![]() |
The result was delete. relisted. No !votes to keep. No indications of notability. StarM 02:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable compilation album. Till 23:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. has been relisted. No !votes to keep. No indications of notability. StarM 02:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTABILITY; no sign of qualifying under WP:NMUSIC. The one-name name makes them basically unsearchable, but the two press clippings listed here are from very brief listings, one of them by a festival promoting them for an appearance, the other... well, I'm not sure what the blog entry is, but it's just a couple lines. Nat Gertler (talk) 23:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 04:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Album does not meet WP:NMUSIC Zad68
22:44, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:12, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this framework is notable. Also interwikis are not true. (just the Persian one (فارسی) was not broken that was linked to another PHP framework, CakePHP) –ebraminiotalk 22:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Canada–People's Republic of China relations. The Bushranger One ping only 04:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Blatant promotion of the author and his consultancy business. Subject does not seem to meet notability criteria (no important academic position, no important public position, no published books), and his only claim to notability was a report by him commissioned by the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs. Note, this article was created via WP:AFC. BabelStone (talk) 21:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Burton has a significant record of publication including books and academic articles http://charlesburton.webplus.net/pubs.html. I will remove the reference to the consulting company. I do work for him part time from here in China, but he did not solicit this entry. I put him in because I was surprised he did not have an entry in Wikipedia already Maryge63 (talk) 22:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I also added a reference to his work advising on policy at the Chinese Communist Party Central Committee Party School. As his materials in the external links show he has also done a lot of policy advising work at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences and is adjunct at a number of Chinese universities. His work, op-eds and interviews are frequently translated into Chinese in Chinese blogs (he lists just some of the translations --- they tend to get deleted by the Chinese internet police) and in the Chinese "Reference News" and internal Chinese publications. He is a well-known figure here in China and gets so much press coverage in Canada as well as being on a lot of news panels, etc. He really is a significant international figure with a lot of influence and respect in China and among Chinese policy people in Western government, but he is modest and keeps a low profile due to the sensitive political nature of his work. He has accompanied the Prime Minister of Canada to China and is there when Chinese leaders visit Canada, met with the Dalai Lama in Canada at request of Tibet authorities every time he comes http://www.flickr.com/photos/cburton001/6992533818, etc., etc. I think BabelStone might want to reconsider. Maryge63 (talk) 22:37, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. I'm convinced. I withdraw the AfD DGG ( talk ) 05:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not convinced the sources show this web camera feed to be notable. I recognize the need to use informal sources in this area, but how to do so is a matter of judgement. DGG ( talk ) 20:26, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G3 blatant hoax, and author indef-blocked. In view of other hoax articles and complete lack of confirmation, there is no need for this to drag on. JohnCD (talk) 19:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another hoax article from an editor with previous for creating hoax articles on soccer. There is no such club as Birmingham Boys AFC, no former club called West Midlands AFC and no stadium as BT Stadium of Birmingham City (were a youth team to be based in a 71,000 seat stadium that at least would be newsworthy) Much of the article is cut and pasted from Birmingham City and as such is referenced. The only other reference given on this page - www.bbfc.com is a non existent website and the url given in the infobox - www.bbfc.co.uk is actually the website of the British Board of Film Classification. (Note - a CSD under A3 was raised previously) NtheP (talk) 19:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Cotaco Opera House. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus has been that individual Masonic lodges are not notable. The buildings they are in can be notable,and in this case it is -- and it already has an article, Cotaco Opera House . FWIW, the article was accepted at AfC DGG ( talk ) 19:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 03:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Album has no title, no release date and no track listing. This article shouldn't exist in mainspace, at best not until there are definite facts available in authoritative sources and it has been widely reviewed. Probably it should be incubated until that time. There is already a meaty paragraph in the Kesha article about the speculation. Sionk (talk) 19:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 04:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CBALL. Future sporting series with no references and largely speculatory content. Falcadore (talk) 18:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 04:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Total mess of an article created on the 29th. Most information is duplicated from Brickworks and brick, leaving an incoherent mess of redundancy. Contains large amounts of copyrighted material. Deprodded without comment. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 04:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated this page, because it is a clear violation of WP:N and WP:COI/WP:AUTOBIO. The creator of this page is the person himself, a violation of Wikipedia policy. This is also a violation of notability guidelines - (not "independent of the subject") and no significant coverage or awards. He's on a local station that is rarely watched by people in the area. It's all about self-promotion 173.69.30.178 (talk) 17:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC) - discussion page created on behalf of IP 173.69.30.178 by Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC) [reply]
The result was speedy delete. G11; also WP:SNOW. The Bushranger One ping only 01:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a motivational speaker created by a new account. Google results return little except his website and various speaker booking sites, and gnews turns up nothing. The article seems promotional but I wasn't comfortable with a G11. Mr. Vernon (talk) 16:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see no signs of notability here; the only third party reference is [3] , and it is just a reprint of their manifesto, written by one of their governing body. DGG ( talk ) 16:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 04:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
unsourced product description from a non notable company. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 15:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
[reply]
Marked for CSD G11 - further research of the web proves unfortunately limited sources, most are manufacturer based - withdraw keep, nommed for CSD. FishBarking? 20:10, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
During a recent GA review it has been suggested by multiple editors that this article would fail Notability. More recently another editor suggested the same at Wikipedia talk:Good article criteria#Clarification requested on "broad in coverage". I think instead of just talking about it, we need to test whether this article should be kept in the first place. The relevant points are listed below:
Hope nobody minds that for efficiency I simply quoted earlier comments -- ELEKHHT 14:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 04:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Page created by a single-purpose account, references in the article are all unreliable/primary sources, in my searches I found a little more, just a couple of press releases and a couple of trivial mentions. Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:GROUP. Cavarrone (talk) 14:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Speedy delete per G5: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lynne Chandler Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No indication of WP:notability. Recreated by editor with a WP:conflict of interest. Originally deleted two years ago after this debate. Google searches do not seem to show any independent coverage. noq (talk) 13:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 04:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable, fails WP:MUSICBIO, declined CSD A7. GregJackP Boomer! 13:28, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 04:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be a student essay, including author, and while it may be a good student essay I don't believe it is remotely encyclopedic as it is. It is pure original research and strongly opinionated. The single source does not seem to substantiate the content in the article. It has been tagged with multiple needs for improvement for well over half a year and has not been improved. I believe this should either be deleted or incubated until and unless it is modified to meet our core policies. Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:52, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. There is certainly a strong consensus for the article not to be kept in its current form; the main contention is whether it should be merged or deleted. Numerically, the delete and merge votes are roughly equal. Those voting for delete note that this is a fringe theory with no independent sources to establish notability. They have also contested that merging the article would not resolve this issue. No one supporting the merger of the article has countered this argument, so no strong case has been put forward against deletion. Canvassing was a slight issue which I gave minor consideration too; however, it did not have a significant impact and only one new editor made a comment following the incident. Therefore, the consensus is for the article to be deleted. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:36, 13 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)) . |
The topic falls under WP:FRINGE, which requires it to be discussed in a serious manner by several reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. I can only find one (iffy) source which does so (America B.C. : Ancient Settlers in the New World, by Fell, Barry, published by Simon & Schuster in New York). The article cites this... and a self-published website by Gloria Farley, the person who "discovered" the inscriptions and came up with the theory that they were of pre-Columbian Celtic/Punic origin (neither independent nor reliable, and so not good for establishing notability). It also sites some scholarly sources that debunk the general idea that there was any pre-clumbian settlement by Europeans (other than the aborted Scandinavian settlement in Canada) - but these sources do not mention Turkey Mountain at all. I feel that additional sources are needed... I have conducted a reasonable search without finding any, and I have repeatedly asked if there are any additional sources (not necessarily scholarly source... media stories, tourist brochures, etc) to support the notability of the inscriptions, but no one has been able to provide any. I would be happy to withdraw this nomination if it turns out that there are sources... but as things stand now, I feel I must nominate. Blueboar (talk) 12:36, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Result: MERGE, but in effect DELETE. The consensus is clearly not to keep this article. I have moved stuff from here to Turkey Mountain (Oklahoma) and will now merge these articles, in effect deleting this article since stuff is now at Turkey Mountain (Oklahoma). I know some people simply wanted a delete, but you can review Turkey Mountain (Oklahoma) and change it if you think something is wrong there. Aarghdvaark (talk) 01:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Til is clearly canvassing, this is not at all neutral[9]. Dougweller (talk) 15:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am unable to find coverage of this actor. [10] Does not appear to meet WP:GNG, WP:BASIC or WP:NACTOR. Till 11:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fan page for a Youtube musician. Singularly fails WP:MUSIC - no albums, no singles, no label, no chart placing, no radio airplay. Brief appearance on a TV show, not the "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" required by WP:ENTERTAINER - every guest on Dr. Phil has more exposure than that. Only claim of notability is "lots of YouTube hits", which is not evidence of notability per WP:BIGNUMBER. WP:BIO's basic criteria "the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" is not met at all - there is not one review or journalistic article, just a salad of YouTube videos and booking pages - nothing that approaches WP:V or WP:BLP. The article has already been deleted 5 times, including by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyler Ward, and was recreated without DRV. Given the 5 year campaign by fans to recreate this article, it should be WP:SALTed after deletion. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 11:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DGG ( talk ) 07:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable school Iamthemuffinman (talk) 11:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD, with reason "part of a series covering the whole of China". As none of the list items currently have articles, and the source provided does not have enough information to create such articles, this would appear to not meet the general notability guidelines. This appears more like a directory than an informative list, rather than an encylopedic entry. While I admire the intention to cover the whole of China, that does not mean that everything in China needs to have an entry, and a list which consists of no links to articles, or significant amounts of information, does not seem to be sufficient enough to meet the expectations at WP:LIST PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Though the term does seem to have been used a few times, this has the feel of a neologism that never caught on beyond scattered use here and there. In particular, I can't see the difference between this and "pop culture tourism" (which has its own page and which really more or less covers the phenomenon sufficiently on its own), suggesting that this page is more or less redundant. Tyrenon (talk) 09:27, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WP:SNOW falls, article dies. The Bushranger One ping only 19:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable list which will normally have non-notable entries. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 08:22, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 04:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable fashion e-tailer. Only refs appear to be resellers and a small number of blogs. Seaching in google turns up lots of items for sale and a few mentions in blogs, but no indepth coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:16, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn by nominator. Non-admin closure. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Stub about a non-notable musical release. One reference, which appears to be a forum post (changed from a link to a music sale site when teh PROD was removed). Song appears not to have charted. No claim of notability. Lots of database entries and music sales sites in google, along with a few forum-type sites. Nothing that looks like indepth coverage in independent third party sources as required by the WP:GNG. Note: I don't speak Japanese and all the sources appear to be in Japanese. No inter-wiki link to steal refs from. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:55, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 04:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable and the PROD BLP tag was removed multiple times by the author sans addressing the issues. I haven't found any evidence to confirm this subject is notable, there is a possible relevant or irrelevant "Abu Bakr al-Badhib" here. This article claims he is the editor of The Encyclopedia of Mecca and Medina, which may be notable but there are no sources to confirm this. Aside from that link, the only links I found are either Wikipedia mirrors or "no results found" websites. I must also note that I found zero results with Google News. SwisterTwister talk 07:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unremarkable band. No assertion of notability. No reliable third party references - all there is are a bunch of self-published links (twitter, youtube, etc.) which say "the band exists". Biker Biker (talk) 06:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to List of Middle-earth weapons and armour. The Bushranger One ping only 04:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fictional artefact, does not have enough real world significance to require it's own article. Article should be deleted and any information that needs saving can go in List of Middle-earth weapons and armour GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 05:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fails Wikipedia:NFOOTBALL. Ironholds (talk) 05:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NOTE. Having a lot of hits on YouTube does not constitute notability. I see nothing in the article or from doing a Google search that suggests Green has significant coverage (most of the sources are original research). Tiptoety talk 05:19, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We should go with speedy not AfD for this type of deletion The'ChampionMan1234 05:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Cinnamon_challenge references her, but the link to her is not there. Why? Because no one will let her have a Wikipedia article. MargaretThatcher123 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment TheChampionMan1234, you declined deletion for Kumbar, which if you look up on Google receives 664,000 search results. When you look up GloZell, an article you did nominate for deletion, you get 2,660,000 results! MargaretThatcher123 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think this article needs to stand for an AFD test. This article struck me as being a BLP with literally no verifiable information in its current state other than that he has written some books. Since BLP's are held to a higher standard, I think that, in its current state, the article should be either improved or deleted. Regarding improvement, I tried, and have not been able to find any sources that I would consider "good sources" per WP guidelines. My specific concern is Wikipedia's Professor Test for notability. Perhaps someone out there has better access to sources in this particular field than I do, because I'm not seeing anything article worthy on my end. Ditch ∝ 04:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. The Bushranger One ping only 04:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BIO -- lack of significant third-party coverage of him, most notable event seems to be founding a redlinked magazine, and unclear if association with Clinton is significant. Possible to rescue if anyone can dig up sources. BennyHillbilly (talk) 04:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 04:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resume-like, can't find independent sources of notability other than being involved in a large number of projects. Seems like a successful career, but not yet meeting WP:BIO. BennyHillbilly (talk) 04:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WP:TOOSOON. No prejudice against recreation when he meets WP:NFOOTY. The Bushranger One ping only 04:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. He his only appearances for Partizan to date has been in Champions League qualifying, which does not confer notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Userfy. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
non notable and promotional. AfC submission that should not have been accepted. References are either not independent or insubstantial. DGG ( talk ) 03:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Criticism of Coca-Cola. The Bushranger One ping only 04:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I originally PROD'ed this under WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and the original author expanded the article. Still two issues: (1) the first (and most recent) news article linked to [18] says that officials aren't banning Coke; and (2) this seems like it would fit better in the main article on Coca-Cola (which already mentions the discussion of a possible ban.) Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:55, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Jenks24 (talk) 02:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article has barely any content, and the governing body of the sport does not even recognize the country. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 02:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to List of Wheel of Time characters. Whether and what to merge, and who will be considered a "minor" character, is at editorial discretion as always. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
None of the supporting characters in The Wheel of Time are notable or have reliable, substantial third party sources to support them. This is a followup to my AfD for Aviendha. All these articles are a better fit for Wikia, and in fact are already there. Exeva (talk) 02:03, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages, per the reasons above. Exeva (talk) 02:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. As always, arguments with a solid basis in Wikpedia policy were given more weight. A single deletion discussion cannot overturn one of the core principles of this project. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of this article does not appear to meet the applicable notability guideline at WP:ORG. I am not seeing any significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. VQuakr (talk) 02:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can sense the assertive bitterness of the professional critic. Unfortunately for you "Policy" changes has people of goodwill realize that it might be incomplete. Wikipedia is a great organization obviously looked after by people who care about informing the people about a "noble cause" as you rightly pointed out, with a public pull powerful enough to attract over 10,000 volunteers across the globe. Policies are adapted according to situations whenever possible so that the best outcome can be reached. This is not about advertising, this is about the worthiness of the information presented. We obviously have a team of people more than willing to bend over backwards to satisfy Wikipedia's requirements and reason its editors into seeing that our very noble cause is indeed worth of being featured and impartially presented in an informative format on Wikipedia.org. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.238.9 (talk) 09:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that the conversation with "Ubelowne" is going very far. This user is ignoring the very valid point that I am making. Policies are written by people who allow their policies to evolve and improve over time as new situations occur. Common sense is the best policy as it allows guidelines to be challenged and occasionally benefit from a positive change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.238.9 (talk) 03:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In reply to this comment: "I can't quite see how keeping this article about a non-profit translates into more usage by seniors", it's quite simple, a lot of elders are Googling "Elder Helpers" or "elderhelpers.org" they seek to read about our organization and services therefor, elders would read Wikipedia more if they could find reliable information about organizations relating to them. Quite straightforward, let me know if I am missing a nuance in your comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.238.9 (talk) 04:53, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Again, an organization serving thousands of elders around the world IS notable regardless of the currently established and accepted editing policy. Wikipedia has a duty to inform, which is the goal of this article, not advertise. Furthermore, Wikipedia has the desire to increase its readership among elders and offering articles relating to the elderly is the best way to accomplish this goal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.238.9 (talk) 14:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We never got the opportunity to reply to the questions above as the discussion was brutality shut in this quite hateful process. I question the ethics of Wikipedia and the choice of its editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.107.98.38 (talk) 23:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No inherent notability for a radio broadcaster; no reliable sources are given in the article and a Google News search turned up nothing at all. The webz only show resume-type information, nothing remotely reliable. The claimed nomination/awards (and participation in projects that got nominated/awarded) are unverified and hardly notable in the first place. Drmies (talk) 14:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not a real subject. We have articles about Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari. We don't need this too. I'd say turn it into a redirect, but it's unclear whether it ought to redirect to the Deleuze article or the Guattari article. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]