The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 13:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any reliable sources to justify the existence of this article. It was created by Imsomniac2 (talk · contribs), a single-purpose account that has mainly been used to add inappropriate Magic Foundation links to Wikipedia articles. Graham87 15:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But I don't expect you will, and here's why. Those 286 Google News hits you hotly cited as proof of the nom's laziness, for instance? I'm looking at the same list now. Of the first fifteen hits, the top hit is for an eponymous foundation in India. The second, third and eighth hits refer to the basketball player Magic Johnson's foundation. The fourth hit uses the term without reference to an organization by that name. The fifth and ninth hits refer to an eponymous foundation set up by a political candidate in North Carolina to help the homeless. The sixth and thirteenth hits refer to a "Spread the Magic" organization. The seventh, tenth, twelfth and fifteenth hits refer to a foundation set up by the Orlando Magic basketball team. The eleventh hit refers to an eponymous organization funding other charities. The fourteenth hit refers to a Holiday Magic Foundation in California ...
And this is the list you considered evidence of the nom's egregious negligence, so much so to warrant a Speedy Keep? Did you so much as glance at it yourself to judge whether the hits made any reference to the foundation in question, "Magic Foundation" seemingly being a commonly used term? Ravenswing 23:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC) Ravenswing 23:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
....is online about one of our volunteers.... you can see the reference in his HUGE effort to MAGIC in this article if that helps.... http://sports.espn.go.com/boston/news/story?id=4665732 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imsomniac2 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services has an article on us with additional information. http://www.healthfinder.gov/orgs/HR2495.htm
Pediatric Endocrine Society only links to 17 support groups http://www.lwpes.org/patientsfamilies/patientslinks.cfm including very large and notable organizations such as the American Diabetes Assoc. and American Academy of Pediatrics. The MAGIC Foundation on that list and the physicians regularly refer to our organization.Imsomniac2 (talk) 19:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imsomniac2 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you have access (cost/membership) you will be able to download the article for "official verification". http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=SL&p_theme=sl&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&s_dispstring=jamie%20harvey&p_field_date-0=YMD_date&p_params_date-0=date:B,E&p_text_date-0=2000%20-%202008%7C2011%7C1988%20-%202000%7C2000&p_field_advanced-0=&p_text_advanced-0=("jamie%20harvey")&xcal_numdocs=20&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&xcal_useweights=no Thank you all for your help and understanding as I am not a computer expert...just a mom trying to help others facing what I have been through.Imsomniac2 (talk) 20:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 14:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't think of why this (or any other) unsold game show pilot would be notable, and the article doesn't cite any sources to indicate notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was REDIRECT. postdlf (talk) 16:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-existing freeway proposal created by original research. There are no plans to make Highway 24 a 400-series highway, but rather plans to upgrade the highway (while retaining the current designation). Media and special interest (anti-freeway) groups have created something that does not and was never planned to exist. See [5] and [6] - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 22:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 14:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of notability. Superheroes Fighting (talk) 20:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of notability. No sources besides those associated with the organization. Superheroes Fighting (talk) 20:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy redirect to 2011 World Cup. Speedy redirect to 2011 World Cup. Keeping the page will a) stop misguided attempts to page move (see log) and b) it seems a well searched term, I suspect predominately from India GedUK 21:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ashwinikalantri talk 19:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Manowar. Redirecting as an editorial decision. Consider this a no consensus close. Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find a single reliable source that suggests this is even remotely notable as a tour. At best, this deserves a redirect. Drmies (talk) 18:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 16:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Self-promotional article about a commercial video, just barely scraping by a WP:CSD#G11 speedy. No apparent signs of notability, no independent coverage except routine commercial reviews and endorsements (of which the author has collected as many as she could, not for their information value but to bolster her case against deletion). Sole author of the page is the author of the video. PROD was removed by author. Bringing this here to ensure at least some additional pairs of eyes. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Peridon (talk) 20:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As a person, DJ White Shadow is not notable. Yes he might have co-produced one of the most successful singles in recent times ("Born This Way") but as a person his own notability cannot be inherited solely from that one song. There is no information of a biographical nature and thus an entire article based on his production work for "Born This Way" is not required. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 03:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Deleted by User:Jimfbleak at 19:01 on 21 March 2011 and possibly by User:Zzyzx11 at 6:02 on 22 March 2011. Mandsford 12:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. I repeat the reason behind the PROD: Copy paste from Conservapedia and opinion based information. –MuZemike 18:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 23:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article had been PROD'd for a second time. Opening up debate.
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 15:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Created in 2005, tagged as unreferenced BLP since 2009. Doesn't seem to meet WP:Notability (people). A search for sources found a company press release and a few one-line quotes in newspaper articles, but no substantial coverage in secondary sources. I suggest delete or merge to WXXI Public Broadcasting Council. Physics is all gnomes (talk) 18:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Deleted along with the individual number-one hits by year articles BigDom 21:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
article is little more that a list of other lists, the other lists being "unreferenced piles of original research" WuhWuzDat 18:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. BigDom 21:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
unreferenced pile of original research WuhWuzDat 18:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. BigDom 21:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
unreferenced pile of original research WuhWuzDat 18:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 14:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
non notable bit part actor WuhWuzDat 18:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 16:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not all a notable person. Don't know who it survived the first AFD JDDJS (talk) 17:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 14:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated for speedy deletion under criterion A7 by User:Jay-Sebastos without additional comment. I've looked at the article and the verbose hang-on reason on the talk page, and while it is largely advertising in tone with little indication of notability, it is claimed that the company has "over 850 customers in 37 countries". This combined with all the information in the article and the difficulty in immediately determining the amount of independent coverage due to the generic company name is enough that I cannot be certain speedy deletion is correct. Thryduulf (talk) 17:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. BigDom 21:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is an URBAN myth, not a fact. Wikipedia is not a place for such encyclopedic content. Wayiran (talk) 16:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would be good if the article could include a two or three sentence quote from BBC journalist Baqer Moin, summarizing his argument that the story is a myth. Additional reliable sources stating that it is a myth would be helpful as well. Then, readers of this article can have a balanced view. Cullen328 (talk) 14:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable college, fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Virtually no G hits Pol430 talk to me 16:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 14:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This cites no sources to indicate notability; Wikipedia is not for drinking games made up one day. Contested PROD. JohnCD (talk) 16:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 16:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Quite a non-neutral article (e.g. "one of the main steel producers in Greece") but more importantly claims made are not substantiated, and although there is a mention of its existence here at Bloomberg Business Week, no other secondary source coverage appears findable. Jay Σεβαστόςdiscuss 16:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hope we are not kidding here. An article about Greece's largest steel plant, one of Greece's largest corporations, is considered for deletion ? If anything, this article should be expanded, and this notice should be added (my focus is on other industries, but I hope somebody will work on it soon). "No other secondary source coverage appears findable"??? About Halyvourgiki ??!!! Are we talking about the same company ? Anyway, answering in good faith, see here and here (look at letter "H") for example. Skartsis (talk) 17:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 14:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Although on first glance McInnis looks like he should pass WP:PROF as a journal editor, Black Magnolias is a self-published journal that he founded, and it doesn't appear to be a "well-established" academic journal. Likewise, all of his major works are self-published through his own publishing company. Google Scholar does not show him to be widely cited or published outside of his self-publishing. There are few articles about the man himself in the mainstream press. He fails to meet the bars of WP:GNG and WP:BIO, and any claims to WP:PROF notability run afoul of WP:SPS. ⌘macwhiz (talk) 16:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 14:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Having never played for a fully pro team, this person fails WP:NSPORT, and there is insufficient coverage for him to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Discussion closed because article has been speedily deleted. Peridon (talk) 11:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Page lacks WP:NOTE. It reads like an advertisement. It is only 2 sentences long. Suggesting Delete due to any real substance. Maybe in the time it takes to come to a consensus the author can shore it up. Golgofrinchian (talk) 14:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. BigDom 21:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable band, fails WP:BAND. They have only released a demo EP Pol430 talk to me 13:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Acather96 (talk) 17:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No references. Unable to find references to back up claims of being aired on Fox. Other secondary source coverage not found. Jay Σεβαστόςdiscuss 12:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 16:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No sources given at all apart from a link to the website. Secondary source coverage limited. Jay Σεβαστόςdiscuss 12:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 23:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
May well be of notability, but current sources bar one are primary; multiple secondary sources need to be found for this article to be kept. Jay Σεβαστόςdiscuss 12:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 03:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:GNG. It's hard to find evidence Moto Roma even exists, let alone enough to satisfy WP:COMPANY or WP:PRODUCT. Most likely the Moto Roma Mirage was the name that some nearly anonymous Chinese knock-off bike was marketed under in come countries, although without good sources even that can't be verified. Dbratland (talk) 00:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don't know if redirects ought to be allowed to meet a lower standard than WP:GNG. Judging by Wikipedia:Redirect and the principles at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, a user whose search led them from Moto Roma to Zongshen is going to be baffled as to why, which would fail the goal of redirects. Unless we add an explanation to Zongshen based on guesswork, since we lack a reliable source which would let us explain factually what the relationship between the two is. So with redirects to Zongshen, we are making uncited assertions of fact about Moto Roma, but by deleting the pages, we explicitly say we don't know. And I say we don't know. And of course, if good sources ever to turn up, they can be cited, and the pages can be recreated if needed.
If there are flaws in my reasoning that I'm not seeing, I'm sure at some point sooner or later other editors will help sort it out. --Dbratland (talk) 16:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 14:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unsubstantiated, non-neutral claims comprise this article. No evidence significant secondary source coverage. Jay Σεβαστόςdiscuss 11:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Banquet (song). Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable song by itself. Merge to artist's article instead failing WP:GNG. Jay Σεβαστόςdiscuss 11:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 14:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unsubstantiated claims in article. No evidence of significant secondary source coverage. Fails WP:BIO. Jay Σεβαστόςdiscuss 11:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 03:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a non-notable writer. References are to his own works only. Sitush (talk) 11:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 03:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By all appearances a non-notable film with no secondary source, independent, significant coverage. Jay Σεβαστόςdiscuss 11:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 14:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable band with no secondary source coverage found. Fails WP:BAND since none of the other claims of notability can be verified. Also note at least one album All We Need Is Cheez by the band here which will need to be either CSDed per A9. if the outcome here is delete, or go through its own AFD, or just merged boldly to the band's article, if the result is keep. Jay Σεβαστόςdiscuss 10:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was REDIRECT. If there are continuing concerns about the notability of the underlying subject, I would not view this AFD as precluding one for Rappers Rapp Group. postdlf (talk) 16:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD that does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC Strikerforce (talk) 10:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 14:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article makes a few unsubstantiated claims. Google search returns 2 results. No significant coverage in reliable, secondary, sources. Fails WP:BIO and WP:N. Jay Σεβαστόςdiscuss 10:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to have already been deleted by User:Jimfbleak as (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content): no independent sources). Non admin closure. Edgepedia (talk) 13:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Jay Σεβαστόςdiscuss 10:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 14:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Fails WP:GNG. Jay Σεβαστόςdiscuss 10:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete per WP:A7 by Jimfbleak (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. AnturiaethwrTalk 13:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable person. Secondary source coverage unestablished. Jay Σεβαστόςdiscuss 10:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was REDIRECT. postdlf (talk) 16:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do not see any reason why this song should have its own article. Redirect to album which itself has significant secondary source coverage. Jay Σεβαστόςdiscuss 10:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Consensus was that the subject is a notable individual for a combination of his writings and his weather prediction claims raises him above the WP:GNG - (non-admin closure) Off2riorob (talk) 18:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ken Ring uses the moon to make long range weather forcasts and to predict other natural events. His methods are highly controversial and mainstream science considers them psuedoscience, but he does have quite a few followers. Recently there are claims he predicted the 2011 Christchurch Earthquake and subsequently made a predicition that a big Earthquake would strike at midday today (give or take 3 days). Fails WP:ACADEMIC and as his books are self published probably fails WP:AUTHOR. Plenty of info can be found in reliable newspapers, but they most seem to be about this prediction, so WP:NOTNEWS may apply. I am putting this up because there are various issues and before I attempt to address these I would like the communities opinion on his notability. Regards AIRcorn (talk) 08:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC) AIRcorn (talk) 08:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was MERGE. I'm just going to dump it in the target article as is; others can then trim or rearrange as they see fit. postdlf (talk) 23:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's a stub that is obsolete because its information would be much better served by being merged into Milwaukee Panthers men's basketball. Nothing links to it and nobody would ever find it. Also, there's no information in this "article" that justifies it having its own entry. Jrcla2 (talk) 05:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete -- The Anome (talk) 14:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neologism. Not yet in substantial common usage. Logical Cowboy (talk) 03:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. BigDom 21:16, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article about an alleged spiritual possession, largely sourced to a Wiki about that subject, with no other verifiable third-party sources. Strikerforce (talk) 04:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC) Since I nominated this page, the primary contributor has put quite a bit of work into the article and has brought it, in my opinion, to the point that it no longer warrants deletion. As such, I have elected to offer a !vote to keep below, but will leave my original nom statement for others to evaluate as they see fit. Strikerforce (talk) 17:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC) [reply]
i am talking about memories of witnesses like Dr. E. W. Stevens or Richard Hodgson (1855-1905)the first full-time, paid psychical researcher of the American Society for Psychical Research http://www.mysteriouspeople.com/Lurancy_Vennum2.htm http://weird-people.com/spiritual_possession/ Navid1366 (talk) 05:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 23:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. The commonness of the subject's name made the search difficult but the name combined with the individual projects that the article says she worked on yielded no hits either. Several alternative names redirect to this page (Kelly Davis, Kelly Ray, and Kelly Rodriguez), if some finds sources that I missed and notability is established we will have to somehow verify that they are all the same person. J04n(talk page) 02:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was appears to have been speedied -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem to be notable. Top ghits are WTCW's website (and possible fansites?) and social networking pages. — This, that, and the other (talk) 02:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Glorantha. Any merging can be done from the history if sources are also provided; the current content is unsourced. Sandstein 06:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Completing malformed AFD begun by User:Albacore using Twinkle. I have no opinion on the article. NellieBly (talk) 02:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This company doesn't appear to pass WP:CORP. There doesn't seem to be any in-depth third-party coverage of this company at all, not even in Canadian business magazines or newspapers available through my library's website. Google searches reveal press releases and the odd stock quote from Bloomberg et al, but nothing more substantive. NellieBly (talk) 02:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Consensus is that the subject is not notable. Sandstein 06:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DrV was closed with leave to restart an new Afd [33]. I feel that she doesn't meet WP:N nor does she meet WP:PORNBIO with the single award nomination. Hobit (talk) 23:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nor has there been analysis of the 652 web pages dedicated to the topic (BTW, the initial Google value for [inurl:Boroka] is 112,000 pages). The existence of each such web page is reliable (can be verified by readers). Those web pages are each statements that the topic meets the definition of notability in WP:N, i.e., is "worthy of notice". With the exception of "Pro-life" (8.65 million page hits), I doubt I've ever worked on a topic that has this much attention on the WWW. Unscintillating (talk) 14:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The page is a hoax/vanity/misinformed page created by User:Shakuma. It claims that Shakuma is a common Japanese name, where in reality, it is a made-up name of a character in a popular Japanese manga (as well as being also the handle of the user who created the page). It is quite possible that the user who created the page actually believes that Shakuma is a common name. VNNS (talk) 13:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Searching for Shakuma (in hiragana) in Japanese Wikipedia for one, reveals very few articles, mostly in a technical sense or in the names of mountains and works; in fact, none are names of men. [[34]] VNNS (talk) 13:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 16:16, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Minor earthquake, minimal damage, no loss of life, not even powerful by regional standards, no real assertion of notability, WP:EVENT. Prod removed, can't CSD. Monty845 00:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable online backup service. Reads like an advertisement in some parts. I cannot find any reliable outside coverage about this product. Logan Talk Contributions 21:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 23:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod - Non-notable, non-reliably sourced singer that fails WP:MUSICBIO. Aspects (talk) 21:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Googled the band and could find no mentions in reliable sources. Article appears to fail all points of WP:BAND, apart from possibly number 10 (though this is not enough by itself). If the band is in fact notable then I have no objections to keeping the page. Postrock1 (talk) 23:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article was created in 2009 about a film that is still, as yet, unreleased. It has received no significant coverage in reliable sources as far as I can see, only press releases and internet marketing. There is no page about it on the IMDb. Nothing that suggests it meets the WP:N, WP:NFF or WP:NOTFILM guidelines. BelovedFreak 09:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Light After Dark. WP:NSONG states "Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article ...". This is key in this case. No editor has shown that such material exists. The one interesting piece of commentary was "and contributed to Maguire's placing on the annual BBC Sound Of... poll at number five." Though the BBC source confirms that Maguire achieved that placing, the contribution by this song is not supported by the source. Finally, the guideline indicates that chart placement indicates probable notability not definite notability and I am persuaded by the argument "a #78 chart entry for one week does not make a significant hit". I have merged the only other sourced information, about the music video. All in all I am not convinced that the arguments support the case to justify this as being a standalone article. TerriersFan (talk) 22:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Due to a cheeky move by an editor of the very notable and much covered Chaka Khan song to be replaced by this one, this came to my attention. The single in question seems not to have properly charted anywhere (since the UK only officially uses a top 75) and the song in itself doesn't seem to be at all notable (the refs given are a bit tenuous). I'm nominating this for deletion rather than a move. --Tuzapicabit (talk) 15:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article
As I see it, this song doesn't satisfactorily meet these criteria (a #78 chart entry for one week does not make a significant hit).--Tuzapicabit (talk) 16:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
82.1.57.194 (talk) 14:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. BigDom 21:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely no sourcing found whatsoever; despite being used on various notable works, the font is not itself notable. Prod declined since article was previously deleted via prod. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Anyone wanting to merge can drop me a line and I'll restore the content, but only if they provide citations as well (everything in Wikipedia must pass WP:V). Stifle (talk) 13:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Declined prod. I think it's fair to do so just for procedure. Article is missing third party sources that can help it meet WP:N, and is missing information about reception and development to meet WP:NOT#PLOT. Declined prod saw what I saw, that there are sources to verify the existence of this phenomenon. But are there sources to WP:verify notability and meet the WP:GNG? From my search I'm confident there are not. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Carl Hiaasen. Or to some other appropriate article; one about the novel series does not currently exist. Sandstein 06:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of evidence of notability. --EEMIV (talk) 00:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was KEEP. Roscelese presented secondary sources covering this topic, which none of the delete !voters acknowledged, yet alone rebutted. postdlf (talk) 03:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable organization. No secondary source coverage established. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 15:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Renaming is an editorial decision. That can be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
unsource dictionary definition with no indication of WP:notability noq (talk) 18:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE, without prejudice to anyone recreating the title as a redirect only. postdlf (talk) 23:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
non WP:notable open source game - external links to directory listings, other wikis but nothing to establish notability. Disputed Prod. noq (talk) 18:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is common to all articles about opensource TBS. See The Battle for Wesnoth and freeciv for example, keeping in mind that thay are developped far longer then LordsAWar! The opensource TBS don't get reviewed, rated by official bodies and listed on gamers' resources. Google search gives 55,800 results, which outnumbers some games in Open source video games (not to mention others from List of open-source video games). At the same time, LordsAWar! is important in Warlords (game series), as the others are dead. --Czarkoff (talk) 12:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seemed to me that this article (in finished form, not as is) is consistent with goals of Wikipedia - it informs Warlords community-disconnected fans of the possibilty to enjoy the game again. But I must admit the lack of so cold reliable sources, so, as it is seen as unavoidable, I would prefer this page redirecting to Warlords (game series) instead of List of open-source video games. --Czarkoff (talk) 07:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Amphitheater Public Schools. Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This middle school doesn't seem to meet the GNG or be much of any interest, for that matter. Raymie (t • c) 23:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Amphitheater Public Schools. Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Accompanies my AfD of L. W. Cross Middle School. Another yawner of an article that has little notability. Being Excelling is Arizona isn't that big of a deal. Raymie (t • c) 23:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]