The result was delete. Tone 13:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable martial artist with a dojo. His daughter is the subject of an article here, but I can find no significant coverage of the man himself. Mentioned in passing in a 1977 issue of Black Belt magazine here, listed without elaboration on the website of something calling itself The Official Taekwondo Hall of Fame here (unclear whether he's an inductee), and that's it. Glenfarclas (talk) 23:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JForget 00:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contested proposed deletion. Biographical article that is unreferenced (and note has not had any since created in 2005). I have searched and cannot find any books about him, significant awards he has won, substantial news articles about him (that do more than mention him in passing) or anything else from reliable sources. Does not pass the basic biographical notability standards Peripitus (Talk) 23:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Despite the obvious dispute that has preceeded this nomination, there is a fairly extensive agreement that this page should be deleted, for a number of reasons. There are a good few keep votes, but given that a couple of them don't provide much context or evidence to support their arguments, it seems reasonable to conclude that consensus endorses removal. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
this wp:pointy article was created after sources were requested for this unsourced list in shell account. instead of providing a single source when requested, User: hm2k simply cut and pasted the unsourced content from shell account into this new article, as if creating an unsourced article would relieve the burden of providing sources in another article. sources still have not been found. this article should be deleted because there are no third party, reliable sources for this arbitrary list of providers which have not shown notability for being shell providers. Theserialcomma (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted as G4 after previous AfD found. (non-admin closure) Pcap ping 17:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy was declined for this shareware item last October, but I can't find any remotely significant coverage out of the 250 or so genuine Google hits. Glenfarclas (talk) 22:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 13:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable release. MW talk contribs 22:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have consensus to delete this yet or is more time needed? If consensus isn't reached, can we at least not make this sound like this is McPhee's 3rd album release? Ducold (talk) 15:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 13:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
non notable musical group WuhWuzDat 22:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
New CD soon to be released on CD baby.. Produced by Ian MacKaye of FUGAZI back in 1987. Check Ian MacKaye or FUGAZI or MINOR THREAT on Wiki. This is NOT a Non, Notable Group.
Category in Wiki is American Hardcore Groups.
Ian MacKaye
Minor Threat
Fugazi
Follow Fashion Monkeys
Follow Fashion Monkeys —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chicagoish (talk • contribs) 22:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Chicagoish — Chicagoish (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
[6] NYU Playlist College Radio
[7] Allentown Morning Call, of 7" Release by FFM
[8] 1986 US TOur, Allentown MCall —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chicagoish (talk • contribs) 02:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JForget 00:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable fanfic character from unauthorized knock-off of the Harry Potter series. Nom on behalf of editor 98.248.33.198, "Fictional character from an unauthorized continuation which exists only on the web. See also James Potter II." Acroterion (talk) 22:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JForget 00:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Although this pornstar bio has just screamed "LOOK HERE! THIS IS A HOAX", for two years, nobody's paid attention. Apparently there's a horse with the name, though. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to One Love (David Guetta album). Tone 11:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Song has maybe been released as single, but it has not chated. This article gives less information than stub should give. SveroH (talk) 21:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. The claims in the article move it clearly from WP:NFT into WP:CSD#G3 blatant hoax. JohnCD (talk) 22:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. WP:MADEUP WP:NEOLOGISM. Oh, how I wish we had a speedy deletion criterion for these type of articles... Singularity42 (talk) 21:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was withdrawn by submitter in favor of redirect to new article
Essay, consisting of original research through synthesis of information from third party sources. Title is inherently POV; there is some useful encyclopedic material in there, but would need rewriting almost from scratch to meet current Wikipedia article criteria. -- The Anome (talk) 20:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 13:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced article, doesn't meet WP:BIO guidelines or WP:V. snigbrook (talk) 20:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Tone 11:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. I cleaned it up a bit, as it was written sort of like a DVD outer sleeve. I also tried to find sources, but I came up with nothing but commercial links and TV guide type listings. Appears to be non-notable to me, and currently serves as a list of non-notable Pennsylvania diners and restaurants.
Also with this listing: Pittsburgh A To Z. Lara 19:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete both. These seem to be one-offs produced for the local public TV station, but from my searching they do not meet WP:GNG ("significant coverage in reliable sources"), nor any of the WP:NF attributes (widely distributed, receiving an award, etc.). Glenfarclas (talk) 21:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC) See below[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Subejct is an eleven year old actor, whose first major role is a movie that has not come out. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Singularity42 (talk) 19:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JForget 00:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article reads like an advertisement and its sources are either not third-party (Gracie magazine, official website, a search engine result) or do not assert notability (the facility is only mentioned once in each of the Reuters links). Most of the fighters therein do not have their own articles, and existing ones are poorly sourced. sixtynine • spill it • 18:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jacksonbulldog here. This is my first article on Wikipedia. Please accept my sincere apologies as I am a newbie. The article is factually correct, but I am a newbie and had to edit it many times to get it right. To your points
1) Gracie Magazine does not belong to Renzo Gracie and has nothing to do with Evolve Mixed Martial Arts. Gracie Magazine is an independent 3rd party magazine for Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu and Mixed Martial Arts news. See this link for the owners of Gracie Magazine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GRACIE_Magazine
2) Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) is a new sport in Asia. Reuters wrote an article titled Asia set for MMA revolution and quoted Evolve Mixed Martial Arts in there since it is the leader in Asia. This article was syndicated, picked up, and published by New York Times, Guardian UK, ABC News, Straitstimes, China Post, Taipei Times, Oman Tribune, Kyiv Post, and other major publications in Asia. It was a feature article on Reuters front page when it first ran: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSSGE5BD0CT20091221. here it is on ABC News: http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory?id=9388069. here it is on: http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2009/12/23/sports/sports-us-mma.html. Evolve was featured by CNN of a list of 50 reasons why Singapore is the greatest city http://www.cnngo.com/singapore/none/worlds-greatest-city-50-reasons-why-singapore-no-1-399897 Evolve is also noted in Men's Health magazine in a blog by a reporter - here it is. http://www.menshealth.com.sg/blog/gavintan/gavin-gets-garang-day-01
Morever, independent industry news sources have documented Evolve Mixed Martial Arts as ground breaking in the world of MMA. Here are some articles:
http://www.mmaconvert.com/2009/12/28/the-five-star-mma-gym-you-wont-find-on-this-continent/
http://www.bjj-asia.com/2009/10/interview-w-leandro-brodinho-issa.html
http://www.sg-pro.com/2009/07/07/sg-pro-interviews-chatri-sityodtong/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.14.108 (talk) 19:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.matratz.com/?p=1349
3) The article is factually correct. As a newbie, I might have written incorrectly (ie. not up to Wikipedia standards), but all facts are 100% correct and truthful.
4) There are many more articles in print media form as well about Evolve Mixed Martial Arts.
5) I am a newbie on Wikipedia, but am a walking encylopedia when it comes to martial arts.
The result was delete. Tone 13:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable band lacking GHits of substance and with zero GNEWS. Article references are all trivial mentions of band. Appears to fail WP:BAND. ttonyb (talk) 18:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 07:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As per WP:INDISCRIMINATE,WP:N and WP:SELF. Every work of fiction every created has contained a fictional time line and as such could be listed here Gnevin (talk) 18:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 13:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article claims that this person appeared in four independent films, but her IMDB entry does not show it. There was citation made to the MTV show The Freshmen (which does not have an article on Wikipedia right now), but the Web site for that show does not appear to reference her, and the IMDB entry shows her as having appeared in only two episodes despite the article's assertion that she was a video jockey for three years. I think notability is at most tenuous. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 17:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep Snowball closure Enigmamsg 19:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Marissen is a Canadian Liberal party "backroom boy". As such does not fit the Wikipedia guidelines for notability. Recommend delete. Suttungr (talk) 17:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 13:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
New blogger - first blog entry dated 20th December 2009. Notability not established. Claims to be "widely referenced" but no indication of that. noq (talk) 17:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Noq - Agree it is an early stage blog - but the author does have some notoriety. He is referenced from Dr Harch's website at hbot.com and is appearing on the PBS special "This Emotional Life" on Jan 4. What threshhold of notoriety are we looking for? If you still feel this is too premature, by all means delete it, but as a parent of a child who suffers from brain injury I would think this is specifically the kind of information wikipedia would want to abstract —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fishpunt (talk • contribs) 17:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I still think we should keep the article but if the consensus disagrees so be it - --Fishpunt (talk) 01:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Per WP:HOAX and WP:NOTMYSPACE. Facebook spats have no place on Wikipedia. Fences&Windows 18:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article purports to describe a coup or attempted coup which supposedly took place in the last few days against the "La Jolla de Cortés" regime near Puerto Peñasco, Mexico. However, no explanation of the nature of the government against which this coup was allegedly perpetrated can be found. Purportedly, the coup began when one of the members of the governing council attempted to withdraw from it and set herself up as "supreme dictatress". However, the plotter is identified as "a female and resident of Tucson identified as TEH". I find it hard to believe that a resident of Arizona could have been exercising government power in a Mexican town while also being known only by her initials. Most of the sources used in this article are from a Facebook page, not a reliable source. Furthermore, three of the more promising-looking sources, articles from El Imparcial (a Hermosillo newspaper), turn out to be completely irrelevant. One is about a man who killed his wife in a murder-suicide in Caborca, more than 75 miles away from Puerto Peñasco; another is about the murder rate in Nogales, more than 100 miles away; and the third is a gossip item about Mariah Carey. My guesses are that either this article is a hoax, or it describes a controversy within some small radical group as opposed to a coup against an actual local government. But either way, it should be deleted for lack of reliable sources and being unverifiable. Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not delete this article. All other coverage of the incident is being shunned. Communications in the area are cut off. The author of the article was effectively kidnapped by the La Jolla de Cortés regime for writing this article, because it caused representatives from the Federal Police and the Sonoran Justice Ministry to notice the situation. These heinous crimes will only get the attention they need if the article remains for a few days. Why not wait to delete it until the coup ends? At the moment this Wikipedia article is one of the only hopes for the victims of the brutal administration. (72.222.239.93 (talk) 17:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]
The result was keep. Tone 13:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for notability for two years now. To contribute original papers does not invoke notability, and nor does being an editor. Notability, according to WP:PROF, comes from significant impact, including editor-in-chief. -Lilac Soul (Talk • Contribs) 16:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. sufficient consensus for a keep here JForget 02:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reason One: Fails to comply with Wikipedia Notability guideline as it neither asserts notability nor shows any evidence of significant coverage from reliable secondary sources.
Cursory web search came up with the following results:
Reason Two: This article is written like an advertisement.
Deletion is advised. Fleet Command (talk) 16:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The CNET blog post is not acceptable per WP:NTEMP: CNET is no longer hosting the download, therefore the review is just a "burst in the news".
As for the rest, they are blog posts. Personally, I don't accept them as notable. Let's see what administrators think about them.
Then we get to the second concern: Even a well-sourced article should not be an advertisement; It must be encyclopedic. An article which is well-cited and well-sourced but has no contents other than that of its product website plus some testimonials is not acceptable in Wikipedia per WP:PROMOTION.
Fleet Command (talk)Comment Yes, I agree that the article's notability can now be established. We can now wait for nomination period to expire and the article to be rescued.
However, I still believe that CNET's review is not eligible as notable because FormatFactory is withdrawn from CNET. This withdrawal should also be taken into account. Notability does not need ongoing coverage, yes I know, but withdrawal is different from lack of ongoing coverage.
Fleet Command (talk) 03:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 22:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Promotion for non-notable software product. Given sources are non-reliable or trivial mentions, and I have been unable to find any coverage that would indicate the subject passes WP:GNG. Article is by single-issue user. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jitbit, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jitbit Help Desk, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jitbit Macro Recorder. Haakon (talk) 15:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 13:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Promotion for non-notable software product. Given sources are trivial mentions, and I have been unable to find any coverage that would indicate the subject passes WP:GNG. Article is by single-issue user. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jitbit, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jitbit Help Desk, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AspNetForum. Haakon (talk) 15:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 14:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Autobiographical article about a DJ. PROD contested by an IP editor. A Google search turned up a number of hits, but none appear to to be independent and WP:Reliable sources. Fails WP:Bio. PDCook (talk) 15:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fails to comply with Wikipedia notability guideline as it has failed to provide significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. Cursory web search yielded the following results:
I advise the article to be deleted. Fleet Command (talk) 15:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: Oh, I forgot to mention: The article is also written like an advertisement as it is mainly a list of features and system requirements. Fleet Command (talk) 15:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: I just noticed that the creator of this article, Imtoostudio (talk · contribs), is banned from Wikipedia for publishing promotional contents. Contribution log shows that his major contributions before getting banned was made to this article. Fleet Command (talk) 15:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, on the contrary, I think I hit the spot. Software pirates are immoral and untrustworthy and are not remotely reliable. Shame on you for ever trying to quote a software pirate and putting their word on the same rank as a reliable source, for whatever reason.
And in case you don't know, blogs and forums posts are not considered reliable sources. Sources #2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are thus void.
Fleet Command (talk) 20:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]Alright, dear Pcap. I think the tension between you and me is now lightened, so both of us are now ready to talk logically and per Wikipedia guidelines, with the goal of improving Wikipedia in mind.
So, allow me to start: The following is an assessment of the sources which you have provided above. Please state whatever objection you have in regard to my assessments, preferable in a granular manner.
Source | Problem |
---|---|
Hardware Analysis forum | WP:RS and (potentially) WP:POV → The source is a public forum. Everyone can become a member of it and can say anything. There is no reason to think that it can be trusted or whether it is NPOV. |
CDR-infO Forum (Posted twice as #4 and #6) | WP:Verifiability → It is a forum post in which its moderator reprimands a user for writing about one or more pieces of horrible software and advertising another. The only mention of ImTOO and Xilisoft is in its topic name but there is no telling whether the horrible software was a Xilisoft or ImTOO product, or the product being advertised was a Xilisoft or ImTOO product. Therefore, it cannot be used as an evidence for the subject of AfD. |
A software piracy website | WP:RS → The source is a software piracy web site. Pirates are considered highly unreliable.WP:OR → The site asserts to be offering tools that assist in unauthorized use of ImTOO and Xilisoft products but does not assert that they are actually both one thing. To find out, one must download the illegal contents and investigate—Oh, wait! Apart from the risk of downloading a malware, doing this is original research, which is not allowed in Wikipedia. |
I, Myself — I think you are telling the truth. I think Xilisoft and ImTOO are actually one company. | WP:Verifiability → “The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.” |
|
They look good. However, I did not analyze these articles yet because they seem to be on Xilisoft Video Converter not ImTOO Video Converter. First, you must establish that these two products are the same. Other than that, they look good. Note that I reserve myself the right to analyze them for notability, if the two products are proven to be one. Fleet Command (talk) 15:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
WP:Verifiability → They neither mention ImTOO Video Converter nor Xilisoft Video Converter. They only mentions “Xilisoft iPod Video Converter” which is a different product. | |
iDENS.cz | WP:Verifiability → It neither mention ImTOO Video Converter nor Xilisoft Video Converter. It only reviews “Xilisoft 3GP Video Converter” which is a different product. |
The result was delete. Tone 14:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable made-up game lacking GHits and GNEWS. PROD and PROD2 removed by SPA. ttonyb (talk) 15:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 13:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Apparently made-up term: see User talk:A legend#Hexatope numbers. No ghits for either "hexateronic numbers", "hexatope numbers", or "hexateron numbers" (that User:4, the prod contester, claims without evidence appears in the literature.) Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 23:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 18:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As the AfD creator, I'm retracting my nomination; see my comments at the bottom of the page for details. (non-admin closure) KaySL (talk) 15:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Renominated due to the article being mistakenly speedied under CSD G12; the article creator apparently has permission to copy content from the website of the organisation.
The article is basically a mess; no real notability is asserted as far as I can see, it includes speculation and far too much micro-detail, and is essentially a rewrite of the organisation's mission statement. KaySL (talk) 15:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are a number of Ohio River Trails along the Ohio River. Most notably in Ohio and West Virginia under the direction of different organizations. The long term goal is a continuous Ohio River Trail from Pittsburgh, Pa to Cairo, Ilinois.--Troiaeye (talk) 15:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Request that no action be taken as a result of this deletion nomination until 7th January; Troiaeye has significantly rewritten the article, and all that really remains is for notability to be firmly established and proven within the article. I've suggested a two-day grace period for him/her to work on it. KaySL (talk) 14:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retract AfD: the article has been significantly condensed, improved, and had references written into it (ideally these should be cited in a more traditional manner, but that can be done once it's no longer being considered for deletion. KaySL (talk) 00:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Released by a band called Hybrid Theory, this non-notable EP never charted nor received any media coverage of substance. The fact that the band later changed its name to Linkin Park and went on to become superfamous does not change the fact that this EP does not pass WP:NALBUM: All articles on albums... must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. TheJazzDalek (talk) 12:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G3 hoax/vandalism; also WP:NEO JohnCD (talk) 14:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable WP:NEOLOGISM. contested prod noq (talk) 15:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Tone 13:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article was on the expired prod list but was already deleted once through prod and recreated. Concern on the prod was a lack of sourcing. After running several searches ([38], [39], [40]), I'm inclined to agree with that concern. No shortage of hits, but I can't find anything that's in depth or reliable, just name drops. There's nowhere near enough sourcing to write a biography here that I found. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 18:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, and there has been considerable difficulty in finding reliable sources for this article. Technocracy Incorporated was formed in 1933, after Technocracy's heyday, and when viewed in historical context is probably less important than the Committee on Technocracy (based at Columbia University) and the Continental Committee on Technocracy (led by Harold Loeb), neither of which has a WP article. An adequate overview of all these groups is provided in the Technocracy movement article. Johnfos (talk) 00:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 23:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unable to find any third-party, independent, reliable sources. Gnews search for "Quarter Club Australia" returned no sources providing significant coverage. Tim Song (talk) 05:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that I have added verifying references Ajhshamley (talk) 12:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple independent and authoritative references, including the South Australian Governor, the Chinese Embassy in Australia and an Adelaide newspaper.Ajhshamley (talk) 09:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
... and a lot about:
1. the high profile fundraising event, named for the State of South Australia's Premier- the State's Chief Executive Officer;
2. the high profile guests, including the State Governor and Chinese Ambassador;
3. the high profile sponsors, which have lent their names to the organisation; and
4. the high profile chairman
This is a genuine organisation with a high profile in South Australia.The article has been linked to the Olympic and Commonwealth Games categories as it is associated with Olympic and Commonwealth Games fundraising.
Ajhshamley (talk) 11:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. keep arguments are mostly by assertion and the argument that the article is lacking adequate sourcing hasn't been refuted. Spartaz Humbug! 04:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This software is not apparently notable by third party sources. No sources exist in the article and searching for them shows a few minor mentions amidst many other hits for the non-capitalized use as a generic phrase. Miami33139 (talk) 20:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 13:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No sources, no evidence these books meet WP:BK. --EEMIV (talk) 14:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Corsham#Education. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable primary school. Stinging Swarm talk 14:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Reference included in article is a primary source (funding agency for the center). Zero Google news hits and the Google web hits are either primary sources, blogs or largely adverts for donations for the centre. Not seeing how this might meet general notability guidelines RadioFan (talk) 14:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Merzbow discography. (non-admin closure) Lugnuts ping 18:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can find no independent coverage for this album, does not meet WP:NALBUMS OR WP:GNG J04n(talk page) 12:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Xevious. Tone 14:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find references to cover WP:GNG; given that it's a bootleg copy of a game, that's rather unlikely. There are things on arcade history websites, but since they list every game, bootleg and variant ever made it's not really evidence of importance. Ironholds (talk) 12:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I had one of these boards in the 80's. Presumably there are others in existence. This makes it a potential collectible. And should rare items be excluded from Wikiepedia just because they are rare? AND, yhey may be few and far between, but they do exist in virtual form, so there is a potential on-going life of this game through things like MAME. However, if you insist on applying WP:NN or WP:GNG, then should this instead be noted in the Xevious main page in a section called boot-legs or copies or something similar? Or is this too insignificant to be mentioned even there? Pioneer2056 —Preceding undated comment added 12:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 13:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:MUSIC. While one of his bands may be notable (and I say "may") the other is certainly not, and individual members of a band are only granted articles when they have been part of multiple, notable acts or where they pass the requirements at WP:BIO. Ironholds (talk) 11:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 13:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
despite the bluelinks, seems to fail WP:MUSIC. A single release on a non-notable label, which (while including a couple of noted session musicians) is not enough on its own. I cannot find any evidence that the band meets any other requirements; while the album was released on an important independent music label, this was merely for distribution; they aren't "signed". Ironholds (talk) 11:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 13:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence he meets WP:MUSIC Boleyn3 (talk) 10:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence that he meets WPMUSIC. RichardLowther (talk) 13:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 13:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NN, no reliable sources to assert notability. User:Nenaa is the sole contributor. It is probably an autobiography. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 09:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to id Tech 3. Consensus is measured by assessing arguments agianst policy rather then counting heads and voting for keep by assertion is really pointless as there is no argument to weight against policy. Also note that new users canvassed to support an article as a flashmob are generally given very little weight. So, after that, what this discussion comes down to is whether the sourcing cuts the mustard. Separate notability requires substantial sourcing and the only detailed examination of the sources was that the sourcing was trivial at best. Since this argument has not been sucessfully refuted the conclusion is that this article does not justify a standalone article. The next question is delete or merge, since there is some sourcing merge could be an option so I have chosen to redirect and leave the history so the sourced material can be transfered across. Spartaz Humbug! 04:56, 12 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)) . |
Coverage of this software is limited to the short "Version X now available" press release variety. This can't really be considered significant coverage, going by WP:GNG. Therefore I suggest deletion on the grounds of notability. Marasmusine (talk) 09:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This debate is far from over, and three days is not near long enough to declare that the article is ready for deletion. Some of us have more important things to do than spend all our time chatting on Wikipedia all day, so don't just jump and say "delete it now!" after not getting a response in a day. Especially when you do not have anywhere close to consensus. I was hoping to expand this more, but you are rushing me to post this reubtal:
Your above list is your critique about what the sources do wrong, as a counter here is a critique about what the sources do right, based on the Wikipeida guidelines:
Another thing to keep in mind is even though some of these sources might contain information from what could be considered "press releases", this information was gathered by the news sources themselves independently of ioquake3. They just posted them on their website/twitter/other. Once on the news website, it would seem to me that they would then be placed under that news sources reliability and not that of the original source, as they have found it reliable enough to post. The news sources posted this information because they thought they were notable or interesting, not because they were paied or pressured by the ioquake3 project to do so.
Also, why is being used to power several games not considered important for notability? It proves the engines popularity and shows why it is important. I have seen nowhere in the various guidelines that you link to anything that says that engines can not be valued based on the number of notable games that use them. As a parallel, a persons notability is often establish by the works he/she has done. I do not see why this does not also apply to engines.
In this discussion we have also seemed to have forgot two other points which help establish notability: It's inclusion with Linux distributions and it being recommend by an important id Software employee. I have added this information, with citations, to the article to help demonstrate these facts. These, coupled with the sources, even with your criticisms of them, add enough to establish notability in my mind at least, and I am sure ion some others as well.
The false Betanews link was my bad though, and I have fixed the link. Comrade Hamish Wilson (talk) 02:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
lol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.188.250.94 (talk) 06:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC) — 216.188.250.94 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Tea and cum needs to get a life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.66.136 (talk) 07:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC) — 66.69.66.136 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Um, I am sorry, but no personal attacks. Please keep that to yourself, for the sake of good conduct, Comrade Hamish Wilson (talk) 09:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 13:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article has been dePRODed twice, the show will be unknown at that time and CBS hasn't announce to air any future season of Survivor. Fails WP:CRYSTALBALL. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 09:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily deleted as not having enough context to identify article's subject (CSD A1)--Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The page only seem to be a gallery. The title of the page make it somewhat difficult to pinpoint what the purpose of it is. FFMG (talk) 08:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. The arguments for retention (more specifically, meeting the WP:GNG) that I saw outweighed the reasons for deletion. –MuZemike 06:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to fail WP:AUTHOR. No real indication of notability other than writing a number of books. What makes this author special or notable apart from anyone else who writes books? No independent third-party refs to establish notability. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 08:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A tip to later editors: you get very different results depending on whether you search for "Juan Manuel Rodríguez" or "Juan Manuel Rodriguez". Examples: 24 books on WorldCat / 1 book on WorldCat, 139 GNews hits / 3810 GNews hits and 81 GBook hits / 15 GBook hits. At least GScholar gives you the same 17 hits no matter which you search on. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 01:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has been referenced using unreliable secondary sources, including those by Ilan Stavans. The following link concerns the reliability of Stavans: http://www.nytimes.com/1999/11/13/books/be-both-outsider-insider-czar-latino-literature-culture-finds-himself-under.html Stavans attacked Mr. Rodriguez for having supposedly usurped Salomon Isacovici's book Man of Ashes in his book ' The Inveterate Dreamer: Essays and Conversations on Jewish Culture'. Not only are his accusations distorted, but also blatantly false. For example, Stavans claims Mr. Rodriguez was an ex-jesuit priest, but he does not say where he got such information. Considering the NYT article, Stavans is highly unreliable and should not be sourced on this page. Su Di and Cynthia Ozick are just as biased.
- Since I started the article, and now it is filled with libelous information with the sole purpose of denigrating the author, I either suggest the secondary sources be eliminated or the page deleted. After all, the page itself is a stub and has little information. Also,wikipedia does not cover a controversy well if doesn't include any information arguing against the allegations made against Rodriguez. It might be best just to delete it altogether.
Salomon Isacovici - In addition, the page on Salomon Isacovici uses the same unreliable sources to discredit Juan Manuel Rodriguez. There is primary source evidence of copyright contracts which is not being allowed due to Wikipedia's policy of only using secondary sources. Nevertheless, discrediting the primary source information and relying on evidence like that of Stavans is ludicrous! Once again, I suggest that the sources be reconsidered and that either the page be deemed controversial and deleted or allow the usage of the primary source copyright material. As it is currently, there is a lot of erroneous material.
- These two sources are worrisome, as both confuse the existing controversy and harm Mr. Rodriguez by discrediting his authorship of the book 'Man of Ashes' and by sourcing unreliable books that purposefully tarnish the reputation of the author. I can't think of a worse thing for wikipedia to do, than allow disreputable sources and tarnish someone's reputation. Hoolio9690 (talk)Hoolio9690 —Preceding undated comment added 23:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Because the subject requested deletion after most of the participants have opined, this hasn't been taken into consideration by a number of the participants of the AfD. Therefore, a relist to discuss whether the subject's request should be granted is needed. Is the subject notable enough to override the request for deletion? Or is he marginally notable enough that the deletion should be granted per WP:BLP#People who are relatively unknown? These questions are why I am relisting this debate for further discussion. Because I am not an administrator, I am open to an administrator overriding this relist and closing this AfD as s/he sees fit. Cunard (talk) 07:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 14:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 14:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable book scheduled to be published almost two years from now. Said to be based on a Flash game, and the author is twelve years old (click "about"). Glenfarclas (talk) 05:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete Clearly does not meet the guidelines for inclusion. Enigmamsg 05:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article's sources consist of youtube and z-share, which cannot be seen as reliable sources. 50 only confirmed the name of the album, so it vioalates WP:Notability and WP:CRYSTAL. DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 04:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 13:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a successor to the Grammy-winning band, Delirious?, I'm willing to bet that they will be notable - but they aren't yet. There's not significant coverage in reliable sources. (contested prod) Fences&Windows 04:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete under criterion G4. There's even less in this article now than when the first AfD was held. —C.Fred (talk) 05:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article has still not improved since it was last deleted and no information on the album has been released as of today. Taylor Karras (talk) 04:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. Nothing to merge, all info is included in Principality of Sealand in sufficient detail. Neither the original title nor the moved-to title are supported by reliable independent sources, so no need for a redirect either. Fram (talk) 13:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All three of these articles are POV forks from Principality of Sealand and are lacking in independent reliable sources, in many cases they are mirrors. The "War of Independence" gets zero google hits, the "Conflict" seems to be little more than a disagreement between the two groups on Sealand, and the "Royal Family" are not recognized as such by any country on earth. Delete all three as redundant, poorly-referenced POV forks. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 04:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages because same problem as above, POV forks:
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be no implication of notability of this fictional character apart from the statement that he "first appeared in the notable tenth episode of the seventh season of the American situation comedy Curb Your Enthusiasm episode...". I furthermore have BLP concerns as the article states that "Mocha Joe is a parody of famed celebrity barista Jeremy Gursey..." however provides no references to back this claim up (furthermore, a google search revealed no reliable sources that states this either).
Also note that the first reference has nothing to do with the episode, the second is a broken link, and the third is just the IMDB page of the epiosde. Aka042 (talk) 21:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ref-[63]) As for the link to the possible parody of the famed Barista Jeremy Gursey, it was easily found on Google. In fact on the first page I searched. The page not only makes mention of his work for not only movie sets but also TV sets including Seinfeld, but has a video of still pictures and there is indeed a resemblance to "Mocha Joe". (ref-[64]. It took but 5 minutes to find sources online. If I had more time I could find even more. The Mocha Joe article is no less worthy of a place in Wikipedia than are a multitude of articles. Umihime (talk) 18:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)User: Umihime[reply]
The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 18:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe that this article about a book meets the notability guidelines for books. After searching the internet, I was unable to find any significant coverage independent of the subject, and there is no evidence to suggest that it has received any literary awards or meets any of the other criteria listed at WP:NB#Criteria.
Furthermore, I am concerned with the author of the article, User:UTSWeb, which at the very least may have a COI as the external links section contains a sentence stating: "Software is available through 3rd party vendors. Universal Technical Systems, Inc. has computerized the formulas for use with either TK Solver or Excel", and also contains a link named "Roark's Formulas Product Page on UTS Website". Aka042 (talk) 20:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
as shown here [68]. Hope this helps. JAAGTalk 07:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 07:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bio of an evangelist with no evidence of notability. Sgroupace (talk) 20:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 13:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Self referenced and blog referenced BLP. There's one article from The Hindu listed in the references, but that's a daily calendar with no mention of this person. I haven't been able to find anything in Gnews or Gbooks or anything from reliable sources on the web. The books in the bibliography are self-published. Delete -SpacemanSpiff 03:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure why these references are not enough..In the sai newsletter there is a review of book as well....
The blog paramagurusai.blogspot.com also is not related to the Peetam. You can verify the authenticity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paramagurusai (talk • contribs) 03:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your insights. Well after seeing the rules I have to agree on Delete as well. Even though it is my article, I have to follow what wikipedia stands for. My only other question is can I adjust the article to just keep the biography and remove everything else (including image) in the page because that does not have any claims? and would the provided references work for atleast that? Else please go ahead and delete entire article. Thanks Again. Paramagurusai (talk) 22:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC) paramagurusai[reply]
The result was delete for both articles. general agreement, & article withdrawn by main contriubtor DGG ( talk ) 23:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A non-notable national beauty pageant, part of a non-notable international beauty pageant, Miss Tourism World. Zero coverage. Fences&Windows 02:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JForget 00:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Failed to establish notiability despite warning placed in May. All sources are independent media from band's hometown. Shalmanese (talk)
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 18:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article is supposed to be about Britney Spears' nominations and awards, all of them, but the article is irrelevant and unnecessary given the fact that there is another article about Britney Spears' awards, the only "difference" between those articles is that this one includes the "nominations", but in an incomplete way. There are like fifteen awards and nominations, making this article a really incomplete and unnecessary article. Fortunato luigi (talk) 02:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Listed for 20 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough comments to determine consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I found this whilst reviewing the brands listed in the gin article. I can't find significant enough coverage to be certain that this product is notable. I don't consider "The liquor snob" to be a reliable source and other coverage appears to be regurgitated versions of press releases. Smartse (talk) 20:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 15:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Someone objected to the PROD, so bringing this to AfD. No real notability established. Erzsébet Báthory(talk|contr.) 02:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly non-notable minor league manager. He did manage two teams to league championships, which may be notable enough. However, I leave that up to you to decide. Alex (talk) 07:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 13:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article is WP:OR and cites no WP:RS Basket of Puppies 02:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 13:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article is WP:OR and cites no WP:RS Basket of Puppies 02:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 13:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article is WP:OR and has no WP:RS Basket of Puppies 02:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete per author request and lack of keep !votes here. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. There is no indication of notability in this yet-to-be-released book. There are no references or other reliable sources listed, so it fails WP:RS and WP:GNG. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 02:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete per author request. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. There is no indication of notability in this yet-to-be-released book. There are no references or other reliable sources listed, so it fails WP:RS and WP:GNG. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 02:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 13:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not encyclopedic. No WP:RS and written like an essay. Basket of Puppies 02:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 13:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find significant coverage for this martial arts fighter. I could verify that he won at least one competition[70] but that's all. Fences&Windows 01:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G7 - author requested deletion JohnCD (talk) 13:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A poorly written essay that gives a cursory synthesis of topics that are covered in depth in several other articles. No new information is presented, and what is given here is completely unsourced. 2 says you, says two 01:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 16:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Article is about a non-notable game, with no significant coverage in reliable sources. Only sources found are trivial or press releases. TNXMan 21:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Listed for 13 days with no participation aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:MUSIC. They've been played once (not in rotation) and the sourcing is nothing impressive; the fact that the Pontefract Express mentions a band from around Pontefract is not a sign of notability. Ironholds (talk) 19:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. sort of leaning towards a weak keep at this point. Cirt (talk) 18:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would seem to fail WP:MUSIC guidelines, having only released one album. Geschichte (talk) 18:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No WP:RS cited, fails WP:N. Delete. Basket of Puppies 01:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have added sources., 3rd party references for this article and would like you to re-consider your "nomination for deletion" You will find info on Mr. sterling from MTV.com, The New Times (Miami), itunes, youtube.com and more. Thank you Msmayer (talk) 04:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Earl of Onslow. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He's only a courtesy viscount, failing WP:POLITICIAN. The only notable thing about him is his choice of wife, and notability isn't inherited. Ironholds (talk) 00:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Listed for 13 days with no participation aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a big fan of comic books, but this entry about a relatively obscure character fails WP:N. All it has is a detailed fictional biography, and no indication of why the character is notable beyond the comics it's been featured in. I can't find any usable references; just the comics themselves and Wikipedia. otherlleft 14:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 13:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can find zero coverage in reliable sources about this pageant, despite all its Google hits. The closest thing to coverage might be [74], but that alone doesn't cut it. Fences&Windows 00:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 06:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Potentially non-notable player/manager of minor league baseball. He did have notable achievements in both playing and managing, however they still may not be notable enough. Alex (talk) 07:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to 88.3 Southern FM. Seems like a reasonable option given the lack of substantial input. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article has no assertion of notability and is written like an advertisement. Additionally, its only external are non-neutral and non-verifiable (their official website and a MySpace page); there are no citations at all. Shirik (talk) 05:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 18:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet a notable performer: The "career highlights" on the linked press release make it clear that she doesn't make the notability guidelines. Slashme (talk) 05:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: So far the only "keep" argument has been based on a Google hit count. If that were valid, we would be comparing with other new performers, for example Pixie Lott who gets 11 million hits, but it is in fact an argument specifically to be avoided in deletion debates. --Slashme (talk) 11:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 18:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD concerns three EPs and two live albums by Matt Wertz. While Wertz is a notable artist, I don't believe these recordings of his are sufficiently notable for their own Wikipedia articles. These articles are unreferenced and consist of little more than track listings. Per WP:NALBUMS, these may be notable because they are by a notable artist, but that doesn't mean they're definitely notable. I don't see evidence of notability under WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC for any of these five articles, hence this AfD. Other than If It Ain't Broke..., I'm nominating:
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 18:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This new article is about a non-notable, former airport. Canglesea (talk) 04:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 13:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable neologism. Fails Google Test. Gosox5555 (talk) 00:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. Nominator seems to have !voted keep, no other arguments for deletion.. Fences&Windows 03:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This page looks great in design ... but I am not sure that it satisfies the notability criteria. In addition to being mentioned in a couple of newspapers and websites, only 2 of the prizes look good to me. Then I searched further. First, I found ~100 Scientists listed in Scientific American 50 in 2006. Not many of them have wikipages (I checked a dozen or two only), and among those who have, this Sci Am 50 is not even mentioned. "The Nanoscience prize" sounds great but this is not the Kavli Nanoscience Prize but an award given by an organizing committee of some conference! Basically, the best in a dancing competition during a summer camp. I do not mind to have extra pages on Wiki but I know many more professors who have got real prizes and distinctions but no wiki pages.
I am not sure but it is strange to see a rather average professor (for his age and his School/University) being listed on Wiki. Sicfriend (talk) 02:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was withdrawn by nominator Enigmamsg 20:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't meet WP:ARTIST or WP:PROF. An orphan for over a year. Doc Quintana (talk) 23:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]