< 3 February | 5 February > |
---|
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Excessive listing of match details for a football league season, violates WP:NOT#STATS. Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 22:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unable to find any coverage. His stage name translates to Black which makes finding Serbian sources particularly difficult so if someone has more luck than me I'll happily withdraw this nomination. The Serbian Wikipedia is no better. J04n(talk page) 22:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. No standing delete votes. (non-admin closure) Goodvac (talk) 09:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Putative Miss Brazil Universe 1987, which would be a reasonable statement of notability if I could find a reliable source that backs the assertion. There's a fair number of wikimirrors in the web results, it's quite possible I missed something, so if you can find a WP:RS. j⚛e deckertalk to me 22:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 00:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This political party does not exist any more. It was deleted from the Register of Political Organizations on 23 January 2010 because it did not renew its registration (see: The list of deleted parties). There is no proof of the notability of this party (See: Wikipedia:Notability (political parties)). The party has never been part of any parliament or government, nor it has any other importance that fulfill the notability criteria Vanjagenije (talk) 21:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to List of numbered roads in York Region. T. Canens (talk) 19:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Should be merged to List of numbered roads in York Region, where it was previously merged. All appropriate content was merged to the list, no need to retain unneeded content in the merger. Imzadi 1979 → 21:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Palmistry. Feel free to merge any usable content from the page history. T. Canens (talk) 19:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not entirely coherent or complete text dropped here as one of only two contributions by the editor. GBooks search returns exactly one hit, a 2008 book. Regular google returns more but almost entirely from blogs and the like. Notability is at the least highly questionable, and in any case it appears impossible to rescue the article using reliable sources. As far as I know even Hermetic Qabalah has no use for this sort of fortune telling. Mangoe (talk) 21:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 00:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable local British school with large WP:COI problems. Qworty (talk) 20:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Athlete with no evidence given of notability Yaksar (let's chat) 20:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was nomination withdrawn. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notability--can't find reliable, secondary sources providing in-depth coverage on this Catalan artist, but I recognize the difficulty of finding appropriate Catalan sources. Note that this is ca:Lluís Marsans i Julià, not ca:Lluís Marsans i Sola or some other ambiguous luís Marsans's. The Catalan wikipedia does list an (↑ Tharrats, Joan Josep. Cent Anys de Pintura a Cadaqués. Barcelona: Parsifal Edicions, 2007, p. 210. ISBN 84-95554-27-5. [modifica]) offline source), which certainly exists--but I can't even verify that the word Marsans appears in it. That Catawiki entry also EL's a gallery bio (not inherently reliable for contents), which, if I take at face value doesn't quite make WP:BASIC and would be, lacking more WP:RS, a long way from WP:ARTIST. Additional sources welcomed, thanks! j⚛e deckertalk to me 20:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Renal failure. (non-admin closure) Atmoz (talk) 23:23, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DICDEF states that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and according to the banner at the top of the article, the contents have been moved to Wiktionary already. Guoguo12--Talk-- 20:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Caltron 6 in 1. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable game, and the game is already mention on the Caltron 6 in 1 page. SSFF6B (talk) 19:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. CSD A7 IoS not asserted. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:MUSICBIO, no reliable, second pary sources to sastify WP:V. Also possible promotional material. Acather96 (talk) 19:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 19:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. I can find no evidence that this term even exists. The sole source in the article doesn't provide any evidence, and despite the article creator's assertions that the term is notable, failure to find reliable sources to back that up claim otherwise. Time was given for more sources to be added, as per the talk page, but none have been forthcoming, so I have sent the article to AFD for discussion among the community. ArcAngel (talk) ) 19:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
non notable company WuhWuzDat 18:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 18:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted via prod then restored because the restoring admin said it had "sufficient coverage". However, a Google News search doesn't seem to show anything. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 17:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. GedUK 11:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article on the band was recently deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Reasoning). If the band is not notable, their albums certainly aren't. Fails WP:NALBUMS and WP:GNG. This is a bundled nomination which includes a total of five articles:
SnottyWong express 17:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I never liked the existing lists because they seem to be a weird mix of all the shows, toy, etc. Not really organized.
— Mathewignash, [2]
I would have expected someone to delete List of Decepticons, which is a worthless idea for an article in the first place, made even more worthless by its inability to decide whether it's a list of characters or a list of toys. If this is really a "something has to give" scenario where the raw number of Transformers articles is too high, then go after the dumb jive like that.
— ▲ndrusi/Andrusi, [3]
(Perhaps some people may find it strange that I'm quoting somebody from an off-site discussion that was mainly complaining about Wikipedia. However, I do admit that the quoted post does at least have some point.)
Seriously, this article seems a terrible idea. A collection of bluelinks with a couple of words next to each bluelink. Don't think this passes WP:LSC. Not all of the entires are notable, (notice how some of those bluelinks redirect back to this article) so not a "list of notable things". Apparently "Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group" are allowed, but there are craploads of characters who fall under "Decepticons". This list is too long for that.
Also, original research problem. Some Decepticons are described in this list as being specific models of vehicles (" Soundwave - Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk" as the description for Soundwave as he appeared in Transformers: Cybertron), original research if they weren't specifically described as those vehicles. Considering that many of these vehicle forms aren't actually licensed from their manufacturers, the characters' resemblance to them is probably not very much. If the similartites between the two (the character and the actual vehicle) are not obvious enough that the toymaker has to acquire a license or is at risk of a lawsuit, then it seems to be original research if not properly sourced. NotARealWord (talk) 17:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NotARealWord (talk) 08:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete G12 by User:Sphilbrick (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 15:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Autobiography. Only assertion of notability is the fact that he got a world record for smashing 120 eggs into his head in a minute. While impressive, this fails WP:BLP1E and it is not of a substantial enduring nature per WP:BIO. Zachlipton (talk) 17:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect. There is still disagreement on merging any of this, but consensus obviously does not favor keeping it as stand-alone article. Redirecting and leaving merger option open for further discussion on target article's talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lacks secondary coverage. Article is one of several apparently created by a family member (sources, such as they are) include a letter that, the cite assures us, the family has. No evidence of notability. Disputed prod based on the idea that subject's notable father might make this something other than a deletion case. SummerPhD (talk) 17:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No reliable references provided.References are links belonging to the company itself.Just published a few authors but no book has been a big hit or best seller.No significant charity work done nor it has published significant books.Was tagged but still not provided with reference.Seems like promoting a publishing house.--Poet009 (talk) 11:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:ORG--Sodabottle (talk) 16:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing significant in this publishing house--Poet009 (talk) 07:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Redirect/merging discussions can continue on the talk page. (non-admin closure) →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 00:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of roads in Toronto#Queen's Quay. The useful content from the subject has been merged into the target. No need for a standalone article on this only half-notable street when it is better presented along with other nearby streets ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Important Note - Less than a week ago, List of roads in Toronto was a simple list with multiple wikilinks to articles of streets included in the list. It was only less than 7 KB long.
Here is what it looked like on February 3, 2011.
On February 3, the nom then took various contents from all of those articles and placed them in this list article and removed most of the wikilinks, including to Queen's Quay (Toronto).[4] That article is now over 109 kb, way too long per WP:SIZERULE. I suppose this was all part of an effort to delete most Toronto street articles and just have summaries in this new parent one and add content from his own userspace for streets that had no articles and this AfD is an extension of that effort.--Oakshade (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable minor league baseball player has not yet met WP:BASE/N. Bhockey10 (talk) 17:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:05, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unencyclopedic. Stating on the club's main article that they have always played in variants of red and white stripes is more than sufficient, we don't need a separate article devoted to what is essentially a huge gallery of every minor variant on that theme. ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 00:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy close consensus is that a mistake was made. It happens to us all. Good additions to the article, time to move on. Mandsford 00:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A search for references found no published (gBooks) WP:RS for "New Leinster Province" the only mention is in New Zealand History By Various Authors at Wikibooks, fails WP:V JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 07:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of roads in Toronto#Eastern Avenue. Not an important or notable road. Eastern is a widened side street. It's only notable claim is that the Hell's Angels had a chapter on the street that was raided (but that belongs in the Hell's Angels article). It's also not one of "Toronto's oldest streets", as it wasn't constructed until at least 100 years after Toronto was born. ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 15:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Verification is not a policy we can just ignore. I don't see a conspiracy against anyone, just even handed, policy based arguments to delete this improperly sourced article. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:38, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article fails the WP:V policy and will be unlikely to resolve the issue in the future or through discussion on the article talk page as consistent reliable sources do not exist for the Indian film market. The lead text of the article (version at time of nomination) makes it clear that no box-office figures are officially published and the sources of the figures are therefore speculative estimates.
Taking the top example of the highest grossing film of all time is Enthiran listed as Rs. 375 crore, however this figure is an estimate by the COO of the production company (Sun Pictures) and the source is a video of a promotional interview with him giving an estimate rather than based on a published verifiable sales figure in a reliable source. Other sources for box-office sales for Enthiran have been discussed at length on Talk:Enthiran with no source yet proposed that can be verified for any specific figures though many rounded up estimates from pundits and promotional sources are available.
Raising for wider discussion in the context of this (link) India film list being deleted under a similar rationale. Fæ (talk) 14:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree with the Fae on this matter for the reasons are being quoted. I mentioned in the several pages regarding this. Why this issue is being coming only when Endhiran is being considered in the top of the list.
Everyone was happy to list 3 idiots at the top of the list without any debate or for any film listed below.Chief operating officer will not promote the film after hundred days of its running.Probably he clarified everyone who has raised doubts in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sivanesanvet (talk • contribs) 03:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and because of fundamental unveriability of such lists. And per the arguments made in the other Afds for Tamil and Telugu film lists.--Sodabottle (talk) 05:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hai Sodabottle; I dont know where were the people are until today talking about standards of references for Indian cinema. I think suddenly "so called alertness" grips every one. It is not like that. No one is ready to accept the truth. Anyone can delete this article. But the history wont support you. If some one is good enough judge on the box office, even a childish cine artist will tell the success of Endhiran. I strongly oppose to delete this article. Instead of deleting this article, you may quote in the introduction, that this is the rough estimate and there are no official figures for indian box office.Similar introduction is given for List of highest grossing bollywood or hindi films in wikipedia. The introduction says "Box office figures in India are not published, as there is no official source. The following is a non-inflation-adjusted list of the highest-grossing Bollywood films in India according to BoxOffice India.com and IBOS Network. Figures are given in Indian rupees. For an inflation-adjusted list, see List of highest-grossing Bollywood films, adjusted for inflation" The rules should be unbiased, if you are deleting the articles delete all these lists (hindi/telugu/tamil). I dont think sincerely that this will help the leaders point of view. It is very blatant and sounds to every one that films listed in tamil, hindi or telugu are super hits. Present generation will know these. But time to come, it is very difficult to retrieve these information and refrences. It is up to you to think and decide.My best possible suggestion is providing a valuable introduction. I dont think for shake of publicity a film producer will give a statement for mega hit movie of tamil film industry (which already ran for 100 days And Indian institute of management-Ahmedabad has taken the success of endhiran in its project). It is worst situation only in bollywood, an actor will cut hairs, strip cloths in the public place and come in front of media thousand time before release etc., etc., I expect your view point on the same before any further action. And I expect from wikipedia that it should be genuine and even can retain the Article of List of highest grossing tamil films.
This deletion could have been raised before , when enthiran hit the top , people cashed in to delete and hide the reality , whether you accept it or not this is the truth , people here are biased. I see the same set of guys who Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of highest-grossing Tamil-language films did delete List of highest-grossing Tamil-language films here too...
don't delete till other admins look into this Rt sachin (talk) 21:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 07:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Czech Republic political party which garnered all of "0.23 % of popular votes" in 2006 election. Fails WP:GNG. I do not want to get caught up in Czech Republic politics, but this article seems to exist solely as a political statement. More foreign language sources may exist, but this will probably never be a good fit on English-language Wikipedia. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 07:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak sources, no significant coverage, fails the GNG though he might barely pass WP:MUSIC based on radio playlists. Seems non-notable to me. Huon (talk) 13:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*Weak Keep, it's marginal, but this ref http://www.bbc.co.uk/1xtra/panjabihitsquad/20080615.shtml does show he was on a BBC radio playlist, albeit not for one of their mainstream stations, so I'd give benefit of the doubt based on WP:BAND #11. Needs to be re-written though as it's sailing pretty close to the wind on copyvio and smells of astroturfing.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 14:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi I wrote this article and am part of Arjun's PR team - not sure if this mean that COI applies? As far as notability is concerned, I am positive that Arjun has enough of a fan base to justify mention on wikipedia. He has had radioplay on national stations such as BBC Radio 1: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00twxzp http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00trlwt http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00v11j7
He has also been playlisted on other BBC stations such as Asian Network: http://www.bbc.co.uk/asiannetwork/playlist/index.shtml
Please see his various fan sites and groups on facebook: http://www.facebook.com/arjun.artist http://www.facebook.com/pages/ARJUN/127464250623646 http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=12672402415
It is also worth searching 'Arjun Remember Tonight' on google — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arjuncoom (talk • contribs) 15:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If COI is the main issue then I understand that the article should be removed. Having said this, I don't feel that the article is written using promotional language. Everything that has been stated is factual. Furthermore, there are very few notable artists of Sri Lankan origin, and the majority of the ones already existing on Wikipedia have far fewer artistic credentials than Arjun. He is one of the few artists putting Sri Lanka on the map in the UK. Arjun has produced an album which was released internationally by Sony Music India: http://desi-box.com/media/bhangra/shivali-brings-you-the-bhajan-project-.html This album also reached the Top 10 of the UK iTunes World Music Chart: http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=491379963173&set=a.491379958173.265900.278384168173&theater He has performed to crowds of up to 30,000. Please see this overview of Arjun's performances, press and TV appearances in 2010: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALqo0B1AMlM If the structure and wording of the article is incorrect then this can of course be changed. Please let me know whether the page will stand and I will make the necessary changes to the format, sources etc Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arjuncoom (talk • contribs) 05:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 00:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notability, factual accuracy is dubious. I propose a deletion. bender235 (talk) 13:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 07:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated this for deletion in May 2009 but was closed as no consensus. I've had another look at this and it seems the situation is the same. I remain concerned that the article fails to meet the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (people). The previous discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barry Hunau, where the arguments in favour of keeping, and my responses to those, can be seen. Adambro (talk) 13:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:07, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No clear evidence of notability. Seems he still has yet to sign a record deal. Mention of a future (WP:CRYSTAL) release that will be released "independently". Dweller (talk) 10:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, and to answer Dweller: That should not be not categorized under (WP:CRYSTAL) because there is a citation and reference to that independent release through his Twitter status, which makes it 100% valid because it is a firsthand source. Thegardenisland (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:07, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This was tagged for csd, but its been here since last year and there are enough edits that I think a drive by deletion is unwarrented. Furthermore, I;m not entirely sold on the absence of notability; from what I see there may be just enough here to justify the article staying on site. For these two reasons I'm opting for an afd over a csd axing. I have no strong feelings on the matter one way or the other, I'm just trying to clear out the csd backlog. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was procedural close. Already closed by shii, closing properly. Rationale was Closed. Revoking this AfD request, this should be discussed on the article's talk page. Shii (tock) 02:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a patently ludicrous idea for an article. It's like asking what position of Japanese undertakers or Japanese museum curators is on homosexuality; in other words, a topic that is utterly irrelevant to the specialists, just as much as their own beliefs are irrelevant to Japanese society. Nothing can be said about it; nothing has been said in Japanese; and a quick search will discover no reliable sources anywhere. A similar article in American culture would be LGBT topics and wishing wells, or the AfD classic Judaism and bus stops. It doesn't even deserve a redirect to Homosexuality in Japan, as it is a highly unlikely topic. Shii (tock) 08:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 07:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've declined a db-hoax on this article, as it is not blatant. There has been an explanation on my talk page which highlights why it might be a hoax, but confirms to me that it isn't blatant. As there's already been edit warring over the speedy tag, I've brought it here for wider community discussion. My only opinion is that it isn't blatant, I have no opinion on whether it is a hoax or not. GedUK 07:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:GNG. we don't have articles for every country for "African immigrants to X". I don't see how one for New Zealand is notable. no significant coverage of this topic [9]. LibStar (talk) 07:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Talk Contribs) 20:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
--Avenue (talk) 08:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 07:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fails the general and academic notability guidelines. Google returns no independent coverage and Google News returns a couple of very brief mentions that may not refer to the subject. Google Scholar returns a couple of hits that appear to refer to a HK Nanjundaswamy, but in fact refer to an AM Nanjundaswamy, an Indian food scientist. -- Lear's Fool 06:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 07:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable magazine lacking GHits and GNEWs of substance. Appears to fail WP:NOTBOOK. ttonyb (talk) 05:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 07:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Probably original research or possibly a hoax with less than 200 Google hits (all Wikipedia content mirrors). The references don't seem reliable, but this is outside my expertise. —EncMstr (talk) 05:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 07:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly not Notable as its own article, and likely not as an addition to Chinese Poker. I would argue the article is not necessarily vandalism, however it does need to go. AKB10 (talk) 05:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was nomination withdrawn. I'm already relisting too many AFDs today. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the prod from this article because I found some gnews hits. Might not be enough but I felt that an AFD discussion was needed before this article is deleted. Since the article was prodded by an IP user I decided to nominate it myself. Ron Ritzman (talk) 05:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. AdmrBoltz 01:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Moreover, all information is already currently at James Bond (games)#Future. TenPoundHammer's Law also applies. –MuZemike 03:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to List of Home and Away characters. AdmrBoltz 01:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All info is already in List of Home and Away characters Magioladitis (talk) 02:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. T. Canens (talk) 19:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fails BLP as there is no assertion of notability nor sources to back up inherent claims. Dusti*poke* 23:55, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. AdmrBoltz 01:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No claim of notability. Google results are primarily derivative from this article or fansites and include no news results. Can find very little indication of the author's notability either. PrincessofLlyr royal court 01:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was argh. You guys have put the closer in an awkward position. It's pretty clear that consensus favors merging to an article that doesn't exist. I am going to delete the article for the time being. If, in the future someone actually creates this target article (with more than just the content of this article since there is already a consensus that it is not independently notable) I or any other admin can restore it as a redirect to that article and any content needed can be pulled from the restored history. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. non-notable county highway that does not pass the WP:GNG or USRD notability guidelines as a standalone article. AdmrBoltz 01:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 18:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable writer who fails WP:AUTHOR and whose books fail WP:BK. All of the books are self-published. No available WP:RS to establish WP:N Qworty (talk) 23:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 18:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A generally non notable music group with a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources and also fails to pass WP:BAND. Mattg82 (talk) 15:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 18:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Watsky is creditable. Give it a chance! Someone needs to interview this guy. Not only is he making it, he speaks positive nurtures!http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1C1GTqWkzbg Look what he said about this site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.67.131.253 (talk) 05:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry if this is not in the correct format but I am not a regular contributor to wiki. While I agree that the current page is crap and is more of a direct copy of other articles I do believe a page should be dedicated to George Watsky. He has just recently had a viral video with will over a million hits but that is not all that he is noted for. He was on Def Jam and has won several highly noted awards for poetry. He has been featured in the Boston Globe, the Boston Herald, san fran guardian, san fran chronicle to name a few. With clean-up this could be a valid encyclopedic article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaye55 (talk • contribs) 05:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is the author of a somewhat viral video. I requested more sources and thought I'd give it a few days to see if there was much buzz, but other than one brief profile in the Sun it's basically limited to blogs. I think this is one-event notability at best. Chick Bowen 02:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 18:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWs of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 05:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I walked away from the computer for a few minutes to get a bite to eat and use the bathroom and once again you WikiNazis are ready to delete my page again before I can even get it started. Step away from your computer and get a life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dredizzyd (talk • contribs) 06:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G12 copyright violation JohnCD (talk) 17:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I admit that this is not my field, but I don't think the article sufficiently asserts notability or notability actually exists. Delete unless notability shown. --Nlu (talk) 06:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 18:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A Non-notable poet.Most of the books have come out from small publishers and some have come out from kaurab of which the subject himself is one of the editors and creator of its website.Subhas Mukhopadhyay Smarak Samman is no recognized and significant award that too given from no notable society or forum.Most of the refences are just links where his poetry has been published but no significant third party reviews have been provided.Such a bio cannot be placed as notable in wiki.The article should be deleted according to deletion policies.--Poet009 (talk) 11:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus of the "crappy keeps and crappy deletes make the consensus impossible to determine" type. T. Canens (talk) 19:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable writer.No significant awards. No significant books or reviews upon him as a poet to make him notable.Just statements from people can't make him notable.The article should be deleted in accordance with deletion policies.--Poet009 (talk) 11:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete not notableThisbites (talk) 19:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. In the end, it does not appear that there are sources sufficient to pass WP:GNG. T. Canens (talk) 19:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:ORG. my original nomination stands. nothing in gnews. and nothing in a major Australian news website: [22]. LibStar (talk) 12:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello LibStar. I am, by the way, currently one of the assistant editors of the society’s magazine (Erato). The annual festival regularly obtains press coverage in the major daily papers, depending on which city it is being held in, from time to time: both in the form of pre-publicity (e.g. the festival will be putting on concerts), but more importantly, in the form of concert reviews; a sprinkling of these over the decade could be cited since the publication of Peter Campbell’s 1999 book: like the many reviews quoted there, these are only of use to document individual concerts or festivals, and the fact that these form part of an on-going tradition:
I suppose the weakness of the article(s) – either the one concerned with the long-standing tradition of national festivals (IVCFs), or the organisation that oversees the running of them (AICSA) – is that no one has seen fit to actually investigate what it is that is special about them and write it up, as opposed to tinkering with the publicity material from the AICSA website (which is what I presume Mkativerata is describing as “copyright infringement”, based on an edit by an anonymous IP back in 2006). AICSA is essentially the umbrella under which the various choral societies — none of them individually notable (re: the above remarks of “school clubs”) — have formed a long-lasting national arts organisation, which as others here have noted is regarded as notable by both the Australian Music Centre and the Australian National Library, which is home to AICSA’s archives: the ANL holds nearly complete sets of publications, concert programmes, reviews of the past 60 festivals, as well as sound recordings of all but one of the festivals. Philip Legge User Email Talk 03:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. AdmrBoltz 01:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable play, gained local coverage but did not go further. Worm 12:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 18:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:DIPLOMAT. simply being an ambassador does not guarantee you an article and coverage merely confirms he is an ambassador. [23]. LibStar (talk) 13:26, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would be better if you provide more detailed explanation of your vote. See WP:GOOGLEHITS for your invalid use of that argument. LibStar (talk) 02:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. AdmrBoltz 01:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An autobiography created by the subject herself which fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF. Farhikht (talk) 16:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. AdmrBoltz 01:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why the page should be deleted A non-notable article on an actress. Googling reveals little of importance – there appears to be a listing in IMDb, typically for supporting and bit-parts, and facebook and LinkedIn pages. The Article has been tagged as not notable since August 2009, this being unchallenged with relevant viable information; it has not improved, and has never had sources to back up claims of notability. Acabashi (talk) 16:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete without prejudice to recreation as a redirect to some appropriate target. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
(Apparently something is wrong with the servers and I can't seem to do the deletion at the moment. Hopefully will be resolved shortly. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC)) Done Beeblebrox (talk) 20:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is an upcoming single-retailer release of an album within the Now! compilation series in the US. While the main series regularly charts in the top 10 albums and sells relatively well, the themed albums do not. Being distributed to only one retailer makes this an even less notable release. No prejudice against recreation if achieves independent notability through third-party sources. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 16:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep lots of coverage, many copies sold. if anything merge into now series.Thisbites (talk) 19:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. AdmrBoltz 01:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No sources. Either hoax, or unnotable. bender235 (talk) 17:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete unreferencedThisbites (talk) 19:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 18:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable organization -- I searched Google books & news and found nothing. Mesoderm (talk) 20:55, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Desktop virtualization AdmrBoltz 01:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a promotional article, created by a single-purpose account (User:BngWiki), about a non-notable product from a company called Teradici. Our article on the product is poorly sourced to press releases peppered with a few brief mentions in trade publications — nothing indicating "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." There has been a proliferation of promotional and spam articles from desktop virtualization vendors (SoThin, Virtual Bridges, MiniFrame, and 10ZiG come to mind) over the past year or so, and PCoIP is not significantly different from the others in terms of notability — it's just made it a little bit longer due to the slightly higher occurrence of brief, passing mentions after they signed an agreement a while back with VMware (which seems to have gone nowhere and was "mere short-term interest"). Bluntly put, every indication is that it's spam, created by a spammer, that's poorly sourced, and, after a careful review, simply not-notable. jæs (talk) 21:09, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 18:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The creator of this article has a conflict of interest, as she or he either is Alexander Voytovych or closely associated. This page is clearly promotional, as are the overwhelming majority of internet hits for "Alexander Voytovych." Uyvsdi (talk) 00:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]
The creator of this article is clearly connected to the subject, if not the same person. "Alexander Voytovych" does get substantial amounts of hits through Google, but they are self-generated (wiki mirror sites, linked in, promo sites (http://www.artists.com.ua/ -> Art Atelier: Ivanka and Alexander Voytovych). Cannot find very much in third-party, published secondary sources — and definitely not enough to establish that this is a notable artist. -Uyvsdi (talk) 20:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi
If one convinced that the article has to be deleted, than do not hesitate to do so, but before that please give me a straight answer to my question. What is the difference between the article about Alexander Voytovych and, for example, the Herb Roe’s article, why the mentioned article is considered more accurate? I must highlight once again that instead of explaining what has to be changed or corrected on the page, one awards us with thenoticeboards. Regarding self-promotion which was mentioned a few times I’d like to make it clear : the artists is a Ukrainian and naturally all sources are Ukrainian, and if the mentioned language is unknown to one it doesn’t meant that it allows one doubts the genuine sources. The Ukrainian and Russian versions of Wikipedia have accepted the article and honoured it, which says a lot.I had in my mind to present more Ukrainian artist, however having such an experience; I’d rather leave this business behind thanks to you. Thanks for co-operation. From my point of view this discussion is exceeded, feel free to delete the article!--Artvoyt (talk) 16:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. While the overall topic is undoubtedly notable, the specific objects which may or may not be planets or even exist at all are not "automatically notable" and are therefore subject to WP:N, as well as WP:CRYSTAL. This may turn out to be a find of massive scientific import someday, or it may be nothing, or a ball of ice, etc... No prejudice against recreation as a redirect to some appropriate target. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article discusses an exoplanet candidate, not even one officially announced. By definition there can not be enough reliable sourcing for something that the team themselves do not even yet know exists. If this article is notable enough to have an entry then pretty much every other possibility you can think of is. ChiZeroOne (talk) 18:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]