< 14 January | 16 January > |
---|
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Part of a series of articles to do with Jose Rodrigo Arango. The other two articles are also being discussed for deletion including another supposed single "The End (single)", which, like this one, has not yet been recorded and appears to be a melange of other artist's recordings. rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Comic book death. Some of the keep votes (primarily Orlady's), seemed to focus on this being a "notable" concept. However, as some editors later pointed out, there is already a page for the concept itself at comic book death. Other keep arguments were of the WP:ITSUSEFUL type, or just contained flat-out personal attacks. With that said, if someone wants to merge the list into the other article, everything is still right there in the article's history, although I would recommend talk page discussion first to determine the most appropriate way of doing that. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus was pretty much reached at WikiProject Comics, but I thought it would be best to list it here. The page has already been userfied at User:Marcus Brute/List of comic book characters that have returned from the dead by the author. Jujutacular T · C 23:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 04:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-Notable Person, and completly biased article. Found5dollar (talk) 23:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fish is legit http://artscopemagazine.com/asdyn/index.wr?is=20&a=1 http://media.www.berkeleybeacon.com/media/storage/paper169/news/2008/03/27/News/Graphic.Novel.Program.Could.Become.New.Major-3287632.shtml http://www.telegram.com/article/20081009/NEWS/810090468 http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-181614596.html http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-194261977.html http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-202509984.html http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-190138817.html http://www.emerson.edu/ce/programs/certificate/Graphic-Novel-Certificate.cfm http://thelittlechimpsociety.com/andyfish/emerson-college-honors-graphic-novels-by-andy-fish/
The efforts to remove his listing are politically biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UnderCoverFish (talk • contribs) 00:33 16 January 2010 (UTC)
The result was delete. since the only sourcing provided is a mention in the context of something else this has no verifiable content to merge but there are no objections to someone setting up a redirect afterwards Spartaz Humbug! 08:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 23:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Even if we ignore the hoax angle, consensus is clear. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
the article is more suited to Wikionary raseaCtalk to me 21:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Delete and redirect. Any editor wanting to argue the other article is at the wrong location is advised to start a doscussion at the article talk page if one has not already taken place. Spartaz Humbug! 08:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a WP:POVFORK of Vistula Land. The WP:COMMONNAME of the region is "Vistula Land". "Privislinsky Krai" (a Russian term) gets 880 ghits, 4 Google books hits, and just 1 Google scholar hit. "Vistula Land" gets 3,310 ghits, 292 Google books hits, and 33 google scholar hits. User:Ajh1492 created this POVFORK in August 2008, and it was merged and re-directed to Vistula Land in March 2009 (after a brief revert-war). In late December 2009 Ajh1492 undid the redirect, and today redirected Vistula Land to this article. I recommend this article be deleted, then turned into a re-direct. Jayjg (talk) 21:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ajh1492 (talk) 22:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ajh1492 (talk) 13:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:ENT. Article offers no sources or real claim to notability that sets this model apart from the legions of non-descript others, assuming her credits could be verified. But popular resources like the Fashion Model Directory and Models.com offer no hits on the name and what Gnews returns is all on a doctor of the same name. Google images doesn't even return anything on this model. Mbinebri talk ← 21:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy has been repeatedly declined, original author and apparently the subject of the article wants it deleted, but won't take the hint that they need to file an AFD, so this is a procedural nomination only. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. I didn't read my talk page. Yes, this article is by me and about me and was shameless self-promotion. For legal and privacy reasons, I now need the content removed. All apologies for the abuse of the system and misunderstanding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.134.139.71 (talk) 21:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've run Spanish-language searches for this beasty and produced no relevant results. I know a bit about Latin American folklore but have never heard of this one (which doesn't mean it doesn't exist!). An apparently Chilean editor (IP) commented on the talk page that they'd never heard of it. There are no references whatsoever and the article creator never did anything else after creating this page. Simon Burchell (talk) 21:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently non-notable design firm. Article has a spammy tone, and has serious WP:COI concerns over its creation. There are two external links to "references", but the references don't actually discuss the design firm, they merely include a single sentance where the name of the firm is mentioned. I don't see where this company meets the criteria spelled out at WP:GNG or WP:CORP in that I cannot find any substantial, independent references that actually discuss (rather than merely confirm the existance of) this company. Jayron32 20:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if I have misused the website. Simeone Deary is the interior design firm behind some of the high profile buildings currently going up in Columbus, Indianapolis, and Chicago and a few other cities. Of the references posted, they do speak of the firm and the work. The Elysian brand was created by this firm and is quickly becoming a new level for the hospitality industry. It is possible that one of the articles only includes a single sentence, but the firm is discussed in much greater detail in the others. I am happy to remove that article if needed.--Jessicalynnb (talk) 22:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)jessicalynnb[reply]
The result was delete. While there were a couple users who argued for merging, it seems consensus pointed to deleting instead. This debate was an interesting read, and both sides brought up decent points, but I felt overall that the deletion advocates' arguments were more grounded in policy. So, in summary, deleting per WP:AIRCRASH and WP:NEWSEVENT. I have no problem with the article being recreated after more details emerge, iff those details make this crash special or significant. As always, bring any disputes concerning this closure to User talk:The Earwig. — The Earwig @ 02:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I normally wouldn't nominate an article so soon after the event, but this just is not a notable accident. Sadly, it is quite a common situation. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 20:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I say do not delete as this is an uncommon incident in UK air safety history:
I would refer to the above unsigned user to what we have said above, and I hope this positive contribution will assist when it's decided what information to preserve and whereabouts on WP. The information should be available in one form or another based on what Blood Red Sandman has said above. Macintosher (talk) 19:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was I already speedy deleted it as G3 vandalism. No need to let obvious vandalism like this sit around for another week. --Jayron32 20:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
repeatedly recreated hoax article, speedy removed by IP WuhWuzDat 20:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
non notable cartoon WuhWuzDat 19:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete, under criteria G7 (author requests deletion). Marasmusine (talk) 18:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable software, not due to be released for almost a year. Violates WP:CRYSTAL WuhWuzDat 19:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per this discussion at the BLP noticeboard, the article, as currently written, should be deleted per WP:BLP1E. The individual is known only in context of the possible crime committed against them. If notability for the event is established, then the article should be redirected to reflect the event as a whole.Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 19:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But Kaleb cannot return the kisses. He cannot see his grandmother. He cannot hear her soothing words. Kaleb is what many crudely call a vegetable. He is blind, deaf and has no control over his arms and legs. He cannot chew or swallow. He will be in a diaper for life. Doctors say he will never improve.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article describes the mathematics and software for producing certain visual effects, which are described as fractals by the creator of this page, which is also the author of the software. There are a couple of problems here:
In its defense, these visual effects generated by this math are included in one third party (commercial) program that we don't have an article about: Visions Of Chaos gallery. This looks pretty cool, but I'm not convinced we should invoke WP:IAR based on that factor alone. Pcap ping 19:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 00:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Appears to be WP:COATRACK Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC) Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An alternate reality/dark fantasy novella, by a non-notable author which seems to clearly fail the notability guideline. Given that a google search for the author and title turns up only [20] this article, it's hard to prove this book exists, much less that it meets any of the notability criteria. This was initially prodded, but was de-prodded without comment by UlTiMaTeSeCrEt2, the creator of this article. Bfigura (talk) 18:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete and salt. Delete because the arguments for delete are more convincing and mostly based on policies, guidelines, etc., while the keep arguments are more vague and less concretely grounded (however, this is not to disparage those who did cite policies and guidelines in their arguments). Salt because a fifth successful nomination for deletion is quite telling about the notability of the subject with respect to Wikipedia standards, and to force any future article depicting the subject to fulfill all concerns before recreation. --kurykh 02:10, 23 January 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)) . |
Several previous versions of this article have been created and brought to AFD, with a consistent balance of opinion in favour of deletion. I'd encourage editors to review the past discussions, but I would summarise the dominant view as being that while Nicholas Beale has collaborated with notable people (such as John Polkinghorne), neither his personal role in those projects nor his individual activity has received significant independent coverage.
In common with its predecessors, this version of the article relies heavily on the subject's own writing and promotional sources such as a foreword to his co-written book. The only developments apparent since it was last deleted (October 2009) are the publication of an article by Nicholas Beale in Think (which cannot yet have had much impact, if it is going to) and a mention in the Financial Times of a collaborative project.
Given the lack of change from its earlier incarnations, my suggestion is to delete this article. However, I admit that my view may be coloured by irritation at how this situation keeps recurring, and I'd like to see what editors with fresh eyes think of the article. As a compromise, I wouldn't object to converting Nicholas Beale into a redirect to Questions of Truth, the book with Polkinghorne that prompted most mentions of Nicholas Beale's name in the media, and including brief biographical information at that article. EALacey (talk) 18:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: if the article is deleted and not replaced with a redirect, I support the suggestions below to "salt" the page title. EALacey (talk) 18:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, in response to points raised by SlimVirgin and LessHeardvanU above: it is obvious that NBeale, while a helpful editor in other areas of the encyclopedia, is a single-minded COI editor when it comes to edits related to this article (as evidenced by edits to WP:NOR and discussion surrounding this article). But articles are not deleted based on the behavior of their subjects, they are deleted based on non-adherence to core policies, so NBeale's behavior around this article is not really relevant to this AfD. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 22:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
NBeale's proposed corrected analysis of sources
|
---|
Hi User:Rjanag. Thank you for taking the trouble to do this, but I think you have made a few mis-classifications:
|
Also, people above seem to be taking it as a priori that Questions of Truth is notable, but in fact even that is questionable. The person who created and has made more edits to it than any other editor (twice as many as the 2nd-place editor, and 1/3 of all edits to the article) is NBeale himself. It's not like this guy wrote the Bible or something; he wrote a book that is marginally notable at best, and even then he only played a junior role in it (as someone pointed out above, a role not even big enough to justify alphabetical ordering of the authors). So in short, harping about Questions of Truth is simply not a useful way to prove notability. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 23:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote to the people who publish Think to ask who would have written that. They replied, "authors are always asked to provide their own descriptions of themselves to accompany articles, and that is what is then used. The self-descriptions authors provide are not checked." (This is quoted with their permission; will forward to the closing admin on request.) I believe NBeale would have known this when he implied otherwise. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 04:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--Epeefleche (talk) 19:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: This AfD is set to end not before 18:36 (UTC) today, 22 January...for the sake of process, please no one close it anytime earlier than that. Thanks, rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 02:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very difficult to know what to make of this. The author claims albums and tours by other artists (particularly Miley Cyrus) as being the subject of the article's own. I've tried going through the article to pick fact from fiction but I've simply given up. It too difficult to know what is true, what is exaggeration and what is simply false.
Example: "On October 11, 2008, he released his third record named Breakout where he sahre credits with Miley Cyrus ..." Breakout is a Miley Cyrus album.
Such claims - and in particularly so many of them - make it difficult to know what to do with this article except delete it and start again. In any even the subject fails WP:MUSICBIO anyway. rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I make a promise to write more info about this article and José Rodrigo Arango Suaza--200.118.54.28 (talk) 16:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This "single" isn't even recorded yet and I cannot find reference to it on the artists website. No other references. rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is an reproduction of emporis's page, which is itself a nonnotable ranking. Louiedog (talk) 17:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know there are alot of ranking on various websites, and all of them looks skyline rankings in their own perspective, but as i consider emporis the most reliable source so thats why keeping in view of emporis ranking i have created the list.the ranking crireria is also to some extent an arbitrary one,even to this extent we you cant delete this article,wikipeida needs the ranking of skyline,as it isnt mentioned any where in wikipedia,what i am saying is that to keep this article and try to improve it,by adding criteria of skyline rankings, of some other websites. Nabil rais2008 (talk) 15:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing that points to any relevance of this family. The "sources" don't say anything at all Mvdleeuw (talk) 17:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Youth football (soccer) player who does not meet notability criteria at WP:BIO or WP:ATH. Only mention I can find of a person named James Wilson who may fit the biographical information given in the article is [38], which mentions him in passing. —KuyaBriBriTalk 17:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep, nomination withdrawn -SpacemanSpiff 21:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very little meaningful content, unsuitable style, unsourced. If it didn't have possible notability as an existent village I would tag it under CSD.--Microcell (talk) 16:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable per WP:NSPORT, unreferenced, heavily promotional tone per WP:PROMO, possible WP:Autobiography, can find no evidence online that he ever played for this football club. MuffledThud (talk) 15:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. NJA (t/c) 13:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Subject fails WP:NOTMANUAL Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 15:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) DustiSPEAK!! 05:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
uncharted ep without significant coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 15:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 08:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fancruft. Not enough coverage in multiple reliable sources. Defender of torch (talk) 09:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
uncharted download ep without significant coverage in independent reliable sources duffbeerforme (talk) 15:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
no notability shown outside Adema. other band shows no indication of being notable. lacks coverage outside Adema. duffbeerforme (talk) 15:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable actor, I can't find anything at Google that's not a Wikipedia mirror, or a trivial listing of roles. No substantive text about him seems to exist. Google News also turns up almost nothing as well. Can't even find an obit or anything else. Jayron32 14:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 03:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable gaming element. Appears in one game in the series and does not have any significant coverage Teancum (talk) 14:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus I really didn't want this to be the result, but there are so many different arguments to keep/delete/merge this article, most of which have some merit to them. No one position seems to have more support either in numbers or policy than any other, so we're left with no consensus as the result. I strongly suggest a merge or re-organization discussion be pursued as a follow-up to this process in the hopes of avoiding a third go round here. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have figured out what exactly makes this article inferior to List of environmental organisations topics, which was turned into a redirect to Environmental organization, against AFD protocol (a no consensus vote, which defaults to Keep), by Liefting. It does not have a single positive issue. Not one. Under Energy alone, the L.o.e.o.t. has
- Alternative fuels
- Biomass
- Energy conservation
- Energy efficiency
- Fossil fuels
- Fuel cells
- Geothermal energy
- Hydroelectric energy
- Nuclear energy
- Solar energy
- Wind energy
Over 250 articles in all. Twice as many as this article. But what really makes the difference is that environmentalism is about more than pointing out problems, it is also about finding solutions. This article shows no solutions. Anarchangel (talk) 09:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Correction: 234 articles, including the 29 articles linked to by the section headings. List of environmental issues only has 127; the threadbare state of that article was quite clearly pointed out in the last AFD, four months ago, but nothing has been done about it.Anarchangel (talk) 12:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- Creating the redirect has absolutely nothing to do with the afd "protocol". The article was not deleted and you are quite free to revert my edit if you do not agree with it. As for the content of this article versus List of environmental organizations topics would you not agree that they are quite separate topics? This article is about environmental issues - ie. the effect of humans on the environment. The List of environmental organizations topics is a list of sustainability topics, environmental issues, a small collection of science disciplines and a bunch of other stuff that is far too broad to be of use. Also, note that the number of links is not a criteria to judge an article merit. Usefulness and coherence are a couple of criteria that I can think of as a way of evaluating articles. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep per meeting the inclusinog criteria for list by covering very notable subject matter. I would like to see the title improved and the article content fleshed out a bit, but this list if worthwhile and encyclopedic. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. NW (Talk) 02:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of notability. Only claim to fame is winning a competition for young composers, which doesn't count under WP:COMPOSER. Only references cited are BBC and the Guardian, who were the joint promoters of the competition. Previous AfD nomination was survived per WP:HEY but no significant improvement has been made in nearly two years. Deskford (talk) 14:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. The only delete !votes seem to be from single purpose accounts (non-admin closure) DustiSPEAK!! 05:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, probably a hoax. Late-edition OED defines "joggling" only as a shaky motion. Google search for "joggle" turns up thousands of results, but they are mainly games, products, and software projects by that name: scores of which, by the google metric, are more important than this (supposed) sport. Egnalebd (talk) 02:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— Quadricode (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — CESSMASTER (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The result was keep. WP:SNOW close (non-admin closure) DustiSPEAK!! 05:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article recreated by SPA after deletion. SPA has never provided sources for this article. It does not appear to be notable. Miami33139 (talk) 13:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of sources. Check out Tucows, CNet, or Snapfiles. The history description comes directly from the author. [46] [47] [48]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hard to confirm this event ever happened (or under that name). Dubious sourcing TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Nomination withdrawn; article redirected (Non-admin closure). Intelligentsium 20:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As per WP:NOTDICDEF this seems to be just a definition of a medical term, or terms, which says nothing about the subject other than the definition. A Google search doesn't turn up anything to suggest otherwise - various uses but no good references. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 12:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. when its released and there are proper sources then we c<an host an article. but not yet.... Spartaz Humbug! 09:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable per WP:GNG and WP:Notability (fiction), local TV show not yet released, some WP:Conflict of interest by at least one editor, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, only WP:Primary sources given as references. Prod contested by WP:Single-purpose account. MuffledThud (talk) 10:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod, spammy article, if notable it had to be rewritten almost from scratch, only self-references provided. Anna Lincoln 10:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe now the organization is notable, but as my nomination has already been done, I will let this run. Anna Lincoln 10:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep per the snowball clause. –MuZemike 16:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article looks nice - well written, pictured, and cited to peer-reviewed articles, but, there are several worrying issues which I bring to your consideration:
The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 00:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable religious leader. Ism schism (talk) 05:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm finding quite a few third-party references to him and his work, as well as many yoga studios across the US that follow his style or whatever. He may not be of huge notability outside the field of yoga, but within that field he appears quite notable. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 01:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted after vandalism by IP [64]. Also, warned the IP. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 10:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to List of demons in the Ars Goetia. Redirecting all to List of demons in the Ars Goetia. Content can be merged at editor discretion Spartaz Humbug! 10:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a content fork of The Lesser Key of Solomon and fails to meet the notability criteria; one of 72 types of demon mentioned in the main article. The article is unlikely to ever become more than trivial as no other sources say more about this demon than Ars Goetia, and can be easily merged back to The Lesser Key of Solomon. Wikipedia does not benefit from having an article for every religious or mythical character or neologism from every book ever published. Ash (talk) 21:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages for identical reasons:
The result was redirect to List of demons in the Ars Goetia. redirecting but history still there so feel free to merge as required Spartaz Humbug! 09:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a content fork of The Lesser Key of Solomon and fails to meet the notability criteria; one of 72 types of demon mentioned in the main article. The article is unlikely to ever become more than trivial as no other sources say more about this demon than Ars Goetia, and can be easily merged back to The Lesser Key of Solomon. Wikipedia does not benefit from having an article for every religious or mythical character or neologism from every book ever published. Ash (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge 2009 Barack Obama visit to China to Sino-American relations - Delete 2009 Kevin Rudd visit to Japan . Considering the comments on the previous AfD for Barack Obama’s visit, the existing merge tag and comments on the talkpage alongside the comments on this AfD, there is an actionable consensus to merge 2009 Barack Obama visit to China into Sino-American relations. Such a merge would need to be done with care as there is too much material in 2009 Barack Obama visit to China to merge wholesale into Sino-American relations. Consideration of what material to be kept should bear Wikipedia:Notability (events) and WP:NOTNEWS in mind. I note that all the references in the article are from November 2009, and that much of the content is worded in terms of events that are about to happen – a successful merge would include a source summing up the impact of the visit, as that is unclear from the material in the article as it currently stands, and would cut out the speculation and the future tense (example: “Obama is expected to raise the issue of the Renminbi in his talks with Hu Jintao”). The consensus for 2009 Kevin Rudd visit to Japan is to delete it, and I will go with consensus, though if somebody wishes to make a mention of the visit in Australia–Japan relations and would like to view the content to make such a merge I would be willing to userfy the content for them. I will comment that it is unhelpful to list two unrelated articles in the same AfD, though I will not comment on the possible motives for this as I as sume good faith on the part of the nominator. SilkTork *YES! 20:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see two articles that are similar and of questionable notability. I can't say 100% that it is a keep so a AFD is noted. (The converse is that I can't say it's a 100% delete either). Both articles are very much like news. One editor said that the Rudd visit was merely a stop. There are reliable sources that say the Obama visit was a stop, too, after the Asia Pacific Summit. There were serious issues and a publicity point (whaling issue) for the Rudd visit but it was short. The Obama trip was a little longer but little was accomplished. It could have been notable if Obama publically demanded that the PRC force North Korea to act or demanded that the PRC buy American cars or shame them on human rights but it was an uneventful, non-notable trip. Both border on news but both also have multiple news sources (newspapers report the news, not necessarily notable on an encyclopedic level). The Obama visit was covered in several countries, the Rudd visit covered in at least Australia, Japan, UK, France, India, Pakistan, Singapore, United States. So there is no clear answer to this except that both are very similar articles. JB50000 (talk) 07:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Autobio by a person that hasn't established notability for inclusion. NJA (t/c) 09:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. if there are no sources we can't host this content Spartaz Humbug! 08:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing notable about this girl, the novelty wore off five years ago. She released an album that never even made it to the Top 200 music albums, and besides her appearances in some little-known men and racing magazines, she doesn't fully establish notability. Also, the majority of editors (her fanbase, most likely) kept adding that her fame stems from "pornos", "an album that flopped", and "started porn as a minor". That says enough: are we really going to put an article about Kaila Yu here? That's not notability. If anyone has an opposing opinion, feel free to explain. ★Dasani★ 08:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article fails to meet the core policy of verifiability. The article makes a couple of claims for notability. The first claim is as a race car driver. The second claim as a professional hockey player. Neither claim is backed up by reliable sources in the article. My own searches were unable to find any information to corroborate these claims.
Looking at him as a race car driver, I can find no coverage about his entry in an international rally in New Zealand that asserts had coverage in multiple media. Not am I able to find any other information about his racing career in the United States.
Looking at his hockey career, I again can find no mention of professional hockey player by the name of Kelvin Wright. The Internet Hockey Database [66] has no record of him. Whpq (talk) 20:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable record label Rapido (talk) 20:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable photoshop plugin. Disputed prod. Only references are to the projects own website. noq (talk) 08:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Help me. Thank you for your comments. Please, could you advise me what external references will be ok to place them in my article? The issue is that Divine plugin is a new product, but it's really useful for web developers and designers. So, what resources could write about it that I could use them in the article. I'd like to work out all the problems to have my article in Wikipedia. Thank you in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Webdeveloper84 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Help me. I don't want to promote a new product. I want to share it with the people concerned. Please could you tell what sources could be reliable sources for my article (for this kind of web product)? As there are many web sites where Divine plugin is discussed and its work is explained (not by its developers). Your reply will be very much appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Webdeveloper84 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable "producer, musician, and mixer" who has "worked on various albums to-date." A previous speedy was declined because, as an old revision will show you, the article formerly claims he was "commonly known for his work with Ryan Edgar, Bob Schneider and Kari Jobe." He has one news mention in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, in which his job is given as "sound engineer." I can't find anything else that could amount to significant coverage or otherwise meet WP:MUSICBIO. Glenfarclas (talk) 07:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Self promotional. At most merge it with a appropriate article but this is a spamfest circlejerk. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. no source = deletion until sources are available. I have userfied the page at User:Ceceliadid/Global Interoperability Program Spartaz Humbug! 10:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy keep. I interpret the nominator's comment below, "further deletion requests, even if they follow Wikipedia guidelines for AfD (as this AfD did not)" as indicating that he accepts this AfD is unnecessary and can be closed (as indeed is the consensus among other editors). Individual points brought up here can be followed up on the article's talk page. Olaf Davis (talk) 18:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Seiyū talk page has a discussion asking the purpose of the article. Essentially many people question the necessity of "Seiyū" and other articles like it, where article writers name articles using a Japanese word that has NOT entered into the English language lexicon, versus naming it for what it really is. In the case of "Seiyū", it means "voice actor" in Japanese, however the word "Seiyū" is not a word that English-speaking people use at all. Specific quotes of interest include:
And it goes on. Others feel that this article should be renamed. I thought so to, but after reading some of the other comments that criticize more than the necessity of the article, such as the actual article title "Seiyū" goes against proper formatting for Japanese words on Wikipedia and that it has numerous unsourced statements, I think it would be best to simply delete the article outright.
Now based on the criteria listed on the Wikipedia deletion policy, I think the article violates:
It also doesn't pass the "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" bit, seeing as "Seiyū" is a word that the article is attempting to define, seeing as the word "Seiyū" is not a word that has entered into the English lexicon. Again, that's where some people think it should be at least renamed to "Voice acting in Japan" (although other instances of "Seiyū" in other articles should be replaced). And if I really wanted to be vindictive, I could also say that this article doesn't pass the "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" bit as well, because I could argue that there are way too many anime fans here who feel Japanese words, concepts, and other such things have greater importance than other similar things from other cultures/languages, to the point where they have to write articles promoting them. I mean, why do we have an article about Japanese voice actors while none for specifically German, French, and Spanish voice actors?
Now if anyone decides to vote "KEEP" for this article, answer yourself this: how is Japanese voice acting any MORE important than voice actors of other country that they not only deserve their own article, but that the article title MUST be the Japanese word for "voice actor" versus "Voice Acting in Japan"? Nick15 (talk) 06:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete per CSD G3 - this is a clear hoax Nick-D (talk) 07:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be about a insignificant social pool game and verges on being a hoax. Grahame (talk) 06:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's been a fair amount of process here. A previous article titled with the name of the biographical subject was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ophélie Bretnacher. This article was created later, and deleted as WP:CSD#G4, recreation of deleted content. That deletion was reviewed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 January 6, where the consensus was to list at a new AfD. The principal questions here are whether the article violates the one event clause, the not news clause, and the not a memorial clause. This is a neutral nomination. Chick Bowen 06:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. (my emphasis)
"Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a standalone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not. (my emphasis, again)
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 03:53, 22 January 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)) . |
![]() | Do not recruit meatpuppets. It is considered inappropriate to advertise Wikipedia articles to your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you for the purpose of coming to Wikipedia and supporting your side of a debate. If you feel that a debate is ignoring your voice, remain civil, seek comments from other Wikipedians, or pursue dispute resolution. These are well-tested processes, designed to avoid the problem of exchanging bias in one direction for bias in another. |
Like I said when I prodded this, "empty words about a neologism". It does sound far more like a policy memo than an encyclopedia article, and indeed is partly lifted from here (complete with unformatted bullet points). And outside a few possible mentions in EU documents (ie not independent sources, ie in breach of WP:GNG), no one seems to have heard of this "Intelligent Europe" concept. There is apparently something called "Energy Intelligent Europe", but to the extent that needs coverage, Energy policy of the European Union can do the job. And there's also something called i2010 (an article that's nearly as bad), where I suppose one might look to do some expansion. But the bottom line on this one is that no independent sources actually confirm the existence of this concept, which is presented here in decidedly bureaucratic tones. - Biruitorul Talk 06:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Wikipedia is not a democracy...
Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion
Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary but not exclusive method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion, not voting." [[74]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.168.44.233 (talk) 08:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it for your good, to be well-informed about the EC policies and programs in wasteful spending the public money, not to be in the dark why the EC is missing all the key Knowledge Europe strategies. Don't allow to make Wikipedia a collection of "lies, damned lies and Wikipedia articles", where "All Wikipedia editors ask themselves the following questions when deciding whether or not to revert the edits: Was it written by a friend of mine? Did they link to an article I previously wrote? Am I in a good mood? If not, is it a means of winding up someone? If unable to answer positively to all of these questions, edits must be reverted, with smug comments posted on the talk page of the offending user." [[76]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.168.44.233 (talk) 06:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC) — 83.168.44.233 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The result was delete. Long-term unreferenced bio, no objections. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:BIO. simply being a journalist for a major station does not mean automatic notability. gnews search. LibStar (talk) 05:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to XFM London. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable pirate radio station; totally unsourced Rapido (talk) 18:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article fails WP:ORG. Any factual well sourced corporate details could be easily merged into the main article WPP Group (at the moment this sub-company does not appear to be mentioned). The article has been tagged for reliable sources for over 25 months with no sign of notability being addressed. I find one match in Google News about winning a contract but nothing that addresses specific notability to establish this sub-company as needing its own article. I note the list of campaigns they have contributed to but a number of companies would be involved in such campaigns supplying varied services and do not all become notable in an encyclopaedic sense as a consequence. Ash (talk) 18:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of notability but just enough to pass A7, I think. A google search for the name in quote marks brings up only one result (this article) , the only reference is to this person's autobiography (no title, ISBN etc...). HJMitchell You rang? 16:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated for deletion per WP:NALBUMS. Specifically, Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources. This article is about a promotional CD of songs that had already been released (the article erroneously states that three tracks were previously unreleased), that was sold only at McDonald's locations for a short time. Little, if any, attention was paid to this "album" by third-party sources. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 05:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a website which fails WP:N and WP:WEB as it hasn't recieved significant attention in reliable, third-party sources. Actually, there really isn't an assertion of notability at all within the article, so I'm rather suprised that the A7 tag was removed. ThemFromSpace 04:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Keep per WP:NOTAGAIN. (non-admin closure) Blodance (talk) 09:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Declined speedy, but there's a lot of spam here. Orange Mike | Talk 04:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article is spammy and appears to fail WP:N as I haven't been able to find any significant discussion of "Quickquote" in reliable, third-party sources. ThemFromSpace 03:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable ex-DJ turned stockbroker Orange Mike | Talk 03:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 08:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of this article has not been verifiably demonstrated to exist, nor to create or sell any artworks—ever. The only sources relate to a late-2008 episode where—through a representative at a non-existent law firm—the subject is claimed to have offered a painting—that by his own estimation was hugely valuable—to a cathedral. Fails BLP1E and V. Bongomatic 00:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC) Moreover, speculation that he may have substantial and noted sales of his works in the future is simply WP:CRYSTAL ball-gazing. Bongomatic 13:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC) Even were he demonstrated to exist, there is insufficient coverage to establish notability per guidelines. If the episode constitutes a hoax, it is not a notable hoax. Bongomatic 03:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article is user-biased. The very name of the article gives it away (Creator's username is Osizzle93). This is also basically an explanation of the US Government's workings with some definitions. This not only has many major issues, it also is possible Conflict of Interest, a possible hoax, among other things. and would require a major rewrite to become encyclopedic.Hamtechperson 03:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. hoax DGG ( talk ) 03:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This was speedied for spam or copyvio two or three times before under this and at least one similar name. I've got to say, I can't imagine how a university founded in 1993 with 17,000 students can have zero Google hits outside Wikipedia—but this one does. Even if this were a purely online school or a degree mill there would have to be something. WHOIS says that the address unzwest.com was created late last year. I don't want to say, "this has hoax/scam written all over it," but . . . . Glenfarclas (talk) 02:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Happy Camp, California. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is an organization offering vaguely-defined "family-oriented services" in Happy Camp (Siskiyou County), California. GNews shows a one-sentence mention in a USA Today article about gas prices, and then there's the local coverage the article cites, such as from the Siskiyou Daily. I don't see anything approaching "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources," especially in light of WP:CORP's admonition that "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability." Glenfarclas (talk) 02:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
wp:blp of unclear notability. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 00:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. Nothing particularly notable about this concert tour. We are not an indiscriminate collection of information Nouse4aname (talk) 15:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find significant coverage for this bootleg album. Joe Chill (talk) 15:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable person. Self-published saxophone instruction book does not quite bring notability. Dutch Improv "group" seems to consist of the subject himself. All references are primary sources, either to the subject's instructional blog or the Dutch Improv site. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well: James Dóxx and Florian Peek are obviously the same person. I filed the entry under his real name because I thought that would be more appropriate, but perhaps something could be said for moving/renaming it to James Dóxx and omitting any business stuff since in that field he is indeed not notable--Marcus Left (talk) 16:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Comment Correct, but in a relatively small community of saxophone players can being verbose and published not indeed constitute being notable? --Marcus Left (talk) 16:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I understand. Thanks for you explanation. A leading British Online instrument store (www.Karacha.com) includes his method with several of their beginner Alto saxophones: (http://www.karacha.com/Carmichael-Evolution-Alto-Saxophone-Ultimate-Starter-Mega-Pack) quote from their site"...#Hello Saxophone - A Learn to Play the Saxophone Course which has been described as "elegant in its simplicity" and "incredibly intelligent...."
I'll search for some mentions in saxophone magazines (it's just that there are very few nitch magzines for the sax, and Sax on the web is really considered The international online place for all things saxophone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcus Left (talk • contribs) 16:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unable to fin any reliable sources to assert so much as existence. Of the sources cited, 2 belong to the organisation itself, one is YouTube, one reads like an advert, number 5 links to this, which is a reasonable source, but gives little more than a location and the final source (#4) barely mentions the organisation. HJMitchell You rang? 13:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NOTTRAVEL. Entirely personal commentary on the local "scene" for a town; not an encyclopedic subject. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not enough coverage in multiple reliable sources. Defender of torch (talk) 09:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete, copyvio. Kimchi.sg (talk) 04:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, essentially promotional; orphan/lack of citation/notability templates have been sitting on the page for a while Ex0pos (talk) 08:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Prod removed. I cannot find any reliable sources to establish notability, and none are included in the article. Drmies (talk) 06:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 02:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
article tagged for multiple issues for over a year without improvements. Subject may have little notability, but perhaps if not deleted, jsut merged into another article (perhaps supertramp, although, he seems to be jsut another guitar player and nothing special.. hence why the AFD) Alan - talk 04:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced article about non-notable past soap opera character. Rm994 (talk) 04:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Award given out at poster sessions to students. Article is mostly list of the winners, all of whom are redlinked. One winner got a write-up in which the award is talked about, and I leave it up to others to figure out the BYU News hits. These do not amount to notability for the award in my opinion. This may be contrasted with an award Chambliss funds for amateurs [82]. Deprodded. Abductive (reasoning) 00:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 01:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unnotable person. Fails WP:BIO and WP:N. Without significant coverage, can not properly meet WP:BLP. Prod removed with note of "rmv PROD; notable Canadian media executive", but the two sources added do not show actual significant coverage of this person, only confirming his positions. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find significant coverage in reliable independent sources for this company. Nothing in the news; the 121 unique GHits seem to be online advertising, online reviews, and complaints. (It doesn't sway my opinion, but I'll note that the Google autocomplete options when you type in advent computer training include "complaints," "scam," "costs," and "prices.") Their industry award seems to be a non-notable business award from an organization they're affiliated with. I don't see notability under WP:CORP. Glenfarclas (talk) 01:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Nomination withdrawn in light of sources found.. LibStar (talk) 02:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:BIO. almost comes under WP:ONEVENT. not a lot of coverage for this individual. gnews also refers to other Irene Xaviers. [85]. LibStar (talk) 01:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. This and the other linked articles were created in good faith though with a COI, but Wikipedia is not for self-advertisement even of worthy persons or causes if they do not meet our notability requirement. JohnCD (talk) 12:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Claim to notability is having founded 3 non-notable organizations. Google news archive search provides 1 result, an entry in the student newspaper of his alma mater. The editor (User:Musicedbloggerman) who created this article has also made a walled garden, creating 2 other articles linking to this one, Philip E. Daniels and The Restoring Music Foundation, both of which are currently at AfD. Wine Guy Talk 01:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
not notable organisation. Student society with no strong claim to notability noq (talk) 01:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable record label that has released nothing by mixtapes. Fails WP:CORP. TheJazzDalek (talk) 00:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 03:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is not significant coverage in reliable sources that discuss this social networking site. In the future it might become notable, but at this point I do not believe it is notable. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 00:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]