The result was Closing because of Speedy Deletion of article as copyvio. Peridon (talk) 18:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An anthology published by a minor publisher and featuring unpublished/unknown artists and writers. Does not assert notability, nor does it seem to have any. Addionne (talk) 23:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 23:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Completely unsourced Biography of someone who's career might be prolific, but does not seem to meet WP:N Addionne (talk) 23:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. joe deckertalk to me 17:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced article about a defunct band that asserts no notability except for a claim to have worked once with a well known producer. That producer's website offers no indication this is true. [1] Addionne (talk) 22:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy, snow delete as an obvious hoax. Bearian (talk) 19:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Placing this here because I was unsure if it quite met the level for a CSD. This is an unnecessary trivia article which even uses other Wikipedia articles as sources. The article on Hiccups already mentions spicy foods as a possible cause. A full half of this article contains restatements of the definition of hiccups from Hiccup. Seems pointless. Not notable. Taroaldo (talk) 22:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 12:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to fail the general notability guideline. There are references, but most are old and mention the awards in passing, if they are even accessible. Deserves mention in the Planned Parenthood article, but not its own article. NYyankees51 (talk) 22:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to List of cryptids. Sandstein 05:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why should Wikipedia have an article about an imaginary species whose claims to notability are a self-published Angelfire website and an appearance in a fictional cartoon show? Prod was removed because "theres a source" [sic], presumably referring to the self-published Angelfire website. 63.104.174.146 (talk) 21:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete. Hardly any content and only one feeble reference. There is nothing wrong with having articles about fictitious creatures as long as it is made clear that they are fictitious and they are backed up with some worthwhile references. Nipsonanomhmata (Talk) 01:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 12:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not a notable topic. An Internet search yielded no scholarly or journalistic treatment of the subject. A cursory review of the article history indicates that the article may never have had a reliably sourced statement in its six-year life. — Bdb484 (talk) 21:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The phrase is an oddity of fairly common occurrence. There is some curious historical information on it here. Taroaldo (talk) 22:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was withdrawn; the article has been deleted at the request of the author. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 10:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a procedural nomination. An anonymous editor posted on the talk page that "Archaeocursor" isn't real. It's an April Fool's Day Joke that started on a Polish forum dedicated to dinosaurs, here (in Polish): http://www.forum.dinozaury.com/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=3927 For that reason, this page should be deleted. The page was blanked, then tagged for speedy-deletion by user:Dinoguy2. If it is a hoax, it is not sufficiently blatant to qualify under the strict wording of the CSD criteria. I have declined the speedy-deletion but am posting it here for further investigation and resolution. Rossami (talk) 21:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 05:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable junior hockey player. Fails WP:NHOCKEY Larkspurs (talk) 20:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 12:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable musician by the standards of WP:MUS and WP:GNG. No credible claim for notability, in my opinion a candidate for speedy deletion, but CSD template has been removed by another editor. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 20:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 12:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contested speedy deletion candidate, not mine. Entirely unreferenced article about a non-notable product, an "Enterprise Service Bus", which is apparently what a private messaging and file sharing network starts calling itself when it has dreams beyond its station. No references, only links to its homepages. Google News has never heard of it; all hits are false positives. Article text is essentially a features list, a release history, and notes on what it can do for you. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 12:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Questionable notability of this company; article contains no information to assess notability such as net or gross sales, number of employees, whether or not it is a private or public company, etc. Repeated attempts by multiple editors to de-spam this article (practically an advertorial) are repeatedly met with reversion. Google search showed no significant editorial information (i.e., news articles about the business aside from charitable activities) in the first several hundred hits. Risker (talk) 19:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unreferenced spam. To make it even worse, the website includes a link designed to count sales referrals coming from the Wikipedia article; the spammer's reversions have included inserting that link, instead of the plain version of the company's web URL, into the infobox. Bearcat (talk) 20:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone through the article multiple times and anything that is remotely advertorial has been removed. I'm not sure why this particular article has been submitted for deletion. I understand that has not been categorized, but that is the only flaw I can see. Please assist me with categorization. Thanks. Jrom86, 7 April 2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.52.198.158 (talk) 19:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was nomination withdrawn due to sourcing improvements. Bearcat (talk) 00:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This one's a bit of an edge case. As an academic for a major Canadian university, the possibility certainly does exist that he may be sufficiently notable to meet WP:ACADEMIC — but as written, the article doesn't actually demonstrate the notability of his work as a political scientist, such as naming actual works that he may have published or properly sourcing any of the unsubstantiated assertions made to the talk page that his work has had an influence on Canadian or international politics. As it stands, the only assertion of notability here that's actually supported by a valid source is his status as an unelected candidate in the current Canadian election — so while he might meet WP:ACADEMIC, the only thing that's properly verifiable right now is that he fails WP:POLITICIAN. I'm fully prepared to withdraw this nomination if the article sees sourcing improvements before close — but in its current form, the article doesn't really demonstrate his notability and isn't keepable without a bit of tender lovin' care. Procedural nomination, no !vote. Bearcat (talk) 19:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Randall's an elected member of the Royal Society of Canada. I think it should be sufficient for WP:prof notability.(Msrasnw (talk) 13:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 12:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to one short news article, this is the building where the British national taekwondo team trains. The team itself does not have a Wikipedia article (nor does any other national taekwondo team as far as I can tell). The building itself isn't independently notable. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:41, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 23:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Original research, PROD removed by author. GILO ACCIDENT & EMERGENCY 18:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. AfD is not for making merge proposals, see Help:Merging for guidance. Sandstein 05:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging this into either an article for Michael Lowry or Denis O'Brien. Golgofrinchian (talk) 17:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, this is a major breaking scandal in Ireland with the potential to damage Ireland's reputation at a time when it is struggling for its very economic survival. I am attempting to highlight major corruption in Ireland. Please do not silence me - I am an individual fighting against govt and corporate corruption. Please do not take the side of those with money and power. Please keep Internet freedom alive. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emerald ire (talk • contribs) 18:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 03:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable jacket lacking GHITs and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:N. ttonyb (talk) 17:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 12:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable watch lacking GHITs and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:N. ttonyb (talk) 17:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Consensus is that combining these topics into one article is original research. Sandstein 05:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article is a collection of a number of different topics tied together by the fact that they relate to Israel/Palestine. It's possible that each of them (Nakba denial, denial of the existence of Palestinians as a people, etc.) could be a separate article (and a couple of them already are), but as it is the sourcing for most of them is inadequate (for example, we would need sources commenting on Palestinian denial of a Jewish connection to Israel, not examples of Palestinians who deny a Jewish connection to Israel), and grouping them all together this way is in any case inappropriate. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Sandstein 05:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While the Harry Potter franchise is notable, notability is not inherited to every content fork. This article is an arbitary content fork and an unnecessary split, composed exclusively of a list of miscellaneous information, not notable by itself. Most of the 101 references used in the article are for descriptions of the parodies, barely a few have critical commentary (none related to the parody itself) and none show how notable a topic "Parodies of Harry Potter" is or how notable any of the parodies is.
Previous keep votes in other nominations claimed that the article is fixable, but ignored whether or not the topic is notable. Doing a quick search engine test, I found that most link results are recycling material from this article, but none resembles a reliable third-party source independent of the subject to presume notability. In fact, none of the references within the article have a topic called "Parodies of Harry Potter", making the text rely sometimes on original research by synthesis like with the mention of "Harry Potter Bad Roommate" or "The Capping Show Returns".
It is my opinion that the topic "Parodies of Harry Potter" does not meet the general notability guideline since it does not have significant coverage from reliable secondary sources independent of the subject to presume notability. I also don't think that the article meets the criteria of appropriate topics for lists since the topic is trivial, non-encyclopedic and falls into what Wikipedia is not, by being an indiscriminate collection of information, a complete exposition of all possible details and an unnecessary content fork.
Instead of being a summary of accepted knowledge mentioned in the article Harry Potter or in Harry Potter fandom, this article cherry picks several parodies to create the text, with no regard as to whether the parodies themselves are notable or not. Since Wikipedia is not a complete exposition of all possible details, I do not believe that "Parodies of Harry Potter" is a topic that warrants its own article. The individual parodies should be mentioned in the articles of the notable subjects, such as Treehouse of Horror XII, and those which are from publications noted by their parodies (such as Mad (magazine)) or non-notable should be omitted altogether. Also, Harry Potter is not the only franchise that has multiple parodies. Several other franchises and classic works have at least as many parodies as Harry Potter, but that doesn't make the parodies notable or non-trivial to warrant a whole article about the many times that the works have been parodied. Jfgslo (talk) 16:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 03:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2013 film, fails WP:NFF. doomgaze (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 12:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence able to be found that he has played in a notable league, nor any significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The-Pope (talk) 16:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 08:53, 14 April 2011 (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 student organization, refs, with a single exception, consist of links to the organization's own websites, and their facebook page WuhWuzDat 16:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Keep - Nomination withdrawn, no delete !votes, non-admin closure. —SW— soliloquize 22:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable product, has not won any awards or received higher-than-normal accolades. Binksternet (talk) 16:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete There are a lot of reviews out on this mic, but all within domains that also sell them, failing the concept of 3rd party. Too bad, as it is a great mic based on the SM58 mic which spans the most of the history of modern music. In the end, that alone isn't enough to make it notable via wp:n. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC) See below.[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 12:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is pretty much just a vanity page. Most of the edits are coming from the ip address associated with Poncho's school.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bickdag (talk • contribs) 6 April 2011
The result was speedy delete. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Empty article Maimai009 15:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was SPEEDY DELETED (G2) by User:Rossami. postdlf (talk) 18:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense Maimai009 15:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. joe deckertalk to me 17:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another article in the Filotti family cruft bunch - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ligia Filotti, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Traian Filotti or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Filotti family. From the unsourced text, we find out that Mircea Filotti was: a) an agronomist who once served as department head in the Agriculture Ministry; b) a filmmaker who only managed to put out one film, that no one seems to remember. Nothing that means WP:FILMMAKER or WP:PROF. Beyond this, the sources are virtually absent (google books only shows two works that are reliable and independent of the subject, both of which make passing mentions of his name). Dahn (talk) 15:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 12:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It appears that this article is taking shape however, it is very difficult to get some consensus here as the article was so edited over night. I had only put out a first draft and had appealed for help in writing this article however, the references to "Australian sheepskin boots" were nearly all replaced with "ugg boots" and now we have an article that doesn't mention them at all.
The big question still remains, if 20 million people in Australian know the "Australian sheepskin boot style" as an "ugg boot", what shall the rest of the World's 6.908 billion people call them? And before another Australian editor says "ugg boots", that term is trademarked and cannot be used to describe the style "legally" outside of Australia. Its not an oppinion, this is an absolute fact.
If this community doesn't like to call the style "sheepskin boots" or "Australian sheepskin boots", even though this is the term used today by international and Australian manufacturers, Industry buyers and consumers alike, what shall the "generic" term be for this style that is currently the biggest selling style of boots in the world?--Illume1999 (talk) 13:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Davosaurus, The trademark for "UGG" in the Netherlands is listed on Deckers trademarks (link on "ugg boots" page see Benelux -http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/1834017/UGGglobaltms-pdf-march-31-2010-3-03-pm-88k?da=y). If you have an other name for this style, please suggest it. The term "Australian sheepskin boots" or "classic sheepskin boots" is used by every manufacturer outside of Australia and this is the "Generic" name used in most of the world--Illume1999 (talk) 13:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#A7, on the basis of the Google translation. JohnCD (talk) 16:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non english content Maimai009 14:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Even disregarding throwaway !votes, strong consensus to keep. If someone strongly disagrees, feel free to revert the close. (non-admin closure) Regards, MacMedtalkstalk 23:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:MUSIC; a following on the internet produces a lot of ghits, which tends to obscure how thin the coverage really is. For our purposes a relatively successful myspace band. Discussed last year without consensus. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
^^^ you suck —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.239.5 (talk) 19:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They are featured in the current issue of Guitar World: see [12] That's notable enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.215.144.191 (talk) 20:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, if there were another magazine like Guitar World that had featured them, would that be enough, or are you suggesting that the notability of the magazine is questionable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.242.75.160 (talk) 01:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 05:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think this list article falls squarely under the WP:VGSCOPE criteria for inappropriate content ("lists of gameplay items...") Marasmusine (talk) 13:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 12:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. No references are cited, and I doubt that, even if references were added, there's little chance that these are not produced by the organization itself. Moray An Par (talk) 13:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete a1, insufficient context. NawlinWiki (talk) 13:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sandbox/test page Maimai009 13:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 13:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable person. Maimai009 13:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 05:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Finishing nomination for IP editor as per request on the AfD talkpage. The IP originally proposed the article's deletion, then realised it had already been proposed in the past, so wasn't eligible. Prod rationale was "fails WP:NBOOK: no secondary sources, no awards; improvements to article since August 2008 limited to the correction of misspellings." I have no opinion on the matter yet, just fixing the nomination Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 12:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 08:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a very detailed list of more than couple dozen fictional items of military equipment used by a fictional faction in a fictional universe (IMHO this article is a simple Wikipedia:Fancruft case). However Wikipedia tries to be an encyclopaedia and not a detailed games sourcebook (WP:NOTMANUAL). The subject's inherent notability is frankly extremely doubtful (IMHO it fails Wikipedia:Notability - please read the General notability guidelines carefully). IMHO the sources and references reflect this; they don't come from independent third parties but rather from sourcebooks themselves or from sites of the respective computer games. Please read the article carefully and then truly ask yourselves: is this a proper article for Wikipedia? Afterwards feel free to vote according to your conscience. I also wish to point out the similar deletion proposals in Vehicles of the Space Marines in Warhammer 40,000, Vehicles of the Imperial Guard in Warhammer 40,000 and Equipment of the Imperium in Warhammer 40,000. Thank you for your attention. Flamarande (talk) 12:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 08:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Healthcare company seems to fail WP:N. A search of Google News Archives turned up no hits for United Health Services, just a lot of hits for the unrelated UnitedHealth Group. Of the references provided in the article currently, two are primary and one seems to be a press release. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 12:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to English Montreal School Board. Stifle (talk) 08:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Judging by the school's web site ( http://www.nesbites.gwinnett.k12.ga.us/ ), it looks like a primary school - and those are generally considered non-notable. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC) (Nope, that was the wrong school site -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]
The proper spelling is actually Nesbitt with double T. the school board is the English montreal school board not the montreal school board which is for french schools. and The fact there is contention currently around the school continued existence, it is in my opinion relevant. But this is a Communal effort and will respect final decision on this. Just this though should be accepted please make sure it is for Nesbitt elementary school with two T's — Preceding unsigned comment added by Savenesbitt (talk • contribs) 14:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete all. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Renomination after things got a bit messy in the last AfD. Non-notable footballer who is yet to even play in (EDIT: the top tier of) the League of Ireland, which is considered a dubious claim to notability itself. J Mo 101 (talk) 10:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also nominating the following players that have never played at LOI (EDIT: Premier League) level. J Mo 101 (talk) 10:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete per G2. MrKIA11 (talk) 09:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Almost empty article. I searched for its name on the web, and I really don't get what it is supposed to be about. Maimai009 09:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 23:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dubious notability (?) PaoloNapolitano (talk) 08:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 05:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced since 2007, with dubious statements and dictionary definitions. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 08:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 05:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Primary schools are almost never notable by themselves. Unless this school can qualify under WP:GNG with multiple independent reliable sources, it should be deleted. Since it appears to be a private school, there probably isn't any good redirect target, except for maybe the city. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jenks24 (talk) 00:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A biography of a professor. He's written or edited some books and has been quoted briefly in several news stories, but the article lists no other claims to notability. Half of the short bio is copied from his faculty profile page. Therefore the article does not appear to meet WP:PROFESSOR. Will Beback talk 06:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:BIO as there is significant coverage in multiple independent sources, namely two lengthy interviews for which he was the subject: [24], [25] and a review of one of his books [26] Qwfp (talk) 08:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 10:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of unreliable database listings and wikimirrors aside, I can't find reliable, secondary sources to establish the notability of this screenwriter. joe deckertalk to me 05:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-album single that has no notability. No substantial ghits - just lyrics sites, stuff like that. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 05:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 12:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Long-term unreferenced BLP, can't find reliable, secondary sources to establish the notability of this producer under the general notability guideline. joe deckertalk to me 05:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was SPEEDY DELETE, A7. postdlf (talk) 15:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable made-up country. E Wing (talk) 04:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete (G12) by RHaworth. Non-admin closure --Pgallert (talk) 10:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article is copied from artist's website. Worse, all I could find on said artist are two articles from a student newspaper, this and this. That is not enough, in my opinion, to pass the bar. Drmies (talk) 04:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was SPEEDY DELETE, G4. postdlf (talk) 15:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A YouTube performer with questionable notability Eeekster (talk) 04:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 12:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
High school basketball player who was apparently the MVP of the "KCAA" tournament (which doesn't appear to have a wikipedia article). Anyway does not meet Wikipedia:Notabilty (sports)#Basketball and after searching through gnews etc I can't find any significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Jenks24 (talk) 03:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Close as userfied. Article was userfied per the creator's request. VQuakr (talk) 03:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article provides no sources (the to EL don't mention the concept); I can find nothing in either a general search or a google scholar search. It is somewhere between original research, something made up one day, and a hoax. Unless reliable sources can be provided documenting this concept as something that has been already studied and is notable, it should be deleted. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How do I move this article to the sandbox to work on the citations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pnorman1 (talk • contribs) 03:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 05:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
deprodded by an anon. Fails notability, in that there are a number of passing mentions due to reporting of various trials he has prosecuted, but I haven't found any independent reliable sources writing about him. Well known != well documented dramatic (talk) 01:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 05:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seems unnecessary/non-notable. Basically it just repeats the definition of what a paralegal is with Florida being specifically added in. There doesn't seem to be any difference between a Florida Paralegal and any other paralegal. either way (talk) 01:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 12:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable autobiography, dubious entry. This started out with a great deal of puffery and unsourced claims, such as being an uncredited writer on Rain Man, winning the O. Henry and Faulkner awards, and so on. Many of these claims are easily debunked online, and have since been blanked by myself and other editors. I was originally adding {citation needed} tags instead of blanking, but this story from the March 31, 2011 Santa Barbara Independent about Steven Kunes puts any unsourced claims in an extremely poor light. What's left is not enough to make him notable. Hairhorn (talk) 01:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. joe deckertalk to me 17:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
unremarkable local effort, lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. I'm finding zero hits on the title outside of the official website. All information in the article appears to be from primary sources (the official website) or original research. Contested prod. RadioFan (talk) 01:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 12:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be an article that was created or expanded while ignoring the consensus at this AFD. This list is the original research of Wikipedia editors based on their interpretation of the fiction. Also violates WP:NOT#PLOT which requires that we discuss the reception and significance of something in reliable sources, instead of merely having fans retell the story (no matter how original the presentation might be). This type of list belongs at Memory Alpha and not Wikipedia. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Completely unsourced, not MOS, lots of original research. Jasper Deng (talk) 04:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 12:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pure advertising, for a company that does not satisfy notability criteria. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 07:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Asabenn (talk) 08:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC) (replying to "By all means persuade me (and others) otherwise, but it all seems to be based on blogs, lightweight "features" in magazines, and advertising. Where is the coverage in reliable sources? I recommend that you join in the debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucky's Chocolates" )[reply]
I suppose it might be a fault of chocolate business that magazines that would cover it would be lightweight. The most immediate thing I can say for reliable sources is their coverage in a piece by Huma Qureshi here - http://humaqureshi.co.uk/?p=357 - who herself writes for the Guardian/Observer - http://humaqureshi.co.uk/?page_id=2 - though this piece was for the British Baker Magazine (http://www.bakeryinfo.co.uk/). Would that help?
I was just wondering if the piece is more on the right lines now? Asabenn (talk) 14:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Musician that does not pass WP:MUSIC. Has one album, self-published on the web. No external sources. Captain Hindsight (talk) 16:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 05:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence the subject meets the general notability guideline or Wikipedia:Notability (people). Coverage is limited to two brief, single-paragraph treatments in articles on broader subjects, which falls far below WP:GNG's standard of "significant coverage". Apparently no coverage at all outside the immediate locality. The article's tone is promotional, its objective appears to be self-promotion, and it contains generous doses of original research, problems usually dealt with through normal editing but which in this case are not remediable because of the paucity of reliable sources. -- Rrburke (talk) 16:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
I am debating the removal of this article. I loosely based my article on how Steven Purugganan's article was made. I am confused as to why he has mostly all references from YouTube yet his article has not been questioned. I see that Rrburke has said I lack reliable sources, but I am just confused as to why his article has not been questioned as his has less reliable sources for his information
Thank you,
Speedstackinggirl (talk) 02:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 03:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. Little or no coverage online (some passing mentions in articles on other subjects). No reliable sources found online (using Google News, Books, etc.), which may explain why there are none in the article to begin with. User who created page may have connection to subject. Same user has apparently tried to delete the page twice: here and here. Only one other Wikipedia article (Bruce Drennan, created by same user) links to this article. Subject's website apparently no longer exists.
-- Levdr1 (talk) 17:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 05:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable person. Clearly does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. Being mayor of an Irish city is a largely ceremonial post, held by a councillor for a one-year term. It does not make McDonnell notable. Lincolnite (talk) 18:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 05:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable person. Being mayor of an Irish city is a largely ceremonial post, held by a councillor for a one-year term. It does not make Conneely notable. I'd argue is places him outside the scope of WP:POLITICIAN. Lincolnite (talk) 18:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was procedural keep. Article was tagged as being under discussion here, but the tag was removed shortly afterward and there have been many edits in the interim. While I am loath to reward the out-of-process removal of the tag the fact remains that the majority of the time this was nominated it was not properly tagged as such and other users who came in and edited it in good faith were probably not aware of this discussion. Therefore this process is tainted and is closed without prejudice against re-nomination at any time. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notability issues. Bio sources are blogs and self promotion. Turn685 (talk) 19:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 12:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Rationale was "Not WP:HOWTO. Not a game guide." I am neutral. Jujutacular talk 00:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. The article was previously kept following this afd on the grounds that he had been called to the national team, however he never actually played which is the requirement for notability under WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following article for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Doroševs He plays in the Azerbaijan Premier League, which appears to be fully-professional. J Mo 101 (talk) 10:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]