< 1 November | 3 November > |
---|
The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G11 - spamlinks in the text JohnCD (talk) 20:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Personal essay, likely copyvio, utter drivel. E. Fokker (talk) 23:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to GOOD Music. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
GOOD Friday Music does not seem to merit an article of its own. It's not an album; the songs are not charting in any board (except for a few that became singles). Many of these songs are non-notable and can fit in the artist's discography Esanchez(Talk 2 me or Sign here) 22:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Probably nn, article has serious editing issues. First page or two of ghits regarding them seem to primarily just be listings/directories/the like. OSbornarfcontributionatoration 22:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The only reliably published (WP:RS) information about this game is a trivial writeup in Retro Gamer magazine [1] - this is an a sidebar in a larger article which doesn't mention the game again. This is insufficient for our notability guidelines (WP:N). I've held off on taking this to AfD because of the hostility I received at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Team Chaos, so let me lay down this disclaimer: Yes I have written a similar video game (mine's a Chaos remake). No, this isn't a conflict of interest. My deletion rationale is based on policy. Marasmusine (talk) 19:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus to delete Nothing Painted Blue or Franklin Bruno. The albums are a different matter, and little policy-based reason has been given to keep the first two, so I have redirected these. The third, as pointed out below, does have a couple of reviews in good quality sources even if the article itself is a microstub, and so no consensus on this one. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This indie band that is only sporadically together does not show notability in multiple reliable sources, nor does it contain two or more members of other notable groups (see WP:BAND). I am also nominating the following related pages, as notability there relies on the notability here - and in none of the articles is it established:
-Addionne (talk) 19:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete by User:Athaenara under criteria G7, author requests deletion. (non-admin closure). Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 09:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
redirect done in error Mayumashu (talk) 19:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Whilst the redirect to the proposed band article is fine, the article still doesn't exist - so the obvious thing to do appears to be to delete this, and then re-instate it when the band article is written. If someone pings me when that happens, please? Black Kite (t) (c) 01:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
unreferenced nn neologism Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 18:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep ; Nominator changed his opinion to keep and the only delete !vote was withdrawn. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to help in ending the backlog at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Articles_lacking_sources_from_October_2006. This article has been tagged as Unreferenced for four years. It is time to challenge and remove the contents, which may or may not be spurious, inasmuch as there is no Source to be checked out. The article was previously saved on the supposition that somebody would step forward and supply the References. That has not happened. Here is the link: 1906 Auburn Tigers football team. Sincerely, and with best wishes to all, GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete If it has sat dormant without refs for that long, then get rid of it and every other article that exists without refs for more than a year. Keep now that a Ref has been added. I applaud the nominator in being bold with this nomination, resulting in an improvement to the 'pedia without losing an article. The Eskimo (talk) 21:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Advertisement for a non-notable enterprise application integration (EAI) and business process management (BPM) software product. The references supplied are either to usual suspects like Gartner "magic quadrants", analyst reports that do not confer notability; to internal sites, announcements, versions, and announcements of routine transactions, none of which are truly independent of the subject; or are not about this product specifically. I found a lot of press releases, but nothing that read like it was neutral and independent, in news searches. Contested proposed deletion. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 20:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not inherited. Claim to notability is that he's married to someone famous. Gigs (talk) 17:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Consensus is that the article does not meet either the general notability guideline or the subject specific guideline Davewild (talk) 20:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This was originally part of a multi-nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Dudgeon which I closed as "delete". However, I felt that there was enough doubt about whether or not Magnus Eikrem should be deleted that the issue of his notability should be considered in a separate nomination. Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 20:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No significant coverage to confirm she meets general notability criteria. The television roles have not been significant and she does not appear to meet WP:ENT at this time. Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 16:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 20:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable individual lacking GHIts and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. ttonyb (talk) 16:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does not appear to be notable, the article is written by the author of the software. The only source is its webpage, which is only a wordpress page, I can't find any coverage at all online beyond promotional material. Terrillja talk 16:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dictionary definition for a non-notable neologism. Neither Google nor Dictionary.com have a dictionary entry for "textrous". No google hits on the term. This may even be appropriate for a speedy delete G3. SnottyWong soliloquize 16:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 00:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can't see any notability here [40]. She's a model? Scott Mac 16:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Nom withdrawn. I will help create List of fighter aircraft 2.0. Marcus Qwertyus 16:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The question was raised at Talk:Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II#Fifth generation ? whether the grouping fighters jets by generation was a legitimate comparison. Grouping articles by category such as Category:International fighter aircraft 2000-2009 etc. seems to be the better alternative. In any case the original research needs to go. Marcus Qwertyus 16:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 20:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD, concern was: WP:MADEUP, likely WP:NEO. The only reference doesn't really explain it and Wikipedia is not for things that you came up with today. Terrillja talk 16:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. CopyVio Ronhjones (Talk) 20:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Similar article, Record of employment on the web was deleted speedily. Not sure this qualifies as speedy. Reasons for AfD include absolute lack of sources, lack of importance to a general audience, no indication that it is significant, and written in a how-to tone. There is little or nothing in this article that is encyclopedic. — Timneu22 · talk 16:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Random YouTube celebrity. An MTV forum posting is not sufficient demonstration of notability. Biruitorul Talk 15:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete, WP:SNOW, original draft of article said the book hadn't been written yet, "one author doesn't want his name revealed", obvious WP:NFT. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable book. No indication that this book or its authors are in any way notable, or that the book or its authors even exist. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. While the discussion is split, it is clear that the current article is inadequate but that there is potential for one here. Will tag for expanding. Davewild (talk) 20:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable individual poem, no sources. Stonemason89 (talk) 02:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article on a non-notable person. No reliable sources were ever provided in the history of the article--the supposed article from the Hindustan Times does not show up for me, and hits in Google News are zero, except for the press release that User:Aapkikismat keeps adding. Clicking through the provided links also reveals that--well, consider the name Aapkikismat and then follow this link, listed under the references as "autobiography." The article presents a blatant COI, is basically an autobiography, in one of its incarnations was basically spam--but none of these things are reasons for deletion in their own right, I know. However, the burden of notability is not met: the article should be deleted. Drmies (talk) 14:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable band, may be WP:CSD but unclear if they may have some TV and radio play. No released albums and no google hits. Triwbe (talk) 11:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi sir, references added to establish: band's existence, notability and quick rise in the local community scene in the span of a short time frame, and other pertinent information for verification purposes. Hope the page stays sir, thanks Peanutbutterdimsumstyle (talk) 03:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)peanutbutterdimsumstyle[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unremarkable software product (fails WP:GNG). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn And I'll say it again... funny how no one can ever be arsed to clean up poor articles unless I send them to AFD. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 23:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One source directly about the drive-in, another that vaguely mentions it. All other sources found were incidental local coverage (e.g. local coverage of events/movies there). Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 11:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Air Florida. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since its creation in 2005, this article does not cite any references or sources. I tried to find some, but was not successful. Therefore, this company fails at least WP:CORP (no significant third party coverage). What is more, as the airline allegedly only operated one small Cessna aircraft, its encyclopedic importance should be very low. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 11:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not Not as per WP:NF and WP:GNG - Jayanta Nath (Talk|Contrb) 09:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Once-off animé convention, no reliable sources and more than half of the refs are dead links. Doesn't appear to be sufficiently notable. Stifle (talk) 10:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 00:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No third-party sources; only references are either to forums or to the convention's own website. Google search throws nothing up. In summary, the event does not appear to be sufficiently notable. Attendance is sub-300. Stifle (talk) 10:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 00:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:ATH as he has not played at a fully-professional level of football. Also fails WP:GNG due to a lack of media coverage. --Jimbo[online] 10:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 00:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. Not complete, and little coverage. The only source cited in the article does not establish notability, and appears to be essentially PR material. The article was PRODDED with the reason given as "Unfinished cartoon (not WP:CRYSTAL), and no evidence of notability." This PROD was seconded by another editor, who wrote "Very little verifiable non-PR content to warrant an article. No evidence that title of article is actual working name of show." The PROD was removed with no explanation by an anonymous IP with no edits not related to this article. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 20:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. No independent sources at all. (Note: The article has been created and deleted five times under the title "Adoi Magazine" and then salted. It was then created a sixth time under the title "Adoi". This article was PRODDED, with the reason given as "NN magazine. No independent sources cited. Ghits are all self-references or social networks". This PROD was then removed by the author of the article without any explanation.) JamesBWatson (talk) 09:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability, and no sources. (The article was previously deleted via a PROD, the PROD reason being given as "After removing the completely unsourced information, this article is simply a neologistic(?) stub at best. Not even sure this deserves an article. There are hundred of drinking rituals in each culture that are not newsworthy or noteworthy". It has been PRODDED again, and the PROD removed with edit summary "-prod, already deleted once per prod, please send to AfD".) JamesBWatson (talk) 09:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 00:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a list of mainly non-notable attendees of what, based on a Google search doesn't appear to be a particularly notable conference. The conference attendees are, according to the Lowy Institute's website "early-career people from a wide range of relevant backgrounds" and hence not notable (with a few exceptions). As such, this article fails WP:N and there may be BLP issues given the assumption of a right to privacy. Please note that this was a contested prod with an IP editor removing the prod template and then working on the article. Nick-D (talk) 07:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 20:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak notability. Now the editor claims to own the uploaded photos and so admits it is an Wikipedia:Autobiography. Very few sources found. No awards or other notable work. Fails WP:CREATIVE. Triwbe (talk) 07:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Questionable notability (see WP:MUSIC), the only third-party reference is this, which seems to be some kind of blog. Previously proposed for deletion, which an unregistered user removed - original reason for deletion was "very few sources, little notability outside of YouTube", which was disputed as follows: "he has made appearances on local radio stations and also, his most popular video has around 10 million views. He may not be known outside of Youtube, which is extremely huge". - Mike Rosoft (talk) 07:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. As a reasonably common name, a redirect is probably not a good idea here; the article can always be resurrected if Jarvis does attain any notability. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable local politician who lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. Mkativerata (talk) 05:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It should be noted that the article was created and heavily edited by the COI account User:Bvjarvis1. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 14:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notable author does not mean notable book. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable book. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Davewild (talk) 20:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable book. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to The Princess Diaries. Uncle G is correct in that this is the incorrect venue for this, but on the other hand WP:CCC is valid (the previous AfD was 10 months ago), so redirecting seems to be the obvious result here. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's all very well it decide to merge this into another article, but if no-one is going to do so, then the article needs to be deleted. StAnselm (talk) 04:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. There does appear to be sufficient coverage to establish notability here, Editing issues can be addressed elsewhere and do not require deletion Davewild (talk) 20:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Moving from speedy queue. Quarl (talk) 04:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The page was fully written by user Parafianowicz, someone who openly admits a compelling bias to the company concerned and is therefore ill suited to write this article. This page has been deleted 3 timed so far because of this COI. One needs only to perform a quick search of the user forums related to handbag companies to see the strong disconnect between the words of this article and customer feeling. For example see the quality control tread here http://forum.purseblog.com/belen-echandia/post-customer-service-quality-control-concerns-here-539747.html which now runs to 188 posts. There is not a single mention of quality control issues in the article, nor anything critical at all. This page is written as an advert not an article. Also this company is likely too small to be of general interest anyway, it can't have more than 10 employees. 80.68.88.178 (talk) 10:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 00:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially a list page pertaining to WP:BLPs, with poor sourcing, cites to primary sources directly affiliated with the subject (Raelism) and no significant content discussion whatsoever. -- Cirt (talk) 04:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. There is consensus here that the current article is in a very poor state, but also that there is potential for an article here. Therefore am closing this as keep but with my strong recommendation (not only recommendation, this is only my opinion) that anyone should reduce the article to a stub then we can start again at building up a better article. Davewild (talk) 20:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article appears to be nothing more than a semi-obvious dictionary definition and a whole lot of unsourced information that are, essentially, bullet points and a table about the different types of surfaces available. Could be spam for Fibar; many of the YouTube (!) links are to their videos, and the "slideshow" on the side of the article can be attributed to them. Possibly also a cleverly-velied how-to. Regardless the article as written is wholly unencyclopedic, possibly WP:OR and WP:SYN (such as the information about safety with citation to completely irrelevant YouTube videos), and fails WP:RS. Kinu t/c 03:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Catherine Zeta Jones. Black Kite (t) (c) 03:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Though linked to Catherine Zeta Jones, I can't find anything promising from IMDB or a google search, to truelly prove notability. I suggest merging to Zeta Jones's page or deleting. Sadads (talk) 03:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very, very little coverage. The only two sources are just slapdash articles that list a bunch of websites that the staff thought were cool; everything else I found was a false positive except for a similarly trivial coverage on Boing Boing. Utterly fails WP:WEB. Last AFD was over 3 years ago; article hasn't improved since. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 03:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, this article may justify deletion. This election is already summarized at Kenyan parliamentary election, 2007 D O N D E groovily Talk to me 02:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 00:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unable to find any reliable sources to verify the contents of the article and establish notability. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Even if sources are located, I'm not sure any of his accomplishments are particularly notable. J04n(talk page) 02:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With the exception of the two books (or maybe one) that he wrote, almost nothing is known about this person. There will likely never be anything to say about the man, only his books. The question is whether to have a biography about an author who is a complete mystery. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 01:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The subject does not appear to meet WP:NFOOTBALL, in that he has only competed within League of Ireland which is not a fully professional league. Also, this is an unsourced WP:BLP that I can find coverage on in only one reliable source, not enough for WP:GNG. J04n(talk page) 01:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Footballer who has never played in a fully professional league, as WP:NFOOTBALL requires. The coverage added to the article is very local and very thin, and is not significant enough for a proper biography, per WP:BIO. Mkativerata (talk) 01:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to United States Senate election in New Mexico, 2006. Courcelles 00:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable politician who got trounced in a Senate election. Does not appear to get significant coverage outside his campaign. Mkativerata (talk) 01:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unable to find any reliable sources independent of the subject to establish notability. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG and none of the claims in the article meet WP:MUSICBIO. J04n(talk page) 01:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to MTV. Since no-one has argued for her notability, and this is a BLP, it seems best to remove it for the time being; since the show she presents still has no article, a redirect as a plausible search term to MTV seems reasonable though, so I have enacted that. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
American actress and presenter. Can't find evidence of satisfying N or ENT. Article refs are poor (eg spammy or not independent) and couldn't find much better. Christopher Connor (talk) 19:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Close call, but the coverage and notability aren't really here for a BLP. Courcelles 00:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not a notable person. Lack of reliable sources for their life. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete Slon02 (talk) 01:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable magazine, the first issue hasn't even been released yet. E. Fokker (talk) 00:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 00:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable comedy group walled garden. Claims to have sponsorship from southern comfort and popularity, but I see nothing to support that. Keep in mind that their name means "stray animals" so many hits will be the common use of the phrase. Gigs (talk) 21:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 00:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable comedy group walled garden. Claims to have sponsorship from southern comfort and popularity, but I see nothing to support that. Keep in mind that their name means "stray animals" so many hits will be the common use of the phrase. Gigs (talk) 21:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 00:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable comedy group walled garden. Claims to have sponsorship from southern comfort and popularity, but I see nothing to support that. Keep in mind that their name means "stray animals" so many hits will be the common use of the phrase. Gigs (talk) 21:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge into World Academy of Art and Science --Mike Cline (talk) 14:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable division of marginal organization. Orange Mike | Talk 00:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus for any specific action, perhaps a merge discussion on the article's talk page is in order. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are gotras notable? I think not. Seems to me this should be either deleted or merged into Yadav. Orange Mike | Talk 00:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Alex Lifeson#Guitar equipment,. Black Kite (t) (c) 03:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article is basically a prank about a non-existent guitar maker. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Christianity. Problematic. It is a phrase in use, but as mentioned this is effectively OR. If so, it can't go to Wiktionary in it's current state. Thus a redirect might be better until the issues with it can be sorted out. Black Kite (t) (c) 03:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OR/dictionary defintion —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since there is no recurring characters in the Goosebumps series, this list is very trivial. -- d'oh! [talk] 07:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well you could say that for about 90% of every other series. Then again, people could easily do their own site if they need this list. For now I'll say "Keep", but we'll see how it goes. (I'll keep editing for now) MJN SEIFER (talk) 18:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't use the term "crufy" it's a violation of the rules. I accept your opinion though MJN SEIFER (talk) 15:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. I fully expect this to go to DRV, and I don't mind if it does because it'll highlight a possible problematic issue; like User:Courcelles, who relisted it, I am uncomfortable with retaining this. Our notability guidelines in this area are not clear. This person clearly doesn't have any "prolonged or substantial coverage', the only reference is to the medal win, and it's a BLP about a minor. I'm going to err on the side of safety here, I'm afraid. If/when it can be decided that Youth Olympics medal winners are specifically notable even if they don't pass WP:GNG, then restoration would be indicated. Black Kite (t) (c) 03:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User:AngChenrui is currently adding dozens of articles on children that won medals at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics. Most of these do not have any coverage except for this one win. While Wikipedia:Notability (sports) does include athletes that won medals at the Olympic Games, but this refers to the adult version. In addition Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#High_school_and_pre-high_school_athletes states that people competing at under-college level should only be deemed notable if there is "substantial and prolonged coverage" Travelbird (talk) 11:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Davewild (talk) 19:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article has twice been deleted previously—once as a prod, once as a speedy. There doesn't seem to be any suggestion of notability, so taking it to AfD. Bongomatic 12:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does not seem notable and has no adult teams. —Half Price 14:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 00:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Band which may not meet the notability criteria for bands Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. But please add some of the coverage identified here to the article. Davewild (talk) 19:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Subject article is not notable enough. -Vaarsivius (Talk to me.) 16:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Too early. This tournament will not happen for 3 years. There is not even an article for the 2012 tournament yet. Fails WP:GNG. SnottyWong converse 17:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
EXTREMELY minor Transformers subgroup. It's unlikely reliable sources exist to verify notability. Divebomb (talk) 17:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tiny skin care company, not notable. —Chowbok ☠ 17:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 16:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be both an organization and a software package; does not establish notability as either. The only WP:RS provided might be legitimate scholarly articles, but both are authored by the project's senior researcher (Dr. Erica Melis); thus this article is based solely on primary sources without any actual third-party support. Searching for information only tends to bring up press releases (mainly in German) and a few cursory mentions without actual information about the topic. --Kinu t/c 18:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-- • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 15:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No sourcing whatsoever and almost certainly original research …Grayshi talk ■ my contribs 20:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[undent]Comment - The "Ethnoburb vs. Chinatown" article provided as a "reference" above by Colonel Warden turns out to be NOT in support of the thesis that Monterey Park is a Chinatown; in fact it says something quite opposite:
So we are confronted, as in other similar articles (Southern California Chinatowns) we are confronted with supposedly valid references which do not support the original research, and in fact actually confound it, being presented as if they supported it....Ethnoburb patterns in North America perhaps, but not "Chinatowns". The author you linked, Colonel Warden, is quite explicit about the differences, and about the use of the name/term. And again, how content here might be made distinct from Chinatowns in Canada and the United States and/or List of Chinatowns/List of Chinatowns in the United States is not clear at all.....Skookum1 (talk) 18:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Safestyle UK#Jeff Brown. Davewild (talk) 19:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable per WP:BIO and WP:ENTERTAINER, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, entire article already exists as a section in Safestyle. Prod contested by creator. Top Jim (talk) 20:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources are primary, IMDB, YouTube or otherwise unreliable. Adds nothing to the article. Nothing but a big laundry list of blatant trivia. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Concordia USD 333. I will redirect with history preserved so anyone can merge what is required to the school district article. Davewild (talk) 19:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable middle school. I redirected to the school district, but it was contested. Therefore, here I am recommending that the school is redirected per standard practice for non-notable elementary and middle schools. The premise of notability presented by another editor was that the school is notable because the school district has a middle school and a separate junior high school. In my opinion, this may lend to the notability of the school district, but the school itself, continues to lack notability. Cindamuse (talk) 21:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of this unreferenced BLP is notable solely for his work as personal assistant to John Lennon and resulting book and legal entanglements. Thus his notability is just for that one "event," and the sum and substance of this biography is to disparage the subject. I feel that this article fails WP:1E and further warrants deletion because of its general purpose to disparage Seaman. Article should be deleted or merged into John Lennon or Yoko Ono. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]