This discussion has been blanked to prevent its contents being indexed by search engines. The discussion is available in the page history. |
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 08:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Previously prodded at Francisco Júnior. A non-notable footballer who has not played a professional game.[1] Fails WP:ATHLETE. No substantial 3rd party coverage, fails WP:GNG. Tassedethe (talk) 23:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy keep per WP:SK#1. The nominator withdrew their nomination, and no other !votes (other than the nomination) to delete were posted. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000(talk) 21:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No indication this is a notable martial art. The world headquarters claims that there are 70 schools worldwide and I don't think that's enough to show notability for a martial art. There are no independent sources in the article. Papaursa (talk) 23:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wikipedia is not for self-promotion. Sandstein 06:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is apparently an autobiography; there are some nebulous claims of notability so I thought it best to bring it to AfD. The books appear to be self-published (one certainly is, the other two are E-books without attribution) and thus confer no notability. For the rest, I could locate no reliable sources that back up most of the claims and very little of this contributes to notability anyway. I confirmed the existence of an interview with her in a magazine. There is a strong air of self-promotion that would require extensive re-writing if this article survives AfD. Ubelowme U Me 22:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please let me know what claims are in dispute. thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ggiavelli (talk • contribs) 22:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that being a corporate c level executive and the sole female cto in california confers notability. This is documented/backed up by a link to a dice interview article (dice is a well established jobs site for the technology industry). There is also a published article linked as well. Whether a book is self published or not is irrelevant since many others use publishing services as the new model also it is a simple matter to register a ISBN privately and then there would be no issue if something is "self" published or not. Whatever airs of "self promotion" are in the disputers head this is simply a information point for people seeking information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ggiavelli (talk • contribs) 22:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just read the policy on entries for living persons. I will adjust the tone and add more references. thanks. Please forgive my newness to using wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ggiavelli (talk • contribs) 23:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I completed my updates of references as much as is possible in the short term. I had to learn how to do footnotes and proper wikipedia style. I have also re-linked the article into other wiki articles so I hope that meets the criticism raised. --Ggiavelli (talk) 00:19, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. By way of comparison look at John Koza's wikipedia entry. I believe this current entry is better cited and more notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ggiavelli (talk • contribs) 01:09, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I find the whole gamut of wikipedia rules, not just the rules but the thuggish way things are enforced and the hamfisted aggressive approach people have here to be extremely off-putting to sane logical people who are simply trying to use the system. It's not a friendly place in the slightest and to be honest after my experience here I feel like I will never come back. I find the reactions I have had disturbing to put it mildly. Maybe it is a response to vandalism of articles but at a certain point it becomes no more than petty thought police feeling high and mighty implementing their feifdoms. My submission was criticized for not having external links from other wiki articles. But when I tried to add such a link I got "Oh no you dont you have to discuss your changes in talk first" thats utter nonsense. To get such drivel just shows how far from a wiki this place has become. So basically I cannot fulfill the requirements, because the enforces are psychopaths. so forget it. who has patience for such childish people? I sure dont. Ggiavelli (talk) 02:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted WP:CSD#G7 by Reaper Eternal (talk) after author blanked the page and added speedy tags. JohnCD (talk) 14:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was able to verify that this singer/songwriter/playwright/model/actor exists, but I was not able to find reliable sources to verify his notability in any of those fields. Prod removed by creator, who may have a conflict of interest. The article says that several of his songs 'reached top 20 status in Europe' - maybe I'm missing some obvious source that confirms this? FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 06:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Notability, lack of references Beastiepaws (talk) 22:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. There is no consensus about notability or whether the article should be about the event rather than the person. Sandstein 06:11, 26 August 2012 (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)) |
His claim to have shot down a Zero with a .45 was written up in Airforce magazine, but his military career doesn't appear to have any other notable achievements. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 08:25, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable amateur football club. Not played at level 10, or played in FA Cup or FA Vase. PROD was removed by LeagueOctopus saying "The club (or part thereof) appears to have played in the FA Vase - refer http://www.fchd.info/HEBBUR-1.HTM ". However, this is actually the FCHD record for Hebburn Town F.C. of the North Football League who, confusingly, used to be called Hebburn Reyrolle at one point too. Hence the {1} after the name. The other Hebburn Reyrolle FCHD pages can be found in the references section of the article. Del♉sion23 (talk) 21:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Not a deletion issue. Although few opinions have been offered, it appears clear that whatever may be wrong with this page can be fixed editorially, such as by rewriting or redirecting it. Sandstein 06:09, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect and confusing disambiguation page. The Banner talk 20:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. There is a clear consensus that this individual's work, to the extent it has been recognized by reliable sources, is insufficent to show notability at this time. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 15:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Has accomplished more than I have, certainly. Nevertheless, she does not appear to be notable for either her humanitarian work or her acting work, the references don't look particularly substantial or reliable, and I am having difficulty finding decent coverage of this person. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Metropolitan90, as she is well-known in a small country and her work mainly consists of philanthropy at such a young age, a lot of sources about her are not on the internet but were in newspapers, magazines and other written sources. I don't know exactly what you want me to do, but all of those sources are not available on the internet. It is also known that she is going to participate in some very large projects this year, so there will probably be more internet sources over the next few weeks. I will find it very petty if anyone wants to delete this page soon. We are all volunteers and it especially does not make volunteers from other countries 'experts' on a subject from a country they are not from based on reading one article. But, since you insist on 'more' sources, I have just added other sources which are all legitimate. How many 'sources' do I need to add, before all of you will take that 'deletion message' away? I would suggest all of you to scrutinize some other articles that contain much less sources about people who are less well-known, and who have no 'deletion messages' appearing on their articles. Just look on the list of people born in 1994 - a large amount of articles contain much less information than this article (about people who have hardly done anything) and which contain much less sources! I have tried to add some extra sources, and they are governmental pdf files about Georgina Booth (so they are legitimate), but Wikipedia will not allow me to do that. You can hardly expect me to retrieve all articles in newspapers and magazines that this person has been featured in! Instead of wasting time, can this 'issue' be solved now? What 'needs' to be done to take the deletion message away? If this Encyclopedia 'needs' to be 'maintained', then you should scrutinize those thousands of other articles, which do not have any deletion messages, and contain much less information (also hardly any sources). --Wikinow1 (talk) 10:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)--Wikinow1[reply]
Why didn't anyone say any of this earlier? A lot of people have already edited it, and only because 'Bangwarrior' suddenly put the deletion message on, it 'might have to be deleted'. How subjective! It is a personal opinion. There are a lot of reliable sources about this person. I am also assuming none of you live in The Netherlands... That is probably the reason why none of you are 'finding sources' about this person. Do all of you really want to spend so much time scrutinizing this article? There is nothing wrong with this article and the sources are reliable and independent. If you disagree, then you are disagreeing with large Dutch (governmental) organizations. Why are all of you so fixated on the internet? What about the actual hard copy sources, e.g. newspapers and magazines? Instead of scrutinizing this article about this young girl in particular who has done a lot of good things and has a lot of reliable sources to back her up, try looking and deleting some other articles of others who were born in 1994 and have really unreliable and non-independent sources (e.g. this person born in 1994: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samantha_Boscarino). Is a Twitter source of that person reliable? You should start checking these other articles instead... If you think a Twitter account on the 'article of Samantha Boscarino' is more reliable than reliable governmental and NGO sources of 'the article of Georgina Booth', then I must say that none of you know the rules of Wikipedia well. Is social media e.g. Twitter a reliable source and are articles from large Dutch (governmental) institutions not reliable? --Wikinow1 (talk) 15:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)--Wikinow1[reply]
By the way in response to 'Sudoghost' (Article fails WP:GNG; it would need some reliable sources that are independent of the subject in order to warrant an article, and this article doesn't have that right now, looking online doesn't show anything either.): I have just added another reliable source to this article that is independent from the topic (an article from a business club part of the Dutch government). How can you say that it is not reliable and independent? This article has more reliable sources than a lot of articles in the list of 'People born in 1994'. --Wikinow1 (talk) 15:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)--Wikinow1[reply]
If all of you want to delete this, then you should delete most articles in the list of people in 1994. This person has done more than them and has more sources too. --Wikinow1 (talk) 15:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)--Wikinow1[reply]
Why scrutinize this article, when a lot of other articles are allowed to exist that don't obey the rules of Wikipedia? And this person is notable in The Netherlands. Are any of you from The Netherlands? It is an invalid reason to assume this person is not notable, just because you can't find enough about her in other countries. It is like saying that you should delete every article about small places in the world that most people in the world have never heard of. Not every biography on Wikipedia is about people who are notable in every single part of the world. A lot of people are just notable in 1 or a few countries. Just a question: is Twitter allowed as a source? --Wikinow1 (talk) 13:25, 19 August 2012 (UTC)--Wikinow1[reply]
Delete - There are a few mentions of the subject floating around the internet, and I'm sure there are similar references to her in print sources that I can't dig up at the moment, but nothing to show notability. She'll probably get there someday, but right now any mention of her that I can find (even being fluent in Dutch) is either not significant coverage, or it is not independent of the subject. Fails WP:GNG MisterUnit (talk) 21:30, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do NOT Delete - if Twitter is not a reliable source, then a deletion message should also appear on articles like 'the article of Samantha Boscarino' and on many other Wikipedia articles. Why is there no deletion message appearing on them, but all of you seem to be ganging up together on this article? How can I assume 'bad faith' according to some of you when everything I am saying is true? I would strongly recommend all of you to leave this page alone, or for a few months as it is known in the area where she is from that she is going to be more high profile (a lot of sources about her are hard copy). All of you just seem to be 'stalking' her and scrutinizing her obsessively on the internet when you could be scrutinizing others who do NOT meet the criteria of Wikipedia. Kind of sad scrutinizing an article about a young girl who has done a lot and is notable. By the way, 'MisterUnit', can you prove that you can speak Dutch fluently (and not using google translation)? I might just file a complaint about all of you who obsessively spending your time on scrutinizing an article that does overall meet the criteria of Wikipedia, when a lot of articles which do NOT are left unchecked. And if you, MisterUnit, are fluent in Dutch, how come you find the sources 'not independent of the subject'? If you were fluent in Dutch, you would read that they are independent governmental or NGO institutions in The Netherlands with leading Dutch politicians as head of them. Kind of sounds like all of you are jealous of this young person (due to the fact that she might have achieved more at a younger age than a lot of you without being on the internet 24/7) and that is why none of you want an article written about her... As 'Bongwarrior' already subjectively said when he placed the deletion message on the article 'Has accomplished more than I have, certainly' or as 'MisterUnit' said 'She'll probably get there someday'. By saying a personal opinion first rather than objectively observing this article, it shows that there are personal reasons why some of you believe that this article should be deleted... Maybe some of you have kids and are comparing her to them or maybe you are comparing her to yourselves? And I am not the first person on the internet to be saying this about some of the volunteers on this page who are criticizing this article... I do not want an argument, but I am only saying the facts. Also, I would like to emphasize that all of you are judging this person's article based on her acting career. It has to be emphasized that she is known more as a philanthropist than an actress. It was just put in her biography that she was an actress in the past and is now more primarily a philanthropist. And by the way, there IS an article on the Dutch wikipedia. --Wikinow1 (talk) 14:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have now taken everything of the articles of 'Georgina Booth', so there is no point arguing anymore. Please just leave this topic alone now. Apparently nobody wants to give a new volunteer the chance to change the first article that I have ever written on this website and put a lot of effort into writing it. I think it is such a waste of time to argue whether a young teenage girl who is known to do a lot of good work for others does or does not deserve to be on this encyclopedia. Do not bother reversing what I have done just so you can delete it yourself.--Wikinow1 (talk) 08:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy close as inappropriate for AfD discussion. In fact the title needs to remain at least for a day or so until the bot fixes a lot of double redirects. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redundant page due to another user's typo. New page is here small intestinal bacterial overgrowth Tepi (talk) 20:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:05, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Listing of season episodes with plot summaries. Violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTPLOT. BenTels (talk) 20:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:49, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He's a non-notable MMA fighter. He has 1 fight for a top tier MMA organization (a loss over 3 years ago) so he fails WP:NSPORTS#Mixed martial arts. The article's only source is sherdog and that's not enough to show he meets WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 20:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicating information that is at the parent article UEFA Cup Winners' Cup. Nothing to claim that the trophy is worthy of an article of its own. NapHit (talk) 19:48, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to List of UEFA club competition winners. The Bushranger One ping only 08:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Table appears to be a copy of List of UEFA club competition winners. As that list is a featured list and the bulk of what is here is there, this list should be deleted. NapHit (talk) 19:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Prod declined by author, so I'm putting this up for discussion. Article about a young author's first book, published by a small publisher apparently known best for a genre called 'Hinglish'. Two references provided: one is flipkart, a sales site, and the other is to Hindustan Times, but the reference goes to today's issue and I can't see this in there (I admit to flicking through and abandoning hope at the start of the sports pages). Peridon (talk) 19:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy deleted by Jimfbleak as A7: non-notable (non-admin technical closure). Ymblanter (talk) 07:59, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I declined A7 as there is an assertion of notability. However, there are possible copyright problems - various portions of the text show up on various sites - and the whole thing is unreadable and non-encyclopaedic. It could possibly be regarded as promotional in purpose, like a sort of unwieldy CV. The article appears to be unreferenced. Peridon (talk) 19:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:PROF.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 08:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BIO, no in-depth coverage of the person in secondary reliable sources Nableezy 18:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While his conspiracy theories are certainly notable for their asininity (e.g. that the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami was caused by an underwater nuclear explosion, or that the Pakistan Armed Forces are secretly led by Pakistani Zionists), there don't seem to be enough third party reliable sources to sustain this article - in particular, his entire biography is unsourced. Unless additional references can be found, this article should be deleted.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Delete. Not notable, not interesting, not anything.Nishidani (talk) 07:43, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. His most notable book according to his website is : 'Jerusalem in the Quran' but I could not find any secondary reference of this. Wikipedia is not dedicated to give notoriaty to people without any. Pluto2012 (talk) 12:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have a problem with MEMRI which is in my opinion a propaganda against Islam--Fluereveneno (talk) 12:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem to meet WP:SCHOLAR. All the references are to papers or conference presentations, etc. I can find [4] which is a casual mention of him, but Google books with variations on his name didn't produce anything useful, but others may have more luck. Dougweller (talk) 18:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Not a snowball's chance in Elbonia The Bushranger One ping only 01:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable event. Its not even a airline incident. Flight 131 is the flight it completed earlier in the day. The plane caught fire on the ground with nobody on board. ...William 18:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Please wait at least 3 months to renominate. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting due to a no consensus, non administrator close. Article blatently fails WP:NOTABILITY and WP:NSOFT. Every "keep vote" in the previous debate except one was created specifically for that deletion discussion. Five long term, trusted and established Wikipedia editors made reasoned arguments with clear consensus as "Delete". Article was previously deleted under PROD and once as G11 and twice created by the software's author(WP:COI), Christian Hackbart (CHackbart (talk · contribs)) and shortly after AFD nomination and an announcement on DVBViewer's forums (@ 13 August 2012 - 19:34) these WP:SPA accounts were created;
Article does contain multiple links masquerading as references, but a closer look reveals they are merely trivial coverage or mentions or in some cases have a "strong connection" with the subject. The nature being "bundled"/"included" by hardware or some other manufacturer or vendor fails the primary test of being "independent" of the subject... nor would the subject "inherit" notability due to being so closely associated. "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator. ...[4]". Also see See WikiProject Spam report. Hu12 (talk) 18:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Masao Takahashi. The Bushranger One ping only 08:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Person of questionable notability. Google news search on "June Takahashi" shows only 13 results, with only 4 of those actually mentioning the subject only in passing. Standard search shows various social media and simple directory listings - no significant coverage of this person found. WP:NOTINHERITED from her husband. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn and Keep. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser TSU 00:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a non-notable mall. There is some coverage, but it's all routine; changes of ownership, changes of name, and so on. Most of the coverage consists of mere mentions of the mall. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedied G11.. Peridon (talk) 18:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
доктор прагматик 16:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Trailer (book). (non-admin closure) Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 04:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a fork of Trailer (book) which uses the adjective "cinematic" to make it seem like book trailers with higher production values are a whole new category. The only good source used, Chicago Tribune, says that book trailers have been poorly made in the past and that some are improving in quality, but does not use the term "cinematic book trailer" or state that such cinematic book trailers are a new type. Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:02, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. GedUK 13:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a television series that does not seem to be notable. Unreferenced. No sources directly evident from Google, GNews, Gbooks. BenTels (talk) 16:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser TSU 00:25, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Player who fails N:FOOTY, still fails GNG in my opinion and who was just released from a football club that is fully-pro without making an appearance (the fact that he would make an appearance was one of the reasons people used for the last AfD for keep).--Arsenalkid700 (talk) 15:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to List of Dragonlance characters#Dragons. The Bushranger One ping only 08:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A search for reliable, secondary sources reveals an insufficient amount of significant coverage. This article fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for fictional characters. Neelix (talk) 15:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. GedUK 13:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The content in this biographical article is almost entirely unsourced. While the subject of this article is mentioned in some publications, those publications feature this person as an arbitrary example and not as the focus of the article.
This person is a magazine editor who has published many articles but so have many other editors - see WP:MILL. I assert that the sources do not verify this article's content, and that even if they did, the article's content does not establish notability. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:48, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. GedUK 13:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unsupported piece of POV writing. A probable magnet for edit wars and POV clashes (see recent edits). Would need to be totally rewritten to be encyclopedic. Not quite an attack page speedy in my view, but... There might possibly be a valid and useful article on this topic, but this text isn't it -- this isn't any part of such an article or even a start on one. DES (talk) 14:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable, just an ad. Content is just a POV list of features. All Google hits are just web pages for the product itself or announcements by the developer. Not a significant product, not important. Doesn't deserve an article. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 13:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. No prejudice towards a quicker than normal renomination. (Please wait at least one month.) Mark Arsten (talk) 17:10, 24 August 2012 (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)) |
*Merge: Genesis 1:3–5 although a good proposal from Fayenatic london (talk · contribs), conflicts with Genesis 1:1-3 (In the beginning). So now we are at a tug of war for verse 3. So, perhaps there is consideration to merge them all into Genesis 1:1-5 as IZAK (talk · contribs) put it "the first five verses of the Book of Genesis) are one logical set that contains the details of the First Day of creation according to the Bible". Thanks, — Jasonasosa 21:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
::Which again conflicts with Genesis 1:1-3 as a set for (In the beginning). So we are back to a tug-of-war for verse 3. Thanks, — Jasonasosa 17:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
:::The merge proposed creates a tug of war between Gen.1:1-3 (even if stand alone articles) and Gen.1:3-5 (even if merged as one article). Thanks, — Jasonasosa 18:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 08:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What is this? This could possibly be an article some day, but now it's just a serious of mostly disconnected links about NASA and the Armenian Genocide. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as hoax ... discospinster talk 12:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
May fail WP:Crystal? It's an upcoming television show and the article has no citations and the show hasn't even aired yet. SarahStierch (talk) 07:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A street, with no apparent notability. PROD was removed by original editor without comment. PamD 06:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fails Wikipedia:Notability (people) Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Entertainers and WP:BLP. Very hard to find sources about her except for the wedding and her model 'profile'. This article nominated for deletion in 2005 before there was a policy for sources. It passed on the fact that she was featured on magazines but it's unsourced still. I can't find a source on it except for mirrors. Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 04:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
http://jillmccormick.iwarp.com/
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/gossip/2010/09/eddie-vedder-jill-mccormick-married.html
http://www.celebritybabyscoop.com/category/eddie-vedder
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_gender_and_name_of_Eddie_Vedder's_second_child_with_Jill_McCormick
Jrcrin001 (talk) 06:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.fashionmodeldirectory.com/models/jill_mccormick
http://www.spokeo.com/Jill+Mccormick+1
http://www.pxdrive.com/album/JILL+MCCORMICK_pictures_gsiapic/
http://www.ask.com/questions-about/Jill-McCormick-Model
http://www.in.com/jill-mccormick/profile-1949053.html
http://www.fanpix.net/gallery/jill-mccormick-pictures.htm
http://blog.zap2it.com/pop2it/2010/09/jill-mccormick-lily-aldridge-stephanie-seymour-balthazar-getty---couple-news.html
http://www.fashionmodeldirectory.com/models/jill_mccormick/showphoto/86289/
http://www.pixmule.com/jill-mccormick/3/
Jrcrin001 (talk) 07:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Afghan detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On a living Guantanamo prisoner . Fails WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:BIO. There are no secondary sources to claim notability of the subject and the citations used are WP:PRIMARY sources (WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 84#Reliability of US military summary reports) DBigXray 10:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:BLP1E - low profile person whose role role isnt "substantial and well-documented" Crystalfile (talk) 11:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Afghan detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On a living Guantanamo prisoner. Fails WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:BIO, WP:GNG. There are no secondary sources to claim notability of the subject and the citations used are WP:PRIMARY sources (WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 84#Reliability of US military summary reports) DBigXray 11:06, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On a living Guantanamo prisoner. Fails WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:BIO. There is a lack of WP:SIGCOV to claim notability of the subject other than court case and few of the citations used are WP:PRIMARY sources (WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 84#Reliability of US military summary reports) DBigXray 13:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Only ten captives faced charges before the Presidentially authorized Military Commissions -- the ones struck down by the Supreme Court as unconsistutional. Zahir was the last one. I believe there is a meme shared by those who advocate deletion of the Guantanamo captives -- namely that events there are routine, mundane, not of out of the ordinary -- and thus not worthy of coverage. We don't cover certain kinds of routine events, even if the press has given them extensive coverage. I agree with this principle. I strongly disagree with the notion that the detention of the Guantanamo captives is routine.
My personal interpretation that conditions there are not routine is no more relevant than the personal interpretation of those in the delete camp that conditions are routine. What is relevant is what WP:RS said about Zahir's detention. I think the WP:RS clearly support Zahir's notability. Take the charges against him, and the hearings of his military commission.
The result was redirect to San Francisco State University#Campus Buildings. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser TSU 00:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable and I haven't found any third-party sources to confirm notability. The only links I have found are tour guide links or affiliated with the university. SwisterTwister talk 06:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing I could find indicating this particular actress was notable; searches turn up a bunch of mirrors and nothing of any significance. Article was also deleted in es.wiki. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:17, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The encyclopedia does not need an article about motorists' insurance requirements in every state and country of the world. This is not encyclopedic material. PROD was removed, without comment, by original editor. PamD 21:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think there is enough evidence here to show notability. Not news any longer in the usual sense, exactly, but still old news of little significance. DGG ( talk ) 21:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not encyclopaedic. It has been classified as part of an entirely unconnected main article, the link of which leads to a blank page. The content seems to be made up of conspiracy theoriesSesamevoila (talk) 06:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser TSU 00:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
After vast research, fails WP:GNG SarahStierch (talk) 05:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Nothing indicates that 'national chart' means solely a full aggregation of genre charts, therefore a national genre chart must be part of MUSICBIO, and the article establishes that she meets that criteria. Issues on censorship and oversight/rev del of edits can be addressed in other venues as necessary. GedUK 13:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Came up at ANI after legal threats and edit warring. Notability not established or at least doubtful. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am fixing this nomination on behalf of User:Darkstar1st, who provided the reason for deletion: "not in sources given". No opinion on my part yet. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:53, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:04, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article's author removed the proposed deletion tag moments after I added it. Although the article's subject may be interesting to some viewers, I can't see why there should be an article for this. Birthdays can be viewed at the individual articles and and character birthdays may be viewed as trivial. SwisterTwister talk 04:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:05, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not a particularly notable radio personality; searches didn't turn up anything particularly useful, and the claims of notability here are remarkably vague. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE, will restore as though it were an expired PROD. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really not seeing the notability here. He had a couple roles, but I'm not seeing enough sources to really met WP:ACTOR. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Mark Arsten (talk) 02:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable song. Only reference is to a database entry with no real coverage. The song does not appear to have charted. Given the name there may be foreign-language coverage, there's no inter-wiki link. Nothing obvious in google. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:07, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline notability case here; bringing to AfD for further community review. No strong opinion with a slight leaning toward delete on my end. Blurpeace 13:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unable to find reliable, secondary sources to evidence the notability of this video game voice actor. j⚛e deckertalk 14:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unable to find reliable, secondary sources which evidence the notability of this voice actor to demonstrate notability via WP:GNG. Additional sources welcomed. j⚛e deckertalk 14:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Mark Arsten (talk) 02:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unable to find reliable, secondary sources which evidence the notability of this video game voice actor under WP:GNG. this is marked as a press release, and wouldn't qualify as an appropriate source. The one source listed in the article is a primary source (according to the footnote at the bottom of its page.) Additional sources welcomed, as always. j⚛e deckertalk 14:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Adaptive behavior. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:57, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Recreated after a speedy deletion for copyright infringement. Now it's not infringing, but it doesn't contain anything that isn't also found in Adaptive behavior. There's nothing here to merge, and the point seems to be to promote the blog that it was formerly a copyright violation of. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:34, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Zend Framework. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this PHP framework is notable. –ebraminiotalk 08:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Amsterdamsche roeibond, as a topic, has not received enough coverage in reliable sources for a stand alone article per WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These hotels have nothing in common with each other except for their name. There appears to be a single reliable source discussing it (the Earl's biography) and that, in my opinion, does not confer notability on its own. TallNapoleon (talk) 18:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:51, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No actual evidence of notability for the book, which worldcat reports to be found in only 230 libraries. The Bloomberg article is about the person and the trading method, not the book specifically. The book is covered in the article on Covel, which is sufficient. I'm bringing this here instead of just redirecting, so that the decision will stick (and the promotional article history get deleted). I deplore the practice of trying to get multiple promotional articles. It's much safer to stick to one modest article. DGG ( talk ) 19:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 19:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article is an advertisement promoting a company and its products. It does not meet notability standards. Only reliable source is about investment advise comparing niche services like Heel-That-Pain.com to larger companies. Other sources are about heel inserts in general and do not mention the company being promoted in this article or the company's products. DocTree (talk) 03:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
not in sources given Darkstar1st (talk) 02:54, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
None of the top three sources mention the term in english, or were translated into such by a RS. a total of 34 citations for the top 3 sources, clearly the term does not exist elsewhere as was determined in the 1st afd and delete or redirect was the recommendation of many then. The article has been tagged for 1 year to improve sources with no success. Darkstar1st (talk) 02:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A View of Reform: By a Liberal Conservative. With Some Suggestions for a Reform Bill - 1866 - Dorrell
The result was Closed due to duplicate AfD. Another AfD for this same article is going on above at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liberal conservatism (2nd nomination) and has received more participation. Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
term not in sources given Darkstar1st (talk) 02:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:02, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable, and may not even exist. I have been unable to find any third-party reliable sourcing substantiating the existence of this institution. It's not included on the long California BPPE list of approved institutions at http://www.bppe.ca.gov/schools/approved_schools.shtml and it is has not submitted an annual report to BPPE: https://www.dca.ca.gov/webapps/bppe/annual_report.php . I've received email suggesting that I contact Jennifer Juarez at BPPE to verify the school's registration with BPPE. (But note that an email from BPPE would not create notability.) Orlady (talk) 02:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Snow Keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:54, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Holmes has no notability outside the shooting, the article on him needs to be deleted! The article is in Violation of WP:BLP1E the fact that he is the Sole Suspect of the Aurora 2012 Shooting makes him not eligible for a stand-alone article WP:BLP1E is equal to anybody alife or death! To my understanding and logic if a victim is not eligible for an article then the suspect is neither! Fox2k11 (talk) 02:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC) -- As Submitter of this AFD I don't know if possible but I like to declare that i Revoke the Submitting of this AFD and the article should stay! --Fox2k11 (talk) 23:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
and just like any user who created an account in good faith started with something I will commit myself to an project once i find one I am interested to create or edit! if you have an issue with me you know where my talk page is ok? thanks!Fox2k11 (talk) 13:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. There doesn't seem to be interest in deletion here, so no consensus between Keep and Merge. I suggest a merge discussion be opened. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable blogger; fails WP:BIO. I can't really find anything in the way of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The article itself admits that he's 'best known for starting the "Obama Eats Dogs" meme'; what little coverage there is only mentions him in that context, so this is a WP:BLP1E at best. But Obama Eats Dogs was deleted as non-notable, and the guy who created it is even less so. Robofish (talk) 01:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:53, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Notability: has one sentence and link, and an infobox. Grammarxxx (talk) 01:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. The arguments in support of keeping the article were fairly weak, but there was little appetite for deletion, so this close carries the same weight as a "No consensus" close would have. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:09, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Previous AfD closed as "no consensus". Previous AfD nomination still is valid: "Article describes a short-lived magazine and its even shorter-lived offshoot. During their brief existence, the only attention received from independent sources (of doubtful reliability - some read like press releases) consists of brief mentions in a marketing magazine and on two local radio/TV stations. Does not meet WP:NMEDIA or WP:GNG". In addition, it would seem that the sole raison d'être for this article is to get even with its publisher, given the persistency with which some SPA editors repeatedly include specifically that the bankruptcy entailed the non-payment of outstanding wages (nothing exceptional in case of a bankruptcy), sometimes by including unsubstantiated (unverified OR and SYNTH) information on a to-be-published novel (itself also non-notable) that purportedly is about the events around this magazine. No substantial sources have been added in the 4 months since the last AfD and the existing sources are to press releases, the magazines' websites, and some very minor publicitary coverage on local radio stations. Given that neither of these two magazines exist any more, it is highly unlikely that any additional sources will be forthcoming. In all: Delete. Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:02, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable academic. I can't (or maybe haven't) establish(ed) the notability of James John Miles within or without his field in academia. He has certainly published a number of works, but neither his work nor impact is astounding. Although he may indeed significant, it is with a heavy heart that I nominate the article concerning him for deletion. Qwerty Binary (talk) 16:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]