The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Internet marketing company, I don't see any reason why it would be notable per WP:CORP. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. General consensus indicates that the subject meets the criteria at WP:ACADEMIC. Page is currently indef. semi-protected and PC-protected. In addition, the current revision differs largely from the tagged (for AfD) version; as a result, WP:HARM likely no longer applies. (non-admin closure) Guoguo12--Talk-- 02:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dr. Piven is an academic. She has also been the target of Glenn Beck, who really, really dislikes her academic work. This is making Dr. Piven's life rather unpleasant. There's a discussion at ANI about our article about her. A representative of Dr. Piven's has been trying, on her behalf, to blank the article down to a CV. Her discussion of her reasons is at User talk:Fannielou. She's currently blocked for making legal threats, so while she is sorting that out, I'm bringing this article to the community's attention. Does Dr. Piven's work as a scholar meet WP:ACADEMIC? Or, alternately, does the fact that Glenn Beck has targeted her make her someone who meets Wikipedia's notability criteria? Should the article be kept with details about the Beck controversy, stubbed as per her request, or deleted entirely? FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
the number of Swiss, 400, is very small. whilst the number itself is not a reason for lack of notability unless these 400 Swiss expats/migrants do something notable then it's not worth having a stand alone article. could not find anything specific [2] LibStar (talk) 23:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted per G12 by Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This programming language fails to meet the general notability guideline. No coverage. Christopher Monsanto (talk) 23:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A rock band with no label, no chart-reaching releases, and no significant coverage fails WP:BAND. JaGatalk 22:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Consensus seems fairly clear that this fails WP:NOT#NEWS. While User:Anarchangel has helpfully provided a long list of sources, sources on their own do not defeat NOT#NEWS objections - and as User:Chris Neville-Smith has indicated, WP:PERSISTENCE is not met by them. Ironholds (talk) 04:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm nominating this because Wikipedia is not the news. These riots certainly happened, but the article doesn't demonstrate that they had any lasting impact on the town of Wrexham, nor any political impact of note. Szzuk (talk) 22:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete Ironholds (talk) 04:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Completely unsourced trivia list that just happens to be a standalone article. If this were an article section rather than a complete article, this would be removed as original research without anyone's even batting an eye. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was KEEP. Renaming suggestions should be discussed on the talk page. postdlf (talk) 16:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Simply some statistics from a particular year, should already be covered in Capital punishment in Iran, Human_rights_in_the_Islamic_Republic_of_Iran or maybe 2009–2010 Iranian election protests. Yaksar (let's chat) 20:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 19:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. AfD listed for almost 3 weeks, trending to keep based on meeting WP:PROF. Bearian (talk) 16:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Normally I'm the first to be concerned about the deletion of academics, but in this case, I simply cannot find any particular ground for notability, either under impact, awards etc. Circéus (talk) 23:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 12:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. ttonyb (talk) 15:59, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. GedUK 14:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
a) no source given mentions a "Sarah Seo" b) a female Colonel of the South Korean Army in the 1950ties?? that's a joke! c) article is obviously a joke, as there is 0 biographical information beyond the first and last line d) a google search only returns results that where taken from wikipedia. noclador (talk) 19:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 10:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Subject does not meet notability guidelines for just being associated with notables Canyouhearmenow 13:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly non-notable entity. The only thing I could find online about him was his website, which the original author states he may not own any longer, and reports of an arrest for DVD bootlegging. The original author also messaged me and expressed interest in deletion due to these same reasons of notability. Pax85 (talk) 18:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 17:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No indication of notability. Fails WP:GNG. SnottyWong speak 18:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was SPEEDY DELETE, A7. postdlf (talk) 17:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
non notable game, no speedy criteria apply WuhWuzDat 18:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. While those arguing for keep have found some coverage, they have not found enough to counter the WP:NOTMEMORIAL argument, at least in the eyes of those arguing delete. The renaming of a street does not provide automatic notability - nor, under our guidelines, does it provide any semblance of notability at all if not accompanied by other evidence. Ironholds (talk) 04:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable WP:ORPHAN stub article. Victim of September 11 attacks but does not meet WP:NOTABILITY guidelines. Also, article falls under WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Nominating individually based upon earlier AFD. Sottolacqua (talk) 17:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. I understand that it has only been a day since I closed the previous nomination, but this article fulfills notability guidelines by a long shot - there's easily-available coverage focusing on Zelmanowitz in the New York Times, and he is mentioned in other articles as well ([10]). m.o.p 02:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable WP:ORPHAN stub article. Victim of September 11 attacks but does not meet WP:NOTABILITY guidelines. Also, article falls under WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Nominating individually based upon earlier AFD. Sottolacqua (talk) 17:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The main argument appears to be: is the coverage in Rolling Stone sufficient to meet the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. The consensus would seem to be that it was not. Wikipedia does not exist to act as a memorial to victims/heroes - that is another theme here, and I feel that those arguing for deletion have made their opinions with sufficient strength to make this a case for deletion, with regret - as I recognise that all the FDNY victims of 9/11 are all heroic PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable WP:ORPHAN stub article. Victim of September 11 attacks but does not meet WP:NOTABILITY guidelines. Also, article falls under WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Nominating individually based upon earlier AFD. Sottolacqua (talk) 17:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. General consensus indicates that the subject is notable for his actions and role in the investigation. Note that the current version differs greatly from the AfD-tagged version. (non-admin closure) Guoguo12--Talk-- 16:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable WP:ORPHAN stub article. Victim of September 11 attacks but does not meet WP:NOTABILITY guidelines. Also, article falls under WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Nominating individually based upon earlier AFD. Sottolacqua (talk) 17:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
...accompanying this description, indeed shows exactly two areas of relatively small fires – one near the point of impact in the southeast corner, and a larger one corresponding to the denser area of combustible furniture in the northeast corner. Thus, NIST's results are totally consistent with Chief Palmer's comments.
((cite journal))
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(help)The result was redirect to Murder in Small Town X. Stifle (talk) 10:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable stub article. Victim of September 11 attacks but does not meet WP:NOTABILITY guidelines. Also, article falls under WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Nominating individually based upon earlier AFD. Sottolacqua (talk) 17:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
* Almost 3000 were killed that day, so with all due respect, any category like Victims of the September 11 attacks should be a no go. A list, maybe, but I am not sure. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 17:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. -- Lear's Fool 03:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable stub article. Victim of September 11 attacks but does not meet WP:NOTABILITY guidelines. Also, article falls under WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Nominating individually based upon earlier AFD. Sottolacqua (talk) 17:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 10:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable unreferenced stub article. Victim of September 11 attacks but does not meet WP:NOTABILITY guidelines. Also, article falls under WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Nominating individually based upon earlier AFD. Sottolacqua (talk) 17:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In this particular cases I suggest the ((afd)) of 2011-02-02 would have close differently than "relist separately" if the nominator had complied with the deletion policies, and article creators had participated in that discussion and offered their counter arguments then. Geo Swan (talk) 21:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. The consensus is that being Chief of the FDNY is sufficient to make Feehan notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable stub article. Victim of September 11 attacks but does not meet WP:NOTABILITY guidelines. Also, article falls under WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Nominating individually based upon earlier AFD. Sottolacqua (talk) 17:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 10:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable WP:ORPHAN stub article. Victim of September 11 attacks but does not meet WP:NOTABILITY guidelines. Also, article falls under WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Nominating individually based upon earlier AFD. Sottolacqua (talk) 17:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Student singer/songwriter which represents her school at various competition. Questionable notability, most hits are to school or blogging/facebook type sites Travelbird (talk) 17:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. In accordance with standard practice, less weight has been accorded to editors with limited contributions outside this area. Stifle (talk) 10:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable film lacking Ghits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:NOTFILM. ttonyb (talk) 17:05, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was SNOW delete Jclemens (talk) 16:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contested Prod. Article is a sport play by play with no encyclopedic value. And seems to be a video game related article with youtube as its only source, not a Reliable Source and I contest its Notability for inclusion. Phearson (talk) 16:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. No reason was given for contesting. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 10:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Original article was deleted due to prod because it is a non notable "independent" film and was mainly used as a sales medium/advertisement to buy product. It was also created by SPA account that has edited only this article for years so likely had a conflict of interest. Now another brand new account thats only editing this article has recreated it. non - notable. Tracer9999 (talk) 15:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NN bio Japanese knotweed (talk) 13:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
* Speedy Delete G12 article is a cut and paste of this site http://www.vielseitig-festival.eu/autoren/halldor-gudmundsson/ tagged for speedy.
The result was redirect to Magicians_of_Xanth#Dolph. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable fictional character with no significant coverage Sadads (talk) 14:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Magicians_of_Xanth#Iris. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable fictional character, with no significant secondary coverage. Sadads (talk) 14:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notability not established. There appears to be very little in the way of objective reliable sources, with most of the article's content copied from the agency's website. Clear COI. JNW (talk) 14:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was already redirected to existing article at correct name, no need to keep this open -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article is already covered in more detail in theNorthern Premier League Challenge Cup article. Delusion23 (talk) 13:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Tone 14:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No references, Unverifiable content Ingadres (talk) 12:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 15:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unremarkable...last name? I don't specialise in Arabic history, but I see no relations between "King David" and the name, and the first paragraph is a bit dodgy. Dengero (talk) 12:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. Unanimously proclaimed notable, meets the GNG. (non-admin closure) Guoguo12--Talk-- 14:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to promotional nature. Article about a planned bank scheduled to open or begin operations in Q3 2011. Information in the article is speculative and based on events to take place in the future. Notability has not yet been established. Cind.amuse 12:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 15:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Violates WP:CRYSTAL. No sources, no real information, no point to having this at this time AussieLegend (talk) 11:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sorry guys but the delete !voters make the stronger arguments here. You can't rescue them all :( Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable game designer. K1eyboard (talk) 11:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 15:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Prod was contested by author. The subject of the article is technical difficulties on BBC television networks. This is not a notable event. Any really significant failures that result in major press coverage can be mentioned in BBC One or another appropriate article. Minor glitches aren't notable and don't need to be mentioned at all. Zachlipton (talk) 11:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After one more editor expressed support for AfD at WT:IN, I am nominating this for deletion. Contains lot of OR, and personal opinions. Might be converted to a list. TheMike •Wassup doc? 10:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The consensus is that this list does not meet the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Nothing worth redirecting... Tone 15:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Is this really necessary? All the information here is already in the ununoctium article under the section on compounds. Nothing in the page history worth saving anyway. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 09:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. -- Lear's Fool 03:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Completing nomination on behalf of User:Captainofhope. Original rationale listed below. I abstain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability remain questioned..??? ...Captain......Tälk tö me... 08:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
The result was delete without prejudice. If anybody has a sound "keep" argument I'll be glad to restore this article and reopen the AFD. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Only source is a book published by the dubious Lambert Academic Publishing, apparently by the same author who created this article. —Ruud 14:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. No clear consensus on what should happen to this article was arrived at PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article is written as if it is an umbrella topic, but it does not have the WP:RS necessary to show notability as an umbrella topic, particularly the RS for the facts in the article don't exist. There are only three references about this topic out of 18 references in the article, the rest are all generic history. Of those three references, one doesn't work in English, and the Chinese version would not qualify as WP:RS. The other references cover Hong Konger Front, which already has an article. So essentially this article is just a content fork/duplicate which makes Hong Konger Front look more relevant than it is - a severe violation of WP:UNDUE. 15-20 years ago there was academic/political discussion about the relevancy/viability of an independent Hong Kong, that is well covered in the handover article and this writing does not even attempt to touch on that. That coverage was not about any movement. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 07:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The references are good enough for now considering there has only been 1 editor.
Really these are all the more reasons to keep this article so we can research further. Benjwong (talk) 07:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep Topic is most definitely notable. It needs work and a refimprove, but those are not reasons for deletion. See below Ravendrop 08:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This independence concept definitely existed in the 1990s. Hence it should not be deleted. This session should close. If there are any more to discuss it should go in the talk page. Benjwong (talk) 03:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The consensus is that there is insufficient cause to consider this software to be notable in itself. I note that it is listed in the products in the Geometric Limited article but no details are given there - perhaps a sentence could be added to that? PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unremarkable software product. References are all advertisements or press releases. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 11:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(See this diff.) OSborn arfcontribs. 23:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]sorry I don't know much about how to discuss about deletion of this article. This page is created by me Chan prashant. There are comments given by administrator that all the references are from press releases. Hence I am sighting some new references for your kind consideration.Especially from some CAD magazines where authors have reviwed it.
The result was keep. As the nominator withdrew their nomination, and there were no calls for deletion by other editors, the consensus is to keep this article PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be a promotional article. There is no evidence of any impact for this claimed poetry form apart from one 36 page book (by Fiore) that appears unreferenced by anyone else. There are no matches in GScholar (making this unlikely to be a recognized form), two matches in GNews which appear insignificant mentions, possibly due to promotion, and one match in GBooks (Fiore's books). I note one match on Amazon but this is to a Books LLC "publication" and therefore circular and itself a negative sign. Raising for AfD rather than PROD due to potential for geographic bias in sources.
Taro Aizu has an associated AfD but this article should be judged on its own merits. Fæ (talk) 07:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Second, "self-published" is proving to be a sticky word to define in terms of sources. Enta Kusakabe posted this on Gogyohka Junction: "I have over 100 books which was published in Japan.
All have ISBN nomber. Do you need all. My Gogyohka books are
maybe 30-40.
4 is my collections of Gogyohka.
How to write Gogyohka books and theory books are maybe
beyond 10.
Collections of many people's Gogyohka by my selection reach to 20.
All have ISBN cords. I established the publisher SHISEI-SHA (Company)for publishing poem books
for my ideal publicity. 300 stock holders.
It publishes 70% of our books. What is the definition of self-publication?"
So are books published by Shisei-Sha considered self-published if the company has shareholders but the company is led by the founder of the poetic form it publishes? This verges on being untranslateable culturally, I worry.Geaghant (talk) 19:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These threads on http://tadoku.org, organized and run by Sakai Kunihide,a professor of Denki Tsushin University in Tokyo, Japan and an author of several books related to extensive reading. http://www.bunka.uec.ac.jp/profile/sakai.html In an attempt to show potentiality and increasing popularity of Gogyohka, threads are added here.
The result was no consensus due to insufficient participation. There is therefore no prejudice against speedy renomination. Stifle (talk) 10:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Educational website. Despite the mentions in the local paper and an education website, I don't think this meets the notability standards of WP:WEB. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is this notable enough? Leonnatus (talk) 05:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The consensus is to delete. There is mention that there has been no significant alteration since the last AfD, and the only keep is saying that other articles exist, which is not a reason to keep this one. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Completing nomination on behalf of IP editor. From article talk page, Last time article was up for AFD, everyone agreed that more references were needed. None have since been found. Borderline NN article, cited only to vendor, reads like an instruction manual. 24.177.123.74. Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NOTNEWS. The flag really only seemed to get coverage at this Scott Brown event, and doesn't seem to have any other notability (indeed, the later references only refer to the Scott Brown event.) With the scope of news coverage today, reference to a subject in regards to a greater event does not imply notability. Yaksar (let's chat) 04:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete The only real claim to notability is the claim that "There have been more than 20,000 flags sold with orders from all 50 states." Unfortunately that isn't sourced so it may well be less. As long as sustained notability can't be established, delete. Travelbird (talk) 22:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep: withdrawn by nominator. DS (talk) 01:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does not satisfy WP:ACADEMIC. Has a few seemingly-independent google hits, but I'm not sure it's enough to satisfy WP:GNG as it appears to largely be self-promotion Kuguar03 (talk) 06:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This only represents about 5 minutes of searching Google News and every single article quotes Kaptchuk and his research. This doesn't include
I am hoping that the above list demonstrated that Kaptchuk clearly passes the notability threshold by criteria 1 of the "professor test". He might satisfy other criteria, but the professor test only requires passing a single requirement, not all. Basket of Puppies 00:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD (though contestor in no way addressed concerns). Fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:CREATIVE. Not a well-known or influential figure in television or the video game industry, despite claims. The only independent sources are some Transformers fan sites and an off-hand mention of a collaboration on a non-notable game project with Gary Gygax. No independent google hits outside of comprehensive databases like IMDB and MobyGames and a single book listed on Amazon, none of which confers notability. Writing for some low-budget movies and games does not confer notability. Kuguar03 (talk) 05:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Peter Wilt. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article's subject is not notable. Phearson (talk) 05:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How is this not notable enough? The drink has its own website, there is a fest attached to it, one of the references was a Milwaukee Magazine article. Just how much do you need to be 'notable' enough? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.102.35.94 (talk) 15:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 15:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the PROD that was removed I cited "No sources, poor criteria (aerial bombardment does not include "ground to ground long range missiles and rockets"), and very incomplete". User:The Bushranger said it "fails WP:OR and WP:INDISCRIMINATE, I'd say. Also a likely WP:POV magnet and, as noted, includes things that aren't aerial bombardment." User:Bahamut0013 said "In addition to the above, there is no way this list will ever be remotely close to complete." I agree with all of this. —Srnec (talk) 04:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE, WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 17:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:INDISCRIMINATE; Wikipedia is neither a catalogue nor a database. Created as a rather WP:POINTy spinoff after consensus came out against the edits this article's creator wanted to make. Ironholds (talk) 03:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did you attempt to cleanup this article or add maintenance tags to it before nominating it for deletion? Why aren't you following deletion procedural policy? Basket of Puppies 04:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]If the article was recently created, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, an associated WikiProject, or on the article's talk page, and/or adding a cleanup tag, instead of bringing the article to AfD. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.
Bolding is mine. Splitting the list of articles by Kaptchuk is appropriate and suggested by WP:SPLITTING as the length and sheer numbers of articles by Kaptchuk makes his BLP look lopsided and have poor readability. Regarding the notability of his articles, the whole reason why he is notable is because of his research. The converage of his research is well documented in the reliable news. Basket of Puppies 04:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]If an article becomes too large or a section of an article has a length that is out of proportion to the rest of the article it is recommended that a split be carried out.
The result was delete. Tone 15:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This language has essentially no coverage from sources other than its main website. Fails to be notable. Christopher Monsanto (talk) 03:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 15:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So few sources I can't establish whether this language even exists or not. Clearly non-notable. Christopher Monsanto (talk) 03:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Highways in Ontario#Others. A new article can be created and this article re-merged at any time. Remember, though, that anyone can be bold and merge articles without going through AfD first. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Highways in Ontario#Others - Current claim to notability is A) Its high number, supposedly the highest posted in Ontario ("verified" by a photo of the street sign) and B) That its going to be repaired, as all roads everywhere are at some point. Permastub, notability claim unverifiable. ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 03:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Discussion on a merger can be continued on the relevant talk pages. Stifle (talk) 10:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Content fork of Human rights in Latvia, this article is more about the legal framework of human rights and the prevention of racism in Latvia with respect to international treaties. This is treated in Human rights in Latvia, but there is little of any actual notable cases of racism itself with in the country discussed in the article. Suggest merge any useful material and delete. Martin (talk) 03:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete as an unsourced BLP per WP:BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N/WP:V--Can't find reliable, secondary sources which discuss this Kurdish author at all. But what with language barriers, it's possible that I've missed something (other than the usual passel of wikimirrors and videos). Additional sources welcomed. j⚛e deckertalk to me 03:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was userfy so MQS can continue to work on it Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article is on a subject (person), whose notability hasn't been established. Ted87 (talk) 02:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Tone 15:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article can just be redirected to foot. Aerosprite the Legendary (talk) 02:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:ENT. Has had only minor roles in 2 TV programs and one apparently significant role in a movie that is yet to air. This doesn't meet the first criteria of WP:ENT, "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." AussieLegend (talk) 23:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:30, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable, assistant special teams coach. fails WP:Athlete. Contested PROD (on talk page), with reasoning: "In my opinion, since Mr. Fipp was a college football player who had a scholarship, was a College Football Defensive Coordinator, and has been an Asst. Special Teams Coordinator with two different teams, this article should be kept." Ravendrop (talk) 20:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Declined Prod. I am on the fence regarding the WP:N of this game. AdmrBoltz 20:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The page looks well sourced and written. Numerous sources include high profile websites such as GameSpot and IGN. Skullbird11 (talk) 22:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Even though the game isn't around anymore, it once did exist and was a successful MMORPG for a few years. Even though the official companies sources shut down many of the other sources are notable. Also the "archive. User:Access Time —Preceding undated comment added 17:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Prod removed by creator. No reliable sources to establish encyclopedic notability of a film. tedder (talk) 15:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Terminator (franchise). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:30, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No sources that cover this concept in direct detail which makes it impossible to WP:verify notability of this topic. Reviewed the past no consensus AFD and found that the arguments for keeping it were based on a lot of assumptions about the sources that are mistaken (in good faith). Shooterwalker (talk) 15:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing to suggest that this is software meets the general notability guideline. (PROD was removed with no explanation, by creator). SmartSE (talk) 12:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced promotional autobiography of musician. No evidence the subject meets the general notability guideline or any of the criteria set out in WP:MUSICBIO. Negligible 3rd party coverage (evidently reviewed in Future Music magazine, club date mentioned in passing in TimeOut, but that appears to be all) so no sources to compose a new version of the article out of as an alternative to deletion. Article substantially cribbed from subject's websites, MySpace page, etc. -- Rrburke (talk) 18:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Jay Chou. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article, unlike the one below, simply isn't encyclopedic enough, I think, and I don't think a merge is necessary, either. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 18:53, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge in to main Jay Chou article as per Michaela den's recommendation. Nipsonanomhmata (Talk) 03:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet notable per WP:MUSICBIO. No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Borkificator (talk) 22:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 15:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced for five years. I couldn't find anything to confirm that this was a real historical product. Possibly a hoax? Daniel 01:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
totally unreferenced steaming pile of original research. WuhWuzDat 00:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The consensus is to delete this article which has no references, and where verification of the facts has not been possible at reliable sources. Should such sources become available/found, I would be happy to restore the article for improvement, if requested PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Completly unsourced. No possibility to verify notability. I assume he is an impostor. Ben Ben (talk) 08:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 10:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Previously deleted. Relisting at request of author (of both the article and the algorithm). Notability is difficult to judge: the original paper has received 44 citations, but except for self-citations most of those citations where by papers not cited themselves. (original paper, Scopus) —Ruud 00:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 15:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This language fails to meet the general notability guideline. This is the *only* information I could find about the language: [53]. The link to its homepage from that article redirects to a company that doesn't even sell the product. Christopher Monsanto (talk) 00:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because nothing good ever came of a deletion spree. Ubernostrum (talk) 03:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per my reasoning here Throwaway85 (talk) 04:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
decltype
(talk) 08:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable poet who fails WP:AUTHOR and whose books all fail WP:BK. He has opened his checkbook and paid for publication each and every time--all of the books listed in the article are printed by notorious vanity press Xlibris. No WP:RS available to establish notability of any kind. Qworty (talk) 23:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A theatre teacher who does not seem to meet our notability guidelines for academics. The references consist of a few directory listings, an article in her institution's student newspaper, and one "personal communication". Brian the Editor (talk) 04:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have you considered that the bulk of this scholar's work was completed before the internet came into being? The world did not start in 1991. Is Wikipedia biased toward post-internet notability? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donalds (talk • contribs) 21:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A google search for DRM produced 3680 hits, all pertaining to her work. How many hits define notable? Do you have a criteria or is is capricious? How many of the hits need to be listed in the article so that someone can make a decision? When did wikipedia become policed by a few? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donalds (talk • contribs) 21:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Using the criteria of Wikipedia: Notability (academics), Mennen is notable in not one, but five categories, numbered by category: 1. Her work in the field of vocal curriculum for actors is pioneering, significanting impacting her scholarly discipline. The organization that she founded, VASTA, calls her 'the mother of us all.' The VASTA website recognizes her as a Lifetime Distinguished member, honoring "individuals who have made outstanding contributions to the field of Voice & Speech." 2. She received an award for leadership from a national organization in her field. (U/RTA) 4. her work has impacted higher education in her field, changing the way that actors are trained vocally. Her students are now teaching in higher education. 5. In three ways: Distinguished Alumna, Professor Emerita, and Purdue Legacy award, singling her out for her work for Purdue University and higher education. Purdue University named a scholarship fund after her. 7. She founded the Voice and Speech Trainers Association, an outside organization that includes but is not limited to higher education. This organization named a grant after her.
This information is included in the article itself.Donalds (talk) 22:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Tampa Bay Rays minor league players. Stifle (talk) 10:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He is a draft pick who hasn't even played in the minor leagues yet. Being drafted in the first round doesn't make him inherently notable. Perhaps he should be placed in his team's minor league players page, based on the assumption that he will soon be playing in the minors. Alex (talk) 01:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 12:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. PROD rationale was "Unref'd stub, no indication of notability." Removal rationale was "it may not be notable, but creator has not been given enough time to show notability - a regular AfD would allow that". I made cursory search for sources before PRODing (Google books, Google news, and plain ol' Google) and found nothing to indicate notability or build this past a 1-sentence stub. The EL in the article merely gives the publisher, date, and language. I didn't find any reviews or anything behind-the-scenes details (writing, drawing, sales, impact)...basically anything you'd need to build even a B-class encycloepedia article. IllaZilla (talk) 01:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Potentially non-notable minor league manager. Though he managed a long time and took plenty of teams to the playoffs (though he never won a league championship) I'm not sure he is entirely worthy of an article. Alex (talk) 01:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 10:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article was tagged as an unsourced WP:BLP article in July 2009. Since that time no references have been added. I nominated it for WP:PROD for this reason but the tag was removed within an hour by User:WereSpielChequers with the reason "seems notable to me". Icalanise (talk) 01:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Tone 15:20, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced WP:BLP article tagged as such since August 2009. I nominated it for WP:PROD for this reason but it was reverted within the hour by User:WereSpielChequers with the reason "seems notable to me", which fails to address the problems of an unsourced WP:BLP article. Article is ineligible for WP:BLPPROD because it was created before March 18, 2010. Icalanise (talk) 02:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The consensus is that there is no indication or evidence that this organisation meets the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable school club. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CLUB. Contested PROD. PROD removed with WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument Ravendrop (talk) 02:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Club was where many members of the later labour government began politics, is of importance within the student movement and within the labour party. At a minimum Glasgow and Oxford http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasgow_University_Labour_Club http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_University_Labour_Club also have pages for their societies and are of equal prominence. Is a University soc not a school soc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomfollett (talk • contribs) 02:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus due to lack of participation. I am going to WP:BOLDly redirect to Milan Hill State Park as an editorial action (not an admin action). Stifle (talk) 15:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Newly created article is a stub. Informatioin in the article can be incorporated in the existing article Milan, New Hampshire Wkharrisjr (talk) 03:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Result: Redirect/Merge Hasteur (talk) 13:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the prod from this article because a previous version has been prodded and discussed at AFD. Since it has 2 more references and has been slightly expanded from the version previously deleted as a result of the first AFD, I'm starting a second nomination instead of deleting it under CSD G4. Original concern was WP:CRYSTAL issues. Ron Ritzman (talk) 05:09, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 10:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article is written in a highly unencyclopedic manner. One of the main contributors, User:Mikkidw, appears to be an employee of the developer, as shown by a message on the article talk page from three years ago, requesting that an editor should ask for reviewer copy before working on the article. It reads like an advertisement, listing features. The software itself is not particularly notable - there are no in-line citations; just a compiled list of "references" - perhaps every bit of press that the program has received. If anyone finds a substantial amount of material about this program online and would want to improve this article to bring it up to encyclopedic standard then I will not support a deletion, but it's been in a similar state to this for more than three years. Taylor (talk) 16:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Content improved; nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Guoguo12--Talk-- 02:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NN retail property. Despite assertion of a nationally publicized controversy, the only g-hit for any news coverage was related to a shoplifter connected to a meth lab. Fails WP:CORP. Toddst1 (talk) 17:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"eminent domain" alabaster
, because the mall hadn't been officially named at the time. This is a regional mall with a total of about 1 million square feet, which is probably big enough to be considered notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]The result was delete. While there were some comments left, no one felt sufficient strong enough to recommend that this be kept. The consensus is that it should be deleted. Should it meet the criteria for inclusion at a future date, it can be re-created PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notbale magazine. Appears to fail WP:NOTBOOK. ttonyb (talk) 18:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwew (talk • contribs) 07:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The consensus is that this article does not meet the criteria for inclusion and so should be deleted. However, if anyone would like to merge suitable content into another article, contact me and I will move it to your user space PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep though I agree that the article needs to be (and currently is) rewritten almost completely. I've outlined my objections to deletion on the talk page, but to sum up, my opinion is that this issue is a seminal comic book in much the same way as Action Comics 1 is and that this article can take on some of the material currently in the main Fantastic Four article along with material about its current market value (though with all respect to Nipsonanomhmata, it is number two, not number one), and use in "homages". I'd be happy to move/rename to line up with the WikiProject MOS, but it's not clear to me how it is deficient (other than needing to be italics). Matt Deres (talk) 22:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is one of the most important Marvel comics ever made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.183.166.186 (talk) 19:34, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The consensus is that this term is not used widely enough as reported at reliable sources to show that it meets the criteria for inclusion. I would like to comment MelanieN for her work on the article - I am sure that the result of this AfD will not prevent her continuing her sterling work on articles! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Seems to be a non-notable neologism coined by Daniel Steven Crafts to describe his own work. Not seeing anything in Google that supports this being a recognised genre or sub-genre. The term is used from time to time as a description but doesn't seem to have gained much traction. To save the article we would need at least one reference, independent of Crafts, discussing this as a genre or movement. DanielRigal (talk) 22:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to United States Pirate Party. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am requesting a Redirect to United States Pirate Party on the grounds that this state chapter of the Pirate Party is non-notable. It has no official recognition in the state of Oklahoma, has never run a candidate for office, and has received no substantial news coverage. MelanieN (talk) 23:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was nomination withdrawn. Closing over outstanding delete !vote per WP:IAR. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:NTENNIS Mayumashu (talk) 23:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 10:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:ENT. Has had only minor roles in 54 films (21 of them a shorts), one of which hasn't aired yet. The only significant role has been in the TV series Primeval. This doesn't meet the first criteria of WP:ENT, "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." AussieLegend (talk) 23:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree - by the same logic, Karen Gillan's entry should be deleted too. The only "significant" role she has had has been on Dr. Who. All her other listed roles have either been minor ("girl at bus station") or in productions which you'd be pressed to describe as "notable" (The Well). Or how about Janet Fielding? Again, outside of a single major role in Dr. Who, her career isn't that notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.241.28 (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]