< 14 January | 16 January > |
---|
The result was redirect to Startup Weekend. The user has failed to produce the said reliable sources. (non-admin closure) Logan Talk Contributions 00:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
no indication of notability. Talk page claims coverage in Forbes and NY Times but the only refs I can find are about Startup Weekend with trivial references to Nelson. noq (talk) 23:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
unsourced. Nothing on google to back up the claims noq (talk) 23:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(The article was previously nominated and discussed as part of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Karpowich)
Non-notable college hockey player who has not yet established himself to meet notability requirements per WP:NHOCKEY. He has not competed in any IIHF competitions, and has not played on a fully professional team or at the highest level, and has not played 100+ minor league games. Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball Dolovis (talk) 23:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep Played for Frisk Tigers, which is a member of the Norwegian pro league. Blueboy96 00:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
* Change to neutral--a search reveals the Norwegian league is the 13th-ranked league in Europe. Seems to be right on the line between top-level and low-level, and for that reason I'm wary of going full keep here. Blueboy96 01:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)>[reply]
The result was no consensus. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 18:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notable for actions during one event, the 2011 Tucson shooting. While there has been several news articles about him after the shooting, there is nothing to indicate that in the future he will satisfy WP:BLP1E. Atmoz (talk) 22:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Logan Talk Contributions 00:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. This is an incredibly difficult AfD, both due to the recency of the events the article is covering, and because of the tensions surrounding it. Not only that, but the overarching guideline, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, is small on detail and large on jurisdiction. While I'd normally launch into a large rant on the need for people to make comments that actually cite policy, directly or indirectly, given the difficulties with this AfD I will restrain myself to a small rant. Guerillero's apparent belief that you need consensus on a related talkpage before you can make an article seems confusing, as is Diannaa's WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument - both him (her?) and Clarityfiend could do to take a read of that essay. Nakon's argument is, of course, invalid - I think I actually declined the original CSD myself (hopefully this doesn't make me seem to have some kind of COI).
The general argument that "talk page consensus elsewhere has not permitted this article to exist, so it should be deleted" or "talkpage consensus is that the content shouldn't be on this page, so it should be perfectly acceptable to keep it in a separate article" is particularly frustrating. Consensus, formed at one time, between one group of editors, can be changed and overruled. The editors at the talkpage were not asked if they were fine with this content existing here, nor where they asked if they were fine with this content existing at all. They were asked if the content should be removed from that sole article. I cannot comment on the number of talkpage contributors who turned up at this AfD, but suffice to say any consensus on keeping or deleting bits of content should, unless there are exceptional circumstances, not extend further than the individual page and content being discussed. You will note that WP:G4 covers content deleted via a deletion discussion, precisely because it is not appropriate to carry consensus over in this fashion.
Discounting those comments which aren't "proper" comments - i.e., not giving actual reasons and instead relying on WP:ILIKEIT and other non-arguments — consensus is fairly clearly in favour of deletion; even if we go back to Ye Olde Been Countinge Days, it turns out the same way. A few people have been suggesting it be kept because, should consensus change, it will be far more difficult to restore the content. Rest assured that I am prepared to restore bits and bobs temporarily to allow for its inclusion elsewhere, if consensus is reached that said inclusion is acceptable; just drop a note on my talkpage. As a final note, I did like Fetchcomm's keep/rename argument (a shame there isn't consensus for it) to move to an "Aftermath of the 2011 Tuscon Shooting" page and roll in everything else that may/will change due to the shootings - that seems like something which might appease both sides of the debate. I would advise you to get together and argue it out again, preferably taking Fetchcomm's argument (it's the least divisive option I can see) as a starting point. Should consensus be reached to include the content in some form, I will, again, be perfectly willing to restore segments for the move over. Ironholds (talk) 23:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of comments on the shooting. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article CAN and WILL be improved but nobody in their right mind is going to improve the article with a knife (this AFD) to their throat. This article is notable and there's a lot to write, so keep it. If after a few months the article is crap, then you can say "we gave it a chance without holding a knife to its throat, but it is still crap."
Furthermore, deleting this will destroy a lot of references compiled that can help students research a paper. Another point is that many here are so destructive; they want to get rid of the article and shrink the main article's reaction section to 2-3 sentences. By keeping this, you make those people halfway happy (they get a short reaction section) and the people who want a long reaction section happy (they have a sub-article) which is a true consensus, rather than making half of the people mad and half thinking they are victors. This was said above.
Finally, AFD is not a vote but a discussion. Nobody for delete has been able to come up with a valid argument against the fact that this article covers notable topics and is, therefore, eligible for an article. It is not simply a "My Condolences" list but a great article in the making. Madrid 2020 (talk) 18:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mkativerata (talk) 21:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm very happy to be proved wrong, but I'm calling hoax on this - or at least high level of exaggeration.
The article will have us believe that Tracey Walker was the first ever internet supermodel, with fansites and 2.5 billion downloads. The problem is there's not evidence of this whatsoever.
As I say, my biggest problem is that internet supermodels don't tend to disappear from the internet, and THE first one would surely have more presence.Scott Mac 21:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Logan Talk Contributions 00:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unremarkable person. No independent references and no assertion in the article of why this person is notable. Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 20:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to family tradition (he was my great grandfather) he and his wife arrived in Australia with five shillings and a doormat. At the end of his life he was a Melbourne City magistrate and his firm not only had supplied masonic regalia to many Australian notables but had also designed and made the Sheffield Shield which is still the cricket trophy fought for by all the States of Australia (and it bears a note of the maker's name). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gumbell (talk • contribs) 23:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
References in archives of the Jeweish Museum of Australia, Melbourne. The small portable scales he used to weigh gold as a hawker are on display. His name is on the burial house (Metahar House) for Jews at Brighton cemetery where he was the first Trustee on the Bosrd, elected to represent Jews. The front page of the Melbourne daily newspaper "The Herald" carried his photo and a long story about him on October 21st 1916, as he was the Chairman of the first City Court Bench in Russell St. Most Australian newspapers have references about Blashki at some time. When he retired , at age 70, from duty as a Justice of the Peace at the City Court, an illuminated address was presented to him by the Prime Minsiter, Alfred Deakin, signed by 30 of the solicitors who worked with him. References include some out of print books from the 19th and 20th century. 'The Jews in Victoria an the Nineteenth Century' L.M. Goldman 1956, Rubinstein, W.D. and H.. Rubinstein 'The Jews in Australia: A Thematic History' 2 vols, William Heinemann, Port Melbourne, 1991. 'Phillip Blsshki; A Victorian Patriarch', Gael R. Hammer, 1986 ISBN 0 9589451 0 1', Victorian Governement Gazette in late 19th century."The Argus" in the 19th century. The quarterly journal of the Freemasons carried the story of the sesquicentenary of the arrival of the Blshki's in Melbourne as their lead article. The business P.Blashki & Sons, est 1858 in still in business today. One of the oldest surviving businesses in Melbourne. See also the foundation of the Victorian Chambers of Commerce. Also the story of tobacco in Australia.
Blashki was a founder of the Chevra Kadisha, the Melbourne Jewish burial society.
Jewish Aid, the first Jewish welfare organisation. The Victorian governernement then then inivited him establish a similar Board for welfare of the State.
A long list of his secular and Jewish achievements are in official obituaries.
The site needs to be less personal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nedsfield (talk • contribs) 00:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree; The children's names are not important unless in their own right. I will be uploading the photo supplied, Courtesy of the Latrobe Library of Victoria, of the Opening of the City Court, Russell St, Melbourne, 20 January 1914. Blashki is in the centre. Attorney General, the Hon. D. MvKinnon, then the Chief Police Magistrate, P.J. Dwyer Esq, then Phillip Blashki, Chairman of the City Court Bench. To be uploaded in a few hours. I will also upload the photo of Blashki in regalia ss Hon. Past Deputy Grand Master, 1890. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nedsfield (talk • contribs) 01:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Phillip's biographer - Gael Hammer - is unavailable this week. However she will be happy to fix and augment the entry next week (starting 24th Jan 2011), and to learn the ropes as she goes. There are in addition two cricket references (Chris Harte, A History of Australian Cricket 1993 at p. 176 and by the same author "The History of the Sheffield Shield, Allen & Unwin 1987 at pages 32-33 which both describe the process by which the Shield was made and describe Phillip Blashki) and which I'm now trying to figure out how to link to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lacygumboots (talk • contribs) 03:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further note: I see that Phillip Blashki is cited in as its maker early in the page about the Sheffield Shield. Lacygumboots (talk) 04:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Version 2 Hopefully this version is better! Mummy-whale (talk) 10:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WITHDRAW NOMINATION - good job rescuing the article, which is now looking healthy. I am very happy to withdraw my nomination for deletion. --Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 07:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 20:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable company. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus - page was deleted independently of AfD discussion.. VQuakr (talk) 20:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This thesis appears to be original research. It would be better to start over with an article based on published sources rather than try to improve this thesis. PROD was contested. VQuakr (talk) 20:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non notable road with no target for redirect ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 08:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article treats very many (all?) "species" which were hypothesized to might evolve in in 50 mln years fron now in the book After Man: A Zoology of the Future. The species are treated in a way as if this fiction is a truth. I see (apart from the style issue of presenting fiction as truth) no encyclopedic value in this extensive treatment and regard it as a fan site. The species are not treated extensively in popular culture or science warranting inclusion of an article on that ground. The hypothesized species are furthermore mentioned in the main article. I realize wikipedia has (de facto) much lower standards for notability of lists than of articles, but in view of the treatment of the subject, with the list already in the main article (and the main article already merely describing book events), I have treated this list as an article here. Please note, I have proposed a very similar page for deletion last week and came across this one by looking at all deleted links following that deletion... L.tak (talk) 19:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mkativerata (talk) 20:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't see how this university laboratory can possibly be notable on its own. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 18:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. The direction of this discussion changed significantly after the first couple of days. What looked like a clear "delete" has become a fairly clear "keep". The run of delete/redirect !votes in this discussion largely happened before (a) the article was expanded, and (b) it became clear that the speech and the process by which it was written was receiving a considerable amount of coverage and dissection by commentators and historians. After those developments (eg if a line is drawn in the discussion at about 17 January, when the developments happened), the consensus started trending quite firmly to keep. So while the numbers in the debate as a whole are pretty much even, the consensus now is to keep. Merges have also been proposed. However, I'm unable to discern any consensus to merge, particularly as, again, the large part of the merge !vote came early in the discussion. Also, real questions have been raised whether the merge proposals would be viable given the size of the target articles. Mkativerata (talk) 19:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not every speech Obama makes deserves its own page. This isn't his speech on race, or his speech to the Arab world. If he had spoken more extensively about the political environment, we'd have something to document. This speech was really just a simple memorial speech, which has gotten some positive analysis from people on all sides of the political spectrum, and can be covered in 2011 Tucson shooting in a couple of sentences. Muboshgu (talk) 18:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep --Mike Cline (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Chinese Wikipedia article, this university no longer exists and has not existed since 1933. The Chinese Wikipedia article provides a little more information than the two sentences here, but not much more, and cites no sources. As I have no verifiable sources here, I think, reluctantly, I am asking for deletion, but an alternative is to redirect to Northeastern University (Shenyang, China), which the Chinese Wikipedia article indicates the university was merged into — but, again, cited no source for that proposition for. Nlu (talk) 18:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mkativerata (talk) 18:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
College basketball player whose notability seems to be inherited from his father. In 4 years at West Virginia, he's logged about 300 minutes on the court; a college athlete who's looking to the draft or all-american spot would get double that in one year without any issue; he hasn't even played in a good number of games for the team. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable peruvian football club
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unable to find significant coverage in and reliable sources independent of this music producing duo. The article does not appear to meet WP:GNG. J04n(talk page) 17:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of notability from third-party sources William Avery (talk) 17:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 19:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:Notabilty (sports) for tennis players by both senior and junior criteria - no ATP main draw matches played, no Challenger titles, no world top three junior ranking, no junior grand slam event titles Mayumashu (talk) 15:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 18:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Spam for a public monitoring tool. The author, Warren Louw has confirmed to me by e-mail that he works for BEEInfoSTRIP. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 20:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dubious notability. Sources are only primary or directory listings for the most part, and a search for further sourcing showed nothing but false positives. No real notability; just having individually notable members doesn't mean the band is automatically notable. WP:BAND #6 is not and never will be carte blanche if they fail all the other criteria. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 04:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a trivial way to look at the members of the BBHOF. How the HOFers rank in terms of age does not receive significant coverage. Muboshgu (talk) 15:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a footballer who still has not played in a fully pro league and who fails WP:N Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Davidcannon (talk · contribs) has recently restored this bio claiming that the woman is world famous in Fiji. But Davidcannon apparently thinks she is so famous as not to need references. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus, default to keep. WaltonOne 22:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting per decision to relist at AfD at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 30. I abstain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At the deletion review to revive the article, the following case was made:
This clearly helps establish notability in three reliable sources. Mathewignash (talk) 02:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A jocular essay about a jocular neologism that Google Books confirms did indeed catch on, to a small and unremarkable extent. There could be a kernel of psychological interest to the concept, even though there is none to the article. (Perhaps it could be redirected somewhere, though not to "Acquisitiveness", as this redirects to the unsourced stub "Acquisitiveness (Phrenology)" [really]; and neither "Charles Foster Kane" nor "Imelda Marcos" gives me any idea.) I realize that Wikipedia is a dictionary when it comes to speech acts ("Fuck", "Kuwabara kuwabara", "LOL", etc etc), but I don't think it yet is one for the general ingredients of bulletin-board banter; and what with all its waffly accretions, this is anyway a crap (and prolix) dictionary definition. Hoary (talk) 08:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No significant products have been created by this company, mostly a summary of mayor companies who use this product. Article is mostly about the product and not the company itself. Writer has written same article in Dutch Wiki. Dqfn13 (talk) 13:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Logan Talk Contributions 00:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable software: coverage seems largely to spring from its mention in a web comic, not a reliable source. Other than that it was a runner up in a minor contest. Not clear it will ever be notable: few independent games make much impact. But if it is that can be revisited after the game is released: WP is not a crystal ball. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 12:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 03:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BLP vio attack piece written in such a way as only to disparage subject, "oh and by the way he's an actor too". Needs to be blanked and written from the ground up. Subject is not notable for his criminal record, else we'd have millions more articles. This type of article is bad for Wikipedia. Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Tunisian general election, 2011 non-admin close. NortyNort (Holla) 01:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. This is a news report of current political unrest in Tunisia. PROD was removed by initial author. Cind.amuse 12:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming this is a how-to or cheat guide for some kind of computer game or book series. However it isn't fully clear from the article itself. Travelbird (talk) 11:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Amateur astronomist which recently discovered a nova. Other purported discoveries are unsourced, as is most of the article. Questionable whether this is enough to pass WP:BIO Travelbird (talk) 11:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Turkish language OR or copyvio article which discusses online trends in 2010. Not encyclopedic Travelbird (talk) 11:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. Spartaz Humbug! 16:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of notability since these "Presidents" are only recognised by the Republic of Turkey and the "TRNC". Lack of independent citations that recognise these "Presidents". Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 11:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages because [they have no independent citations/references outside of the sphere of self-interest of the Republic of Turkey and its "TRNC" annexe] as such these subjects are not notable on English Wikipedia:
Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 15:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Purported airline with zero Google hits. Except for that one list given I cannot find any trace of them or that they actually fly. The other sources given are non-reliable (Youtube videos) Travelbird (talk) 10:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Consensus is that the subject is notable for the awards hs has received, the books he has published, and the coverage he and his books have received in reliable sources. Mkativerata (talk) 18:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Author which won one minor award for one book. Travelbird (talk) 09:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10 year old son of a religious leader. As he fulfills no function and isn't scheduled to take over from his father either. I don't see how this passes WP:BIO Travelbird (talk) 09:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete a7, no actual indication of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 11:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very minor film director that doesn't appear to pass WP:CREATIVE. I nominated this version of the article for speedy deletion, and although the article has since been expanded, I still can't find much coverage about him or the movies he directed. It doesn't help that most of the wikilinks for his films lead to general terms with the same name. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 07:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
People far more informed than me on all-things rugby have tried and failed to reference this article, and even found that the supplied reference was incorrect. It is also questionable if a non-international rugby player is notable at all. Delete unless a reliable source can be found. Possible hoax. The-Pope (talk) 07:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 20:39, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think this falls under WP:BLP1E (the band is not a living person but the members are). All the coverage has been from the legal issues surroundin the importation of one of their albums. Nothing here satisfies any of the wp:music points except #1 but that falls under the one event thing mentioned above. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
appears to fail WP:NTENNIS Mayumashu (talk) 06:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-sourced original research; violates WP:NOT and WP:NOR mhking (talk) 03:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
i added proper citations! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Llease (talk • contribs) 04:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Violates WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Besides that the article is uncited and seems a bit (or more than just a bit) unencyclopedic in tone. Looking at the previous AfD it seems to me that the result should have been "delete" not "no consensus" based on the arguments presented. Jaque Hammer (talk) 14:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) Logan Talk Contributions 17:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of notability and lack of independent citations. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 01:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep.--Mike Cline (talk) 20:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of notability. There are no references cited that make the Representative Office itself notable. The only references cited concern a Class Action that includes this office. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 01:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages because [of lack of notability and no independent references cited]:
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 01:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No reliable sources given or found to establish notability of a website/podcast/blog, let alone fulfilling the requirements of WP:GNG. PROD was removed, sources given are at least an order of magnitude below covering rule 2 on WP:WEB#Criteria. tedder (talk) 17:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 20:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable pilgrimage site, too small and have no independent reliable sources to comply with the policy on inclusion. Wikidas© 23:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I firmly believe that the proposed deletion of this article - Sri Devananda Gaudiya Math is nothing but a biased attitude of some user/person who probably prefers ISKCON or A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada over it (this article). In fact, the Hare Krishna Movement started from Nabadwip - the birth place of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu - where Sri Devananda Gaudiya Math is situated, it is also known as “the mother of the Gaudiya Maths” and it was founded by Bhakti Prajnana Kesava Goswami, who was a disciple and follower of Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura and a notable friend of A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada too (a Krishna follower brother of Bhaktivedanta Swami). A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami founded ISKCON after going to the West so he become notable, as it appears, even than his Guru or teacher and also than his Krishna follower brothers! Here 'notability' appears to be a relative word.
However, irrespective of what the google search shows but the above mentioned facts clearly reflect said Math's status and position in Hare Krishna Movement by the Gaudiya Vaishnavas.
It may be noted that since the Math is the mother of the Gaudiya Maths where the truly religious administrators (monks) of this Math devotes them more in religious activities rather than endeavouring to market their movement/religious activities in the West, unlike A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada (the ISKCON founder did, so it (the Math) may not appear in google the same way ISKCON does but this incident certainly does not mean that it is a non notable pilgrimage site! I have personally visited the Math and it is huge, during "Nabadwip Parikrama" thousands and thousands of devotees eat, rest and stay in ths math.
Even after this, if this article is deleted then that would be an act of prejudice and also an un-thought act. Nothing more I wish to say about proposed deletion of said article.
Snthakur ( সৌমেন্দ্র নাথ ঠাকুর ) (talk) 20:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Cleaning agent. (non-admin closure) — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 01:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seemingly pointless list that would be better as a category or infobox. Logan Talk Contributions 00:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't an individual show, but a marking used by a huge variety of completely unrelated news programs, none of which has standalone notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Maria von Trapp. Mandsford 00:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Prod contested. Member of the von Trapp singers (and notable as such), but is not notable as an individual. Notability is not inherited, and individual notability is not asserted in the article. MSJapan (talk) 06:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Musician who appears to fail WP:BAND; no relevant coverage cited in the article or found on Google. Sandstein 11:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep bd2412 T 22:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 10:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This company isn't notable. — Mr. Stradivarius (drop me a line) 15:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And yes, Milowent has the wrong idea, too. Evaluating notability isn't about finding soundbites and one-sentence mentions that say that something is important or famous. It's about finding sources that are independent, and that document the subject in depth. It's far more important how extensive the sources are in their coverage of the subject than what soundbites they contain. Uncle G (talk) 23:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Logan Talk Contributions 00:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, intelligent and wickedly funny guy. Brush-ins with fame a-plenty, and with wise and witty anecdotes to match. Fails WP:GNG, unfortunately. Shirt58 (talk) 16:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. bd2412 T 22:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR. No third party sources provided. The article is more like a résumé than a Wikipedia article. Farhikht (talk) 17:51, 8 January 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)) . |
By the way, there are videos of him conducting conferences at Tehran University (which might have been uploaded by himself, since the account's name on YouTube is rezaparchizadeh; or maybe not) a few of whom I personally attended. The videos belong to Tehran University Archive, and it is quite obvious from the manner of photography that they are formal takings. Just search for videos under his name on Google. Xayyam (talk) 19:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
* See the links below for the pictures of the material by or about Parchizadeh, extracted from Tehran University Archive, that was never published:
- International Conference on Short Story (2008)
- Chubak Abstract (2008)
- Conference Appreciation (2008)
- Chubak Certificate (2008)
- International Conference on Literature and Science (2009)
- Byzantine/Gothic Abstract (2009)
- Byzantine/Gothic Certificate (2009)
- There is available in Tehran University Archive copies of a set of references written by a number of the members of the Faculty's board of instructors for Parchizadeh that could be quite telling of his achievements in this period:
- Dr. Maryam Soltan Beyad’s Reference
- Dr. Esfandiar Esfandi’s Reference
- Dr. Ali Akbar Khomeijani Farahani’s Reference
- Dr. Hamideh Marefat’s Reference
- Dr. Abbas Ali Rezaee’s Reference
Timelesstune (talk) 14:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep bd2412 T 18:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I did some more research, after getting over my initial misspelling of the name, and I think I agree with TenPound Hammer. Even spelled correctly, the only google hits that came up were for the podcast's official site, blogs, and other non-reliable secondary sources. Searching it on Google News produces only one hit, which was an interview at the AV Club Website. So, my opinion is back to delete. Okay, I'm really embarrassed. I misspelled the page's name in my google check. So, although the page is unreferenced, the page's subject is notable. Sorry for the mixup; I think this article should be Kept.
Not notable, no references. I did a google check, and all that came up was blogs and the like. Epass (talk) 21:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy keep Nominator is an SPA with an WP:IDONTLIKEIT !vote. No reason for deletion given; WP:SNOW. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 23:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable, exists only to be a vandal target. No one has cared to look at or edit this article for the last couple years except occasional vandals/trolls. I can't see any good reason to keep it here. Souhletonya (talk) 07:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)— Souhletonya (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Coffeepusher (talk) 19:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]