![]() |
The result was merged to Georgia Public Broadcasting#GPB Radio. I see no reason to keep this AfD open. If an admin disagrees feel free to revert. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-Notable. No significant coverage and FCC database show no licensing info for WBTB. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 23:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*Merge and Redirect: into Georgia Public Broadcasting. Since that is the network that is going to simulcast, like K-LOVE stations, the information should be merged into the parent article and the WBTB page redirected to the parent article. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 00:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
non notable person, but does make a claim to notability so fails a7. only one RS, which does not reference the subject. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 00:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Passed AfD, but I don't think he's notable, & there are no adequate 3rd party sources. Only likely notability would be as a co-founder of Compassites--what might be possible is an article on that organization. DGG ( talk ) 21:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WP:TOOSOON. No prejustice against recreation when he plays professionally. The Bushranger One ping only 00:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD & Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Folgertat (talk) 21:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Nomination Withdrawn. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article meets criteria for speedy deletion A5, but someone contested its speedy deletion. Even the admin who restored from speedy deletion said that he felt the article was still just a dictionary definition with an entry in Wictionary. The new text added is just examples of where the term is used, and has the appearance of an awkward attempt to stretch a dictionary definition into an encyclopedia article. Mmyers1976 (talk) 20:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WP:TOOSOON. No prejustice against recreation when he makes his professional debut. The Bushranger One ping only 01:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Concern was Has not featured in a fully professional league. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy close. Discussion has been bundled here. (NAC) Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 21:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No reliable sources, no evidence the article's subject pass WP:MOVIE, the article's content basically is a duplicate of the article Girls Kissing Girls. Cavarrone (talk) 20:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. causa sui (talk) 21:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Footballer who fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG Oleola (talk) 20:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 01:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All that I found in searches were 3 download pages. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 20:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Wiley discography. The Bushranger One ping only 01:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unreleased album, per WP:NALBUM ΣΑΠΦ (Sapph)Talk 19:53, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 01:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced. Singles do not inherent notability from artist or album, per WP:NALBUM ΣΑΠΦ (Sapph)Talk 19:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Moab, Utah. v/r - TP 21:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, unreferenced ΣΑΠΦ (Sapph)Talk 19:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 02:38, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NON-notable organisation. Fails WP:GNG due to lack of reliable third party sources. Night of the Big Wind talk 19:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Front 242 discography. The Bushranger One ping only 01:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NALBUMS and fails to meet meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Scottdrink (talk) 19:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep.--Ankit Maity Talk • contribs 16:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable publication. No reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 18:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have a look at what I can find and report back. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep--Ankit Maity Talk • contribs 16:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NFF, the development section is a case in point of why this policy exists. pushed back several times. Preproduction. WP:TOOSOON. Obviously will meet WP:GNG and WP:NFILM once completed. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Casting Brat Garrett in a minor role means it will not be able to get started in January? They cast main stars a week before filming starts in some cases. Seriously, it has a 6 week period here where it can start filming, it is sourced and provides significant coverage of all available information, it is better sourced than a lot of released film articles, they are scouting locations, actors are researching roles, they've moved on to fill out minor parts which wouldn't even necessarily be filmed until the end of the production, they have a clear, relatively low budget. This film is happening. If it hasn't started filming by the end of January this argument may have held water but as it is, it is a really petty act against a decent article when there are bigger problems on this site to deal with. The most ignorant thing of all is putting it up for deletion, not a merge or anything but deletion (not that a merge is acceptable in this case either). Seriously, six f'in weeks, mostly six because they're probably not wanting to film through Christmas. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bradley Cooper is an actor and will have a different level of involvement in the day to day of production than the casting department who will be answering directly to producers and directors. The idea was initially pushed back to rewrite the script for Carrey's involvement, making his character much older than it was intended. Other than that, there are no hints of any reason that this production would be pushed back at this moment in time and I reiterate, there is no gain in deleting, merging, or incubating this article for 2-6 weeks, it is not a problem article, it is not written as an advertisement or 'news article' and again it is well sourced. The only argument here seems to be "well something COULD happen". Well a meteor COULD hit the Earth before The Dark Knight Rises is released in cinemas, should we incubate that until July just in case? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well I disagree, I think it is notable and the coverage compliments that. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep; nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete !votes. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk 18:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reasons? Seriously? Just look at it. Unsourced, uncategorized, not notable... student. Let's go with WP:SNOWBALL. --Legis (talk - contribs) 10:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC) Bollocks. When I tried to put a message on the talkpage of the creator, I realised that the article was about an entirely notable subject, but some kid has vandalised it. Sorry. Can we please change to:[reply]
The result was Speedy delete g11, advertising, not to mention WP:MADEUP. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
contested prod (by creator), non notable film, does not meet WP:NFILM no references. possibly hoax but if real just a student film Gaijin42 (talk) 17:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 01:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty demonstrably non-notable consultant. Fails WP:BASIC and WP:BLP. I'd probably just look at WP:SNOWBALL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legis (talk • contribs) 10:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. no argument for deletion, disruptive nomination (non-admin closure) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reason Spudpicker 01 (talk) 03:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 01:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is the second AFD for what is an essentially non-notable DJ for a radio station in South Florida. The first AFD was closed as "delete", but this is not a recreation of the first article (so it doesn't qualify as a CSD G4). However, the essential notability issue has not been resolved, and none of the references do much to establish it. There are a bunch of press releases, a few links to social media sites, and a few links that might qualify as enough to establish notability at a local level, but not enough to pass WP:MUSIC or WP:ENTERTAIN. Horologium (talk) 04:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 01:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced non notable topic. Effectively serves as an advertisement for a "design studio" with an empty website. Google search does not return any result, except the Wikipedia article. Article creator keeps removing maintenance tags (references, advertisement, notability). olivier (talk) 17:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 01:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Subject appears to fail WP:AUTHOR. No notability evident or asserted. --Legis (talk - contribs) 10:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No apparent demonstrated notability. Unsourced claims, inappropiate writing style, and red flags for notability include:
AerobicFox (talk) 03:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC) AerobicFox (talk) 03:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete most. It's not clear that the majority of participants considered the parent article when making their remarks as it was bundled in rather late in this process. Suggest a separate AFD to determine that. Apparently I misunderstood what was going on and that debate already exists. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence that WP:NFILM is met. (Disputed PROD). SmartSE (talk) 17:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
**WP:PORNBIO says that a pornographic actor is considered notable if s/he "has received nominations for well-known awards in multiple years". This film series has been nominated for well-known awards in multiple years, so how is it different? Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 17:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
-->
The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another unsourced(except one primary source) article which has no notability. Inactive project with no reviews or any other reliable source, nor could I find anything relevant. Article was created by a SPA. Maybe the only developer for this project. Just for advertising. mabdul 14:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment: Google books gives som sources, e.g. this Christian75 (talk) 21:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. One of the most blatant of blatant hoaxes that I've ever seen here. The Bushranger One ping only 00:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe that this person meets the Wikipedia notability guidelines. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Keep - withdrawn by nominator. Non-admin closure. —SW— confabulate 17:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe that this person meets the Wikipedia notability guidelines. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. v/r - TP 22:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I previously PRODded this on grounds that this "Biography lacks reliable sources not associated with the author and the marketing of his books, so insufficient evidence that the subject meets the notability guidelines, whether as writer, musician or entrepreneur." The Prod notice was removed by the article creator without comment. Subsequent edits have added his LinkedIn and Bandcamp pages as refs. but both these and the earlier refs fail as reliable sources independent of the subject. Google Books does turn up a film credit but that looks insufficient. AllyD (talk) 16:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Materialscientist (talk) 04:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NFF. Possibly based on speculation from out of date news sources. In any case, not verifiable and fails WP:GNG Rob Sinden (talk) 15:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Materialscientist (talk) 04:32, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fails notability guideline for future films and general notability guideline. Rob Sinden (talk) 15:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was RESULT. Materialscientist (talk) 04:36, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fails notability guideline for future films and general notability guideline. Rob Sinden (talk) 15:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Materialscientist (talk) 04:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fails notability guideline for future films and general notability guideline. Rob Sinden (talk) 15:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 02:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The word love "Jihad" is insulting a particular community, Jihad (arabic) means struggle(english). they are saying love jihad. read the entire article, they talking about one community. I don't know what is going on in wikipedia, lot of pages are against a single community. if you are not delete this page most of muslims they not believe in wikipedia pages. i will some proof what they said in love jihad pages. Please see the below proof published by various newspapers. http://www.deccanherald.com/content/35486/kerala-police-have-no-proof.html http://news.rediff.com/report/2009/nov/11/no-conclusive-proof-of-love-jihad-kerala-dgp-tells-hc.htm read the second line honorable judge words below famous newspaper published the judgement http://ibnlive.in.com/news/karnataka-high-court-flooded-with-love-jihad-case/107583-3.html In india, a lot problem is there, one communities attack another communities, they don't like love between two community man and woman. so avoiding this they thinked very crucially and said this name to single communities. A lot muslim girls also convert into hindus and christians due to love i will give many proof. see the proof http://www.topix.com/forum/world/pakistan/TEBDPU7EM93ODSUGE Please search in google, you can find lot of muslim and christian girls convert to hinduism. If you are not deleted this page, wikipedia is trying to demage and attack a single community with secular name. now also i am confident in wiki administrators, they all are secular and neutral persons, even i changed lot pages which hates other communities is deleted by wiki admins. i have confident you guys will delete this page. i submitted a LOT PROOF TO YOU. i don't know fluent english writing, anyhow, i hope you understand my words Day000Walker (talk) 14:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. This is an awkward close. The nominator has withdrawn but there is a single delete !vote still out there. I am going to assume HurricaneFan25 hasn't seen the below discussion and close this as a speedy keep; nominator withdrawn. v/r - TP 15:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article has a problem with non-free image use and inappropriate tone. I was considering cleaning it up, when I realized sourcing was also extremely poor. Nearly all of the references are to the official website/forum, affiliated websites, databases or press releases. The best source is the stuff from joystiq, but that is all written by the same guy and I am dubious whether it is truly reliable. My question is therefor: should this be cleaned up or deleted as not-notable? Yoenit (talk) 14:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. TigerShark (talk) 12:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NOn-notable physician. Article gives no clue what makes this man notable. Night of the Big Wind talk 13:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like this article meets the notability criteria according to Wikipedia:Notability, given that the life of John T. Cotton is discussed in several reliable and notable medical journals and W. Virginia biography collections that can be found through a Google book search. He's also a member of a notable family. Seweissman (talk) 14:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. v/r - TP 15:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks very much like a copyright infringement of [32]. See: Duplication Detector (I have only looked at 5 words or more...) Night of the Big Wind talk 13:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. TigerShark (talk) 12:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable writer. Article looks hidden bookpromotion. Night of the Big Wind talk 13:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Snow keep. Deletion concerns have been addressed. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 22:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable school, with a advertisement to promote it. Night of the Big Wind talk 13:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Feel free to take this straight to WP:DRV and do not bother me on my talk page. v/r - TP 15:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
![]() | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
![]() | 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)) . |
Nominated by an IP editor as spam or overly-promotional. Note: nominee did not complete AfD process; choice was to remove it or follow it through, and I'm choosing the latter. PKT(alk) 12:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Allegations of off-wiki conduct/personal attacks are not acceptable for Articles for deletion.
|
---|
|
Allegations of off-wiki conduct/personal attacks are not acceptable for Articles for deletion.
|
---|
|
Allegations of off-wiki conduct/personal attacks are not acceptable for Articles for deletion.
|
---|
|
The result was delete. v/r - TP 15:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indian software company of no clear notability. Tagged for notability for over two years, an inconclusive AfD a year ago. No refs, 4 ELs, two of which are clear SPS, two are advertorial interviews in trade magazines. This company exists, but so do a great many other non-encyclopedic companies. This article might be adequate for a business directory, but it is far from being appropriate, in either quality or sourcing, for an encyclopedia.
There are two related articles on the founder and president Sashi Reddi & Makarand Teje. I would consider these for AfD too. Makarand Teje was already converted to a redir by the previous AfD. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:53, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. v/r - TP 15:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Notability. Gartner's achievements are well below threshholds established for notability and by WP:Athlete. Falcadore (talk) 12:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Based on the article creator's comments -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:59, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article simply promotes someone's patented idea for a software environment. Searching Google yields only 13 results, all of them trivial. Fails WP:GNG. andy (talk) 10:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also nominating the following article, which is pretty much a duplicate:
andy (talk) 10:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE But wait, I specifically started the other article (for "GHCAM") so that the information could be put in its proper place, to be filed under the category of electronic file formats, and in keeping with the guidelines. (and under the presumption that the first article (for "Holopedia") might or might not be kept.) But it is a separate page, and it should be considered separately, and discussed and decided upon separately. Here I see the two are bundled together for deletion... I am new here, so I do not totally understand your protocols, forgive me! — Preceding unsigned comment added by The real indy (talk • contribs) 12:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC) — The real indy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
FINALE OK, fair enough... You should add that to your policy pages. And naturally, the reason it is not famous is that it has been held as a trade secret until the patents were published, at least provisionally. In the end, I realize it would be foolish to make a page, because then we would just have to police it for vandalism. Good Luck to you all, and thank you for your kind consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The real indy (talk • contribs) 18:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC) — The real indy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
A QUOTE FROM THE GUIDELINES In looking through your guidelines more deeply, I have found the answer... "I'd like to point out that non-notable programming language pages should not be simply deleted, but the contents, or at least a summary, should be moved to an appropriate list. I know this is probably done anyway, but it might be appropriate to mention it somewhere in this list. MagiMaster (talk) 04:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)" So I should simply add a line to the list of file formats, right? --The real indy (talk) 04:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)— The real indy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
FOR THE FUTURE How many journal articles or magazine articles are usually required for inclusion as a stand-alone article? What about awards for excellence in educational programming from institutions? How many awards would be required? We are confident that we will win more than several within a few years. --The real indy (talk) 04:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)— The real indy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
ADDENDUM According to Google, Wikipedia functions as the most popular 'laundry list' of file formats. Programmers and users need to refer to it to find a file format, or to know if an extension is currently in use. There are well over a thousand of them, notable and non-notable alike, and only about the most popular five percent or so have pages unto themselves. So, the guidelines I quoted above make perfect sense... I should simply add a single line of text to the existing pages for "List of File Formats" and "List of File Formats (alphabetical)", correct? --The real indy (talk) 05:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)— The real indy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Response, Clarification, Summary Hi TokyoGirl, and thank you for the long and thoughtful response... but I think you are misinterpreting a few things.
Hope this clarifies! =) --The real indy (talk) 07:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE Just to re-emphasize, these guidelines are about the handling of "NON-NOTABLE programming language pages"!
And thank you for all the info! 07:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by The real indy (talk • contribs)
Reply Hmm, no, I believe I got it from one of the "Help" pages, which are posted in the form of helpful opinions, which I assumed had some authority. It is not from a "Talk" page. OK, So that brings us back to the general policy on patents. ClaretAsh's opinion is very interesting, but then it is just one opinion, as you say, and there is a gray area here. Wikipedia needs to decide if a patent is considered to be a reliable source for notability. If there is a clear policy, then cite it. If there is not a clear policy, then the Wikipedia Community needs to create one, post it, and stick to it! --The real indy (talk) 10:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Andy, et al. OK, Yes, after reconsidering, I think you are right. You can go ahead and remove the pages for "Holopedia" and "GHCAM" immediately. I have copied the text, so you can go ahead and remove and delete both pages entirely... Thank you! I will check back in about 24 hours or so to verify that they have been deleted, Thanks again! =) --The real indy (talk) 07:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. v/r - TP 15:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We do not have this kind of articles for other small countries. Most "climate of.." type articles redirect to the geography section in the article about the country. This article can be deleted and redirect to Armenia#Climate MakeSense64 (talk) 08:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. v/r - TP 15:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable English and Welsh charity, Fails WP:GNG Mtking (edits) 09:05, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 01:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article about short film that does not demonstrate how the film is notable. The three references supplied are not independent, published sources. Simply being shown at two local film festivals does not meet WIkipedia's notability standards. Prod was contested on the grounds that the stills demonstrated notability, which they do not, so bringing here for discussion. Sparthorse (talk) 07:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Article appears to have been improved since nomination and meets notability guidelines. Some discussion on merging has taken place but a merge discussion can take place on the article's talk page. v/r - TP 15:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. The topic is one problem from a programming contest. The contest itself seems non-notable (the website is down so difficult to be sure), and one problem certainly is. No reliable sources, just unreviewed papers and unreliable web sites. COI issues the page by a contest participant and an author of one of the sources. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 05:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Author replies: The article was posted in a very preliminary state - much is being added to it, but to gain input from colleagues interested in it, I am posting it as I go. Evidently Al Zimmerman's webpage went down and he has not time to get it back up. But in the computational community, it is considered to be one of the top programming competitions, and is discussed in numerous places on the web, a few of which are cited here. Of course, magic squares are among the most studied objects in the area of recreational mathematics, and there is a Wikipedia page devoted to that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rziff (talk • contribs) 06:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to International Cadet Australian Championship. v/r - TP 15:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per issues raised on talk page, this is relating to a single possibly non-notable event and is of trivial interest only to involved people. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 05:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
![]() | New users, welcome. This is a deletion discussion - it is not a vote. Please note that the only really important thing here is, "Is there significant coverage in independent reliable sources" That means, coverage in e.g. newspapers writing about the event, or a trusted, respectable news website. By "significant" coverage, we mean actual details about the thing. The current references do not show that. And that is why it is in danger of deletion. |
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 01:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
found at BLP Prod, but has references of sorts. Although not my usual field, does not seem to meet the standards for the subject. DGG ( talk ) 05:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. v/r - TP 14:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This project dropped and 'Hero' started instead by Diphan and Prithviraj.
Anish Viswa 04:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy deleted as a hoax. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:53, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Violates WP:CRYSTAL. Likely a hoax. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 04:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. v/r - TP 14:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
the project was dropped
Anish Viswa 04:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. v/r - TP 14:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not really needed. Blackknight12 (talk) 03:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:ATHLETE, player for an amateur league whose team and league don't have Wikipedia articles Falcon8765 (TALK) 03:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was MERGE to Sentence (linguistics). TigerShark (talk) 12:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PROD was placed on the page after a previous PROD had been disputed. The original PROD rationale was, "Article is on one facet of linguistics and should be merged into that article." Disputing editor noted, "let it develop. Separate facets of major subjects get separate articles." The second PROD rationale was, "Unencyclopedic assemblage of Google hits, not an asset to the encyclopedia." Cnilep (talk) 03:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - whatever the procedural history, this article has two kinds of citation: a) non-notable (forum, twitter); b) primary sources. That makes this non-notable Original Research (WP:OR). However the material could form a brief paragraph in Sentence (linguistics) where it belongs; perhaps one day secondary sources will emerge to increase its notability, but at the moment it falls well below threshold. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep no consensus. This is a controversial AFD, but there is little evidence of a significant sea change that would be necessary to overturn the previous AFD so quickly. It may have been better to do a deletion review first if there were objections to the prior deletion discussion. causa sui (talk) 19:28, 20 December 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)) . |
![]() | Closing admin See Wikipedia:ANI#Edit_war_at_Occupy_Marines Hipocrite (talk) |
This page was previously nominated and there was significant support to keep. However, on reviewing it I felt that the reasoning of most of those !voting "keep" was contrary to deletion policy. Occupy Marines fails GNG in that it does not receive significant coverage, and the few sources that do mention the movement never do so separately to the occupy movement in general. The article is currently highly promotional of the subject (as can be seen from the fact that it consists mainly of a lengthy mission statement) and is a clear attempt to arouse support for it, despite the fact that Occupy Marines is essentially little more than a cartel of posters on twitter. In discussing this deletion, please remember that just because the subject of this article is real, in the news, has an admirable cause, is popular, or is related to another notable topic (the Occupy movement in general), this does not necessarily mean it is notable. Sorry to be pedantic, but all of the preceding were arguments used in the previous discussion. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 02:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Dream Focus (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)
Irrelevant interpersonal squabble ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:51, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This is nothing but another attempt at creating notability for a movement by misusing Wikipedia's visibility and exposure. We are an encyclopedia, people, not a marketing platform. Abusing our project's visibility in order to invent credence for your pet cause is destructive and goes against what we are. — Coren (talk) 23:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hatting this nonsense as it was hatted before Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 11:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
If the central argument for this renomination is that WP:SPA and WP:SOCK was involved in affecting the decision of the previous nomination, I assume the accounts in question has been tagged with the SPA tag? That there is a WP:SPI going on about them? Maybe someone did a WP:CHECK to support/deny the claim? Im not trying to be picky, but there is plenty of tools to handle the issues of SPA and SOCK, and from what I can see none of those has been used, and instead we have this renomination which kind of looks a bit odd. Belorn (talk) 10:55, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Yes, good - take it and add it to the opponents of free speechers anarchist attempts to use the wikipedia project for their self promotion trophy cabinet." That's a really bad argument to make here, you might consider recasting that one. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 16:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sherdog has no record of a MMA fighter with a record of 67-63-4. I can find nothing to verify any information in this article. TreyGeek (talk) 02:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was KEEP. JFHJr (㊟) 07:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
no citations I have searched and I can find no mention of this guy except on wikipedia and clone sites J8079s (talk) 02:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 16:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of ten (only nominating this one for now) bios created from a CNN award for "a normal person, they're doing a normal job," to quote CNN itself. Point is, this is WP:ONEEVENT and also a good example of how widespread coverage in a national publication can still occasionally not be an indication of notability. In fact, I think that this set of articles is the textbook definition of BLP1E.
Of course what these individuals are doing is great, but it can be sufficiently covered in an article about the CNN Heroes series/award. We don't need new BLPs to do that either.
I'm only nominating this one at the moment to make sure my conclusion above is right... but I would be open to expanding it to the others if there's support for that too. Shadowjams (talk) 02:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. v/r - TP 14:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable, freelance work and minor brushes with the law not notable Spoonkymonkey (talk) 02:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 16:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable term, not to mention the references are Urban Dictionary and a website that's hasn't been active for three years. A google search turns this article and the references in question. MattParker 119 (talk) 01:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was INCUBATE at Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Universe of Metro 2033. TigerShark (talk) 12:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Community project to write a book. Doubtfull of this is notable. Wikipedia is not a Crystal Bol or a book writing service. Night of the Big Wind talk 01:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was KEEP. TigerShark (talk) 12:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable frat, with only one chapter. I've looked but all I found was hits in directory listings. Drmies (talk) 02:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:44, 19 December 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)) . |
Does not meet either general notability guideline or notability guideline for biographies, due to fundamental lack of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Yworo (talk) 03:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. v/r - TP 14:55, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unclear what the center makes notable. Seems a part of their battle for survival. Less then 3000 internet hits... Night of the Big Wind talk 01:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. With respect to the several SPAs and the possibility of meatpuppetry or socking...I find that Ms. Batfish response to JFHjr and Warden's argument sufficiently countweight the arguments by PhantomSteve and JFHJr. I'm also inclined to agree with Legis that there may be more sources in Italian. This AFD has been relisted several times already and I just don't think a consensus to delete will be achieved. v/r - TP 14:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Despite a long list of references, this organisation does not appear to meet the notability criteria, as the coverage provided is not 'significant' or 'independent'. Analysis of the citations as they currently stand:
I should also add that in the article it says that observers draw the conclusion that it is a micronation, whereas the sources seem to state that Nove Roma claim that status themselves.
To my eyes, this appears as an advert for the organisation, with lots of references added in the hope that people will see the quantity and assume it's notable - whereas in fact the references provide minor coverage of the organisation (one doesn't even mention them at all), and none of them provide indepth information about the organisation.
An article under the name Nova Roma (Micronation) was deleted in July 2004, and the last AfD (link above) closed as 'keep', I think mainly because a lot of references were added. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:37, 27 November 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)) . |
The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For a so important blog, you would expect more then 46.000 internet hits and 8 Google News hits. Looks like promo to me, especially due to the COI. Night of the Big Wind talk 01:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 16:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable band and poorly written, unsourced article. Xfansd (talk) 17:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. v/r - TP 17:08, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This subject fails WP:GNG despite the sheer number of sources that apparently support the article: there's almost no significant coverage (i.e., he gets passing mention), and the best in-depth coverage comes from OutSmart, which is not independent of the subject. Campaign managers certainly don't (usually) gain notability through their candidates, let alone to the degree required under WP:POLITICIAN. Most of all, the heap of local (not quite "multiple sourced"), largely in-passing coverage of this subject as a spokesperson/board member doesn't inure to this subject's individual notability. I haven't been able to find much better results after research, and I can't make out any particular claim to this person's notability. JFHJr (㊟) 00:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Despite a few brief mentions in local news and The Star, the article is heavily promotional and a memorial. One ref even cites Wikipedia. The article could be improved by removing all sections but the lead and "Worldwide charitable services" and deletion is not for articles that can be fixed. However, I think the argument has been sufficiently made that this article, while meeting the letter of WP:GNG, does not meet the spirit of our policy. The coverage received is typical of coverage you'd expect for an "aww that's cute" sort of thing where a husband is doing charity in the name of his deceased wife. I think it's great, but it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. v/r - TP 14:38, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This one is kind of odd. For starters, a page with this name was deleted last year following an AfD (here). The current article is better; whether it's different enough that this is not is a G4 speedy I'm not sure (this was the version deleted), but it's re-existed for a while, various editors have worked on it, there're more sources, and the original AfD was not heavily populated, so I don't know as it's a speedy.
But, hmmm. There are refs, mostly unreliable or unnotable, but here's a Toronto Star feature article for instance, and the Star is very notable. So it meets the WP:GNG. But GNG or no, I don't see this as notable, really.
[On consideration redacted a section here (after the first editor had commented) about the content. I'll just say say WP:NOTMEMORIAL, WP:PROMOTION, and read the article yourself and draw your own conclusions.]
Anyway, not notable, refs notwithstanding. If it is notable, at any rate should be moved to Adam Warner as, for good or ill, the article is about him and his activities going forward in life. Herostratus (talk) 17:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to JVC. v/r - TP 14:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. v/r - TP 14:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Professor of archaeology that does not appear to meet the general notability guideline nor the guidelines of WP:PROF:
The only current source on the page is a link to his university profile. Given the above, I support the deletion of the article. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 00:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –MuZemike 06:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No clear evidence of notability meeting WP:BIO criteria. The Anome (talk) 10:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The arguments for deletion outweigh the argument for retention given. –MuZemike 19:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even though I feel that this should meet the notability criteria, I can't find coverage at reliable sources which are independent of the subject. The last AfD resulted in no consensus. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:38, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]