The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An unencyclopaedic list of organizations with no sources to back up its notability Dwanyewest (talk) 00:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 11:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A Non notable martial artist with no sources to back up its notability Dwanyewest (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A Non notable martial art with no sources to back up its notability Dwanyewest (talk) 00:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy close - Nomination withdrawn, no votes to delete. Thanks to Michael Q. Schmidt for sourcing the article. (Non-admin closure) SnottyWong confer 01:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Plot-only description of a non-notable direct-to-video movie. No significant, independent coverage in reliable sources of this movie to satisfy WP:GNG. SnottyWong verbalize 23:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was withdrawn by nominator. Tbhotch™ © Happy New Year 19:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fails notability and is an unsourced BLP, plenty of external links, which are not references. If he is notable, according to the article, it has citation needed tags. I am nominating it to AFD due to someone removed the PRODBLP without add a single reference. Many images may fall into a copyvio if a) Creator is not Xiaolong and/or b) Freedom of Panorama, if those images were not taken in China in a public exibition. Tbh®tchTalk © Happy New Year 23:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Tbh®tch for your comments.
I disagree on that 1) Wang Xiaolong is not a notable person and 2) the Article does not have references. As been improved, the article has already been added references, and work is in progress.
Tbh®tch's comments that "I am nominating it to AFD due to someone removed the PRODBLP without add a single reference." is untrue as it was not the case that "someone removed the PRODBLP without add a single reference", someone only removed the PRODBLP after adding a few references.
The reason that I removed the initial AfD notices on 29th Dec was that in the notice, it clearly said "Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the ((prod blp)) tag" As I have provided reliable sources to the article, it seemed rather logical to me that I may remove the ((prod blp)) tag. Did I misunderstand something?
With images, I can state that the images are photoes of Wang Xiaolong's work, and the images are taken in his studio in China, which is open to public, and they do not fall into a copyvio.
Other people's comments such as "citation needed", are being worked on.
Welcome your further comments, and Happy New Year
--Giloveart (talk) 14:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1) Conerning of sources: it seemed to me that google translation didn't do a very good job in translating the Chinese. On the Chinese page, the text clearly stated the images are from "Sanzi", Wang Xiaolong's tag name, and he was "well-known". If you would copy the Chinese text on the page into a better online translation tool, I assume you would have more confidence in the source.
2) Reference 3, 6 and 7 are referring to the same book, hence same ISBN number, and I have a copy of the book. I myself did the same searching via Google, and I couldn't locate it either. I am not sure if Google and WorldCat would record ALL books that have been published? I could send you a scanned copy of the book cover if that helps.
3)It seems to me that the article clearly meet the WP:BASIC criteria, which says "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,and independent of the subject." I see Wang Xiaolong clearly satisfies the above criteria as the sources (citation) provided are multiple, independent of each other and independent of the subject. With "award" and "widely recognised contribution", they fall into ADDITIONAL criteria, which states "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." And, this does not imply that Wang Xiaolong has not received any "award", which I will be happily adding to the article.
4) I also wonder if you would give me some help regarding how I can rename the article from Wang Xiaolong (artist) to Sanzi which is how he is widely recognised?
Happy New Year to you
--Giloveart (talk) 16:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Abandoned unfinished list article which is copyvio of this Falcadore (talk) 22:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 11:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No mention of notability and I can't verify anything mentioned in this article through secondary sources. The wiki itself appears to largely be a clone of Wikipedia articles, e.g. content has been lifted from our article on Sedum (the lead paragraph in particular) and imported into their article with no mention of the text's creative commons license or origin (not itself a reason to delete the article, but proves the subject of the article is not notable yet). The more notable website Dave's Garden doesn't even have its own Wikipedia article yet. Rkitko (talk) 22:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 22:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Improper references to self-published sources: Own webspace, ? (ell), blogs (ell), youtube-clones, last.fm.de (in German). There is no article about him on the greek wiki Νίκος Αντωνίου Online researches bring only the usual social networks: myspace, facebook aso. plus a few links where he tries to sell his mp3s. A google search with his name in greek letters only on web sites written in greek has a similar effect. Self-promotion. Ben Ben (talk) 21:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does not indicate notability, being the daughter of Thomas Tyldesley of Morleys Hall makes notability quistionable H66666666 (talk) 21:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete as an unsourced BLP per WP:BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ther's a lot of prose there, but not much which really explains why he's notable. And this article has been here for almost two years, entirely unsourced. No BLP should be sitting here that long without reliable sources. Corvus cornixtalk 21:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 22:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Game guides are not appropriate wikipedia content. (See WP:GAMEGUIDE) Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not entirely sure what he did merits an article. How common was an act like that which he performed? Alex (talk) 20:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#G7. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of this article does not appear to meet the general notability guidelines required for inclusion as a stand-alone article. Most references are either not independent or are not significant coverage. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 22:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Self-published book, looks like a promotional article. Dougweller (talk) 19:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete g3, blatant hoax. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced, can't find any information on this film. Prod removed by IP without comment. ... discospinster talk 19:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not discussed by independent sources. Search on guardian reveals one true positive, passing mention. Sandman888 (talk) 19:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was G3 as blatant hoax. The two photos in it were clearly identifed as a completely different breed. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This dog breed does not appear to have any reliable sources written about it or to meet the general notability guidelines required for inclusion as a stand-alone article. Much of the material written here by the author is false. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of listing this one, i thought it would of been fake.. --Darthvadar92 (talk) 19:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The keep arguments do not convincingly counter WP:NOTNEWS: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events." This is, like all such cases, tragic and horrifying, but there is nothing to suggest any long-term significance. JohnCD (talk) 23:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NOTNEWS. While tragic and horrendous, I see nothing more than a routine murder/trial. TM
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I found this at New Pages, but I haven't the least idea whether this is notable or not, or even whether the music or books criteria should apply to this sort of mixed media. The group is notable; I can not judge whether this 2-song compilation is to be judged as an "album"nThe book under its own right is not notable--worldcat shows it in only 4 libraries. DGG ( talk ) 18:50, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete a7, youth soccer player, no indication of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet criteria of WP:ATHLETE (amateur player). Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 18:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 22:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article on a non-notable martial arts style that has no independent sources. The style fails WP:MANOTE. It lacks notable practitioners and is a subset of a an art that was already deleted as non-notable. Jakejr (talk) 17:53, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Dusti*poke* 19:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sources are YouTube videos, Know Your Meme and T-shirt vendors. Not one of those is a reliable source. Article is nothing but trivia. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 17:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 22:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No non-trivial sources. Award wins are trivial, just proving how meaningless the phrase "award winning" has become. Utterly fails notability for BLPs. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 17:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Logan Talk Contributions 04:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article seems to be updated anonymously by persons with a singular interest (refer to IP contributions and guidlines to insufficient notability). Cheezwzl (talk) 17:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be a hoax. The on-line references are all dead-links, and searches find only WP mirrors. That's negative evidence, but the Australian Capital Territory's Department of Territory and Municipal Services website does have a section on Sustainable Transport, which would surely mention this Authority if it existed. The author Ardornofan (talk · contribs) edited only on a single day three years ago, and his only other contribution Ambrose Park, New South Wales is also a suspected hoax (see AfD below). Congratulations to Grogan deYobbo (talk), who tagged them both. At best, this fails WP:V. JohnCD (talk) 16:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 11:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be a hoax; searches find nothing but WP mirrors, and online maps do not show this suburb, nor do they show the reserve after which it is said to be named. The Postcodes Australia site doesn't find it. (The postcode given seems to cover the whole of Nowra). See also the article talk page. The author Ardornofan (talk · contribs) edited only on a single day three years ago, and his only other contribution ACT Hybrid Vehicle Authority also seems to be a hoax (see AfD above). At best, this fails WP:N and WP:V. JohnCD (talk) 16:56, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability. Plenty of original research and the tone is not neutral. Also seems to be linked to a similar article Lezgishvili. Not all surnames need articles, in short. Spiderone 16:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 11:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Google returns few results when searching his name in English. Haven't any reliable sources to verify that he has played passes WP:NFOOTBALL. nn123645 (talk) 16:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete As pointed out, one of the core principles of "What Wikipedia is Not" is in WP:NOT#DICTIONARY, entitled simply, "Wikipedia is not a dictionary." Mandsford 17:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unencylopaedic; wikipedia is not a dictionary. It is unlikely that an encyclopaedic article could be written for the phrase. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 22:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This person does not seem to be at all notable. A Google search gives almost no information on him, reliable or unreliable. Borock (talk) 15:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Logan Talk Contributions 04:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not Notable. No external links as references or establishing notability. Google search reveals organization posted material. Nitack (talk) 14:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A minor coach (bus) company in northern England. I see no evidence of notability; four of the five references have only trivial coverage of the firm, and the fifth has nothing about it at all. Delete for lack of notability. Nyttend (talk) 14:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as a re-creation by Gandt123 (talk · contribs) — clearly the same person as Gandt09 (talk · contribs) — of exactly the same content that was deleted first via BLP Proposed Deletion and then again via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Howes (actor) only a week ago. This is what the ((deleteagain)) tag is for, Peridon. Uncle G (talk) 13:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To date, a minor actor whose most notable part is a Second Footman. May well have a successful future (and I wish him luck), but time is not yet for Wikipedia. Peridon (talk) 12:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deletion. WWGB (talk) 23:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Dusti*poke* 19:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Spammy ("The standard of concrete on the Isle of Man was steadily rising due to Rural Industries Ltd", "who continues to suply a wide range of pre cast concrete products") article about a non-notable company, placed by someone with the same family name as the company owner. Speedy tag removed without explanation by an anonymous user in the Isle Of Man, which is where the company is based. I42 (talk) 09:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What should we Change ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.218.31.243 (talk) 11:50, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 05:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article doesnot meet notability guideline (WP:N) of Wikipedia! BurhanAhmed (talk • contribs) 09:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn; no standing delete votes. (non-admin closure) Goodvac (talk) 17:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NBOOK - all outside mentions from reliable sources that I can find are trivial, mentions in passing. Only inbound link is the author's article. Perhaps a redirect to Nonie Darwish is in order, but this clearly doesn't merit its own article. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC) Withdraw my nomination in light of sources added by article creator. It's a shame that you could find only one non-partisan source that discusses the book in any substantial detail, but the EI source proves that people other than proponents have taken notice of it, so it juuuust squeaks by. I'll be keeping an eye on the article though, so please, no more shenanigans. No lifting quotes from articles that never mention the book and claiming they're glowing reviews, and no pretending that "book tour" is a taboo phrase that obliges us to perform complicated exegesis on the news. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(od) Okay, so I spent time getting the exact words that establish the nexus between the book and the protests. The following quotes from the sources discussing the speaking controversy that you removed make it clear that the speaking controversy was a result of, if not closely intertwined with, the book she published:
All the above linked sources discuss her speaking controversy in the context of the book. I suppose we can further wikilawyer and argue that none of the sources it say it explicitly that the brouhaha was related to the book, but I'll let the quotes speak for themselves, and hopefully speak to the neutral and objective reader of this discussion.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:56, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 05:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Violates WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It is about the word (in Zulu) not about the people denoted by the word. Jaque Hammer (talk) 06:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article was deleted back in 2008. Since its recreation, it has been nominated for CSD-G12 and CSD-G4. The G12 was declined, one admin declined the G4, and one admin (myself) accepted the G4. Since there seem to be questions regarding the G4, and in fact the notability of the subject, the suggestion was made to bring it to the community. The main issue seems to be WP:N, so it's being nominated here as non-notable. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 05:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does not appear to be a notable person. No gnews hits. First few pages of ghits appear to be primarily listings.
I could not access the only listed source. (Forbes)
In addition, the wording throughout the article is fairly promotional. OSbornarfcontributionatoration 23:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to John R. Dilworth. Redirecting to John R. Dilworth (non-admin closure) Dusti*poke* 19:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article has no sources, and it is not listed at IMDb. JJ98 (Talk) 06:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Soft redirect to Wiktionary. (non-admin closure) Logan Talk Contributions 21:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Violates WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary by being about the expression "nut case," not about the nut cases themselves (who are covered in Mental illness.) Jaque Hammer (talk) 05:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Courcelles 05:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly the artist doesn't meet notability for a musician. Note Michael Cleveland did contain mostly the same content -- it is now a redirect and should be deleted concurrently. Also note the early speedy delete that was blanked. Ariconte (talk) 05:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 05:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am unable to find any coverage of this individual that suggests sufficient significance to satisfy the general or biographical notability guidelines. Wilks received a little coverage here (similar post here), and had an interview here, but nothing in reliable sources. Factiva returns 0 results. -- Lear's Fool 05:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. After ignoring the army of socks, we're left with a clear delete consensus. Courcelles 05:06, 4 January 2011 (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)) . |
I can't find significant coverage of this company in reliable sources to meet WP:CORP or WP:N Although the article is puffed up, it is based off of primary sources, advertising pieces, and passing mentions. Overall nothing within the text or the sources evidences notability. ThemFromSpace 04:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. This one seems to be a hard decision as far as the conclusion that the editors have come to, but I, in any sense, do not see a consensus, and the original nominator has withdrawn the nomination. This discussion has been taking place since 12/18 and there hasn't been any discussion since the 28th. Time to close. (non-admin closure) Dusti*poke* 19:57, 4 January 2011 (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)) . |
Software package. No evidence of having been mentioned in independent publications. Insufficient number of independent publications discussing BOUML to be able to expand this into an encyclopedic article. See below. Originally created by the author of the package (this version has already been deleted previously) and now apparently part of some external drama. —Ruud 16:35, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, please clarify, where is the discussion about the deletion, here or on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#BOUML ? I don't understand too the reason of the deletion request, do you ask for a deletion request of article each time you disagree with references placed inside ? Furthermore a deletion request is already on going on the french version, what is the interest to do two times the same work at the same time ? Seems better to wait for the result of the first one and decide here, no ? Best regards. Bruno pages (talk) 22:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Chabad house. Spartaz Humbug! 09:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am curious to see what the community thinks. This article, and the associated List of Chabad Houses in Israel, is completely unverified and, in my opinion, falls foul of WP:NOTDIR: none of these individual houses appears to be notable in its own right, unlike, say, List of synagogues in the United States. The URLs added to a number of these entries do not make it any less of a directory; on the contrary. Drmies (talk) 03:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. and move to Christian Ashram Movement, leaving no redirect. JohnCD (talk) 22:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Advanced search for: "christian sannyasa" | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
|
Advanced search for: "christian ashram movement" | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
|
This seems to have no sources which substantiate that it is notable according to our guidelines. It has no book results for the term. Previous nomination didn't get enough votes. Alternately, redirect to Bede Griffiths. He seems to be notable, but the the term "Wisdom Christianity" doesn't even appear in this book about him, or this one. So it's pretty clear it isn't notable. BE——Critical__Talk 03:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I wouldn't leave a redirect behind at Wisdom Christianity.
I find it ironic that Backtable wanted to delete the article simply because another article on a related subject was a redlink (and this article wasn't finished with comprehensive coverage of the subject, yet). Aside from the fact that it was not a redlink when I wrote the above, that bespeaks of zero effort on Backtable's part in doing the research necessary at AFD. Xe clearly did not even put the name of that (then) redlink into a search engine. Hoping that a linked article will explain things is the encyclopaedist's equivalent of not looking beyond the end of one's nose. We're supposed to be the people writing this encyclopaedia, which we know not to be complete yet. So we look outside of it for sources and information. That amount of research is a basic standard for being an encyclopaedist. As noted, this article even pointed to some of the things outwith the encyclopaedia to start by looking at. The irony is compounded by the fact that the article now contains more redlinks, indicating that not only is this a valid subject but that there are a few more valid subjects, that not only don't we yet have but apparently we didn't even know that we didn't have.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
List of reasons to delete the linked article:
The result was delete. Courcelles 05:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CLUB says that "Individual chapters, divisions, departments, and other sub-units of notable organizations are only rarely notable enough to warrant a separate article." No evidence that the Massachusetts chapter is independently notable. Nothing links to the page except the main NARAL page. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 05:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nonnotable professor. No independent references. No noted achievements. The mentioned conlang is itself nonnotable. Kaligelos (talk) 02:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 05:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CLUB says that "Individual chapters, divisions, departments, and other sub-units of notable organizations are only rarely notable enough to warrant a separate article." PPIA is an arm of a state-level organization - since even the state-level organization isn't apparently notable enough to have its own article, why should the political arm? (Also, literally nothing links to it, so it wouldn't be missed.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Consensus that, as of now, what we have here is worthy only of inclusion in a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 14:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a dictionary article, Most of the text in the articles don't have a valid reference. The total content shown in the Educational institutions are not sourced and possibly Wikipedia:NOT#OR, Can be concluded in the dictionary like this Achayan : Call name for elder brothers in christian family of kerala ...Captain......Tälk tö me 14:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Even after discounting the last three "keep" opinions for not making arguments based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, there is no consensus about whether there are sufficient sources for this topic. Sandstein 10:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For over 2 years: original research; based solely on self-published sources. Kaligelos (talk) 02:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Of all the constructed languages that exist, Lingua Franca Nova shows the most potential to become a truly universal language. It is easy to read and understand and after a relatively short time it is possible to actually speak the language. Esperanto has achieved a degree of success which is well documented, but LFN is easier to learn and a more effective means of communication. At a time when the European Community is debating the possibility of using one common language, LFN is certainly a language that should seriously be considered. I would have thought that far from shunning the language, Wikipedia would have realised the potential of LFN and would have supported it wholeheartedly. LFN continues to grow and it is important that it has as many opportunities to reach a world audience as possible, the sort of exposure that Wikipedia is capable of providing. Who knows in the future if LFN should continue to progress as it has and becomes a truly international language, Wikipedia could quite rightly claim to have assisted in making this happen. --Guido Crufio (talk) 10:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The "keep" opinions are discounted as unconvincing because (like the article) they do not cite any actual sources, but only assert that sources exist, which is not sufficient in the light of WP:BURDEN. Sandstein 10:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No reliable sources found for this term — only mentions are on forums and other unreliable venues. Examples are completely arbitrary. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 05:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A newly invented Cryptographic Hash Function with no independent sources provided and none available that I could find - in particular, it has never been peer-reviewed or subjected to security analysis as far as I can tell. Most of the article is opaque source code. Cryptographic hashes are generally not notable unless they are in wide use, and this is not; based on what I have read of the hashing method it most likely never will be in wide use. As such, this is just promotional material. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete by Shirik Clear hoax. The sources were completely misrepresented. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 03:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable film, not even listed at imdb Corvus cornixtalk 00:56, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable publication WuhWuzDat 16:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned WP:Listcruft article. Only links to this article come from Template:MissionImpossible. Sottolacqua (talk) 13:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related page for deletion:
The result was redirect to Fight Club and deleting history per consensus to delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
no real notability shown for this band. award nominations are for a local award. battle of the bands win not a major contest. a play on rage is well short of rotation. releases not on important labels. compilation appearences are not notable. of the coverage provided there is none that are reliable and provide significant coverage. lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. nothing satisfying wp:music duffbeerforme (talk) 10:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Move to Faeries (1981 TV special). Non-admin closure. RoninBK T C 09:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not if the television special exists, the only source is YouTube, and I can't find any references, and I assume that the television special may be hoax. JJ98 (Talk) 07:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The television special exists, but information on the wikipedia page is incorrect. The special aired in 1981 and more information can be found at http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0192008/. One of the few images of the Video cassette can be located here: http://www.amazon.com/Faeries-VHS-Hans-Conreid/dp/6300152936. I have watched this movie before, and the television special was not a hoax.Stalemayt1 (talk) 08:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 14:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated per WP:ORG. Local chapters of State or National organizations are not considered notable unless there are reliable secondary sources to show otherwise. This article is completely unsourced, and a look for reliable secondary sources comes up with nothing that is independent of the subject (there is a self-published history)... There is no indication of what makes this particular Chapter different from any other, so notability is not established. Blueboar (talk) 17:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 09:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Long-term unreferenced biography of a living person. No reliable sources found to support the text.Fails WP:V. Conflict of interest additional concern as is tone. Plad2 (talk) 21:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to United States elections, 2012. Consensus is that we should not have this article (yet). Those supporting the keep position do not really articulate a valid argument. Redirecting to United States elections, 2012 because it allows for the easy re-creation of the article when the time comes, and I highly doubt those who supported outright deletion would object to this approach. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 14:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PROD-contested. Per WP:CRYSTAL. There is simply not enough information on a state congressional race yet to provide any useful information. Right now, this article would be nothing but conjecture. elektrikSHOOS 02:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 14:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a jargon guide. The only content in this article is quoted directly from sources. Lacks evidence of notability. Pnm (talk) 03:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to some other article. The merge target is not yet clear and should be determined by further discussion. Sandstein 10:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced jargon definition that doesn't indicate notability. Only one inbound link. Pnm (talk) 04:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Information Sharing. Aside from DHS usage, I can't find any coherent definition of just that term. In general usage this phrase usually appears to refer to a specific method of control, e.g. "brain controlled interface". An article only on this one exceptional use only serves to confuse. merge, deferring to the experts ˉˉanetode╦╩ 03:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. The article has been wholly rewritten after 28 December 2010 and is no longer a poorly written essay, so most of the discussion no longer applies to it. If there are still reasons for its deletion, a new AfD discussion would need to be started. Sandstein 10:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Poorly written essay. I don't think there's anything to salvage here. Feezo (Talk) 05:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]