The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An article was deleted in 2007, and this new article is unreferenced and doesn't resolve the problems which led to the original deletion. It doesn't seem to be a widely recognised or defined music genre. Peter E. James (talk) 00:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a notable piece of software (see WP:NOTE). It is a trivial program (file search + chi squared test library) put up on the author's website and referred to by a couple of non-notable blogs, and by a couple of indiscriminate software catalogues. Quietbritishjim (talk) 23:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Player has not played higher than Scottish Second Division, fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Adam4267 (talk) 23:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. SudoGhost™ 23:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not sufficiently notable for an article. The article is about itself! The main reference is itself! It does not state notability. It would probably be used as a reference someplace, but there is nothing here that suggests it should be a stand-alone article. Might be summarized and merged someplace else. Student7 (talk) 23:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very limited mention in reliable sources, and then only as an expert for quote. Appears to fail WP:BIO; article itself can thus never be more than boosterism. Danger (talk) 22:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A rapper with a myspace page and according to that myspace page [1] he is unsigned. PTJoshua (talk) 21:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Sandstein 07:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indiscriminate trivia/recreation of deleted material —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 21:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
promote some entity, person or product Sehmeet singh (talk) 21:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. I'm sorry Sassy54 but someone has to take note of your game and cover it in reliable secondary sources before we can have an article on it. I myself have invented a few games but I wouldn't put them on Wikipedia. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some kids made up a game in their backyard pool. It is probably fun but I don't think it belongs here PTJoshua (talk) 20:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article was previously deleted at this AfD. A DRV consensus overturned a later CSD G4 deletion in light of new information, and the recreation's expansion. Please see the DRV before commenting here. This matter is submitted to AfD for new consideration. This is a procedural relisting, so I abstain. Xoloz 15:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Nlsephiroth 21:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC) "[reply]
The result was delete. I'm sorry Juno1827736 but the consensus here is that the subject isn't notable yet. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed PROD. I have searched for independent reliable sources to support this gallery's notablilty, but cannot find any. PROD was removed by author with edit summary that the notability can be verified, but did not provide reliable sources. Singularity42 (talk) 20:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Personal observation, this diesn't look like a baboon to me. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed PROD. An online search of this operating system reveals no third-party, reliable sources. It is simply not notable yet. Singularity42 (talk) 20:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article is still in pre-production, WP:NFF BOVINEBOY2008 19:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect. Nominator redirected the article him/herself; the useful information in the article has apparently already been merged. If not, the history is still available to merge from. Rlendog (talk) 01:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relation does not confer notability. Puckeshinwa's main claim to fame is that he is Tecumseh's father. Uyvsdi (talk) 19:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]
The result was merge to Tecumseh. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relationships do not confer notability. She is only listed here as being the mother of Tecumseh, so what little information about her should be added to his article Uyvsdi (talk) 19:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Primary Schools are very uncommon on wikipedia, and there is no real content on the page anyway. Quiggers1P (talk) 19:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 16:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another user tagged with a PROD questioning the notability of this film. PROD was disputed with no reason given. Eeekster (talk) 23:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 17:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
a sporting event that gets no coverage outside kickboxing sources. 1 gnews hits and all google reveals is sources connected to kickboxing and listings. being on youtube or televised or having notable fighters does not grant automatic notability. fails WP:GNG also nominating:
major newspaper, or major sports news site (that is not connected to kickboxing). anything indepth and independent of kickboxing. LibStar (talk) 02:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not add to notability of this article. LibStar (talk) 03:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Holtek. seems the best solution, per EdoDodo DGG ( talk ) 00:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of the article (a series of microcontrollers) fails WP:N. The article does not have any references and the external link it has does not indicate notability since it is a primary source. Searching for Holtek AND HT48RXX on Google Web returns 10 pages of 100 results, but none appear to be sources that can evidence notability. The majority appear to be data sheets, mentions in parts catalogs, and mirrors of the Wikipedia article. Searching Google News, no results were returned; Books returned a book republishing Wikipedia content; and Scholar, one mention in a university's teaching materials. Rilak (talk) 09:00, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are no references for this and a google search turned up nothing on this person. On the talk page the author admits that this is a pen name for an unpublished author. PTJoshua (talk) 17:50, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable blog jsfouche ☽☾Talk 17:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn with no delete !votes. Rlendog (talk) 19:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced BLP of a baseball historian. He seems to pop up periodically in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch as the local baseball expert, but I don't think that he passes the notability bar set by WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. Pburka (talk) 15:28, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Biography of non-notable living model/actress with no "sourcing" but IMDb. Orange Mike | Talk 15:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to peruse for sources in Google Books and Google News, or even the regular Google. I found nothing, nothing at all, for either term, Ssejsantokotha or Smritokotha (besides wikimirrors and some odd website also in the EL section). Drmies (talk) 15:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this businessman meets the notability guidelines. I can find very little on him in a google search, and no significant coverage in reliable sources. Perhaps others know more. BelovedFreak 13:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 09:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Original reason for PROD was "This is a neologism with no encyclopaedic value." PROD was removed with the reasoning "Though it may seem as neologism, it's a campaign, and quite notable." In response, I would ask, who has defined the notability of this term? What is it a campaign towards? Where are the references to show that this has any enduring value beyond the last 6 months or so? – PeeJay 12:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't find any source - so per WP:RS. Articles claim one of the greatest saint of India should be sourceable. Maybe a user with more knowledge about Hinduism could proof the article. A speedy has been declined. Ben Ben (talk) 12:02, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Courcelles 09:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Poorly sourced biography, full of peacock puffery (my favorite: "he always stood like an unshakeable mountain, what come may, till the matter settled as just and justified."). Notability per WP:ANYBIO dubious. bender235 (talk) 11:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 09:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Blatant self promotion for a guest house, written by user with same name as the subject. The house itself is not notable, and is typical of thousand of others in Queensland. (That's why they're called Queenslanders). No references, the few that are listed do not even mention the place. Tone of the article is largely promotional. PROD was removed by creator without the issues being addressed. Dmol (talk) 11:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 07:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A Italian-Australian writer. Has written one novel, Mezza Italiana. There are references to the book, but none to the author. Was deleted in April 2011. Re-created article has one new reference. Bgwhite (talk) 08:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Moved to user space. nancy 08:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. The page is just a how to guide on editing Wikipedia articles. Inks.LWC (talk) 07:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. There is clearly a consensus that this subject now meets WP:AIRCRASH. Rlendog (talk) 01:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article concerns a non-notable crash, failing to meet criteria set out in WP:AIRCRASH. It also fails WP:GNG and falls foul of WP:NOTNEWS - even the news reports were scanty, tending to be repeats of a news service, and there has been no follow-up coverage. Other mentions found tend to be in databases documenting all air crashes. YSSYguy (talk) 06:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible that someone within the company did the deletion for public relations? Suggest recreating that article, then incorporating this into it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.200.26.138 (talk) 18:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 09:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Declined prod, references are passing mention or blurbs attached to articles/posts by her. No significant coverage as far as I can see. --Nuujinn (talk) 06:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. After 21 days we have 2 comments. One says there is "significant coverage" the other say there isn't. If this is renominated I would urge anybody !voting "keep" to present the "significant" coverage in the discussion so it can be evaluated. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not sufficiently notable. Sources are directory listings from Film.com and Zap2it, a dead link and a website (DVD Verdict) that I'm not convinced is reliable. There is insufficient out-of-universe notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 00:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 16:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have found no reliable sources covering this cross, and as a result it is not sufficiently notable. Annatalk 17:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Withdrawn by nominator. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 19:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Book does not exist, most recent source no longer mentions it, and Shadows in Flight is now announced as a novel, contradicting the assumption that it was going to be a short story Maratanos (talk) 05:15, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maratanos (talk) 05:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was based upon the arguments regarding original research ans synthesis. Several contributors noted that this was not covered in the sources provided as a unified concept. While additional sources were provided during this discussion, the existing material was not covered by those sources. Delete as it exists now, with no prejudice against a new article written from these sources. Aaron Brenneman (talk) 02:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The previous attempt took place in 2007, and Wikipedia is a great deal more informed now as to what is and is not suitable. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 04:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*I created this page as a result of a malformed AfD. ThemFromSpace 05:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC) [reply]
Keep but (a) insert a warning at the top of the page that more references are needed and (b) remove entries which aren't about a notable work / collection / creator. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Term appears to have originated with a local high school meteorology club, no reliable sources, no indication of use outside the Dublin, Ohio organization. Acroterion (talk) 03:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
((Merge to ))
The result was delete. Courcelles 09:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to fail WP:NSONG as it has not charted. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Constructicons. Sandstein 07:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Minor fictional character that does not appear to have significant third-party sources to assert notability. See, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Shadow (Transformers). Black Kite (t) (c) 01:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 08:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Minor fictional character that does not appear to have significant third-party sources to assert notability. See, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Shadow (Transformers). Black Kite (t) (c) 01:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. No evidence provided that he meets the requirements of WP:MUSICBIO or WP:BIO, despite the large number of protesting comments by various WP:SPA accounts and IP editors. Jayjg (talk) 08:47, 24 July 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)) . |
Disputed PROD. 1) Fails WP:MUSICBIO. 2) Whether or not this person's company meets WP:COMPANY (I do not think it does), this person would still fail WP:BIO. 3) PROD was disputed on basis that he composed a song that charted nationally, but a) outside of a local newspaper's interview with this person, I can only find one hit that supports he composed this song and I'm not sure how reliable it is, and b) I can find no support outside of the local paper's interview that reliably indicates the song charted (specifically, Billboard, the chart in question, says it never charted). Singularity42 (talk) 01:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep Good banter! It should be noted that the newspaper article is from the San Antonio Express-News, a well recognized news source established in 1865 and the 3rd largest newspaper by circulation in Texas. They have offices in various Texas cities and Mexico City as well. That being said, it can be assumed that it is a credible source of information and taken a little more seriously than a just "local newspaper". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.200.0.106 (talk • contribs) — 137.200.0.106 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
*Keep I agree with the notion that BMI is a reliable and notable source of gathering information on whether or not someone has interest as a writer in a particular piece of musical work. BMI contains a consistently mantained catalog of registered musical works. Music publishing companies rely on the information contained in the BMI registration catalog in determining whether a writer is eligible to receive a publishing deal based on his or ownership in a particular song or collection of songs. The way I see it, you have a reliable source showing the article subject is a songwriter for a particular song, another reliable source showing that particular song made it on a national music chart, and another independent source confirming both of those facts. Notable. Balla33225 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC). [reply]
Comment Lets assume that is true, that does not change the facts, it's an attack on a legitimate article, the composition charted on a major music chart and featured two grammy award winning recording artists. Charted is Charted and the BMI link referenced above confirms the subject's involvement in what is a notable composition. Period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.108.80.197 (talk) 19:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if that was true no one would survive AFD and as you can see many do, because nothing is perfect not even AFD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.108.80.197 (talk) 19:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The logical rough consensus is "Charted is Charted" and the BMI link referenced above confirms the subject's involvement in what is a notable composition. How many times is the re-release stated above, not only that there are other works listed as well. Major Labels are not going to be interested in someone with no credible background. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.108.80.197 (talk) 20:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment personally I think if either one can be used as a reference than it should be, because if there was nothing there both references would state that. He has credits with a Major, its pretty clear Labels like Def Jam use producers an writers like him all of the time, that's why all you have to do is look and you can find credits for this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.108.80.197 (talk) 20:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Billboard.com doesn't show the song charted, however there are numerous instances where charted songs/artists show up in the same manner on their website. Billboard.biz is the official page of their print publication and chart archive. When you search for the song, it brings up four results that indicate what charts the song appeared on. However, you cannot personally view the charts without subscribing. A third, independent and reliable major newspaper reports that the song charted and provides a position. The burden of proof seems to indicate the song charted more so than the fact that it didnt, as it can be safely assumed that the newspaper was able to get past the paywall and gather exact data about the song's chart performance and report it to the general public (people like you and I who lack such tools at our disposal). Personally, i don't feel my wikipedia editor sleuth-skills match up with those of a major news publication, so I'm inclined to agree with the facts of that news article coupled with the fact that billboard.biz at least shows a list of charts the song appeared on. With that said, the consensus should be that the song did indeed chart.137.200.0.106 (talk) 21:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My vote still stands Keep because enough evidence has been presented and everyone who voted keep did so with logic in mind, it did chart. And it is in-proper for some who voted delete to continue an argument that has clearly been proven. We can all just move on and focus on the AFDs that are really in need of deletion...Great job everyone the Deletes and the Keeps..topic meets Criteria for composers and lyricists WP:BAND 74.108.175.229 (talk) 22:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)— 74.108.175.229 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment Now we have a consensus that Branson was a composer of a song that indeed appear on a national music chart. With that said, I see him meeting not just one, but two of the criteria of WP:COMPOSER: 1) Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition and 3) Has had a work used as the basis for a later composition by a songwriter, composer or lyricist who meets the above criteria. It is feasible to argue that he fails #1 but impossible to argue that he fails #3 given the fact that his work was re-released in collaboration with lyricists who meet the criteria (Rick Ross , The-Dream and Bun B : All notable lyricists who meet the WP:COMPOSER criteria). While it may be a matter of opinion in regards to whether Richie passes criteria number 1 (I think he does), it is a matter of fact that his work was "used as the basis for a later composition by a songwriter, composer, or lyricist who meets the above criteria." Therefore, he passes WP:COMPOSER]. My !vote to keep remains, especially since the argument to do so continues to strengthen. UncommonlySmooth (talk) 22:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)— UncommonlySmooth (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The result was no consensus. With n o consensus whether the company is notable or not, the article is kept by default. The concerns related to spammy tone seem to have been addressed. Sandstein 07:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Courcelles 08:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Prod removed. Non-notable individual; fails WP:POLITICIAN William S. Saturn (talk) 19:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 08:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dance-related article by an SPA that seems to be original research. I would normally suggest merging it to Ballroom dance, but nowhere is the term mentioned in that article. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 04:44, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. As in "not delete"; subsequent editorial consensus may still find a merger preferable. Sandstein 07:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:GNG as a stand-alone topic (no multiple reliable secondary sources with broad topic coverage). The existing sources all relate to the release of SDK, and do not cover the topic itself. The amount of information does not warrant a WP:SPLIT from Deus Ex. The article does not introduce any new verifiable information not covered by Deus_Ex#Modding. Therefore, it also fails WP:CFORK. There is a large modding community for Deus Ex, as seen on ModDB, for example. This could in theory be used to make a "List of Deus Ex mods" article. However, WP is not an indiscriminate list of links and there is only one notable Deus Ex mod -- The Nameless Mod. Therefore, I propose the article for deletion, and salvaging/merging any reliably verifiable content to the Deus Ex article. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 07:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 08:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
another kickboxing event that receives no reliable coverage in third party sources. LibStar (talk) 14:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 08:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fails Wikipedia:Notability (events). A sculpture whose only significance is that the mayor broke it by accident. Only news for a slow news days, and completely forgotten one day later. No lasting effects, mere sensationalism, and perhaps even BLP concerns (it suggests that Macri may be a corrupt politician, and the source is a biased newspaper). By the way, the third reference is Caiga Quien Caiga, a humoristic talk show. Cambalachero (talk) 13:56, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 16:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per request made on talk page by IP here:
I make no comment on my opinion of whether this article should be kept or deleted. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 16:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article fails to address WP:GNG with reliable sources. Checking GBooks, the Grasdorf Plates are mentioned in a couple of sensationalist books such as "Almanac of the Infamous, the Incredible, and the Ignored"[13] which are in the business of puffing up poorly sourced UFO encounters into something that the incredulous might want to buy and tales of these events in dubious sources are not a rationale for encyclopaedic notability unless with verifiable wider impact. I find no impact on GNews and no evidence in the sources available that the plates were authenticated as being of historic interest or more than modern fakes. Fæ (talk) 12:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Its a legitimate mystery. Article needs to be improved, not deleted. The plates may be, indeed, almost certainly are, modern fakes, however the effort and expense gone into the hoaxmakes them noteworthy in itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EnemyPartyII (talk • contribs) 04:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 07:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
another non notable kickboxing event. nothing in gnews, nothing in major Australian search engine trove [14], and nothing in major Australian news website [15]. fails WP:GNG. it seems the Australian media forgot to cover this event. LibStar (talk) 15:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Courcelles 08:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:CORP. a mere 3 gnews hits [16], one of these articles could be considered in depth. but there is really no other third party coverage besides local newspapers on this. it's a small company of 22 people and revenue of a mere 1,5 million GBP a year, and has existed for 4 years. nothing particularly notable about this company. LibStar (talk) 16:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 16:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not updated since 2003, download links not on the site anymore. Smile4ever (talk) 16:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 08:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:N Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 17:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 08:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
another non notable kickboxing event that gets no indepth reliable third party coverage. all google shows is WP mirror or fighting sources. nothing indepth third party. fails WP:GNG LibStar (talk) 16:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 08:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regional real estate/insurance salesman, appears to fail WP:BIO. Also nominating his brother, who also has an article:
—Disavian (talk/contribs) 20:54, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 08:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a local reporter who fails WP:CREATIVE. Includes no proper sources: they're all primary (e.g. YouTube videos of him reporting) or unreliable (e.g. his bio on http://jamesvalles.com/). I can still find no independent coverage of this person. Probably self promotion. First discussion closed without consensus. Pburka (talk) 19:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteDoes not appear to satisfy WP:BIO. Needs more reliable and independent sources with significant coverage. Edison (talk) 20:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 16:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apparent attempt to create a "Colombian" brand of emerald, as evidenced by the contributor's username "Nation branding." While there may be a place for an article focusing on Colombian emeralds, this appears to verge on advertising. No sources (user is having trouble with wikimarkup, so apparent sources are meant to be wikilinks). Acroterion (talk) 23:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Spartaz Humbug! 07:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This one isn't just your run of the mill arbitrary list of topics, rather it is an arbitrary list of lists. The inclusion of what goes into this article appears to be completely haphazard (I've removed some of the most unrelated links from the Economics section, several of which appeared to be spam inserted with the purpose of SEO) and likewise, if one did think of topics (GDP?) that would possible belong here many of them are not included. This kind of total arbitrariness isn't surprising since this kind of WP:COATRACK does not and basically cannot have reliable sources which would back it up. Additionally, there's nothing this list does that cannot be done with a category (and sub categories) which would be much more appropriate. Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article is certainly useful though it does need editing for completeness, relevance and focus. For someone looking to quickly rank countries on various parameters, this is the place; List of Lists etc, are too vast and general for the purpose. VivekM (talk) 13:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was withdrawn. Nominator withdraws. (non-admin closure) Niteshift36 (talk) 01:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Subject was an editor with UPI. I can find articles written by him or mentioning that he was somewhere, but no significant third party coverage of him as a person. The most extensive coverage was his 4 paragraph obituary. Overall, it appears that he fails WP:CREATIVE. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]