![]() |
< 30 December | 1 January > |
---|
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fighter fails WP:NMMA JadeSnake (talk) 23:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 10:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the subject of substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources. Note that WP:LOTSOFSOURCES don't actually indicate coverage of the subject. Most search results I find actually just refer to photo credits and are not actual coverage of Graylock. Others, such as this and stuff on Business Wire are WP:CRYSTAL and press releases, overall promotional in nature. I found one decent article, but that alone doesn't indicate this subject is actually notable. JFHJr (㊟) 23:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to American Pit Bull Terrier. MBisanz talk 00:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge with American Pit Bull Terrier - I can't find any secondary sources that establish the notability of this breed. In fact, a spin around google showed me nothing but passing mentions in a self-published erotic novel and a local newspaper.
The first source is the only one that might be considered a mention in a secondary source and I don't know how reliable that website is. Two of them are academic papers that don't even mention Bullies. The rest are directly related to the breed clubs representing the breed. TKK bark ! 22:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 05:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable per WP:BIO. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:08, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 00:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quick search did not reveal in depth coverage in multiple reliable sources to establish notability. Citation issues tagged since Aug 2010 Nouniquenames 21:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 05:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
not notable as a military aircraft accident, can be adequately covered in List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (1955–1959)#1955 Petebutt (talk) 19:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 05:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A military aircraft accident has to be notable, unlike this one, which can be adequately covered in List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (1955–1959)#1956 Petebutt (talk) 19:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete all. —Darkwind (talk) 13:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability per WP:ORG. Can't find anything about the church online in WP:Reliable sources, apart from brief local news coverage of when their school caught fire. Core article of a WP:Walled garden of articles on its pastor, local chapters, its youth group and its school, all of which similarly don't assert notability per WP:ORG (or WP:BIO in the case of its pastor), with no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Altered Walter (talk) 08:28, 23 December 2012 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages as noted above:[reply]
The result was Withdrawn. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While she is undoubtedly an accomplished individual, I'm not convinced that the subject of the article meets our notability guidelines (WP:PROF, WP:AUTHOR, or WP:GNG). Mark Arsten (talk) 16:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. No GNews/Book hits, GHits consist mainly of YTube and blogs. No reliable or verifiable sources. PROD declined by creator. GregJackP Boomer! 16:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. No significant independent coverage. Most sources provided pertained to other organizations or were self-promotions. No prejudice toward writing a new article from reliable sources. Mackensen (talk) 20:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable "youth branch" of a barely notable organization itself. Few ref's to try to even suggest any form of notability. Although possibly a noble goal, Wikipedia is not a place for noble organizations that lack notability (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:28, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Advertising, with a little bit of ignore all rules spice. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Too short to warrant an article of its own. When properly written it can be included briefly in the main Lottery article and possibly redirect searches for 'SMS Lottery' to it. Johnny Beta (talk) 15:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Vote count here is 5 delete to 4 keep, but there are some concerns here that people visited other talkpages to canvass support for their view, so the value of that is reduced. I based my decision here on the WP:MUSIC guideline and the wording in the WP:BLP1E policy.
The guideline that has been the centre of attention here is WP:MUSIC. In regards to releases, it is pretty clear that 100 copies sold mostly to friends and family falls far below the threshold that usually confers notability. On the other hand, Justice007 cited three criteria, number 9, 10, and 11 as a basis for Vitti's notability. With regards to #11, that one is dismissed, nobody here has produced any evidence that Vitti's songs have ever been in rotation on a major radio or music TV network. Participation in a single TV program is not the sustained airing constitutes a "rotation". #10 is a bit more debatable as Vitti did participate in a TV contest, but there is clear precedent that this does not extend to anyone who has participated in a contest, and even so, the wording in the guideline indicates that meeting this criterion on its own probably qualifies for no more than a redirect and mention in a parent article. (In this case, we have no article on the contest.) Finally criterion #9, winning or placing in a major music competition is also open to interpretation of the word "major", and the meaning of the word "placing" (which probably means that the competitor was in serious contention for victory, and not e.g. knocked out in preliminary rounds. Mere participation in a contest is most likely not sufficient). La Grande Battle was sent on a major French television network and it is certainly arguable that national prominence is "major"; however there is no evidence that Vitti won the contest or was close to winning the contest. I see the point being made by the keep side on #9, but equating participation with placing is stretching it.
What also weighs heavily is the WP:BLP1E policy that Azurfrog mentioned in a brief comment. All the cited sources are related to participation in La Grande Battle. Apart from that, Vitti has not yet gained a high profile in the music industry; his self-published album only sold 100 copies, and there is no other coverage about him. Finally, the third point in BLP1E which opens for notabiliy if "the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented" is not so relevant here; a single edition of a contest is unlikely to qualify as "significant" and mere participation in the contest is not the "substantial" involvement that this policy is looking for. Several of the keep votes here point out that the article is sourced, but have ignored that they are all related to a single contest.
Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:57, 8 January 2013 (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)) . |
Lacks secondary sources of sufficient quality ; no discography Koui² (talk) 13:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: You have a lot of comments here, actually you are contradicting your comments yourself, even you do not know what the issue is, "the reliability of the sources", "notability", "independent" or "what those state", is not true. You are just guessing, or that is may be your personal experience that is that and that is so. We have to see the reliability, not that how those state or how are written. Our policies do not follow fame or popularity of any subject, we should access the subject, if passes the notability in accordance to wiki-rules. And that subject does. Now let us see how we reach consensus in this regard.Justice007 (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
9. Has won or placed in a major music competition.
10. Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network.
11. Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network.)
There are other sources too, in which subject's notability is demonstrated and subject appeared live TV competition and has released album. Please note that the failure to meet more secondary sources, does not mean an article must be deleted. I have added Google translation of some sources on the article talk page. May it helps.Justice007 (talk) 12:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- There are plentiful of cited reliable sources and that establish the WP:notability of subject. TariqMahmood09 (talk) 18:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Sorry I didn't answer previously, I am the person who created the initial page. I am not a fan of Tony Vitti, just I saw him on TV in the show La Grande Battle and I decided to create a page for Vitti. Know that before doing this, I checked the notability (music) page, and Vitti meets more than one criteria, and so, he is notable. The time spent on TV is not a determinant point of notability. I want to say that a lot of contributors came to the Vitti's page, sometimes wikipedia's administrator. Yes, in france, I have to say bad faith was present, excuse me but, the rules in France are the same here, and haven't been respected. The rules you can read in notability (music) need at least one criteria, as said previously, he meets more than 3, and sorry again but you don't have to interpret the wikipedia's rules as you want. The main point in this deletion page is the notability of Vitti, and this notability is not a point you can fight anymore. This should be a jurisprudencia, at least for these types of questions. And saying "Nothing in AllAboutJazz", then viewing the AllAboutJazz page, then saying it's not an important point to discuss, show again you are contradicting yourselves. Wishing you a happy new year. Frenchytv (talk) 13:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Little has happened in this man's career in the four months since the article was deleted in the previous AFD. He still has just one self-published book to his credit with no assertion of notability, and Worldcat shows that the number of libraries in the US with the book has climbed from five to six. He writes a lot about social media on various websites, but I can find no significant, in-depth coverage of the man from WP:Secondary, WP:Reliable sources that would indicate notability per WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. Altered Walter (talk) 12:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 00:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Page describes small, non-notable company, content is a sub-brand list and list of key employees. Most contributions to page by single-purpose account. Company is looking for new editor for this page: [15]. W\|/haledad (Talk to me) 00:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme (talk) 23:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No individual notability beyond being the adopted daughter of someone notable. Insufficient coverage in third party reliable sources. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 11:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NOTFILM Darkness Shines (talk) 10:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable, WP:BIO Skrelk (talk) 09:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No cited information; just a recipe with no encyclopedic information provided. PROD'd in August, but PROD was removed with the suggestion that the page be moved to books, with no further action taken. Achowat (talk) 08:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With only three acting roles (one of which was just a video short), no major fan base (Searching her name on the internet comes up with a whole bunch of other people who have the same name), and no evidence of any contributions in the entertainment industry or her ever returning to acting, Shannon Chandler very clearly fails WP:NACTOR. Being nominated for a Hollywood Reporter award does not matter because WP policies do not state anything about awards as "notable" (e.g. even if an actor wins a million awards for a role, if that one role is all they did, they still fail WP:NACTOR) The Legendary Ranger (talk) 23:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced, redlinky. Definition too wide — are we talking about streaming video? Audio? Both? Seems to serve no purpose that a category can't. Deprodded by author for no reason. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 08:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary list, does nothing that a category can't. Deprodded by author for no reason. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 08:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary list, does nothing that a category can't. Deprodded by author for no reason. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 08:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. The nominator has stated that they want the article to be retained (see their comment at the end of this discussion), because it has been completely reworked. Furthermore, no delete !votes have been posted (other than the retracted deletion nomination). (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000(talk) 13:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Completely unsourced, no publisher or author - who are the "three doctors". Is it an autobiography or a novel? No evidence at all of notability, beyond an unsourced cliam of charting in a US local newspaper, most of text is a plot summary Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme (talk) 23:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Removed PROD per WP:PROD. Reason was Does not meet the criteria for WP:NACTOR Oddly, the original AFD was closed twice - once as delete and once as keep. Illia Connell (talk) 07:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article is needed as a reference. I noticed it was deleted because I was trying to cross check information on the TV show "Unfabulous" and she is the only regular cast member that is missing. Wikipedia is less useful when it is incomplete. 99.129.133.9 (talk) 16:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the article was only a stub when it was previously nominated for deletion. I have updated the format to make it more in line with wiki standards and have received permission to use an image to balance the appearance. I plan to increase the biography once I have confirmed additional details. TigerPaw2154 (talk) 17:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Mars Attacks!. MBisanz talk 00:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for AFD because it fails the notability criteria for a stand-alone article. Also, this article uses IMDB as a source, which is unfortunately considered unreliable by Wikipedia standards. I am unable to find any secondary sources to verify the character's notability. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Biographical article about an American businessman. Claims to royalty aside, the principal claim to notability launching the first online webcast of a musical concert in 1999 is backed up with a press release by the company, which quotes another of the company's executives. I could not find another supporting reference for it. Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:BIO. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 05:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 05:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another WP:NALBUMS/WP:CRYSTAL failure, exhibiting the problems noted in WP:HAMMER. No confirmed title, tracklist, or release date, the article is a collection of Twitter-sourced rumors. Anything that is decently sourced is padding that isn't directly about any confirmed attribute of the album. —Kww(talk) 03:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 05:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article seems to be an orphan and is unreferenced. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 03:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another WP:NALBUMS, WP:CRYSTAL, and WP:V failure. No confirmed tracklist, release date or title. Only source that isn't a tweet is a People magazine ad for a perfume. —Kww(talk) 03:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Nagpur#Shopping. MBisanz talk 00:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Flat-out fails WP:GNG and WP:G11. It has not been a subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Period. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 18:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable TV host, journalist and political analyst. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 19:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. It's been relisted 3 times and clearly there is no consensus (non-admin closure) Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 04:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NMUSIC. Unsigned (and seemingly never signed) artist, released one single seven years ago that supposedly got press. Her other singles are only listed on her website. Has a 2012 album release on "Interscope Digital Distribution," which is not Interscope Records, but actually turns out to be TuneCore [21]. No non-personal GHits on first page, after which the WP mirror list begins. MSJapan (talk) 22:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Namely primary sources and said to be a scam. ⊾maine12329⊿ talk 11:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This has been tagged for notability issues since 2010. Donnelly is a young artist and so far has only a few sources available, mostly promotional pieces and brief mentions. As per WP:ARTIST, his exhibition record is limited a handful of small solo local shows and some art fairs. This is a case of WP:TOOSOON and does not satisfy WP:GNG yet. freshacconci talktalk 15:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. This article seems to be a laundry list of programming on one Disney Channel. Although programming evolves, the vast majority of Disney channels around the world carry the basically same programming in various configurations, and I fail to see how this article has any encyclopaedic value whether as a historical record or as a list of current programmes being broadcast. Ohconfucius ping / poke 09:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Majority of the sources either aren't reliable (Skinny Bluts, East 1999, Psycho Jordan) or are trivial mentions/interviews. Ishdarian 05:47, 9 December 2012 (UTC) Ishdarian 05:47, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
an EC project with no third party sources for notability. Those that are 3rd party, such as [22], seem just mentions of individual buildings where thetechnology was applied., or, like [23], do not even mention the project. DGG ( talk ) 18:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep as per the lack of deletion requests outside of the nominator and the fact the article is properly referenced. There is no problem in having a separate discussion on whether this article should be merged or redirected to the article 1906 (novel). A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Removed PROD per WP:PROD (previous AFD). Reason for PROD was Film does not seem to have even entered production yet; WP:CRYSTAL Illia Connell (talk) 02:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme (talk) 23:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Does not appear to meet WP:BAND or WP:GNG Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete as per WP:SNOW. Airplaneman ✈ 03:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
New article by new User, who contested a PROD. The article's creator clearly is having issues with WP:CIR, but we all had to start somewhere. Notwithstanding that, the subject of the article doesn't meet WP:AIRCRASH as noted by the person who PRODded the article, but more to the point, it doesn't meet the WP:GNG either, with nothing beyond reportage that the accident happened. YSSYguy (talk) 02:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable artist. Seems to fail WP:GNG with no independent and realible coverage found in a Google News search and a Google News Archive search. Performing in front of the POTUS wouldn't make a person notable, inherently, but you would think it would be mentioned by a news source. Performing with Glee in SF seems to have been an open audition event (see here). I can't verify that the subject did perform with the group and I'm not sure that notability would be established if I could. The BET Comic View Headliner claim - I can't find any mention of it anywhere. Opening for Tommy Davidson doesn't establish notability but I was able to find that it happened. The release of her single "on iTunes and Rhapsody" - she's not on the iTunes store (I don't know how to link the search I did in iTunes) or on Rhapsody. OlYeller21Talktome 06:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability. WP:NOTINHERITED. Prod contested Zujua (talk) 09:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see anything indicating notability. Probably self-created. Nothing on Google. However, it would be useful if someone who can read Chinese can check the references and see if she has notability in Chinese language sources. Nothing on Google, news archive hits only show a few articles written by Chen. There are assertions of notability so this deserves discussion. Mabalu (talk) 11:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I don't see a single indication that this band is notable. They don't appear to have a record contract with some notable label, they haven't charted as far as I can tell, and they have no otherwise notable members. I can't find anything in terms of sources besides the usual metal zines. They are not notable per WP:BAND or otherwise. Drmies (talk) 19:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 05:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable per WP:AIRCRASH Skrelk (talk) 01:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Blue Badge tourist guide. (non-admin closure) Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 04:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Business self-promotion. Unreferenced, no evidence of notability outside its own promotional material. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn - no consensus. CaptainPrimo (talk) 06:42, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE Politician who has not won anything (never elected to anything) and has not received significant coverage outside of self-published sources (her organizations) or around 1 event. WP:BLP1E would rule out having an article because she got the most votes for an independent candidate while losing. Only covered for single event and this event is not well-documented and not of long lasting importance.
As an activist she has only attracted trivial coverage: representative of so and so group Jan said 'such and such'. Many of these mentions are also in promotional material from her organizations. Being interviewed on a news program does not merit notability. A daily news program interviews many people most of them not notable and only significant as presenting an opinion to a wider notable issue.
So basically a low profile individual -- May have been quoted or even profiled in a local or special-interest newspaper, website, magazine or other publication. May have been interviewed by a major news source as a "mouthpiece" – i.e., as part of his/her job as a spokesperson for an employer, representing that party not him/herself. Wikipedia:Who_is_a_low_profile_individual -- a person likely to remain a low-profile individual is not notable. CaptainPrimo (talk) 00:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC) — CaptainPrimo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Here's some other "notable" people that Oakshade might want to create articles for because BBC News had 1 article on them.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7098116.stm Bike sex case sparks legal debate (apparently this sparked legal debate -- sounds like something really important Oakshade)
Failed cable thief who fell from Manchester viaduct jailed http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-20902527
CaptainPrimo (talk) 06:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of candidates for political office who do not meet this guideline, the general rule is to redirect to an appropriate page covering the election or political office sought in lieu of deletion.
As this is heading for no consensus, I'm going to withdraw. CaptainPrimo (talk) 06:42, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was withdrawn CaptainPrimo (talk) 06:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable organization known for a single event that has no lasting effects and has not had any depth of coverage. Violates WP:BLP1E. All mentions of organization are trivial or revolve around 1 event. CaptainPrimo (talk) 00:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme (talk) 23:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article seems to be mostly about Twerk Team which appears to be a non-notable organization. The remaining content would seemingly be an example of WP:NEO with very few reliable references to support it as a commonly used term. Mkdwtalk 10:33, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 00:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I propose that this article fails to meet the notability requirements. All of the sources appear to be either from the subjects own blog, or from very un-reputable sources.Djobouti_phat (talk) 23:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)D[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, run of the mill company. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 04:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable novel, no reason to suggest notability. JayJayTalk to me 03:57, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The book appears to have been reviewed by notable reviewers. King Jakob C 14:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not a notable brand. No reliable or third-party sources on Google, zero news or news archive hits. The brand may be notable in Scandinavia, but I don't see any evidence I'm afraid. Whilst it is not obviously promotional, it seems to fail WP:GNG Mabalu (talk) 17:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:40, 7 January 2013 (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)) . |
WP:EVENT, only notable for one event which is the X-Factor, he finished 7th place not 2nd or 3rd but 7th. None of his songs have hit the charts, only featured in one song and one other TV show for 1 episode. Redirect to The X Factor (U.S.) or delete. JayJayTalk to me 20:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Propaganda and blatant promotion about company, its working conditions, its merchandise, etc. Due to this, plus the lack of referencing for much of the article, it seems an obvious delete, but company might pass notability, hence bringing to discussion. Mabalu (talk) 19:39, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]