The result was redirect per WP:SNOW. Marasmusine (talk) 08:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Insubstantial, low quality article about a non-notable subject. - JRheic (talk) 22:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was rename or merge. There is at any rate no consensus to delete the article outright; the solution to the problem posed by the article title can be found by editorial means. Sandstein 05:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Erroneous article. There is not, nor ever has been, such a position as United States Ambassador to North Korea. Nor is there likely to be such a position in the forseeable future, given the state of relations between the United States and North Korea. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 21:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. 15:41, 5 July 2011 Phantomsteve (talk | contribs | block) deleted "Maryum Azmi" (Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.maryumazmi.com/maryumazmi.htm (CSD G12)) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unable top find any coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. J04n(talk page) 21:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article does not contain any citations. Delete unless reliable outside sources can be found as described by WP:REF. --Orman.michael (talk) 02:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 17:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Page asserts that it is: 'Not created for Promotion or Advertising, it is meant for Knowledge' but this doesn't seem to establish notability and reads as an advert for someone with a clear COI. Reichsfürst (talk) 21:37, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Tone 17:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
sounds like a commercial Krischan111 (talk) 20:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge to Criticism of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. A couple of notes:
I'm going to redirect this, but merges are editorial only, so the discussion now must move to the target article's talk page, Thanks for coming, Aaron Brenneman (talk) 11:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The topic title is framed to highlight negative coverage of this sect. This is inherently contrary to our core policy of WP:NPOV and so constitutes an improper WP:POVFORK of the main article. Warden (talk) 19:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC) Warden (talk) 19:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. I,m sorry Pln9mg but the consensus here is that he's not notable at this time. Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The references available fail to show any significant coverage of this lawyer, they are just very brief mentions regarding certain cases. Other than those I could only find this post - frankie (talk) 19:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
William Kroger is an active advocate of the medical marijuana and cannabis legalization movement in Los Angeles. The nature of his cases and his involvement in cases that are on the cutting edge of legal decisions regarding privacy, drug law and drug legalization are what make him a notable figure and the reasons why his article should stand. He is one of the individuals responsible for drafting the medical marijuana ordinance in Los Angeles, which was cited in reference No. 6 (http://www.tokeofthetown.com/2011/05/charges_dismissed_against_marijuana_dispensary_ope.php). Kroger has been quoted in The Huffington Post, ABC News -- he is recognized as a subject matter expert in matters of drug legalization and the legality of medical marijuana. If you look at the articles cited, he is often the attorney representing medical marijuana dispensaries and gives advice to growers and dispensers through his YouTube channel. Also, the facts of the thetokeofthetown.com post are included in the 10th reference (http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2011/05/marijuana_case_inglewood.php). - Pln9mg (talk 21:00, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just "incidental" that he's part of the case, and it's not like he was just some lawyer that happened to represent these dispensaries and growers. He was sought out by medical marijuana dispensaries and by growers to represent them -- why? Because he has a track record of knowing and being a part of the legal mechanisms that made medical marijuana legal in Southern California a reality. He's recognized as a subject matter expert by the media. If his notoriety is "incidental" because of the circumstances that surround him and because of that he's not worthy of a wikipedia page, by that test it could be argued that almost anyone of any note would not be. I also argue again that the work that Kroger is doing, that has been reported in the media, is important and noteworthy. Also, should it be a strike against him is that he doesn't have a PR team that can land him profiles in The Los Angeles Times and The New Yoker? - Pln9mg (talk 23:41, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I reiterate my previous points and I reiterate that William Kroger is notable. This discussion is going around in circles. We are at an impasse. - Pln9mg (talk 19:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.95.113.235 (talk) [reply]
The result was delete. Tone 17:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With all respect for the rabbi, but he is not noteworthy. He is just the head of a marginal publishing house. His great ancestry does not make him noteworthy either. Debresser (talk) 19:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was : Speedily deleted - hoax. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 07:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article is un-sourced, and contains extremely dubious road signs, specifically those related to skiing and snow chains. In light of the signs that are extremely unlikely to actually be from Egypt, and the overall lack of sources for this article, I believe it should be deleted as misinformation. Monty845 18:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 17:44, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot find any third party sources to support this BLP, nor to establish notability. Subject has two books but these are published by www.createspace.com, a self-publishing facility - frankie (talk) 17:38, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Medicine for a Better Tomorrow is a credible 3rd party source with information, actually. And anyways, there is always a Global TV news article and a Globe and Mail article that can be added as sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.75.250.45 (talk) 03:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete, criterion G3, blatant hoax. The key word is false equivalent. If this show were legitimate, Nickelodeon would not let it slip under our radar: there would be lots of info about it online. However, there's nothing online except this article. —C.Fred (talk) 02:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FANCRUFT. ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫Share–a–Power[citation needed] 17:38, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 00:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable building Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:26, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article does not meet any of the requirements in WP:GNG. At no point in time has this building received coverage from reliable and notable sources. --Rjhymel (talk) 16:55, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable game Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Only because it has been around since 2006 so there obviously is no issue. KING OF WIKIPEDIA - GRIM LITTLEZ (talk) 08:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 17:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 00:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Advertisement for minor film investment company. Orange Mike | Talk 16:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —Tom Morris (talk) 17:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not demonstrate that topic meets notability requirements of WP:NHOCKEY or WP:GNG Oonissie (talk) 16:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This player meets the first requirement in WP:NHOCKEY. Two different reliable sources show that he played in one game in the Elitserien league. HockeyDB and Elite Prospects--Rjhymel (talk) 17:10, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Advertisement for non-notable band, created by their manager's role account (since blocked). Orange Mike | Talk 16:53, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 00:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not demonstrate that topic meets notability requirements of WP:NHOCKEY or WP:GNG Oonissie (talk) 16:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 17:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Buch of reasons: Barely referenced; only references appear to be promotional or unrealiable. Reads like a resume. Non-notable person. Also terrible grammar and mistakenly categorized in Category:People. PROD was declined by article's creator, who appears to be a SPA. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 16:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —Tom Morris (talk) 16:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Subject of article has not at notability standards of WP:GNG Oonissie (talk) 16:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged an unsourced since 04-2010. Searches on "Northumberland Strait microclimate" in Google Books and Scholar yield zero hits, apparently a non-notable topic. If sources are to be found this would probably be better merged --Nuujinn (talk) 16:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. BigDom 08:56, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Although there has been significant coverage of Wafah Dufour, it is my opinion that she is not notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. For better or for worse, her claim to fame is that she is related to Osama Bin Laden. As a singer/songwriter, she is unsigned and has not released a record. As a reality TV star, her show was never produced. I'm not sure what would constitute notability as a model. If a person has significant coverage, we presume there is notability, but I think that she falls into the category of What Wikipedia Is Not. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Bin Laden had very many relatives. Do we need to have an article for each one? I'd say her mother, who also has an article about her, is arguably more notable due to the fact that she wrote a book. Which brings me to me next point: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Perhaps Wafah Dufour will become notable in the future, but it is equally possible that her first album will never come to fruition. Extrapolating from this phrase, "In particular, if reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual," my feeling is that we should delete the article. I look forward to hearing others' views. GentlemanGhost (talk) 15:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 17:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:BIO and WP:ATHLETE. sources are only primary sources. could not find any reliable sources. nothing in gnews. nothing in major Australian search engine trove and nothing in major Australian news site [6]. he's only had 7 fights and none of these fights were top level events. LibStar (talk) 16:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. sourcing issues do not appear to have been addressed so the delete side wins it. Can i remind the participants that casting aspertions on the motivations and actions of other users could be a good way to get your votes discarded so please don't do it. Spartaz Humbug! 19:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, this is a blatant use of the encyclopedia for event promotion. Using a poster to illustrate the page demonstrates the slippery slope issues at play. Not all sporting events are notable. Provided sources for event are sports blogs. As I stated in the AfD procedure for this event's predecessor (which has already occurred and not drawn significant resonance from the kickboxing media): "Filling in a redlink on a notable fighter's kickboxing record seems a low bar for inclusion." Since the event hasn't occurred, WP:CRYSTAL is also in play here. BusterD (talk) 13:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
— BusterD (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Cyperuspapyrus (talk) 16:17 CET, 2 July 2011
The result was delete. Courcelles 11:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unreleased film with casting announcements but no evidence that it has started shooting. Fails WP:NFF. Disputed prod. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete; only significant author has requested deletion. Would be happy to refund this at your user page if you want to keep working on it. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article title could be "List of Tamil and Japanese words that sort of sound the same and have kind of the same meanings". There's no relation at all between Tamil and Japanese. It would be drawing a long bow to suggest this could be WP:MERGEd into False cognate. With greatest respect to the editor who started the article, this is at best very interesting original research. Shirt58 (talk) 12:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I started this article, and I partly agree with the above comments. Scholars have long debated the connection between Japanese and Tamil, but to rule off by saying "There's no relation at all between Tamil and Japanese" is ridiculous. And "The Japanese romanization isn't even correct for many of these." if you mean 'ou' instead of 'ō', that is a common transliteration style used as it forgoes the need of having to use the diacritic mark for elongated.
I agree that the article should be deleted, not for the above reasons, but because I have yet to find a near exhaustive list of cognates, while Japanese and Tamil show structural similarities (I speak both), because of their outside influence from Chinese and Sanskrit respectively it is hard to draw definite conclusions. Time to hit the Susumu Ouno sensei's books.
--Avedeus (talk) 15:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For all of them that doubt, http://books.google.com/books?id=sD-MFTUiPYgC&pg=PA106&lpg=PA106&dq=Japanese+and+Tamil+cognates&source=bl&ots=hlGla6xLXJ&sig=b1hCau2V95HHAKYIkcmQ8IarqwU&hl=en&ei=iTsPTp2qFoi1hAeU-ZyCDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CEAQ6AEwBzgK#v=onepage&q=Japanese%20and%20Tamil%20cognates&f=false, nevertheless, you can delete it guys.--Avedeus (talk) 15:41, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. BigDom 08:56, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly I don't think this subject is notable and it is worth pointing out that the chief contributor, though not creator, is a user named Charliemorrow. Reichsfürst (talk) 11:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this page should be deleted. The only semi-reliable source on Charlie Morrow that I could find was a website created by him himself, http://www.cmorrow.com/. The article itself looks as if it were copy and pasted. In other words its not put together very well. It could use improvement and more reliable sources.--Sarah.Maretich (talk) 14:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(July 5, 2011) Charles Morrow is an extremely important figure in avant-garde music of the latter 20th century, both for his own compositions as well as his activities in the field, e.g. the New Wilderness Foundation, EAR Magazine (one of the pioneering publications devoted to experimental music). In fact there is in entry for him in The Grove Dictionary of American Music, an extremely significant and authoritative reference source. The new 3 CD set just issued by Phill Niblock's XI label (Experimental Intermedia) should do a great deal toward rectifying Morrow's seeming neglect in recent years. This article certainly should not be deleted. Hopefully I can find some time later this month to make it conform to Wikipedia standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.10.249 (talk) 21:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. BigDom 08:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article was the subject of an AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nickerson Family Association) over three years ago. As the archived discussion indicates, there was weak support for keeping the article, with
The revision history shows no changes since September 2009, when a WP:SPA added more unreferenced detail. It's July 2011, and the hoped-for improvement in secondary sources during the last AFD has not come to past. With its only source a primary source, and no evidence of notability established in the otherwise unreferenced article, it is clearly a candidate for AFD. 67.101.5.92 (talk) 10:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. BigDom 08:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable incident, no injuries, fails WP:EVENT, see also WP:AIRCRASH. Contested PROD. JohnCD (talk) 10:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete per WP:SNOW. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marasmusine (talk • contribs) 08:07, 3 July 2011
PROD-contested by article creator. Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, guidelines at WP:GAMECRUFT. A single item from a video game is decidedly not notable enough for an encyclopedia article. elektrikSHOOS 10:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Holtek. Courcelles 11:56, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of the article (a series of microcontrollers) does not meet WP:N. The article has no references, only an external link to the vendor's website. As a primary source, this external link does not evidence notability. Searching Google Web for Holtek AND HT48FXX returned 406 results. Most results are from parts catalogs, data sheet archives, and Wikipedia mirrors. There does not appear to be any non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable and independent secondary sources as required by WP:N. Searching Google News returned no results; Books, a mirror of the Wikipedia article; and Scholar, no results. Rilak (talk) 08:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. BigDom 08:54, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
also nominating related article Impact FC 2. hardly any third party coverage and nothing indepth. a few passing mention in gnews [8]. nothing in major Australian search engine trove [9] and nothing in a major Australian news website. [10]. completely lacking in coverage and in no way meets WP:GNG. being televised or having notable participants does not grant automatic notability. LibStar (talk) 08:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I’m not as big a fan of mma as kickboxing but this is a notable promotion in Australia and one of the bigger promotions outside of the USA – there are a large number of fighters who have had experience in the top organizations such as PRIDE, Strikeforce and the UFC, some of who have been top 10 ranked fighters – see Josh Barnett and Paul Daley who for whatever reason are fighting outside of the top events. I would suggest giving time to improve the article as opposed to deletion which I feel is harsh. I also feel that the removal of this page will affect other mma pages and this will detract from wikipedia’s usefulness. If this was an event in a back room in Alabama with few notable fighters I would agree with its deletion but Impact clearly have enough pull to attract good fighters to its cards in what is a growing MMA market in Australia. Remember just because an event is not held in the USA by the UFC does not mean it is not relevant or notable in the context of mma. Thanks.jsmith006 (talk) 21:03, 3 July 2011
Keep Multiple independent secondary sources provide coverage of both events and the subsequent issues with fighter pay. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 00:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. BigDom 08:54, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Youth footballer who does not meet WP:GNG or WP:FOOTY criteria Deserter1 08:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Courcelles 11:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Graphic and computer animation designer of unclear notability; prior prod (on the grounds of lack of sourcing) was removed by creator when he added some "sources" — but those sources still fail to constitute actual reliable sourcing, as every last footnote is to a blog entry, a Twitter feed, his own website or iTunes, and not a single one of them is to real media. I'm willing to withdraw this nomination if somebody can Heymann it up with some real sources, but as of right now it's a delete. Bearcat (talk) 07:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. The earlier "delete" opinions are given less weight as it is not clear that the people who made them were aware that the source of the text is a public domain US government country study, which invalidates the assertions that the text is unsourced. Sandstein 05:43, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is an unsourced and arbitrary essay. The subject is covered properly here, as it is for any other nation on Wikipedia. Karpouzi (talk) 07:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. BigDom 08:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:PROF. Subject is an entry level lecturer at a regional college in Bangladesh. I prodded the article, but the creator of the page contests deletion. Notability has not been established via reliable sources. (the only newspaper article cited in the page only mentions his presence at a meeting in a single sentence. So, I propose Deletion of the NN prof bio. Ragib (talk) 07:11, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete under G11, Unambiguous advertising or promotion, by User:Fastily, non-admin closure. Quasihuman | Talk 18:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't seem to be a notable organization. Searching "American Universities and Colleges Association of Bangladesh" on Google only returned results that repeated the lead sentence of this article, which makes me believe that this was a one-off idea that never really went through. Logan Talk Contributions 06:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. BigDom 08:51, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:GNG. Appears fake/hoax a "professional men's basketball league" in which none of the teams have a website but one has a facebook page with one post and two likes... Not your siblings' deletionist (talk) 06:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 16:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable company. No significant coverage in reliable sources (just some press releases and a few quotes from the CEO). Fails WP:COMPANY OCNative (talk) 05:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 15:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge the content into another article, perhaps a new one titled Monty Python sketches. The general consensus here is that whether or not all of the sketches meet the general notability requirement for having it's own article, the larger issue at hand here is readability and style. Having 30 very short articles is not as good as merging the content into one or a few comprehensive articles on the topic. There's no clear consensus here as to whether it should be the former or the latter, some here feel that one article would be fine, others feel the article might get a bit long and dividing the sketches by year would be for the best, but this can be done through editorial discussion. A merge still needs to happen, but I'm going to leave it in the hands of editors to discuss this and come up with the best solution. (non-administrative closure) Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 22:11, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not subject to significant coverage in reliable sources, and despite being "perhaps the most notorious of the Python team's television sketches" (PEACOCK alert!), generally non-notable ╟─TreasuryTag►fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale─╢ 15:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 16:58, 2 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)) . |
Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Only references provided to support notability are Facebook pages, indirectly related fan sites, Twitter pages, and pages anyone can upload to. Lots of SPAs have been giving this article attention (and removing CSD tags, etc.) that AfD seems the best way to handle this one. Singularity42 (talk) 10:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I have cited a article on a newspaper now of p-factor and his band hip hop tamizha performing at a radio station run music festival. I will look into more. Thank you! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.193.128.47 (talk • contribs) 06:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 19:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Individual does not appear to be notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. — Cirt (talk) 15:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article is just a brief list of fossils found in an area and doesn't indicate their significance or notability, thus failing WP:GNG. Inks.LWC (talk) 23:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 11:52, 9 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) 05:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This album does not have any reliable sources to prove that this album has received the notability required WP:NALBUMS for it to be an independent article separate from the artist. Doing independent research, very little information was found to note this album as notable. --Rjhymel (talk) 16:31, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 11:51, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
naveenpf (talk) 03:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. joe deckertalk to me 05:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very small earthquake, not notable considering Auckland has experienced earthquakes up to magnitude 6 in the past. Acroterion (talk) 03:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. joe deckertalk to me 05:30, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Afd on behalf of User talk:99.164.32.24 for the the rationale below, I pass no opinion either way--Jac16888 Talk 03:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC):[reply]
The result was delete. BigDom 08:51, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 11:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTABILITY -- apparently unaired television material; "Growing Up Normal" Pinchak gets no hits in the google news archives. Nat Gertler (talk) 02:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 11:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. Also looked at the external links, none are significant coverage, just lists of songs, one is a broken link. J04n(talk page) 02:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. 8 July 2011 Fastily (talk | contribs | block) deleted "MTV Azerbaijan" (G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is a lot of time passed since this news and I am sure plans for MTV Azerbaijan is scrapped. Which means this topic was only rumour. So I request deletion as an author of this topic NovaSkola (talk) 01:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. BigDom 08:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no evidence that the article's subject, which appears to be (the article lacks context) an open-source distributed hash table implementation, is notable. WP:N requires the subject to have non-trivial coverage in multiple third-party reliable secondary sources. The article presently has an external link to the subject's official site. As a primary source, this link does not evidence notability. There does not appear to be any coverage of the subject in sources that can indicate notability. Searching for "Distributed Ensemble of Pages that is Outage tolerant" on Google Web returns 42 "unique" results, all of which appear to be mirrors of this article. Including omitted results, the number of results increases to 110, but the nature of the results is the same as before. Searching Google News, Books, and Scholar returns no results with the exception of an book that is an index to IEEE publications that cannot be previewed. Searching Google Web for +DEPOT "distributed hash table" returned a huge number of irrelevant results (262 deemed unique), so +Bombay was added to the query, as the subject is an IIT Bombay project. 32 results were returned, all of which are irrelevant. Without +Bombay, Google News and Books did not return any results, while Google Scholar returned eight irrelevant ones. Rilak (talk) 01:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 01:39, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unable to find any coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. Before arguing that he meets MUSICBIO because he has been in two notable bands, take a close look at the bands, because none of the bands he has been in meet NBAND. J04n(talk page) 01:29, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 01:39, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
lack of notability, article largely unreferenced, circulation figures false, likely a vanity page by the publisher or his surrogates Bustter (talk) 01:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am proposing the article's deletion because it's pretty clearly a vanity creation by the editor and publisher, Brynn Hammond. Hammond's imdb biography was written by one of his employees, and something similar seems to have happened here.
The magazine stopped appearing on newsstands several months ago; there's been no official announcement of its demise, and no news coverage either. Certainly a magazine selling over 200,000 copies per month would create some stir with its disappearance -- however, this circulation figure is certainly a lie that originated with the publisher, elsewise it's unlikely it would have ceased publication.
Most telling of all, the official Gorezone Facebook pages (there's a couple of them) have only a couple of hundred members -- how could this be for a 200,000+ circulation magazine that only recently ceased publication?
If a neutral party can be found who considers the magazine noteworthy enough to merit a properly-sourced, neutral pov article, and this party is willing to put in the sweat -- great. But opinion of the magazine is generally very low, I doubt such a party will be found. Bustter (talk) 02:30, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody has anything to say? I'll start:
The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 01:39, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
no real notability shown for this band. no evidence of charting. claims a lot of press but none is shown. the bit hoasted by BBC is not independent. nothing satisfying wp:music. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 01:39, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does not pass WP:GNG. No indication of notability upon searching. Most references cited are unreliable (including references to English and Finnish Wikipedia articles on the same topic). The only reliable independent source found is [47].
Primary contributor (User:Louieblakesarmiento) cites his own blog in the article. Probably a breach of WP:USERG. Article is mainly promotional and WP:POV-ed. Main contributor seems to be intimately connected with the organization, and may be acting under WP:COI. Moray An Par (talk) 08:53, 25 June 2011 (UTC) [reply]
This page is not aimed for promotion but for historical documentation. I, Louie S. Sarmiento, did an academic research on the history of Odd Fellowship in the Philippines and I am one of its primary historians in the 21st Century. The sources are not mainly based on my own research and writings. Its history in the 19th Century such as in 1872 can be found in the book, History and Geography of the Philippine Islands, written by Major O.W. Coursey and published in 1903. The historical statements about the history in 1898 can be found in the book, History of the Independent Order of Odd Fellows in the City of San Francisco, written by Peter Sellars and published in 2007. Historical statements about 1903 can be found in the book, Official History of Odd Fellowshhip: The Three Link Fraternity, published and updated by the Sovereign Grand Lodge yearly or every 50 years. The statement about 1926 can be found in a historical document, the Roster of Members of Manila Lodge no.1 that still exists now and in a museum. The modern history is an account of the modern happenings and an official Odd Fellows charter exists which can verify the existence of Kapatirang Watchdog Lodge no.1 and Kapatirang Mindanaon Lodge no.2, same as the encampment and Canton. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Louieblakesarmiento (talk • contribs) 01:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Louie's comment was refactored. Please place your comments/responses after the existing comments. Moray An Par (talk) 07:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The modern history was published in the California Odd Fellow and Rebekah Magazine, Volume 59, no.1, in March 2010. Cite: Odd Fellowship in the Philippines. (2010, March). California Odd Fellow and Rebekah, 59, 1, 8. Libstar has personal issues about the Odd Fellows and has tried many times destroying the reputation of the said fraternal organization by criticizing and making so many allegations. We should be scholarly and work towards peace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Louieblakesarmiento (talk • contribs) 15:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 05:45, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Company received some coverage in the press but as can be seen from this posting by the company the service is unlikely to launch any time soon, if at all. The company fails notability for organisations. Given that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, I don't see the point in keeping this article as it stands. Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 08:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 11:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No significant coverage indicating notability. Cited references also do not establish notability as none makes mention of the organization. Moray An Par (talk) 09:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to RazorUSA. And protect from recreation. Sandstein 05:51, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable product already covered adequately by caster board. This article has previously been redirected to caster board and I suggest that the article is deleted and the redirect established. I did this but as an editor reverted I am bringing it to AfD instead. Furthermore, little has changed since the original AfD, which resulted in deletion and redirect to caster board. Biker Biker (talk) 11:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The actress may well be notable based on the cited coverage, but right now we have a completely unsourced contested WP:BLP, which makes deletion mandatory under our current application of that policy. Can be userfied and, once sourced, restored. Sandstein 05:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. No claim to notability at all except for surname. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 12:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Mass (album). Courcelles 11:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contested redirect to Mass (album). This unsourced song article fails WP:NSONGS. Aspects (talk) 18:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Salem (Michigan band). Courcelles 11:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contested redirect to Salem (Michigan band). This unsourced song article fails WP:NSONGS. Aspects (talk) 18:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Salem (Michigan band). Courcelles 11:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contested redirect to Salem (Michigan band). This unsourced song article fails WP:NSONGS. Aspects (talk) 18:50, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 15:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed prod. Family bio with absolutely no references. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:44, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]