The result was keep. The consensus is keep, but it's fair to say that I agree with Casliber, that not all parts of the articles should necessarily be kept. The miscellany at the bottom of the Hot 100 list seems particularly in need of a critical look. Hot 100 has now closed as keep for three successive times, & consequently it's my opinion that another try at deleting it might well be considered disruptive. DGG ( talk ) 07:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indiscriminate, overlong, undersourced lists. Some of the content is verifiable, but things like "most weeks at #2" are unsourced trivia. There's no rhyme or reason as to what's a notable achievement here, nor is anyone trying to rectify the problem. I would say that the only records of any real importance (longest run at #1 and longest chart run overall) can be included in each chart's individual article, but the rest is very indiscriminate trivia. Previous AFDs at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hot 100 (U.S.) chart achievements and trivia (2008) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Billboard Hot 100 chart achievements and milestones (2009) both closed as keep, but both were kept only due to WP:ILIKEIT and WP:ITSUSEFUL without any policy-based arguments either time. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 23:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was -- Cirt (talk) 01:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC) delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
no indication of notability. Disputed prod with no rationale. noq (talk) 23:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was -- Cirt (talk) 01:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC) delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An non-notable website. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG and I cannot find any coverage about it. (Contested PROD) Stickee (talk) 23:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The general requirements for "notability include"
Thanks!@ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.67.170.77 (talk) 01:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was -- Cirt (talk) 01:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC) delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No indication of notability. Disputed prod. Article creator believes a blog is a WP:reliable source to establish notability. noq (talk) 23:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. This looks like a case of WP:SNOWBALL for keeping; note that merging or renaming also implies keep. If the consensus builds toward merging or renaming, that should be discussed on the article talk page; it isn't a debate that belongs in AfD. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:22, 10 September 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)) . |
Non-notable publicity stunt by a minuscule group of Floridan bigots. WP:CRYSTAL applies, as no books have yet to be burnt. The title is misleading, as the event is in no way "International", and the any encyclopedic "content" could be placed into any number of existing articles. Pure propaganda, to be deleted with malice. Physchim62 (talk) 22:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE - Following comments here and on the talk page the article has since been renamed to 2010 Florida Qur'an-burning controversy to better reflect the contents and the notability which is the controversy rather than the actual day. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MErge no need for it to have its own article Weaponbb7 (talk) 11:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The President of the United States has also now commented in an interview on the issue. [2] Would those at present supporting merging be more prepared to support keeping if the article was renamed to describe it as a controversy. rather than just day. International Burn a Qur'an Day Controversy has been suggested on the talk page. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems a lot of people casting their opinions to either delete this page or merge it back to the Dove World article do so based on their opposition to the current article title. I would encourage those who have acted on this way to reconsider. Changing the article's name is a much less drastic measure than what you are giving your support to, in fact there is already a discussion at Talk:International Burn a Koran Day about renaming the article where two alternatives have been presented so far:
Personally I think the second one is a good candidate for a name change for the article. Please go to the article talk page to discuss this (i.e. don't do it as follow-up to this post), and please reconsider your vote given above if it fits with the description I gave above. __meco (talk) 14:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is for the attention of any Admins following this discussion. I thought it would be a good idea to tally up the positions for those wishing the article not to be deleted against those who argue that it should be merged or renames.
With a controversial topic such as this we have to be on our guard against comments from IP address and relatively new accounts which may have been created soleöy for the purpose of influencing this discussion. I think we also should be on the lookout for persons seeking to use personal feelings over and above the really important issue of Wikipedia policy. I therefore thought it wise to check also on the users' editing histories. For each editor I have given the eariest WP contribution date and marked with a * any relatively new accounts or accounts which may otherwise arouse suspicion or which are IP accounts where the earliest edit data may npt be the same user and also may be a registered commentator seeking to air their view twice.
For merge or delete (and 1 rename)
For Keep
*** I really should have taken notice of those among my friends who keep telling me that Americans just don't get irony. HiLo48 (talk) 20:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note 1 The account has only has only just been created and this was the first and only WP edit
Note 2 This editor has an interesting edit history! He seems to have a penchant for editing articles on pornography and to articles with violent themes. Also to the articles such as the one on the convicted Finnish racist Seppo Lehto and the controversial Finnish anti- immigration figure Jussi Halla-aho
Note 3 The only edits relate to this matter
In summary, the count is fairly even balanced but there are potentially more "suspicious" editors in the "retain" count than in the "rename" or "delete" count. It also seems to me that the editors with the longest edit histories are mostly in favor of the article being renamed or merged. If your name is listed above and I have mis-categorized you or you wish to modify your stance, please feel free to edit the listing. Later persons adding comments may also wish to update the listing. --Hauskalainen (talk) 16:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest the AFD is closed and the article moved to Wikipedia:Article Incubator. Then when the date has passed and people have cooled down it can be moved back to mainspace when possibly a better informed AFD can start. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That above tally hows there is no consensus to delete or merge the article. Also when taking into account the above point about the event taking place by the time this closes does mean we will be in a completely different situation then anyway. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now that the proposed Koran-burning has been called off in the deal with the "Ground Zero Mosque" imam, should we restart the debate as the situation has now changed significantly?--A bit iffy (talk) 21:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
edits like this disturb me, as they clearly show bias. LiteralKa (talk) 21:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly this AFD has been a huge distraction and taken up a lot of peoples time, the article needs updating with new sources and information. Those who support the article should consider assisting thanks. There is clearly no consensus to delete, there for the article will be kept or relisted. If the article is in a good condition and upto date it will help the keep case next time round. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was -- Cirt (talk) 01:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC) delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PROD contested with no improvement to the article. It's still an unrefenced article about a non-notable neighborhood. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 22:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC) [Completing unfinished nom by IP. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)][reply]
The result was -- Cirt (talk) 01:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC) delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article deals with a relatively minor controversial incident that occurred in 2004. Falls under WP:NOTNEWS as it offers no evidence of lasting notability or widespread interest. LordPistachio talk 22:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Bloody obvious hoax, some of the competitions attributed to this person are even made up. Courcelles 22:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems this article was created as a hoax, I can't find any reliable sources for the subject being a top-level Taekwondo competitor. Material on subject's involvement in another hoax has recently been added to the article [3]. Cassandra 73 talk 22:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was What is withdrawn? Clearly I pulled a Clavin here. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 21:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Only sources are the user-submitted J-Archive.com and TV.com and an unreliable trivia site. The fact that Jeopardy! has made countless references to this is immaterial if said references can't be reliably sourced. A thorough search on Gnews and Gbooks turned up no reliable secondary sources whatsoever. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination is therefore blatantly counterfactual. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. With no RS being used (despite VernoWhitney even waiting 4 days before saying 'delete'!) None of the 'keeps' mention RS being available, or explain how it meets WP:N -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. There is nothing in the article to demonstrate the notability of this figurine or the series of which it is a member. Rodhullandemu 21:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not explain notability. Fails WP:NALBUMS -Selket Talk 21:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC) Selket Talk 21:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lacks explanation of notability. --Selket Talk 21:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC) Selket Talk 21:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was -- Cirt (talk) 01:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC) delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article gives no context. I cannot figure out what type of bearing its trying to explain to even find references for notability. Wizard191 (talk) 20:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BLP article was created today without any sources. BLP Prod was removed without comment. Google searches do not support article's claims, which even if true, probably do not establish notability. PinkBull 20:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, let's start with the topic sentence:"Meat ganoderma is a unknown lifeform. It is found in somewhere from China." Two sources are cited - one in Chinese, which I can't read. The English site is a blog post that seems to refer to the Lingzhi mushroom, Ganoderma lucidum. The author has twice reverted my redirect to Lingzhi mushroom. I don't think we have sufficient reliable sources to support the extremely vague assertions in the article. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
myxomycete complex, or a kind of slime bacteria, and maybe a kind of higher fungi which arises naturally from sticky germs compound between dead organisms.
QCode is given because some Chinese journals don't use DOI. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 10:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 01:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC) delete. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 01:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Game was canceled long ago and had little media, not part of a major franchise, just another game abandoned halfway through development Piggysan (talk) 19:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Nomination Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Dusti*poke* 23:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable alligator farm and petting zoo. TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 19:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 01:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC) delete. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 01:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This "major" award is not. It is a fleeting honor. Also, the reference, as well as all the references, is simply a press release issued by Woodbridge Group and reprinted in trade mags that invariably reprint these sorts of things. Just because you've been put in print does not make you notable. A reprinted press release is not an author or journalist independently writing about you or your organization. This is Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill Vinithehat (talk) 19:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this is an investment bank, but I disagree with your rationale for deleting it. Other investment banks--- specifically smaller ones--- have wikipedia pages. I think the award might be a little overstated, but if Woodbridge group actually is the most active bank in CT that definitely means something especially considering the amount of financial services firms in the state. I dont see this page doing anything worse than other pages on investment banks, it simply adds to the amount of info on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.123.236.142 (talk) 14:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 01:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC) keep. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 01:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Individual season currently consisting of just a list of players. The season was also played in the fourth tier of English football (and doesn't otherwise seem particularly notable), so also fails the notability requirements of WP:NSPORTS#Individual seasons. J Mo 101 (talk) 19:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am adding to this nomination the following related articles:
Herostratus (talk) 20:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep – nomination by a sock puppet of a banned user. –MuZemike 20:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contains a redlinked image, 2 of the references are unreliable and the other three are all from The New York Times website. Fails A7 as a small time artist who has only participated in a local competition. Superchrome (talk) 18:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Subject is not notable enough to warrant his own article. Delete. Soupy sautoy (talk) 13:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rationale for relist: WP:BLP article has been expanded recently — Scientizzle 18:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was -- Cirt (talk) 01:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC) delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A non-notable Slovenian advertising company. No references provided. Eleassar my talk 17:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was -- Cirt (talk) 01:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC) delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A non-notable Slovenian company. Eleassar my talk 17:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was -- Cirt (talk) 01:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC) delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IRA University does not appear in official Pakistan university rankings. Possible hoax, certainly non-notable. See http://www.hec.gov.pk/insidehec/divisions/QALI/Others/RankingofUniversities/Pages/Default.aspx Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 17:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was -- Cirt (talk) 00:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC) delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be fringe science -- article is based on /about a single book. There are a few references to this theory on Google Scholar, but none from peer-reviewed scientific journals. I could not find any independent information on this book. (I don't think it could be merged with Entropic gravity, either, since it seems only marginally related) Danski14(talk) 17:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To be quite honest, the main reason I'm arguing to delete this article is because it's about an event that is wholly unremarkable. There was an unknown malfunction but there was no real emergency and the plane landed uneventfully. While there is clearly coverage of the event, the incident occurred only a week ago and Wikipedia isn't the news. At best the article is premature as it is full of speculation since authorities haven't determined what even happened. A disclosure; the article had an expired proposed deletion which I declined due to a protest of deletion on the article's talk page, and I even cleaned it up quite a bit, but I still feel it doesn't merit inclusion.-- Atama頭 16:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. On the basis of the added references from Melanie. DGG ( talk ) 02:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Advertising for non-notable company, fails WP:CORP. Prod removed with no reason given. Kimchi.sg (talk) 16:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This organization, Knowlarity Communications, is helping the Indian government track a meal scheme served at schools for the Indian children (below poverty line) which is quite a big step in social responsibility from a corporate. More information can be found on the internet using search engines and using the key words 'Knowlarity" and "Mid Day Meal" . I could find 15 articles from various news sources.
Further Comment This article has been updated and improvised as per feedbacks given on this page from Boing! said Zebedee & EnabledDanger . Legitimate sources has been referred to . Please let me know if it suffices. Knowourba (talk) 11:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Edison's arguments are convincing; consensus is clear for keep. (non-admin closure) ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ―Œ ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣ 11:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy declined. No assertion of notability. Article has been tagged for this since Dec 08. Created by User:Basler Electric. Wtshymanski (talk) 15:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was -- Cirt (talk) 00:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC) delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable concert tour. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. Nouse4aname (talk) 15:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was -- Cirt (talk) 00:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC) delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable concert tour. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. Nouse4aname (talk) 15:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The consensus is that Leslie does not meet the criteria for inclusion at this time - if signficant coverage occurs in the future, it can be recreated. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
failed 1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
failed 2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
failed 3. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
failed 4. The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.
not applicable 5. See Wikipedia:Notability (academics) for guidelines on academics
Her books are difficult to find for sale, published reviews are impossible to find. The one newspaper mention of her (book launch) was not a very important or significant event. This is a vanity page for self promotion and nothing more. Vinithehat (talk) 15:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was -- Cirt (talk) 00:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC) keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is to no reliable third person information about the character not the actress that played her. This is the distinction people who will no doubt campaign for this article to be saved will say there is information when in fact they talk about this article. There lots of information on the actress who played the role but not specifically the character. Dwanyewest (talk) 17:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was -- Cirt (talk) 00:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC) keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is to no reliable third person information about the character not the actress that played her. This is the distinction people who will no doubt campaign for this article to be saved will say there is information when in fact they talk about this article. There lots of information on the actress who played the role but not specifically the character. Dwanyewest (talk) 17:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was -- Cirt (talk) 00:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC) keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is a lack of sufficent third person information about the character not the the actress who plays a distinctive difference. Dwanyewest (talk) 15:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Highly promotional article, with extreme probability of COI (a quick look indicates more than 80% of edits are by SPA accounts), almost no references, and little indication of notability. WuhWuzDat 17:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. no indication of notability, zero search results, likely hoax Favonian (talk) 13:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Prod removed by creator. Unsourced, google has never even heard of the term except here, let alone an actual WP:RS.Made up? Hoax? tedder (talk) 13:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
for the following reasons this article should be deleted: WP:NOTSOAPBOX , WP:NOTADVERTISING , WP:NOTLINK , WP:GNG , WP:NRVE and WP:MADEUP; The user who created the page has less than 100 edits on less than 30 articles, and seems not be enough expert. Aliwiki (talk) 12:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Biography of a fictional character written entirely in an in-universe style and recapitulating information already available in the film article. Furthermore, all the references are from imdb, a nonreliable source, and it is unlikely reliable sources could be found. Simply put, there is no reason for an article about this character. RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 12:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to William James Sidis. seems clear enough by now DGG ( talk ) 03:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is impossible to find verifiable independent sources for an article on this subject. The subject of the article has no notability. WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 15:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rapper who has never charted and does not seem to be the subject of coverage in any reliable sources either -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was -- Cirt (talk) 00:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC) delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
non notable online office supplies company. Makes unsubstantiated claim to being the first business of its kind in the UK. Guesses at turnover by 2012. Nothing substantial on google to establish notability noq (talk) 12:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Apart from the nominator (who nominated this for the previous Afd), the two 'delete's are both weak. There is no clear consensus here. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've attempted several times in the past to find a review or other reliable source for this pornographic anime, but I always come up empty. Fails WP:NOTE. Even AnimeOnDVD, now called Mania.com, which frequently does reviews for pornographic anime, hasn't even touched this one. (search) —Farix (t | c) 11:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy close - blatant hoax ϢereSpielChequers 17:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The content appears to be very inaccurate: a translation of the first reference listed states:
Bronstein Matthew P., 12/02/1906, the birth, harvest. city of Vinnitsa , a Jew , non-partisan, with a higher education researcher at the Leningrad Physico-Technical Institute, was convicted Feb. 18, 1938 the Military Collegium of the USSR Supreme Court for "an active part in counter-revolutionary fascist terrorist organization" under Art. 58-8 and 58-11 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR to the highest degree of criminal punishment - execution, and seizure of all, he is personally owned, property. A sentence of execution Bronstein Matvey Petrovich executed Feb. 18, 1938 in Leningrad. Kudpung (talk) 10:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
l
The result was keep. DGG provides a good subjective description when he mentions, "Keep as a major character, but find some way of condensing the description of the other characters." Therefore, keeping the article. In case reliable sources are not placed, there's no prejudice to another AfD soon enough. (non-admin closure) ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ―Œ ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣ 11:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixing nomination for an IP. Deletion rationale (from articles talk page) is "PROD contested with no improvement. It's totally in-universe, has no relevant secondary sources and lacks any real-world claims to notability." I remain neutral. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 11:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was -- Cirt (talk) 00:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC) delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No reliable evidence that he is indeed the father of nutricosmetics, nor that he is notable according to Wikipedia guidelines including WP:ACADEMIC. Online reference given doesn't mention him, making this essentially an unsourced biography. Can find no cites for him in Google Scholar, and no significant coverage on him online in WP:Reliable sources. Prod contested by creator. Nanodance (talk) 09:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 01:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC) keep. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 01:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Specialised medical test. No evidence of its notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have added another reference. As a whole, the referencing should be improved, but as it stands, it is good enough to justify this article. The article also needs extensive clean-up to reduce to technical jargon. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Broken source links, 1 editorial mention, google reveals nothing substantial DavidBetzer (talk) 06:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – basically per Jevansen. Notable and surely passes WP:GNG, which is what I think this AfD was based on. Jenks24 (talk) 13:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was -- Cirt (talk) 00:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC) keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable product from a non-notable company. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/InSound Medical. I think we need a product notability guideline that is more prescriptive than that at WP:PRODUCT. Products are something that are regularly added to WP. If we have a guideline or policy we can easily get rid of product SPAM articles. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was -- Cirt (talk) 00:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC) keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fan cruft. No reason to have an article on what is almost certainly a non-notable scheme of professional sports. A simple blurb or paragraph in the main article of the team or strategy in general is enough, not an entire article dedicated to perceived intentions, ideals, and OR/POV plays. Jmlk17 05:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Will userify on request Courcelles 00:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fan cruft. No reason to have an article on what is almost certainly a non-notable scheme of professional sports. A simple blurb or paragraph in the main article of the team is enough, not an entire article dedicated to perceived intentions, and OR/POV plays. Jmlk17 05:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. NW (Talk) 14:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural nomination per the result of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 September 1. I am neutral. Courcelles 05:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was The result was keep, per withdrawal by nominator and no other arguments for deletion. Rlendog (talk) 02:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary. Information easily merged into the main team articles Edmonton Oilers. No reason for separate articles. Jmlk17 05:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Secret account 23:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More unnecessary fan cruft. An ever-changing list of players that is just as easily had on their respective team pages as needed. A partial list of random players throughout an entire professional baseball organization isn't needed. Jmlk17 05:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary fan cruft. An ever-changing list of players that is just as easily had on their respective team pages as needed. A partial list of random players throughout an entire professional baseball organization isn't needed. Jmlk17 05:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BLP about person only known for one event - thus should be mentioned in article about the event only (aka Best Bakery) Dondegroovily (talk) 04:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was -- Cirt (talk) 00:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC) delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable fictional place. All references are from the official website. Borderline spam. PROD contested (simply removed without comment) by original author. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to List of Tampa Bay Rays managers. seems to be general agreement on this DGG ( talk ) 07:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No need for a separate page for the information included. Delete and/or merge is necessary. Jmlk17 04:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Ariadne Oliver. how much to merge wil depend on whether there are sources for the opinion in this article; if unsourced, a plain redirect would be right. DGG ( talk ) 00:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fictional character. Non notable on his own. DimaG (talk) 23:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be made up or at least something new enough that it's not notable. PROD for such reasons was removed, only one source added, some unreliable blog. No significant coverage. — Timneu22 · talk 22:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable individual lacking GHIts and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 03:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was -- Cirt (talk) 00:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC) delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This certainly isn't notable. The infobox contains an image not a cover. The boxset duplicates information i.e. the content's section tells you the names of the albums included which are also given in the track listing section which just recreates information from the individual album pages. There's just one chart. Per WP:NALBUMS there's nothing remarkabley special about this release and it has little/no independent coverage. This info could easily be merged to her discography and artist page with a simple sentances: "On December 15, 2010, Def Jam records released a 3-CD boxset containing Rihanna's three albums, Music of the Sun, A Girl Like Me and Good Girl Gone Bad: Reloaded Edition as well as room for her fourth album Rated R. It reached number 80 in the US Top R&B/Hip-Hop Albums chart." -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 01:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is just a repackaging of her first 3 records with nothing significant to seperate it from her actual records. If we included every Elvis/Beatles repackaging, their wikipedia page would be endless. I don't think it's even worth including on Rihanna's page. Dankim1180 (talk) 18:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Teairra Marí. Although an editor does give the keep vote, the reasons are not sufficient to prove notability. Consensus seems clearly for redirecting this article (non-admin closure) ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ―Œ ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣ 11:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Teairra_Marí. There's no way that this is notable. It has no other coverage accept for one source from Rap-Up and other than information about it's tracklisting there is never going to be enough information to warrant an independent article.-- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 01:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as with this recent AFD ending in deletion for several other episodes, these lack independent reliable sources that establish notability. They all fail WP:GNG and WP:PLOT. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 01:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Clear consensus that she meets notability criteria. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notability. Catherall is just a backing vocalist and not a very good one at that, has never done lead vocals unlike Sulley who has her own single, article is just a rehash of The Human League which covers her sufficiently Laestrygonian3 (talk) 01:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable per WP:BAND. Evil saltine (talk) 01:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Fundamental disagreement, and neither side is likely to persuade the other. Delete camp points to the spare sourcing. Keep camp reflects that there is sourcing, and point to its milestone status. As always, further discussions on merging or redirecting my continue on the talk page. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss - per a series of recent AFDs resulting in either a merge or delete outcome for other ATHF episode articles I redirected several seemingly non-notable ATHF articles to the list article. I'm not quite sure what technologically happened but following a series of actions by another editor and me we wound up with the article back at its present title. The other editor asserts that the IGN review satisfies notability requirements. However, a series of recent AFDs for episodes of The Boondocks seen here and here seem to establish some measure of consensus that a single such review (in those instances, reviews by the AV Club) is insufficient to establish notability. Since it is unlikely that agreement will be achieved through any other process (I don't intend to change my mind and I doubt the other editor does either) I bring it here. I searched for reliable sources that were about the episode and found nothing. I believe deletion is appropriate and that the unlikelihood of this exact search string makes redirection unnecessary but I also recognize that consensus for redirection is much more likely than for deletion. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 00:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Promotional article for an individual whose notability does not rise above the local level. Article is completely unreferenced and was created by a single purpose account. A quick google search and google news search doesn't turn up any reliable, secondary sources which cover this individual in a significant way. Fails WP:GNG. SnottyWong communicate 17:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC) SnottyWong communicate 17:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete some of it may just be badly written, but a lot more needs to be done to establish notability. PatGallacher (talk) 17:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Searches for her name on two local news papers reveal pages of hits across multiple issues [60] [61] There's lots of good stuff there related to the terrorism raids, treaty issues, her work for her iwi, etc. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This list/article is incredibly poorly defined. It is very subjective (to be read wp:OR) what qualifies a person to get an entry here. The related article List of scientific publications by people under 20 years of age is at least verifiable to a certain degree because publication date is easy to check, as opposed to when the person did the experiment. Nergaal (talk) 02:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC) Nergaal (talk) 02:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are no reliable secondary sources and the article is written like an advertisement. The article was tagged with the ((notability)) template back in April 2007[62], and the article hasn't improved. d'oh! talk 05:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced, does not appear to be a notable or important radio station. Stifle (talk) 11:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Notability is disputed, but the sense of the participants here is that the subject squeaks by the notability guideline. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Criminal who fails Wikipedia's notability guideline for criminals. Notability rests on one event and thus not suitable candidate for an article. Claritas § 16:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable actor/artist with no significant coverage in reliable sources. I couldn't find anything beyond press releases and social media sites. TNXMan 18:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I was still logged in a couple of times when I made an edit, and I did not realize maintenance tags shouldn't be removed (some say DO NOT REMOVE, some don't) I assumed since I added references, it could go. I also didn't realize facebook couldn't be used as a ref, but have since removed it. Apologies. I've been discussing with Cindamuse, why my article is not notable, when this Rob Janoff article is. I would like to fix my article rather than have it deleted. Any help would be greatly appreciated. JohnnyBender (talk) 07:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am unable to find secondary sources that confer notability for this company. Angryapathy (talk) 18:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. The original nomination's premise was rebutted, and there is no consensus that the article should be deleted. A merge or redirect could be appropriate, but that is a matter left to the normal editting process. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clear-cut case of WP:MADEUP. –Chase (talk) 21:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]