< 15 October | 17 October > |
---|
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 12:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He was sent by the non-notable widow of a non-notable knight to school. Okay, one of the schools was Oxford and he was a tutor. Along with maybe, what 40,000 alumni and several thousand other tutors? He was pastor of some church. (What was called then "a living" since the incumbent could do as much or as little as he liked and get a stipend from somebody. It was considered the lowest end of the upper class). A nephew whom he never knew, was named after him, and, in turn, is also barely notable!
This is the second nomination. The first was not made by me nor did I comment at the time.
Student7 (talk) 23:13, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 12:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dante and LuLu both have stand alone articles at Dante Falconeri and Lulu Spencer - this is an extention of that under the claim they are a fictional "supercouple" - however the FOUR sources provided are all fansites dedicated to US daytime soap operas.
I just did a news search, a book search and a general web search using different terms - but the most worrying issue was there were no online sources citing them as a supercouple, the very scope of this article, apart from a few stray soap opera fansites.
Because they have not been mentioned by any sources inline with WP:RS and no publications seem to tag them as a supercouple - what is the point in housing an article on them if primary unreliable inuniverse sources discuss them.
What is worse is that only ONE source provided mentions them being a supercouple.
Other issues are that the article is another recount of in universe plot information - the very similiar recount of plot featured in there stand alone articles. This page cannot be merged if it already exists in other articles and is a branch of from two other poorly sourced fictional character bios.. which is what they are. Hense why this needs to go in my opinion. RaintheOne BAM 23:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 12:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To my opinion this lady and her company are totally not notable. If you cut all the blahblah and namedropping away, you are left with a lady who runs a parttime own baking company singlehanded. Without proper and reliable sources, this article can straight into the bin. Night of the Big Wind talk 22:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to SCORE International#Current and past classes. Per below. (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 12:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article is two sentences long, has no sources, and says nothing that Baja 1000 and Baja 500 do not say. nprice (talk) 22:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 12:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Politician. The only evidence of notability being one article in a local newspaper. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm new to this so I am not sure how to contribute to this article.. But Melvin Burris is my Uncle and I wanted to do something interesting for the family and create him a wikipedia page, it would be appreciated if you guys would help me gain further knowledge about editing etc. The only reference I could find online so far is a local newspaper article and obituary. Sorry if I have the wrong format for posting this message, i'm a new user. TornEditor (talk) 19:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 12:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not meet notability guidelines, and does not contain sources. Tinton5 (talk) 20:44, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable minor league baseball individual. Minor league managers are not inherently notable. Fails WP:BASE/N and WP:GNG. Alex (talk) 20:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 12:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. News sources I've found have been trivial (i.e. referring to individuals connected with the organisation rather than about it). No references to back up claims of being a "lead consultant on a diversity of projects". The article avoids plain English in a manner that I intepret as puffery without substance. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 20:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. The Bushranger One ping only 00:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable minor league executive. Per WP:BASE/N: "Minor league players, managers, coaches, executives, and umpires are not assumed to be inherently notable," meaning he fails that. Sources are lacking. Fails WP:GNG. Alex (talk) 20:31, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 12:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An independent native news source with no evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:26, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary Deletion Recommendation It may not be well known in your circle, however it is extremely popular news source for thousands of Indigenous in Indian Country. With article being published weekly, it deserves to be relevant in wikis history. I am a regular reader of the network and was thrilled when I learned that a page had been created. I as secondary school teacher allow my students to utilize wiki as a credible source, unlike many institutions who find it not as scholarly. Wikipedia can not delete a page based on lack of "Coverage". Read their news, see their stories, it is relevant and pertinent to our society and should be represented in our online encyclopedia.
Thank You L.Lightey — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.218.221.75 (talk) 22:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete - a clear consensus after taking appropriate account of those whose only contributions were to this AfD. —SMALLJIM 21:54, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a musician who fails our general notability guidelines as well as our specific notability guidelines for musicians as he hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources, nor has he made a significant impact within his field. Note that this article was created with a conflict of interest [9] ThemFromSpace 20:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Shearonink (talk) 05:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: His works are remarkable but his notabilities are weaker to be honest. I think subject needs more acceptable sources.
—Preceding undated comment added 07:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC).
Delete As a author i am hurt and i request you to delete it. Everyone in the world has a fair chance to be on wiki and all admins do here is bully people and only allow people who come on page3 and don respect people who have influenced so many life in their countries.
— Jessicabn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
— Wiliravan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Anyways People can delete this article. --Musicfanz1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicfanz1 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 12:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails the general notability guideline which requires significant coverage in third party reliable sources Independent of the subject, whereas it is currently based on a primary source. The second source (by Denes) is about the book The Mystery Method and is only tangentially related to this topic. Currently all the other information I can find on it is self-published or promotional in nature.
Should either be deleted or merged into pick-up artist or The Mystery Method: How to Get Beautiful Women into Bed as it currently does not meet the minimum requirements for articles--Cailil talk 19:16, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 12:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
General lack of notability and lack of references. CarlosPatiño (talk) 19:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 12:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I could not find significant coverage of the game in reliable sources. Delete per WP:GNG. Article was deprodded back in June 2007 and has not been expanded since. Odie5533 (talk) 19:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 12:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article is not notable enough, does not cite any references, and the external links mentioned in the article are unrelated or insufficient as sources. CarlosPatiño (talk) 19:01, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Tone 12:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stub article does not meet WP:NOTABILITY's minimum standards. The "invasion" in question is a reference to Kenyan troops crossing the southern Somalia border to pursue Islamist rebels from the Al-Shabaab group. This operation is a) brand new (it was just reported on today); b) has only been covered by a few news sites; and c) is described by those same news outlets as "Kenyan troops pursuing Islamist militants" or some variation thereof, not as "Kenyan troops invading Somalia". Note that it is quite routine for troops from neighboring countries (particularly Ethiopia) to cross the undefended parts of the Somalian border for military purposes; see, for example, some of the various such border crossings reported on the War in Somalia (2009–) page. This stub thus fails WP:PERSISTENCE since "notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle", something which this border crossing reported on today for the first time has not done. Likewise, "events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article." Also note that the only such recent "invasion" of Somalia that was actually characterized as such -- i.e. the UN-sanctioned Ethiopian intervention of 2006-2009 -- has no separate wiki article devoted to it; it is instead covered in the context of the War in Somalia (2006–2009). I therefore propose either a deletion of the stub or a merge with the War in Somalia (2009–) main article. Middayexpress (talk) 18:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per deterrence. Easily meets threshold for notability. WikifanBe nice 04:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Withdrawn (non-admin closure) Edgepedia (talk) 12:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No claims of notability. My db-band tag was removed on the odd claim that being signed to a major label makes them notable by default. Where does it even say they are signed to a label, let alone a major one? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 18:17, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. I'm sorry USBallistics but there is a consensus here that this band is not notable at this time. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unremarkable band. Not signed to any major label, no songs on any national charts - appears to fail WP:BAND. A Google news search only shows one relevant result, and that's a simple listing. Standard search shows the usual array of primary references, user-generated sites, press releases, and social media - little significant coverage from major independent sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 18:09, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 17:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does not assert notability ΔT The only constant 17:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 17:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Podcast about zombies that has no reliable sources, no hits in Google News, no indication that the article is anything but vanity self-promotion by three single purpose accounts. Previous prod removed by one of the SPAs. DreamGuy (talk) 17:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hussam Omer al-Mouhagir
The result was redirect to Irish Baseball League. Tone 17:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable amateur baseball team, no reliable sources found. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No enough information provided. The article is not of an important person. DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 15:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 01:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Violates WP:MADEUP - this isn't even WP:OR, it's purely author-creation (i.e. no research has been done). The statement "National promotions that officially recognize Triple Crown winners include WWE, Total Nonstop Action Wrestling (TNA) and now defunct World Championship Wrestling (WCW)" is freakin' LUDICROUS. (FYI, WWE and TNA are in competition for business and don't recognise anything the other does. WCW, as stated, is defunct and has been since before TNA was formed). I hope we can get a WP:SNOWBALL and get rid of this crap quickly. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 15:27, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Not a dictionary entry, i think merge and rename can be discussed later. (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 12:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Advanced search for: "Navalization" | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
|
This article reads like a dictionary entry and does not pass WP:Not Petebutt (talk) 14:52, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 12:29, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article was PRODed based on lack of notability (fails WP:GNG, but the deletion proposal was contested. However, after studying the added reference and looking for Google News, Google Scholar, and Google Books search results, I still believe that this article does not satisfy notability criteria. Most of the searcht results are related to the original announcement by the H2 Logic-led consortium. No media coverage afterward. Search results by Google Scholar are also limited. One of the latest (and one of the best) results is published in Polish in 2009 [34]. However, this does not add any development compared with the original announcement and is quite promotional itself. It is also remarkable, that the project website is dead (h2pia.dk) or says nothing about the project anymore (h2pia.com). According to the original announcement, construction should was started in 2007, but as of today nothing happened. It seems that this was just a one time hype. Beagel (talk) 14:36, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. There appears to be consensus to delete this; if anyone wants the deleted content to do something with it, please ask Black Kite (t) (c) 17:39, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Prod contested without rationale. Essay, original research, single-source, promotional in tone, neologism. Wtshymanski (talk) 14:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. User:MichaelQSchmidt did some good work, due to which notability is established now. (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 12:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:ENT. only one significant role. LibStar (talk) 13:49, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. The only thing that is certain here is that the delete button will not be hit. Therefore this will be a "keep" close in the sense that the content will be kept. However, there is no consensus on the issue of merging. That will need to be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 24 October 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)) . |
Relisting per DRV. I abstain. v/r - TP 13:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Teyandee (talk) 15:50, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was SPEEDY KEEP, no argument for deletion advanced. postdlf (talk) 22:42, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Uncited list of people. Should be re-merged into San Bernadino article easily. TM 13:37, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. The Bushranger One ping only 00:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OR ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 13:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Deleted by User:Malik Shabazz (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 10:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BALL, also no reliable sources. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 11:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. The topic is still merge-able, but I'd recommend running a quick RfC to get a bit more consensus on that - it's just that consensus here is towards keep more than merge. m.o.p 02:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason, someone just removed the ((prod)) without improving an article. This article has just one external link and no footnotes. This article has been also tagged with maintenance issues for two years, and it has still been accused for self-promotion without verifiability and for weasel words. Answer this: Why does this article have to be "kept"? --Gh87 (talk) 20:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. I do not think evidence has presented or actual existence. No prejudice to rec-creation if some is found. I agree about the unsuitability of a reedirect at this point DGG ( talk ) 02:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another Ottoman province of doubtful existence. While there's no question that a vilayet of Istanbul existed for some years, the location of what would otherwise have been the eyalet of Istanbul is shown by most maps as being merely split along European and Asian lines between the surrounding provinces. The article was created from the equivalent (and unreferenced) article from the Turkish Wikipedia. eh bien mon prince (talk) 00:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for my comment, and do understand your viewpoint. It seems that the only mention of the eyalet is on a map of Turkish provinces. Deletion is fine, but if sources can be found that confirm the eyalet's existence (and only if), the article should be kept. DCItalk 16:49, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I could not find significant coverage of this game in any reliable source. Even tried searching in Japanese. Delete per WP:GNG. User contested WP:PROD. Odie5533 (talk) 03:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
GVnayR, you'd better start restructuring it.. --Hydao (talk) 17:46, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He's an athletic trainer. I would say that athletic trainers are not inherently notable, but would need a special something to become notable, such as Gene Monahan with the coverage he's received. What has this guy done? – Muboshgu (talk) 02:39, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 17:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep Shii (tock) 06:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NOT#DICTIONARY, this isn't really appropriate here: it consists solely of short dictionary definitions for terms. It has been transwiki'd to Wiktionary, so the content won't be lost, and could even be linked using wikt: as a prefix, once the Wiktionary team finish it up. 86.** IP (talk) 20:43, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 12:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article is based solely on the Ozone magazine interview which makes it clear that this rapper has been signed to Warner based on their mixtape. A GNews search shows nothing that might indicate that this artist meets WP:MUSICBIO at this time. Social network references and self-promotional "buzz" about viral videos are rarely sufficient to address the notability guidelines. Fæ (talk) 22:21, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 12:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
no indication of meeting notability guidelines at WP:BAND. noq (talk) 10:06, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:
|edit]] | [[Talk:Saint Vox discography
|talk]] | [[Special:PageHistory/Saint Vox discography
|history]] | [[Special:ProtectPage/Saint Vox discography
|protect]] | [[Special:DeletePage/Saint Vox discography
|delete]] | links | watch | logs | views)
|edit]] | [[Talk:Saint Vox (album)
|talk]] | [[Special:PageHistory/Saint Vox (album)
|history]] | [[Special:ProtectPage/Saint Vox (album)
|protect]] | [[Special:DeletePage/Saint Vox (album)
|delete]] | links | watch | logs | views)
The result was speedily deleted by Fastily. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The club doesn't seems notable. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 09:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Tone 12:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PROD removed by author without any rational. The image is enough for conveying the content, no need for article. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 08:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Davewild (talk) 08:44, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PROD declined by creator with out comment. Concern was : No history found of awards or 'critical acclaim'. Sources are publishers' or booksellers' listings. Does not meet criteria at WP:NBOOK. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:07, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 12:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
no indication of meeting notability guidelines at WP:MUSICBIO. Single reference to NME does not include any NME articles just youtube links. noq (talk) 07:49, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. the relisting got us no further; it is obvious the pair of words exists; it is not obvious that it is used specifically of a particular political position DGG ( talk ) 02:14, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Recommend delete per WP:MADEUP. I can't find ghits on this, and from the discussion page, it's pretty clear that the author of the page has created this political system. Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"During at least two of the three years of democratic Marxist government, however, Chile faced severe economic and political crises." (http://www.jstor.org/pss/447149) It clearly states that it was a democratic Marxist government.
"In November 1970, Marxist socialist Salvador Allende took office as President of Chile, vowing to bring about revolutionary change by working within, and not against, the country's constitutional democratic tradition." (http://www.jstor.org/pss/447149) The fact that the Marxist president wants to work within the democratic system implies that it is democratic marxism.
Now that we recognize this idea exists and has been talked about in academic writing I think the page should remain and if scholars want to come and improve it and add more to it then they can do that. I very much apologize for not signing my posts. I will do that from now on. I did not realize that I wasn't doing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Politcally Correction (talk • contribs) 04:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 12:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While the topic may scrape the borderline of notability, the article itself is a mess of uncited WP:OR and fan-written violations of WP:NPOV - such a mess that a decent article would be a from-the-ground-up project. Going by the most "objective" definition of rivals (that being the schools that permanently meet yearly in football and twice-yearly in basketball), the topic is already covered quite well in the main Atlantic Coast Conference article, under the "Basketball" and "Football" sections, so I'm not even sure that this warrants a separate article - but, as I said above, even if it does, there is nothing terribly salvageable here. Badger Drink (talk) 07:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No reliable sources, only sources are WinRumors (a blog), itself, and its founder's personal site. So it fails both WP:N and WP:V, as well as WP:RS. OBrasilo (talk) 16:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 08:42, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable author who fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BIO. The page has no reliable sources and I was unable to find any on Google. Inks.LWC (talk) 07:36, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Delete Self-published author with no evidence of notability. Edward321 (talk) 13:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor#The_Weinberg_Foundation . I have redirected this for the time being as there is a good conensus that this is promotional and should not stand alone; any further information can be merged in later Black Kite (t) (c) 17:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ORG Non-notable organization established only last month. Article is promotional. John Nagle (talk) 19:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was withdrawn. Non-admin closure by nominator — CharlieEchoTango — 03:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to fail WP:NACTOR and fails WP:GNG — CharlieEchoTango — 07:02, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. WP:SK1: "posting a nomination in response to a proposed deletion but advocating a keep position. (If you dispute the deletion of a prod-ed article, just remove the prod-tag". No prejustice against immediate renomination with a proper deletion rationale - as the article stands, it'd be hard-pressed to survive a speedy-A1 nomination. The Bushranger One ping only 10:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 08:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Violates WP:OR and WP:V. I had originally tagged this page for deletion under Speedy Criterion G12 because it is a verbatim copy of http://www.friendshiper.com/scripter.html. However, after I had informed the creator of Wikipedia's copyright policy, he added a statement to his website releasing the content under CC-BY-SA and GFDL. This made the article invalid for deletion under G12, hence why I've brought the discussion here. There are no verifiable sources and the only external link is to the website from which the article is copied. — Oli OR Pyfan! 05:42, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 08:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable Tiptoety talk 05:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 08:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable mixed martial arts trainer. Lack of independent sources suggesting otherwise. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 04:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 08:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. Caps for Kosovo do not confer notability as they are not FIFA affiliated. Contest rational was That Kosovo doesn't have a national team, this is not up to FIFA to decide, nor is it up to you. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 08:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Original research extravaganza which I gather was controversial even when it was part of ancient astronauts. Title is wildly misleading about the actual content. Mangoe (talk) 03:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. WP:SNOW in the forecast. The Bushranger One ping only 10:56, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not a notable alcoholic beverage. Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 03:01, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Consensus is that the article currently fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 08:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article fails to meet WP:ORG, WP:WEB or WP:GNG. I find no matches on GNews and so there seems little prospect of demonstrating the significant impact needed to address the problem. Fæ (talk) 02:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to fail WP:SPAM
This page is probably advertising that has slipped through the cracks. As has been noted on the Effects unit talk page this is a highly obscure, all but unknown effect. No notable sources found after Google books, news and scholar search. No mention of device in notable guitar magazines such as Guitar Player and Guitar World.--Atlantictire (talk) 15:07, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete just a rewrite of her ABC bio page. Shii (tock) 06:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No indication of notability. I was going to speedy for no indication of significance, but I thought I'd bring it here. Matthew Thompson talk to me bro! 01:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking as Penny Johnston, I don't think I warrant deletion! However the contribution to parenting discussion through the babytalk podcast makes this entry relevant. Currently the wiki entry is fairly sparse but the page has only been up for a few days! All of the information is verifiable the podcast is downloaded by about 80,000 users per month. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pennymcj (talk • contribs) 07:19, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "Speaking as Penny Johnston, I don't think I warrant deletion!":
The idea is that the article has been nominated for deletion. No one, as far as I can tell, has threatened to delete you. I know that sounds frivolous, but in the last Afd discussion in which I was involved the subject really did behave as if he'd been consigned to Death Row. In that case he pretended to be someone other than the subject, so it's refreshing (for me) that you appear as yourself, although Matthew Thompson is right; the subject shouldn't normally edit an article about himself. Anyway, Kudpung's sources argument would seem to be valid. Do other sources exist? TheScotch (talk) 09:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Penny is a notable public figure in Melbourne. She is one of the highest rating broadcasters for her show 'Babytalk'. I went to search for her on Wikipedia so find out about her work background. When I found no existing entry, I created one to recognise her. I intend to add more information as I locate it from verifiable, primary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmilyClareO (talk • contribs) 11:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Google makes it clear that Penny Johnston is very well known in Australia. Most of the sources are connected to Babytalk, or, as is natural for a broadcaster, are by the subject herself. It seems certain that more reliable independent sources will emerge. Since WP readers are interested in such topics, we should keep. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Note that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a place for gaining 'recognition'. At Wikipedia, our strictest policies apply to biographies of living people. Notability must be asserted according to Wikipedia's rules. At a push, this articles could be userfied until such sources are found and and verified for compliance. How to get pregnant on a smart phone, is colic scientific and can your relationship survive a baby are not sources and are bordering on spam links and promotion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm from Australia, and I haven't heard of her. (sorry if you're reading this Penny!) If you can find some valid third party references (not from the ABC, as they employ the person), then the article has a chance of being kept. Matthew Thompson talk to me bro! 04:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 17:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does not demonstrate notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you transfer the page on my subpage ? Thanks in advance ! — Neustradamus (✉) 09:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion, nomination wothdrawn. Davewild (talk) 10:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am in two minds about this one but I think we need to discuss it. It is a promotional article with peacock language about a local music store with some local media coverage but I am not seeing really significant coverage in national media, just quite a few of passing mentions. There is possibly some claim to notability given the longevity but I am not sure if it is enough. The promotional tone is fixable, of course, so it all hinges on notability. If it was the oldest in the whole USA, maybe, but the oldest in Utah? I don't know. DanielRigal (talk) 00:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn --DanielRigal (talk) 10:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel, thank you for opening this up for discussion. My intentions were not to promote, so help from others is very much appreciated. This is my first attempt at creating a new article. I found Daynes Music a good candidate for a Wikipedia page because it is:
I do think that using references like LA Times or Chicago Tribune, though small, would have helped to show the significance is noted outside of Utah. I do feel it is notable enough to have an article, but perhaps my inexperience in showing that significance is at fault. http://articles.latimes.com/2002/apr/14/news/mn-37871 http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2002-02-15/news/0202150186_1_mormon-utah-olympics 101heather (talk) 01:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article has improved, and nobody at all has voted delete in several days, so it looks like I called this one wrong. I'm withdrawing my nomination and anybody who knows how to close the AfD can do so. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. causa sui (talk) 16:44, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as insufficiently notable. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 22:28, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. I'm unable to find any redeeming sources as well. m.o.p 02:38, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the references are to the company's own literature; article is written very much like an advertisement, but not quite blatant enough for a CSD G11! I'm also doubtful if this is a sufficiently notable company to have its own article. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 04:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Tales of Pirates. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter (whisper) 20:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem notable Breawycker (talk to me!) 00:23, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Userify. I agree with the concept of having a "reprieve from deletion to allow for some of us to go through our archives and see what we can find"--the way we do that is to userify, so I moved it to User:XXX Pink Narcissus XXX/Lee Ryder --when the information is found, I or any admin can restore to mainspace DGG ( talk ) 23:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Porn performer who does not appear to meet WP:PORNBIO. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:54, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. causa sui (talk) 16:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A spinout of iOS jailbreaking, this article should never have existed in the first place: the entire article is, and has been, in such a state that it can never exist as a viable spinout without massively violating WP:V. Nor is the parent article in any need of spinning out due to changes to that article I've made removing any citations to primary sources/blogs. Finally, it isn't really a viable target for searching either, which removes its only remaining ground to exist. Sceptre (talk) 03:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - See the previous AfD for my reason, which explains why the article exists. Also, per WP:BEGIN this AfD is premature, as you did not consider merging, nor was any discussion for merging the content made, which I assume is what is meant by this AfD, as opposed to deleting the content outright. Also, how the article cannot exist without violating WP:V perhaps needs clarification, as the content in the article is verified. - SudoGhost 03:30, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, Rewrite or Move to other Wikis. Sceptre, I feel that you are being a bit strict to the point of being a WP:NOT nazi or whatever. If this article shouldn't be a single page by itself, then all we have to do is merge it back into the Jailbreak page. (Note: which would make the Jailbreak page way too long). I think this was split from the Jailbreak page, but if it was not, then this should stay as a separate page to prevent the lengthy articles problem. Also, since you recently deleted the link to this article on the Jailbreak page, I feel like you just want to get rid of this information for a reason or no reason. If this article is deleted without a valid reason, we would lose a lot of information. (I think some of these article deletions result in major losses of information that people would not really attempt to compile in the future, so I don't want to see this information get deleted). - M0rphzone (talk) 07:21, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
—Tom Morris (talk) 07:21, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Consensus is that the article fails the notability guideline and no evidence has produced to refute this. Davewild (talk) 08:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this has the notability to warrant an article. This guy certainly exists, but he has a very marginal documented effect on what are clearly a notable band. If anything, he could have a couple of (sourced) lines in Weezer (e.g. "...around this time, the band hired Karl Koch12 to act as their webmaster—he would later go on to direct such-and-such music video13 and play keyboards at this live date.14") —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:56, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Consensus is that the article fails the notability guideline and no evidence has been produced to refute this. Davewild (talk) 08:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I had previously nominated this article for speedy after not being able to locate significant reliable source coverage. Speedy nomination was removed. Hence we are at AfD. Perhaps someone else will have better luck turning up significant reliable source coverage. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 18:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]