. The earlier nom. said "not an artist", which presumably means "not sufficiently notable as an artist." What this exceptionally spammy article really needs is a check for copyvio, and then a check for usable sources. (The weird use of the present tense is a customary side effect of a Google translation from the French. At the frWP, [28] the article was speedy deleted as non-verifiable, restored after request through OTRS, and deleted again through their AfD process.) DGG ( talk ) 01:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 12:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Small article, which most likely is impossible to develop further (unless some bigger controversy erupts out of it or it will be passed as an actual law, not as a suggestion from Wilders among other suggestions). Not really needed as a separate article since it can be fit right in to Geert Wilders article (like I said, small content), which I can do by myself if this AFD will be passed. Userpd (talk) 01:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Courcelles 22:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article that violates WP:BLP and is extremely poorly sourced for five or so years. Couldn't find much on google except for mirror sites; a lot of content was also swiped from the subject's personal webpage and could be copyvio. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 04:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 00:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced BLP without much evidence of notability. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was AfD proposal withdrawn. Article converted to redirect to Postmodern religion. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 23:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Almost identical text to that found at Postmodern Neopaganism which is arguably a better home for this material Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 01:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1. POSTMODERN WICCA has been identified as GOOD ARTICLE BY BOTS
I have created an entirely new category for POSTMODERNISM (VITAL TOPIC) and article POSTMODERN RELIGIONN - identified as a Good Article by Bots
2. The flow for my content is
POSTMODERN NEOPAGANISM - Sub-articles to include POSTMODERN WICCA, POSTMODERN DRUIDISM, Semitic Neopaganism etc etc
POSTMODERN BUDDHISM
POSTMODERN HINDUISM
ETC ETC
3. I am attempting to create a series of connected articles, however, Repeated suggests are that the articles should be merged into WICCA - or deleted, but my articles connect to POSTMODERN THEORY so they should not be merged or redirected. I keep repeating that this content connects to POSTMODERNISM, however, the WICCA community is very upset and continues to delete, revert etc etc etc etc
4. Could perhaps someone from Postmodernism shed some light??
5. I have provided over 50 references and worked very hard researching to contribute good content to Wiki on a topic that has not been covered - postmodern religion. All religions can be interpreted from a postmodern perspective so I don't really see why it is such a problem if I write about this??
6. I am a little confused about the level of resistance here considering the content is new and the sources are credible. Some articles are short but I am working hard and if I could I have a little bit of space to develop the new content. I am better at developing new content and research or coming up with angles on topics that may not have been covered on wiki, yet users are searching for or interested in - my editing skills are sadly lacking, so this is an area that I would love to focus on in Wikipedia.
7. The average user may tend to run a search for postmodern wicca etc. rather than postmodern neogpaganism - it is a more refined and specific search and the term wicca gets more hits than neopaganism so level of user interest is evident. As the majority of Neopagans are Wiccan/Witch (Google searches are 400,000 per month for Wicca) it makes sense to have a separate page. The article has only been around for a week and there are lots of references, it seems that it would be better to keep and add to the content, rather than delete the content.
8. BE OBJECTIVE - The Postmodernism - Postmodern religion - Postmodern Christianity - Postmodern Buddhism - Postmodern Neopaganism - Postmodern Wicca - Postmodern Hinduism - Links to Religion and Philosophy as major portals - also we can link to Christianity, Buddhism, Neopaganism, Hinduism etc don't waste a good opportunity.
The result was delete. Courcelles 00:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable cartoonist. His works may be notable but he isn't. Nothing in google news archives, nothing in google books (except for 3 Wikipedia-derived spam entries). Plenty of web results, mostly from Wikipedia, but I can't find anything about him. Pontificalibus (talk) 22:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Courcelles 00:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Person who's only claim to notability is working for a notable entity WuhWuzDat 19:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 00:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The concept of a "Big Four" or "Grand Slam" series of pageants has already been deleted by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GRAND SLAM BEAUTIES and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Four Pageants + Miss TQI. This is essentially the same content, only spread across many different country articles, which are also included in the nomination. O Fenian (talk) 18:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 12:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article about an unelected politician which does not pass WP:GNG, WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN. TM 00:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 00:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An article support almost wholely on primary evidence to sustain it as article with no secondary sources. Dwanyewest (talk) 17:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's poorly written, unreferenced (since 2007), unneeded and confusing as there are main articles about both Mercedes-Benz W115 and Mercedes-Benz W123 series which are of good standard and they're including info about this model. This model doesn't need separate article also because it has no extraordinary features which couldn't be found in other W115 and W123 series cars.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 12:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article was made by an overambitious assistant. Williamrichter (talk) 17:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 00:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:ORG. A Google search shows no independent source for this company. Another name is Manoto TV. Farhikht (talk) 12:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. extransit (talk) 05:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
not notable. a local basketball coach and superintendent. also, his article is highly POV with few sources. also, article is an orphan with no articles linking to it. KingJohn23 (talk) 20:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 00:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This organization does not seem to have attracted any significant coverage in reliable sources since the previous AfD discussion resulted in the article's deletion. Bongomatic 03:45, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 00:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable person. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Nomination withdrawn. LibStar (talk) 00:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
clearly WP:NOTNEWS. children go missing all the time. all the cited sources are around the same date which just reinforces this article is just a summary of news coverage. LibStar (talk) 00:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]