< 20 October | 22 October > |
---|
The result was redirect and speedy close. Bearian (talk) 18:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced Since creation in 2004, unelected candidate, and no indication of importance. Talktome(Intelati) 23:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Keep Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin close). Nevermind, hit the button a bit too quick.
Advertisement for a non-notable book. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. SnottyWong spill the beans 23:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 07:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable per WP:NOTABLE and WP:MILMOS/N Anotherclown (talk) 23:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced, non-notable neologism per WP:Neologism, original research per WP:No original research, can't find a single mention of it online. Prod contested by anonymous editor. Top Jim (talk) 08:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Marcus Qwertyus 22:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hoax [1] not blatant so don't think WP:G3 applies CTJF83 chat 21:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NN, fails WP:NSONG CTJF83 chat 21:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was nomination withdrawn. — Scientizzle 18:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I figure AfD is a better place to hash out these claims. — Scientizzle 21:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]Not a word is true, it was a marketing tool in the Netherlands, but not since the eighties, only since 2004 or 2005. It may have been invented long before, but since the lying begins in the first line by inventing an English word for it, I presume the whole article is marketing-nonsense. Wuppie is not an acronym for anything, is it just a funny name. This article seems to be created to give some fundament to a Dutch marketing-campain. Vier Tildes (talk) 20:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable text messaging company. I don't see anything in the Google searches or the article itself that establishes sufficient notability. Sven Manguard Talk 20:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
maka bhosda
WHAT THE FUCK MAN....
FUCK YOUR MAMA...
FUCK YOUR SISTER...
FUCK YOURSELF...
The result was keep. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Almost certainly redundant and inferior to 2003 invasion of Iraq. It was suggested on the talk page that this article be merged but no one participated. Marcus Qwertyus 20:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC) Marcus Qwertyus 20:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is most likely a hoax. There is a company of that name in Columbus, a Mercedes dealer, and that's where those model numbers come from. No references are provided, none could be found. I hope the article creator will come by here to explain. Drmies (talk) 19:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as a hoax, due to the nonsensical candidates. —C.Fred (talk) 21:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixing nomination for User:Uncle Milty. It was speedied as patent nonsense, but declined. The article, although it purports to be an election article, has nonsensical names for the candidates. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 21:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Aside from SPAs, there is a clear consensus that this article fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 29 October 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)) . |
Delete Obvious spam article created by an account that has been blocked for being a spam account. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 19:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a very happy user of their GoMeetNow webconferencing. I have a small business, and I use GoMeetNow instead of Webex which I was paying too much money for. It's great, you should check it out -- http://www.gomeetnow.com/ Happysantacruz (talk) 20:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC) — Happysantacruz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Here is a link to a recent Wainhouse Research Analyst Report that includes RHUB Communications: http://www.wainhouse.com/images/reports/wr_rmc09_v1_summary.pdf Happysantacruz (talk) 20:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC) — Happysantacruz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NSOCCER, never competed at an "officially sanctioned senior international competition," as the 2008 FIFA U-17 Women's World Cup is not a senior competition. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notability, especially WP:ORG. Sources are one self-promoting interview and three pieces mostly on the clients, in specialist and industry not general press. Mostly unsourced, and even the sourced bits read like a press release. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 18:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC0
Hi, this is the person responsible for the creation of the Holition Wiki page. My article was in no way intended to promote the business venture of Holition or its employers. Instead, it was intended to highlight the revolution which is occurring in the retail trade with the innovations that Augmented Reality can bring, which is why I cited the examples of the BMW application and the Tissot application. The section entitled ‘The Team’ was mostly taken from the company’s website as I have no knowledge of the hierarchy which exists in the business. This, I agree, has likely breached copyright laws. However, I feel the ‘lists of clients’ section which I provided was paraphrased significantly enough to give an unbiased valuation of those looking to adopt the technology in their sales campaigns. I am disappointed to read that this article may be deleted as spam as Augmented Reality could easily change the way in which we shop online. All I am doing in this article is highlighting those retail businesses that are making the leap to AR technology as a bid to increase their sales. I am more than happy to further paraphrase the article to meet wiki rules if need be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TechnoCharmer (talk • contribs) 09:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Product doesn't appear to be notable; Google Web and News searches produced no reliable sources. The only references offered are Blogspot and Twitter pages. Prod contested. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 18:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Peter Karlsen (talk) 02:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why this is still here. Previous AFD closed as redirect to Shayne Ward, but the entry is persistently unredirected, G4 was declined. Album not yet released. Hairhorn (talk) 17:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Ham Polo Club. Redirecting as an editorial decision. Consider this a no consensus close. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable sporting event. This event does not seem to be sanctioned by any national or international governing body, and appears to be a local tournament with no demonstrated notability. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For these reasons i believe the tournament deserves its own article.
Many Thanks
Benjie —Preceding unsigned comment added by BenjaminHugo (talk • contribs) 17:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 04:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
article about television show has no refs that establish notability, only links to websites associated with the program; search for term on google turns up little information about the subject. wasn't sure if this qualified for db-a7 as it does appear to be an actual show, or possibly db-spam considering the promotional aspect of the links. i am neutral in terms of the deletion, nominating article for other editors consideration. WookieInHeat (talk) 18:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 04:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable band fails WP:BAND. Only references are primary and MySpace. SnottyWong babble 18:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Request My news search picks up a bunch in German, including something from MTV, but I can't pass judgement on it since I don't actually speak any German. Can someone look up to see what that says, generally I'd agree with the nom about english sources, but there is an allowance for foreign language sources, and if the MTV coverage isn't trivial, we might have enough for notability. Sven Manguard Talk 00:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article appears to fail the notability requirements of WP:PROF. I have removed my earlier PROD due to sources being added, however I fail to find matches on Google Books, Google Scholar or WorldCat for his publications. Having the title Professor in India is not a guarantee of encyclopaedic notability under our guidelines. Fæ (talk) 15:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Progressive Conservative Party candidates, 2007 Ontario provincial election#By-elections. Already merged. Sandstein 08:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Candidate for a provincial by-election. Newspaper columnist but not otherwise notable. Doesn't meet WP:BIO. Recommend delete or merge with Progressive Conservative Party candidates, 2007 Ontario provincial election (in section for by-elections). Suttungr (talk) 15:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:N and WP:V: non-notable product with no references based on reliable, third-party, published sources. I went a dozen pages deep into Google search and found the usual links to download sites, warez/kracks pages, and blogs with nothing but press release content, but nothing reliable that shows any kind of notability. Wyatt Riot (talk) 14:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No reliable sources to support notability for this fictional group of people VernoWhitney (talk) 13:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was withdrawn as redirect. — Timneu22 · talk 13:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a completely unnotable book. No sources. — Timneu22 · talk 13:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete FT2 (Talk | email) 00:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus seems to agree upon delete. The DOCS is not at AFD -- although anyone could have added it or could list it in future -- so speculation on whether DOCS is notable or not has not been tested at AFD and a redirect would have been a valid conclusion, but this was not the choice of participants overall. Also noting that the one voice not proposing deletion is considered by some to be heavily COI on the topic. A checkuser has confirmed that user:Chris DDS and user:Sedation guru who edited these articles are the same person.
Dentist notable only for founding a particular organization, which already has its own article. Not otherwise notable. Reference provided are all either generic references not related to this subject, or articles written by this subject. No reliable secondary sources to be found. A redirect to the organization's page was reverted by a user who seems to have created his account solely for this purpose. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
References There are both subjective and academic references to Michael Silverman -
Reference #5 is an interview with the Wealthy Dentist University.
Reference #6 is an article published on www.DrBicuspid.com and reprinted on another doctor's professional site. www.drbicuspid.com is a professional site about the field of Dentistry.
Reference #7 is an article by the New York Times. New York Times Article, "My Root Canal? It’s a Blur, March 6, 2008." Republished with permission on the www.sedationcare.com website
Reference #8 Is an academic study published in the Journal of the American Dental Association in which Dr. Michael Silverman played a vital role.
An additional reference is given to the Wall Street Journal at the bottom of the page.
While there are articles written by Dr. Michael Silverman himself, there are also 3rd-party articles referencing Dr. Silverman as a notable professional in his field. Chris DDS (talk) 20:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC) — Chris DDS (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The result was Deleted per WP:OR (deleted by Jimfbleak). (Non-admin closure) ∙:∙:.:pepper:.:∙:∙ 19:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pure OR. WP not a forum. Shovon (talk) 11:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again a mess of User:Juve10. The player did not made his professional debut yet and he did not joined Juventus (instead he joined Verona) All content seems a hoax. Matthew_hk tc 10:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Way too early Shadowjams (talk) 08:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was SPEEDY DELETE. JIP | Talk 09:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another gem from the guy who wanted to sell us Derrick 12th Grade Style: Senior Year... note copied broken refs and infobox-poster Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was SPEEDY DELETE. JIP | Talk 09:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
well... sounds awesome, yes. See declined speedy. oh, and if it doesn't strike you, read this and compare in amazement... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Peter Karlsen (talk) 02:04, 28 October 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)) . |
Hasn't done anything notable yet. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Witan (talk) 18:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable.Adrigon (talk) 19:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC) Keep I created the stub, and I'd think it should be expaned. She is notable due to the fact of her young age and the circumstanes.TiMike (talk) 00:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.57.157.160 (talk) 20:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that most of the commenters on this page confuse notability with newsworthiness. Being named police chief in one of Mexicos most troubled areas while merely a 20-year old college student is newsworthy, as is self-evident from the media coverage the event has garnered globally. However, Wikipedia is not a news service. Notability requires that the subject of an article is known for something else than a single event, and so far Chief Valles Garcia is only known for her position.
I feel obliged to quote from WP:BLP1E: "Merely being in the news does not imply someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them."
For the time being, Mrs./Ms. Valles Garcia (I was unable to determine whether she is married or not) has been covered in the news only in relation with her acceptance of her new post. In the future, this may change, and the expansion of her own article may be warranted, but for the time being, redirection to Práxedis G. Guerrero Municipality and creation of a subsection there is the correct course of action in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines. Mleivo (talk) 04:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Peter Karlsen (talk) 02:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:POLITICIAN. media coverage reflects things he has said as Council Mayor rather about him as a person. LibStar (talk) 04:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable actress, with appearances in bit parts of various films and TV shows. No independent reliable references. Google shows nothing relevant. (Contested speedy.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The page from the Tagalog Wikipedia tl:Labanan sa Tulay ng Yultong reads: "04:04, 15 Disyembre 2008 Bluemask (Usapan | ambag) nabura ang "Labanan sa Tulay ng Yultong" (nilalaman ay: original research/hoax)". Article is unsourced, non-verifiable, reads like a diary entry which is non-encyclopedic. Dubious content. Contains a copyvio from http://www.timawa.net/forum/index.php?topic=22488.0 (note that this is an internet forum, and not a valid source). -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 04:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Peter Karlsen (talk) 02:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No reliable coverage on CNN, NBC, etc. Tedescoboy22 (talk) 03:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 05:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per the PROD-tag which was removed without explanation [11] ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 06:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 07:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
as per WP:ONEVENT. LibStar (talk) 00:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for notability for 18 months, but concerns remain. I can't find the significant coverage we require - ImDb verifies a few bit parts, but in my opinion that doesn't put him over the threshold. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 07:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable per WP:BIO and WP:ENT, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Prod contested by anonymous IP editor. Top Jim (talk) 13:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Keep criterion 2.5 (non-admin closure) Stickee (talk) 13:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable author. Tedescoboy22 (talk) 03:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Condover. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article fails WP:ORG with no relevant sources available to demonstrate significant impact by this quite small school. Being a primary school is not covered by the WP:NHS guidelines. See WP:OUTCOMES for the current consensus for educational organizations. PROD previously deleted and merge already suggested, raising for wider discussion. Fæ (talk) 01:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Anthony Watts (blogger). DGG ( talk ) 17:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that this website fails WP:WEB as the article is deriving its notability mostly from the notability of its founder Anthony Watts (blogger), promotion by like-minded fringe-theorists, and a throw-away NOAA FAQ press release. Useful content can be merged to the biographical article (most of it is already there). ScienceApologist (talk) 23:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Extended discussion. Click to see. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 07:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a thoroughly non-notable church. All the independent references appear to be directory-style websites, and I don't see anything that would be considered to be reliable. Surely the church's website (which is also cited) is reliable for internal matters, but it can't be used to support notability. Nyttend (talk) 13:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
*Delete; a quick search revealed nothing else that would establish notability. Kansan (talk) 16:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete . It appears there may be a consensus to merge -- I suggest that discussion be carried out on the respective talkpages. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable local award at one university. No assertion of importance. GrapedApe (talk) 14:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NN person, No coverage, even less with "Bishop" added in CTJF83 chat 00:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Contested PROD but does not meet WP:BK. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Closing as snow keep. My gut feeling tends me to side toward deletion far more often than is average for an admin hereabouts, and my awareness of this is what makes me generally avoid the closing of AfDs. But even as a sporadic "deletionist", I'm puzzled by this nomination. Whether or not a merge would have been warranted, a request to merge would at least have been understandable; by contrast, a request to delete an article, however bad, on a popular ("bestselling") book by an unusually well known novelist is baffling indeed. Hoary (talk) 10:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Contested PROD but does not meet WP:BK. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Contested PROD but does not meet WP:BK. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I declined CSD for this as it does not fall under the WP:CSD#A7 criterion. I then PRODded it and the PROD tag was removed. The subject matter does not make any assertion of notability, but more to the point, it does not appear to actually be notable. The article claims it is on YTV, but no mention appears on YTV's web site under alphabetical listing of shows, and Google searches don't seem to mention it either. I am not asserting it doesn't exist, but I can't find any evidence that it does either. Frank | talk 15:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:ORG. 1 gnews hit [18]. seems like no media outlet outside the university is interested in this club. LibStar (talk) 01:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Was deleted previously, this article is just a list of games that fail WP:NOTABLE. At the very least, it should be renamed as the name hints of just one game. Anonymax (talk) 01:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator note Nominator of this AFD has been indefinitely blocked as a sock puppet of a banned user. –MuZemike 14:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:ORG. nothing in gnews [19], a very localised organisation. LibStar (talk) 06:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 07:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unremarkable defunct minor record company. Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The subject is unclear, and notability is questionable for the same reason, and the lack of references. Talktome(Intelati) 18:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - What even is this article about? Also, I agree with Intelati's other comments. Gfoley4 / Wanna chat? 22:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 05:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:ORG as company has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable language school; previously prod'ed under English language center and English language Center TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 19:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ELC LTD is a well known company in Ukraine. It was awarded with a national "high label" prize. it's a member of National Quality Association and has a 15 years good reputation history. How can you write that it's "Non-notable language school"? What is "notable" then in your opinion? EF_Education_First? What's the difference then? My opinion is - the company has the right to put information on wikipedia among many other companies in this field. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.238.8.9 (talk) 19:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --Mike Cline (talk) 17:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are century-old astronomy enthusiasts drawing on the work of an essayist who posited the existence of this god based on strange conjecture into constellation origins. Their reliability is questioned by a scholar here and by a well-informed amateur here and here. Nothing in the modern Egyptological literature I’ve read corroborates the existence of this god, unless the name is a distortion of Babi. I’ve informed the article’s author of the problem but received no response. A. Parrot (talk) 20:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable; magazine has only published one printed issue, and has not received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Apart from the 2-sentence mention in Vibe (magazine) (the other 2 refs currently in the article are not at reliable sources), I could find no reliable independent sources about this. It didn't chart from what I can see, and I can see no evidence that this song meets the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've given your userspace draft a copyedit. When you copy it back to the mainspace, feel free to give me a ping if you want me to take another look at it. Cunard (talk) 07:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 05:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not finding any sources for this play which establish its notability per WP:GNG, although the title of the play is also a very common expression, so I may have missed something. The single source in the article doesn't appear to be reliable. SnottyWong soliloquize 23:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Advertisement for a local amateur football tournament fails WP:GNG. SnottyWong verbalize 23:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]