< 17 January | 19 January > |
---|
The result was redirect to M&T Bank Stadium. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No sources to indicate importance. — Timneu22 · talk 23:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 23:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MADEUP. Author contested prod. OSbornarfcontributionatoration 22:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:Notability A Google search returns only the company's site and this WP article. Likely promotional. Declined PROD. Safiel (talk) 22:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to List of characters in the Camp Half-Blood series. (non-admin closure) Logan Talk Contributions 00:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Violates WP:N. Although she is a supporting character, there is no indication that she ever played a major role in the series. Perseus, Son of Zeus 21:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 23:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure a fraternity with only one chapter is non-notable. StAnselm (talk) 20:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. It would be worth continuing to discuss a possible merge on the article's talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Minor student union leader , of no particular note. - primary reports from the not notable National Campaign for fees and cuts - a minor student activist group also of no note, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ONEEVENT seem to apply in regards to this person, the created biography was redirected to the University of London which is the best place for it, at least for the time being unless additional notability arises. Off2riorob (talk) 20:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 20:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 23:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A non-notable fictional language in Ursula K. Le Guin's fantasy world, with an unhealthy dose of WP:OR (the Phonology section) thrown in. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete (A1) by Ronhjones. Non-admin closure --Pgallert (talk) 09:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a compilation CD that doesn't appear to be notable at all. Difficult to find any significant coverage discussing this album. — Timneu22 · talk 20:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 23:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable crime. Media coverage is limited to a few repeated sentences. Renata (talk) 20:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 23:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An article about this series has already been deleted as failing WP:CRYSTAL and for having no evidence of its existence. It has now been revealed in Thomas Gardner (Director) that the director (and most other things) of this film is 14 years old. Please also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Gardner (Director) and The Dreamer (2011 Film).
The result was keep. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 23:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very short dicdef, tagged for maintenance for over two years with nothing happening. Doesn't seem like it can be expanded beyond dicdef. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 23:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not a very notable person. Does not seem to pass WP:PROF on the basis of publications, position, or influence. She has mentions in the press, but all of them are one-liners that either mention her as an associate professor and cite one sentence, or they mention her as a member of that Telangana panel--but there is no in-depth discussion of her or her significance. Drmies (talk) 18:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Part of the argument to keep is based on the idea that Delamar is a reliable source. Whether it is or not is ultimately not relevant because the coverage is extremely trivial, three sentences that explain what Scorio is and nothing more. (there was an ad after those three sentences, it made it appear the article was over when it was not, which I noticed when I went to close the window.) The other arguments are based on users liking this product and touting its usefulness, which are not valid, policy based reasons to keep an article. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked through all the references (the German wiki has the same links) and did not find a single one that passes our guidelines for reliable sources--they're all blogs, online portals, communities, etc. Barring other evidence, I have to say that this article does not pass WP:GNG, nor do I see how it passes WP:WEB. Article had been deleted but was restored; a wider discussion is in order. Drmies (talk) 18:22, 18 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)) . |
The result was keep. Consensus is that a separate article is warranted because it is an amalgamation of two other awards. Mkativerata (talk) 22:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Completing unfinished nom made by another editor. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 18:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable, and essentially advertising.
An attempt by some students to replicate the One red paperclip thingy that apparently hasn't panned out. Admirable philanthropic goal got a few human-interest-type write-ups in the Australian papers, but seems to have stalled. There've only been a couple of trades in over a year, culminating in a Craig Ruddy painting, which is nice but still well short of million bucks. One gets the sense that nobody is really putting lot of time into running this anymore, and they should probably just sell the painting and donate the proceeds, and they probably will.
The Aussie news writeups perhaps put the effort over the WP:GNG threshold, but its nevertheless not article-worthy. Herostratus (talk) 18:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC) Herostratus (talk) 18:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article is vanispam. Look carefully to see the forest through the trees.
Author bases claims on own work:
Author makes mountains out of molehills looking for notability. For instance, footnote 5, sourcing a statement from the lead about the many publications, reads "See references 19 to 35 below." Those references are at best pointers to primary evidence, and some of them quite shallow, as a sampling shows:
I could go on, but I won't. There are no secondary sources that establish the author's notability. There seems to be one single mention of the author, in a Livemint-associated blog, here (where he is denounced as a xenophobe). The two books listed in the LoC are self-published; see The Invasion of Delhi and The Environmental Crisis of Delhi. This article is puffery and, worse, spam, attempting to create notability for and author and his works which were subsequently cited in contentious articles such as Environment of Delhi and Ethnic groups in Delhi. Drmies (talk) 16:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In a 2008 book titled "The Invasion of Delhi," scholar Sanjay Yadav argues that the original inhabitants in and around Delhi have been marginalized by newcomers. He calculates that they now make up just 35 percent of the population and hold 6 percent of the white-collar jobs. He also appeals to environmentalism, arguing that the region has grown polluted partly as a result of too many people with too little connection to the land. He says migration is holding back development elsewhere.
Comment I checked and found that there is a reference to him on Yahoo News too. This is the number one online news portal. Additionally, the references to contributions in overseas journals are accurate. He has also contributed to the Hindu, south India's top paper, the Hindustan Times, north's India's top paper and to the Illustrated Weekly of India, the top journal of yesteryears. Overall this is fair proof of notability. So many Indian journalists have sketches on the Wikipedia; but few among them have contributed to overseas publications and few have been alluded to in Yahoo New or the Christian Science Monitor--this latter is among the top three journals of the USA.
Some of the editorial comment shows poor literacy. Thus the first line right at the top of the page says: "Look carefully to see the forest through the trees". This is hilarious! How can you see through a tree? Will you cut a hole in the trunk! There is no such expression, but if you do want to use it anyway, it should be rather 'look carefully to see the trees through the forest'.
I could go on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.161.9.173 (talk) 16:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The comment about the illiterate use of English by the self-appointed editor is absolutely correct. The correct expression is 'mistaking the woods for the trees' and it refers to a failure to distinguish general issues from specific details. His focus is precisely on small details, so is yours; and his claim is that small details are falsified. The expression is not used in instances of alleged fraud--which is exactly what his charge is.
Another instance of poor English is the expression 'walled garden'. Most gardens are walled, e.g. the Mughals Gardens in Delhi. Nor is the new information technology meaning applicable here. So what does the masked creature from the animal kingdom mean? Nothing! He is just trying to sound more sophisticated than he is. Anyhow, we'll let that pass; illiteracy is widespread.
For the CSM link click the note 11 and then go to page two. As for Yahoo News, retrieval is more complicated because they have archived the story. I am writing to Yahoo to see how it may be retrieved. Other links such as those referring to Gulf News and Minnesota Post both work and demonstrate how the references are accurate. Again read till the end of the report.
It is obvious that these semi-educated vandals are motivated by personal animus and have neither the ability nor the integrity to judge another individual's work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.161.19.59 (talk) 05:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 17:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No sources provided, no indication of importance, no significant coverage shown, probable original research. — Timneu22 · talk 16:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How much weight should people give to such statements that you make when you state that you don't put in the effort of looking to see whether they are accurate, and by the timing of your edits at most could only have spent three and a bit minutes checking? AFD and Wikipedia don't need editors who don't do their research, and whose unresearched opinions can be so easily seen to be based upon zero effort at all. AFD and Wikipedia need editors who spend more than three and a bit minutes searching for sources before they can confidently and truthfully claim that no sources exist because they've looked and not found any. Uncle G (talk) 21:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, why are you so wound up by this? EEng (talk) 21:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 500,000 hits on Google, in quotes, indicates WP:N --Perseus, Son of Zeus ✉ sign here 16:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 03:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Far too much WP:IINFO an repition of information already part of the Jeopardy! article. Main article already contains information about hosts, announcers, taping locations and episode status in Jeopardy!#Set and Jeopardy!#Episode status.
WP:NOTTVGUIDE, and the set and episode status sections can be reorganized to include the small amount of encyclopedic information from this article that is not already included in the parent article.
Article has been tagged with refimprove for 1.5 years, and the "Personnel", "Syndication, 1974-1975" and "NBC, 1978–1979" sections are entirely unsourced.
WP:NOTINHERITED, and there is little notability related to the broadcast history of any television program that would warrant an entirely separate article from the parent article. Sottolacqua (talk) 16:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. I appreciate the impassioned argument to keep this article and the good faith attempt to comply with the relevant guidelines, but it seems clear this band is in the WP:UPANDCOMING category, not the "already made it" category. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There appears to be one or two links that interview Luke Mathers. No real significant coverage of this band appears to exist: reviews of albums and/or concert tours? I don't see that. I also see youtube listed as references, as well as the same article repeatedly cited (don't let the raw number of "sources" fool you!). Further, external links is filled with every possible site to find the band: YouTube, Facebook, ReverbNation, Twitter, on and on and on. Clearly promotional in tone.
Without significant links showing significant coverage, there's no indication that this band is particularly notable, or that they pass WP:MUSICBIO, or that this article exists in any fashion except to call attention to the band. — Timneu22 · talk 15:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. There's a consensus here that the subject itself is notable. If there are any WP:HOWTO issues, which seems unlikely from the discussion, they can be dealt with through the normal editing process. Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not how-to content. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a HOWTO. It has no encyclopedic content beyond a straight reproduction of the language reference manual. There is no context outside the MS VB family, no discussion of how undef, Null or NaN are evaluated by comparable tests in other languages. The scope is unencyclopedically narrow, focussing only on how to achieve one task, on one platfrom. Fortunately it's not as uselessly patronising as the MSDN article, but that's just MSDN for you. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted by User:JamesBWatson, CSD G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of notability. No sources in article, and almost nothing about it to be found anywhere else (only two Google hits apart from Wikipedia, and those two are not reliable independent sources). PROD was contested by the author of the article without explanation. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG, and who has not earned a single cap for his club, which does not play in a fully pro league. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was nomination withdrawn. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG, and who has not played in a fully pro league. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NEO, no reliable sources, buzzwordy, generally pretty pointless. —Tom Morris 12:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 17:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed PROD. Lengthy, unsourced and unencyclopaedic WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of performances and list of cast lists. No indication in Google News or Books of substantial third party coverage. Even if such coverage does eventuate, it is likely that the article will need rewriting from scratch HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Content has been merged into Kerry Ellis. This page is no longer necessary. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 10:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Logan Talk Contributions 00:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unsuccessful prod; article is unsourced, highly biased and essentially an opinion piece (gotta love those air quotes), and has shown no tendency to improve whatsoever in nearly eight years. Herr Gruber (talk) 09:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was close. This can be brought up at Proposed mergers. Not here. (non-admin closure) Logan Talk Contributions 00:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 07:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article was tagged for csd on grounds that the there was insufficient notability for it to be here, but a look through the article suggested some minor notability if only in local awards. I had left a message with the author of the page asking if he or she intended to work on it, but having gotten no reply I have opted to decline csd deletion and instead file an afd to better determine the article's notability. I have no opinion on the article's subject matter or content, I am merely working to clear out the csd backlog. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. One vote to keep seems uncertain, and suggests he might be notable if more searching was done. One seems to have looked only at the number of sources and not what they are or the depth of coverage, and the other two are bald assertions of notability without any substantive comment or evidence. As this is not a vote those two were discounted entirely. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No reliable third party sources that discuss this person in detail. Plenty of references but none are reliable and of the standard that would make this person meet WP:BIO. X sprainpraxisL (talk) 00:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep and rename. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if it is notable. Could easily be merged into another article. (I'm just the New Page Patroller!) —Tom Morris 02:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 07:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article was nominated for CSD deletion on notability grounds, with an additional citation to the lack of indpendent sources or references (most citations go to their own web-site and PR). However, the article has been around for nearly two years, and although deleted once before on COPYVIO grounds looks enough like it could be slavaged that I think an afd is better suited to determine its fate. I have no opinion on the article's worthiness to remain here, I'm just filing for deletion to help clear out the csd backlog. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No coverage outside wiki mirrors that I can find. Fails notability test unless his position is automatic qualification as notable. JaGatalk 20:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
unreferenced BLP, no RS found LeadSongDog come howl! 20:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to My Chemical Romance. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A number of editors have been edit warring over this biography (under various titles including Mikey way, Michael James Way and Michael Way which I have at least temporarily all redirected to the title being discussed here) and it seems that this is best decided via a discussion such as this. I'll refrain for now from making a recommendation myself, but rather quote 194.150.65.47 (talk · contribs) from my talk page "band members who don't have notability outside of the band don't get an article but their name is redirected to the band's article" -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. -- Cirt (talk) 17:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Completing unfinished nom due to Twinkle fail. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 17:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 07:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This game doesn't seem to be particularly notable. Out of 36 million Yahoo hits, most of them were fansites, cheatsites and download sites loaded with malware. Popularity doesn't necessarily mean notability. Blueboy96 02:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for speedy, may be borderline notable. I am neutral. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 07:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will be happy to see reliable sources establishing the notability of this topic, but the article doesn't provide them. A Google News search generates hits for the combination of the words "Montessori on the iPad", but I found nothing there that's reliable and discusses the topic--if it actually is a topic. I also looked for the individual applications and found nothing that suggests they are notable. In all, I believe this to be an invented topic, with elements that are individually not notable, and mostly an effort (made in good faith, no doubt) to promote a number of applications and the brand name they carry. Drmies (talk) 05:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Geography of the BattleTech universe. (non-admin closure) Logan Talk Contributions 00:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be an article about a fictional place with no real-world significance. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete as promotion. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 05:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Admittedly, a school project paper. Fails WP:N; unsourced. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 04:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was rename to The Transporter (film series). Non-admin closure. —WFC— 17:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No out-of-universe notability, minimal sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 03:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 07:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A Google search turns up...nada, on this particular lake. I believe, from an earlier Google Maps session, that this is a neighborhood lake/stormwater pond in suburban Tampa. Fails WP:N pretty comprehensively as a plain, common, ordinary residential area's lake, I'm afraid. Prod was rejected awhile back, left it to see if it would be improved; it hasn't been, so here we are. The Bushranger One ping only 03:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect. For now redirected to List of streets and roads in Hong Kong. Discussion can take place on that talk page as to whether it should be instead merged to Mong Kok#Streets and markets. Any content worth merging may be pulled form the age history. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redirect to List of streets and roads in Hong Kong - Non notable road, does not meet WP:GNG as it is a minor downtown street without any reliable secondary sources discussing it. ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. -- Cirt (talk) 17:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. The only reliable sources about the subject seem to be preprints by Shepelyansky D.L. and his coauthors - authors of the algorithm, so they're not independent sources.
Previously PROD'ed, but the author removed proposed deletion template himself. Some prior discussion is at Talk:CheiRank. X7q (talk) 14:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Despite associations with famous names, this producer and engineer does not appear notable on his own. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Besides working with famous names, this producer and sound engineer has a regular column in a highly regarded professional magazine, and is a board member of the APRS. Moreover, as an engineer for "famous names" this person has responsibility for putting down the sound of the pieces he records, and thus has a significant, if subtle, influence on the finished work - which is *exactly* why engineers are credited, and many other people working on a given production are not. martijnd (talk) 22:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unremarkable porn performer. Fails WP:PORNBIO and WP:GNG. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 20:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unable to find coverage in any reliable sources to sufficiently establish notability of this Japanese conductor. J04n(talk page) 00:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable single-chapter undergraduate organization. No third party sources to establish notability. GrapedApe (talk) 01:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Nomination withdrawn. Clear that some discussion of applicability of WP:NSONGS to articles with substantial sourcing is required.—Kww(talk) 22:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is another article in the apparent effort to create articles about every song done by Beyonce Knowles. Songs are required to meet WP:NSONGS before having independent articles. WP:NSONGS incorporates WP:N, and provides additional criteria that are necessary for a song to have an independent article: it must have charted, been recorded by multiple notable artists, or won an award. This song has done none of the three. The sources used are simply mentions in album reviews of B'Day, and provide no justification that this song is somehow extraordinary enough to justify overriding the standard guidance contained in WP:NSONGS:Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. Nearly any track on an album by a popular artist is mentioned in reviews of the album itself, and it's unreasonable to create an article per track. Efforts to follow the guidance of WP:NSONGS have been redirected, so requesting a deletion followed by an installation of a protected redirect. For those that will claim that only WP:N must be met, I have to disagree: WP:NSONGS makes no sense if read that way. To pass WP:NSONGS, WP:N must be passed first. If the two guidelines were treated as either/or, the tests in WP:NSONGS would have no effect at all. —Kww(talk) 01:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Inclusion does not equal notability. Unable to locate substantial coverage in secondary sources – just a paragraph here and a bullet point here. Pnm (talk) 04:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to List of characters in Sesame Street. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 23:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A pretty insignificant character. The article even admits that there are no toys of this character, and any Sesame Street character of any significance has jillions of toys. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 01:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Although multiple sources are provided, they are mostly obituaries of a trivial nature. He seems to have been well known is his local community but not generally notable. No prejudice against recreation if better, more substantive sources can be found.Beeblebrox (talk) 02:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Declined A7 speedy. The speedy tag was contested by the creator on the grounds that the subject is expected to pass away shortly and his death is sure to be "covered by newspapers all across the US." But that hasn't happened yet. In my opinion, this does not qualify for speedy deletion, however I am unable to find non-trivial sources about this man in GNews archives. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 16:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." - While the Birmingham News is one organization, it is a major newspaper with a circulation of 300,000. Furthermore, I have provided references where he has was inducted into the Alabama Hall of Fame, had a ship named after him (WH Blount), a charity named after him, Blount - Bowden Charity Classic, and referenced a Vulcan Materials Annual, the largest US producer of construction aggregates, which wrote" he had a significant impact on the company." In total 5 major references for notability.
While I did reference his obituary, [http://obits.al.com/obituaries/birmingham/obituary.aspx?n=william-blount-houston&pid=147764052, it was just to help add detail to his accomplishments as it was very thorough, not to establish notability. I added this Birmingham News article from the editors of the paper to help verify notability - http://blog.al.com/birmingham-news-commentary/2011/01/our_view_virginia_samford_dono.html Again while from the same source, Birmingham News, it's a major news paper and decided on their own to write two articles re Mr. Blount's passing. I also have referenced the NY Times re him continuing as Chairman of Vulcan - http://www.nytimes.com/1986/05/05/business/business-people-president-named-head-of-vulcan-materials.html?ref=vulcanmaterialscompany (Houstonbking (talk) 16:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]
I have added a reference from the NY Times and Washington Post.
He was also covered in this radio program - http://www.wbhm.org/News/2011/archibald.html - 1.13.2011 edition.
Please understand a substantial amount of coverage on his life was in the 70's and 80's which is not online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Houstonbking (talk • contribs) 04:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC) (Houstonbking (talk) 14:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]
I have added two additional references. One from the radio station, WBHM, http://www.wbhm.org/News/2011/archibald.html - 1.13.2011 edition and one from the magazine, Pit And Quarry - http://www.pitandquarry.com/aggregate-producers/vulcan-materials/news/former-vulcan-materials-ceo-remembered-2326 In addition, I am not clear if you are factoring into your perspective that a major tanker, WH Blount, and a charity, Blount-Bowden were named after him. I would think both those items make a strong case for notability.
Houstonbking (talk) 15:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No citations and completely orphaned. Searching for this is difficult but the lack of any real hits in pages of GBooks searches suggests it isn't a real term. At least one would expect a citation to a conspiracy theorist work. Mangoe (talk) 17:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 07:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deprodded based on Allmusic review. However I have found absolutely nothing else about this album in any sources. It didn't chart, wasn't certified and it contains no new material. Precedent is that an Allmusic review isn't enough if no other sources exist. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 17:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 07:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deprodded based on Allmusic review. However, a search finds absolutely no other secondary sources. Precedent is that just an Allmusic review is insufficient. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 17:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. By sheer numbers this would be a "no consensus" decision, but the delete camp has rightly pointed out the various holes in the arguments to keep. The new sources provided give only extremely trivial mentions, for example the L.A. Times coverage consists of a single sentence that mentions they make bologna in Trail and have been for along time and leaves it at that. Well known in Homes County ≠ general notability as defined on Wikipedia. (As an aside I would also mention that I was born and raised in Ohio and lived there for more than 25 years and I've never heard of this before this AFD, so the argument that it is even notable in Ohio strikes me as somewhat flawed.) No prejudice against recreation as a redirect to a brief mention in the Homes County article, which would better reflect the level of attention it has received from reliable sources. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable product, bordering on promotion. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not a notable story or urban legend. The-Pope (talk) 14:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
article is a blatant copy of [30], and it really isn't a lot of relations, no significant cultural, diplomatic or economic relations. the only coverage I could find is multilateral [31]. Those wanting to keep should provide actual evidence of indepth coverage of relations not vague arguments. LibStar (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected." unless something is inherently notable, notability is demonstrated by the depth of coverage which includes indepth articles but also contained in multiple sources. a bilateral relations article hinging on 3 sources is lower on the notability rung. LibStar (talk) 06:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable director. A Google News Archive search returns no nontrivial coverage in reliable sources about the subject. Delete this unsourced BLP per Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Notability (people), and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Cunard (talk) 00:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even if he could find independent, reliable sources for each of the above claims he still wouldn't pass WP:CREATIVE. Perhaps reconsider when he's done some directing. - ManicSpider (talk) 03:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry let me correct you there manicspider, you see when you wrote he and his friends are thinking of making a full movie - maybe 2!, i thought that angered me because they will be released in April and May. Just to let you know. - Greggy 2746. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greggy2746 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a aspiring creative that puffs up their slender resumes and if you are going to insult me i will have none of it and report you for abuse - Greggy 2746. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greggy2746 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]