The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence this player meets either WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 23:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete per consensus and as an unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Page has been unreferenced since its creation in June 2008. Subject fails WP:BIO due to a lack of secondary coverage; all I can find are videos of him on You Tube explaining why Southwestern College is best. Article is also a long-standing orphan, as Nolan is only linked to the Southwestern College (Santa Fe, New Mexico) page. Yoninah (talk) 23:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 22:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These are all non-notable bus stops that fail WP:GNG. A large number of similar VIVA stations were deleted at this AfD. Slon02 (talk) 22:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 22:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article has no third party links beyond one flight school directory and two websites owned by the company. In addition the parent company's Wikipedia article was deleted through the AfD process several months ago due to a lack of third party links. Lastly the parent company has closed Atlanta Pilot Training and the company no longer exists. Andrew Kurish (talk) 22:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. The article was created through the Articles for Creation process and is indeed written in a neutral point of view. It also has a significant number of reliable third party sources, meeting WP:MUSIC criterion #1. (non-admin closure) Alpha Quadrant talk 18:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notability
Article does not meet notability guidelines and is likely an promotional "autobiography" of a non-notable individual. There is one main contributor to the article, who I believe is its subject and thus holds a conflict of interest. He is also the one who created the article in the first place. Really205 (talk) 21:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC) — Really205 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I disagree with you Tom. I was someone who made an edit just yesterday and I've further looked at the articles history and the person(s) who is the main contributor did make edits but, if you look a bit further, they were all minor edits being made as the article was pending approval. So your assumption may very well be wrong. There would have been no one else to make any edits or contributions until it was an actual article which was just a few days ago by the looks of it. There are more than enough credible sources and references throughout the article, and it would be rather disappointing if those newspapers, magazines and network TV and radio journalist were no longer considered credible. I feel that you shouldn't and can't just delete and article because of your personal opinions and/or assumptions which is what you are basing you nomination on. Look at the article and you will see that there are clear and reputable sources backing all information with in it. So if you could please further explain your use of "non-notable", because based on what you said I could send a list of hundreds of "non-notable" people that are in an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.222.244 (talk) 19:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 22:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable musician. 0 hits on Google News. Knowing other famous people does not give a person notability. News article referenced appears to be from a local newspaper. EdwardZhao (talk) 20:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 20:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No indication of notability is given. PROD was removed by the creator. I gave it a week, and no new edits, no new indication of notability. I'm using AFD instead of CSD - A7 just in case there is some evidence of notability out there. TexasAndroid (talk) 19:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily deleted by Peridon.—S Marshall T/C 20:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC) [reply]
Debated whether to nominate for Speedy Deletion. Reads like an advertisement. Nothing really noteworthy here. LAAFan 19:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to San Jose Unified School District. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 00:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Middle school (non-secondary school) lacking in reliable sources to establish notability. See also Common outcomes/consensus on schools; generally a Blue Ribbon school can pass the test, while a generic primary school will not, even if it happens to be named after someone famous. tedder (talk) 18:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
no indication of notability in article Night of the Big Wind (talk) 22:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Irrespective of the reliability of the source proffered, one source is not multiple which is the test that i have to clsoe this duscussion against. The delete votres are therefore the policy based arguments Spartaz Humbug! 05:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
no independent notability shown for this album. no charting or awards. lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. WP:NALBUMS. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages on relases by the same band with the same notability issues:
The result was delete. Courcelles 22:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Recreated over previous AFD (see link). Album and the other added this nom fail the notability requirements of WP:NALBUMS as they have received no coverage in independent reliable sources and should only need a mention on the discography page. Most Now albums released in the US will at least chart on Billboard or be reviewed by Allmusic. Neither of the albums nominated here, as exclusives to a single retailer, have even done that. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 16:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 22:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:MUSIC. Recreated after prod expired. Also previously deleted as A7. Hope that this deletion will stick. Salt the title? Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete all. The keep !votes are basically WP:OTHERSTUFF or other arguments not related to the notability or suitability of these particular articles to the encyclopedia under our policies and guidelines. Rlendog (talk) 17:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the bundling, but these are all related articles by the same single-purpose account, SFLC Soccer Camps. None of these articles presents any sources indicating any kind of notability. - Biruitorul Talk 16:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages:
The result was keep. Consensus here is that more sourcing is required but there's enough at present for the article to meet the requirements of the general notability guideline, and that the article covers a more generic term as opposed to a specific product from a company, or at least that it could do so. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 00:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD of a product. Article creator (who seems to have a conflict of interest as a representative of the company who makes the product) put the following on my talk page:
The author has since made good faith efforts to add in sources, but they include things like registration info of the product and articles that do not mention the subject.
The page appears to contain information that is indeed verifiable such as the manufacturer's webpage and articles describing the individual components (but not Heat-shrinkable sleeve), but there are no sources that provide evidence of notability. After a search, I was able to find this article describing the 45th anniversary of Canusa, the company creating the product. Although heat-shrink sleeves are mentioned several times, they are not discussed in-depth in the article. All in all, does not seem to comply with WP:GNG due to lack of third-party references and WP:PRODUCT as the company itself is not notable. I, Jethrobot drop me a line 16:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Rlendog (talk) 16:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not establish notability and I couldn't find independent sources that cover the subject matter. wctaiwan (talk) 14:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Rlendog (talk) 16:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot find independent sources that cover the subject matter, and the article does not seem to establish notability. wctaiwan (talk) 14:09, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Consensus is fairly clear here. A merge discussion can continue elsewhere, but there's not any consensus to do that here, either. Courcelles 21:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No significant coverage provided and no evidence that I've managed to find (and I have looked!) to demonstrate that the role/rank has been discussed directly and in detail by any third-party sources ╟─TreasuryTag►presiding officer─╢ 13:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was nomination withdrawn. –MuZemike 05:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Most entries are not notable and make up an indiscriminate list without specific inclusion criteria. The notable entries duplicate Category:Video game companies of Sweden. Apparently, a copy of [4]. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 12:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the existence of a category, see WP:CLN; the browsing systems are complementary. One function a list can provide is to identify missing article topics, which the redlinks in this list (or even some of the nonlinks) may be (I don't know yet; you probably don't either). Even if this list is trimmed down only to bluelink articles, it can surpass the category's mere alphabetic title sorting utility by providing annotations, such as date of establishment (or disestablishment), location of headquarters, notable games produced or notable people associated, etc. postdlf (talk) 19:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But I wouldn't consider WP:LISTN at all relevant to that question, and note that it's not talking about lists of articles, but rather lists of sets of possibly non-notable members (such as TV episode lists). Regarding lists of articles (often called navigational lists or article indexes), if it is encyclopedic to categorize articles by a given fact or set of facts, then it's also encyclopedic to list them by the same facts, and it's purely a question of editing judgment as to whether it should be merged into a larger list or stand alone. You can view notability as being satisfied by the companies in the list each being notable, as well as by the organizing facts (the company's industry and home country) being notable.postdlf (talk) 20:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If we keep this is should probably be moved to something like List of Swedish video game companies since the other title seems a little weird in English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.188.209 (talk) 21:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 16:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Courcelles 21:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article recreated after deletion by prod and still no sources. Fails WP:FOOTY guideline of eligibility to play in the FA Cup and no reliable secondary sources have been found to establish notability. The club is not even in the top league for the county. Charles (talk) 09:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 05:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:PROF - seems to be a (no offence intended) bog-standard academic. Cameron Scott (talk) 09:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi .. I would like to know if possible. Why is it, that the link to Encyclopedia of Life is working as an external link in a notable article like "Fungi" [8] but keeps getting rejected and deleted in this article as a "self generated website"!!!G.S. Soliman (talk) 18:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am still getting acquainted with the accomplishments of Ahmed Abdel Azeem. His team have done significant studies and made positive recommendations for the improved public health of the citizens of Egypt. My goal at this point is to include in the Wikipedia article the documentation for his contribution to the welfare of his fellow Egyptians. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 18:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello DonaldRichardSand, THE EOL does not function as Wikipedia and is not a accessible to edit by anyone ..here is how contributors to EOL are chosen "
EOL Rubenstein Fellows are selected through an international competition administered by the Species Pages Group of the EOL, with additional support from an application review committee. More than 60 Fellows are expected to be awarded over the four years of the program, which began in 2010." .. i have posted the links again as external links although i think one of them needs to be used as reference but it keeps getting deleted by some editors so i hope it survives this time .G.S. Soliman (talk) 19:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
but I stopped ! it was trimmed down to almost nothing but then another editor started retrieving reliable-sourced data G.S. Soliman (talk) 21:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I only added a link and it kept getting deleted but now that someone else posted it right it is still there .. OK seems I'm here only to apologizeG.S. Soliman (talk) 21:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doveye71 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is canvassing? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 03:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello
Would anybody consider this awards of him on contribution of community development by Suez Canal University[9]..thanks G.S. Soliman (talk) 10:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC) This research as well [10] G.S. Soliman (talk) 11:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jsfouche : see i'm not editing now .. just proposing links G.S. Soliman (talk) 11:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More papers on Opwall[11] G.S. Soliman (talk) 15:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
and Another link: APS Journals [12] and [www.asplantprotection.org/PDF/ANEPPN/NEPPNEL48En.pdf]
another link: On SpringLink [13] On mycorrhiza [14]
I just don't know if I can post them myself in the article? I respect the agreement.G.S. Soliman (talk) 15:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On Egyptian British Biological Society [15]
G.S. Soliman (talk) 16:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
YEs DonaldRichardSands .. I stay away from actual editing ..the significance of this person is not only in his academics but in the proportion of contribution he presented to advance the science in his area of expertise in Egypt and therefore to the world's database of fungi. Thank you for your patience.G.S. Soliman (talk) 04:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK I hope this works
Abdel Azeem, Ahmed M.; Ibrahim, Mohamed E.; Abdel Moneim, TS; Abo El-Soud, IH; Steffen, Kari; Blanchette, Robert A. (2009), A new strategy to conserve Acacia tortilis subsp. raddiana in South Sinai, Egypt., Ventaa, Helsinki: University of Helsinki
Abdel Azeem, Ahmed M. (2009), First Record of Oidiopsis taurica Causing Powdery Mildew of Capparis spinosa in Egypt, Ventaa, Helsinki: The American Phytopathological Society
Article
Abdel Azeem, Ahmed M.; Ibrahim, TS; Hassan, ME; Saleh, MY (2007), Effects of long-term heavy metal contamination on diversity of terricolous fungi and nematodes in egypt - A case study. WATER AIR AND SOIL POLLUTION, Egypt: University of Helsinki ((citation))
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(help)
Abdel Azeem, Ahmed M.; Ibrahim, TS (2009), Operation Wallacea in Egypt, Diversity of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi in Different Elevation Wadis in Saint Katherine Protectorate, Egypt: Assiut University Journal of Botany
Abdel Azeem, Ahmed M.; Ibrahim, TS (2009), Operation Wallacea in Egypt, A Preliminary Study on Diversity of Fungi in the World Heritage Site of Saint Katherine, Egypt, Egypt: Assiut University Journal of Botany ((citation))
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(help)
and the award of Suez Canal University on his efforts in serving the community [16] based on his academic research as measured to the scarcity of knowledge, research and achievement in his field of expertise in Egypt. G.S. Soliman (talk) 06:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doveye71 (talk • contribs) 06:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was nomination withdrawn. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
notability not demonstrated Withdrawn. Muhandes (talk) 08:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Causes of mental disorders. Consensus is that this fork is not needed and has copyright/OR problems. The redirect allows a later merging of selected content if these problems are addressed. Sandstein 05:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PROD tag removed without explanation by SPA. Article is an original essay Yunshui (talk) 08:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
However, equally, it's a copyvio of the Journal of Medical Hypothesis article and needs to be blanked accordingly, unless and until Dr Pediaditakis is able to provide permission for us to use his text via the WP:OTRS system. This is because anyone could claim to be Dr Pediaditakis, or register an account in his name. We need to be sure that the real copyright owner really does give us permission to use this content.
Since this is independently-published research that appears in an eminently apparently reliable source, once permission has been received there is absolutely no reason why Wikipedia shouldn't host this content.—S Marshall T/C 11:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, I think that Wikipedia ought to have an article on the causes or risk factors for psychological disorders, and indeed it does: causes of mental disorders. The text we're considering here appears to contain worthwhile additions to that topic and I'm quite sure that Dr Pediaditakis' knowledge will be helpful in drafting our treatment of the topic, if he retains his goodwill towards Wikipedia after this somewhat bureaucratic process. There's an impressive list of references to check, too. I think that if the copyright issue can be overcome, then the material itself is fixable, which means that per WP:ATD we shouldn't delete it.—S Marshall T/C 16:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 05:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does not appear to be notable. Lachlanusername (talk) 09:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Courcelles 21:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does not appear to be notable. Lachlanusername (talk) 09:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 05:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this company is notable enough to meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP. Of the sources available, only the one from www.mobile-ent.biz [18] makes an effort to pass as a review, while the others are just repeating the content from the company's press releases, slightly paraphrased if anything. This post [19] is the only thing I could find (other than more press releases), and the content is pretty much the same as the others - frankie (talk) 04:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 21:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
google turns mostly self referencing links St8fan (talk) 07:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 16:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. The article is unsourced and I was unable to find any reliable sources for it via Google, so it appears to fail WP:GNG. Inks.LWC (talk) 04:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Silverchair_discography#Singles per WP:NSUPER. Consider this a no consensus close. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does not appear to be notable. Lachlanusername (talk) 09:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 16:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does not appear to be notable. Lachlanusername (talk) 09:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ironholds (talk) 01:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does not appear to be notable. Lachlanusername (talk) 09:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Silverchair discography. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does not appear to be notable. Lachlanusername (talk) 09:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Education in Puerto Rico. Spartaz Humbug! 05:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can't speedy delete it so have taken it here, the school is not really notable enough in my opinion. Quiggers1P (talk) 16:05, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please advise why would elementary schools not be notable on their own right?
I feel you objection should be explained in the light of the A7 school exception discussion.
Schools are hubs of culture in local communities. Inherently notable to regional players.
A mere conclusory opinion without foundation sounds insufficient.Stapler80 (talk) 16:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Secondary schools, colleges and universities should not be deleted for reasons you have mentioned, but due to the sheer number of elementary schools around the world, I feel that they not notable enough due to the lack of people in the majority of the schools. Quiggers1P (talk) 17:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 05:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Singer of limited notability outside the group Dal Shabet - no significant claims outside the group. Tried redirecting, but a COI editor constantly reverted, so going this route. MikeWazowski (talk) 03:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related page for the exact same reason:
The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 16:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In some ways I want to say this is a hoax, but at the very best, he is not a notable businessperson. What makes this difficult is he goes by "Sean Lucey" early in his career and "Griffin de Luce" later on.
At age 24, one reference says he is a writer at MacWEEK. I can find nothing else that he was a writer there. At age 26, he is CEO of Gryphon Group. The reference is to a review on Cnet. However, the company is long gone and I found only two references to the company.
Fast forward. A reference given to him being the "biggest mac fanboy". Reference doesn't mention him and the video given doesn't mention him in the credits. Says he was CTO, president and founder for Strike.TV. There is an IMDB ref saying the same thing. But, if you goto the website, he isn't mentioned. Website hasn't been updated since 2008.
Fast forward. Now he is called Griffin de Luce. Here is his webpage. He is founder of MetaSamurai.com that also does appletoday.com. Nothing in searches on those sites except the from sites themselves. Also claims to be CTO of LexusHybridLiving.com (nothing found), Green.org (not a real website) and Solar.com (it is run by a different company than Luce's). Bgwhite (talk) 21:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE FROM SUBMITTER: Please note: the entry has been updated with additional references which address the comments and questions of Whpq and Bgwhite.
Primary additions include an article from WebWEEK [1] which quotes Jerry Michalski [2] about the Acquire product. Mr. Michaelski (who served as managing editor of Release 1.0) notes that the product was new and novel in his opinion. The quote is from WebWeek 10-21-96.
A Strike.TV reference will be forthcoming, however if you direct your attention to the reference that is CURRENTLY listed VARIETY: http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117988436?refCatId=1009 ) you will find de Luce listed among the other founders.
The assertion that the subject is not mentioned on AppleToday.com is incorrect. The main page of the site states: "Brought to you by Griffin de Luce, Founder & Publisher"
References to Green.org, Solar.com and LexusHybridLiving.com have been removed until references can be found.
At this time the article MORE THAN SATISFIES the requirement that "all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article." This article contains references to VARIETY, WebWEEK, MacWEEK, BoingBoing, AppleToday.com and CNET.
Finally, the article is NOT A HOAX as posited by bgwhite. Rather, Mr. de Luce changed his name when he sold TGG.COM to J Walter Thompson and moved West to work in Hollywood, CA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sundogsakai (talk • contribs) 10:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Difficult close; should be Delete by weight of numbers but I am very aware of WP:CSB. Nevertheless, whilst it is true that 3VOOR12 is indeed a reliable source, all of the references to this band (and the other) are in the "local" section of the website that deals with Den Haag only; the equivalent, if you will, of a local newspaper. On that basis there seems to be little reason not to consider the Delete votes valid. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does not appear to meet WP:BAND. Singularity42 (talk) 17:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also nominating the following related article: Trisomy (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - the former name of the band
Finally, if this article is deleted, then Template:Only Fate Remains should also be deleted. Singularity42 (talk) 17:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
contribs) 20:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 15:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to assume good faith here, and assume a disputed PROD (the last article was deleted after a PROD, and then the author re-created it). Original reasons: Wikipedia is not a forum, soapbox, or place for personal essays. Singularity42 (talk) 02:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 05:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have reviewed Wikipedia:Notability (films) and have concluded this film doesn't meet notability requirements. Being made in 2000, this movie should have reliable sources other than comprehensive databases, but all I can find is IMDB and an occasional short plot summary at other places. No critics have commented, no reviews. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 02:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Sandstein 05:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious POV-pushing by an editor who only days ago had her topic ban on Arab-Israeli topics lifted - a topic ban that was imposed because of this user's history of disruption, POV-pushing, and anti-Arab racism. There is no indication that Arabic translations of Mein Kampf are a particularly notable topic - most of the cited sources contain only a couple of pages or less on the subject out of hundreds of pages (some only a sentence!), and most of the rest are conservative newspapers rather than scholarly books or journal articles. One of the scholarly sources even states that Mein Kampf did not figure prominently in Arabic-language Nazi propaganda. The lack of notability of this particular translation combined with the transparent attempt on the part of the creator to link Arabs and Nazis makes this a good candidate for deletion. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
“ | There is no indication that Arabic translations of Mein Kampf are a particularly notable topic | ” |
“ | most of the rest are conservative newspapers rather than scholarly books or journal articles | ” |
“ | Obvious POV-pushing by an editor who only days ago had her topic ban on Arab-Israeli topics lifted - a topic ban that was imposed because of this user's history of disruption, POV-pushing, and anti-Arab racism | ” |
“ | The lack of notability of this particular translation combined with the transparent attempt on the part of the creator to link Arabs and Nazis makes this a good candidate for deletion. | ” |
Would anyone care to actually address the issues in the nomination? I pointed out that many of these mentions were trivial and that most of the in-depth sources were not of the quality that we should be asking for in such an exhaustively written-about topic as Nazi history. I also pointed out that the existence of the article creates a NPOV problem through WP:UNDUE, in that we suggest that there is more to say about the Arabic translation than any other translation. None of the keep votes have addressed these comments, instead preferring to cite a policy that doesn't apply here and to complain about the chutzpah I'm showing in daring to nominate an article by Mbz1. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 15:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, WP:NPF, WP:Politician. Delete Me-123567-Me (talk) 01:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect. Rlendog (talk) 15:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does not appear subject is independently notable from The Antlers (band). Perhaps a redirect is in order? Sven Manguard Wha? 01:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep, and continue to expand. Rlendog (talk) 15:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fairly useless article as it stands -- "WPA architecture describes architecture of the WPA?" SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I added a little to the article, including 2 references easily found. Nomination for deletion seems to have been inappropriate, IMHO. --doncram 02:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Adrian Lamo. Content may be merged elsewhere as seen fit. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 03:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article about an inactive website lacks notability Poyani (talk) 01:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. If evidence of notability emerges in the future, an article from those sources can be created from those sources at that time.Rlendog (talk) 15:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Too short article, doubtful notability, no sources. --Postoronniy-13 (talk) 01:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 21:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. I have been unable to find any news articles on the conference, and have been unable to find any reliable sources. The only sources I could find were in lists of conferences or copies of press releases / calls for papers from the people heading up the conference. Therefore, I believe the article fails WP:GNG. Inks.LWC (talk) 01:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 21:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With two possible exceptions the band does not come close to wp:music. The exceptions are criteria 1: one independent review is given by a website that documents experimental music in Northern England. All the other references are self-referential Criteria 2: Only 1 album has been commercially released and it by a fairly marginal/obscure label Porturology (talk) 00:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 05:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a significant establishment. Enthdegree (talk) 00:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It also appears that they are using this Wikipedia article as their homepage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enthdegree (talk • contribs) 00:39, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 00:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No indication of WP:notability. References are either not independent or do not mention him. Google searches do not reveal any significant coverage. Disputed prod noq (talk) 00:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 16:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable fan project, Google shows little substance. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 00:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
another non notable kickboxing events. nothing in gnews and google just reveals event listings and primary sources. being listed in sherdog.com is not sufficient alone to establish notability. LibStar (talk) 07:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, there are many references on this page but only two of them refer to him and one of them is just some search engine. The other one isn't a direct reference to him and doesn't give that much info. Also, can you see where it says 'Author: Alan Whaites'? Hmmm... Island Monkey talk the talk 14:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am the subject of this article and I would very much like it to be deleted. The author tag has been added by others and whenever I have looked at this page it has contained inaccuracies of fact. I don't mind fair comment on my work but I don't think that this article adds any value. Please delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AW1976 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 16:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unable to find reliable, secondary sources to evidence the notability or existence of this voice actress. Some Anime News Network encyc listings, but by precedent those aren't considered WP:RS. Nothing in news/reviews sections at NN, nothing I could find reliable via Gweb/Gnews/Gbooks. Sourcing difficulty increased by the signficantly larger amount of coverage on the physician and the Olympic sailor of the same name. Additional sources welcome, as always. joe deckertalk to me 17:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 16:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This person does not appear to meet our general notability guideline. Of the references in the article, one is to the "about him" page on his company's website; the others are all about his relatives. While he may have notable family members, that does not mean he is. A Google News search returns no results, and Google Scholar and Google Web do not give anything that I can see contributes to his notability. LadyofShalott 17:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While the source may be sighted as "about him" it does not diminish Dr. Padulo's contributions to the HR field in founding the company. His background and work in both the profit and non-profit sectors merit this wikipedia page. While the field of HR may not receive as much coverage or attention as other industries, it is none the less essential, and given that dr. padulo is an infleuntial member of the field, the page should be allowed to exist as is. ---Thassonjee (talk) 17:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)thassonjee[reply]
The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 16:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The reference provided with the article only mentions that something will be auctioned by the company--that's not surprising. I found no relevant hits on the interwebz that provide significant discussion of the company. Drmies (talk) 18:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 16:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This whole article seems to be something of a content fork to me: all of the information here is repeated at List of artists who reached number one on the UK Singles Chart, and it would be entirely possible simply to list in that article which artists were American. The article does not list any sources that justify why this is anything other than a non-notable intersection (in fact, it doesn't list any sources at all). I've checked Google News to see if I could find any refs that could establish the notability of this subject, but there doesn't seem to be any. It has been 3½ years since this article was lasted AfDed, and the consensus from that discussion was that it should be kept and cleaned up. However, since that time, it has barely been altered at all. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn per addition. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 23:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Best charting single got to #78 on the singles charts. Granted, there won't be many online references to him, but I'm curious as to where we draw the line. WP:BAND says that an act may be notable if they've charted a single. However, the Joel Whitburn books are chock full of artists who only charted once in the lower 1/4 of the chart, never charted again and faded into the past. And about 99% of these artists who never made it past the #75 range are completely unheard of in the Googleverse. I would add in this case that he recorded for a very small indie label.
I can't find any BLP info besides a date of birth in the Whitburn country singles book, so I would think that if there's almost nothing besides Whitburn to verify that he even exists, then a #78 single over 30 years ago (on a chart that currently stops at #60, for the record) probably doesn't cut it since we know nothing else about him. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 21:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 19:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Apart from the primary meaing of Mary, mother of Jesus, there is really only one other genuine meaning, the cocktail. This can be dealt with by a hatnote. PatGallacher (talk) 22:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As this dab page is the only thing that actually points to "Mary ever virgin" this is not worth making a fuss about. PatGallacher (talk) 17:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]