![]() |
The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a single release. No evidence of notabilty, though, apparently, the B-side was "a hit locally in California and on college radio". Does being a hit locally amount to notability? I doubt it. Emeraude (talk) 19:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:GNG. Bbb23 (talk) 19:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Enter the Dru. (non-admin closure) Bmusician 01:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NALBUMS. Bbb23 (talk) 18:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Violates WP:ADVERT, WP:SOAP, WP:SPS. Lacks notability. Primary website link not working. Veryhuman (talk) 23:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. If anyone wishes to merge the content, please let me know. Stifle (talk) 19:42, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. No realistic redirect value at this time. Delete. — C M B J 10:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. No quorum, so a WP:SOFTDELETE Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does not appear to meet notability guidelines, especially as per WP:MUSIC. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 01:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable 5-store, 104,000 sf mall. Epeefleche (talk) 06:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. I would advise the nominator to keep in mind that WP:JNN is something to avoid in deletion discussions. Bmusician 03:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable hospital. Tinton5 (talk) 22:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the copyvio to multiple sources; the creator is blocked, every article he created was a copyvio as far as I can tell. I can't understand why this article was AFD'd, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable theater. The participants listed barely meet the criteria for notability in their own rights, and could probably be deleted themselves. No reliable sources for this theater, no evidence that it's notable. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 22:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to List_of_characters_in_the_Night_Watch_universe. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:50, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No sources (clarification 2012-02-07: no cited sources, not even primary) for years, apparently all plot and original research. I doubt there is sufficient (if any) WP:NOTABILITY for this to support an article. No merge target found. – sgeureka t•c 09:47, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 02:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article has multiple issues 1. No biographical information 2. Does not meet the layout requirements 3. Is not adequately referenced.
So please delete Wikishagnik (talk) 19:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 19:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No references or qualify under WP:NMUSIC JayJayTalk to me 02:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 21:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. I think its clear that the sources are not sufficiently substantial, & there's no point in relisting further. DGG ( talk ) 02:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No significant coverage found. SL93 (talk) 20:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Article may be speedily renominated per WP:NPASR. Bmusician 05:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reason Gizmojtb7 (talk) 01:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. Title unsuitable for redirect or disambiguation. Delete. — C M B J 10:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. No quorum, WP:SOFTDELETE Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I found no significant coverage for this search engine for movie pirates. SL93 (talk) 17:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Film.fm was covered twice by Israeli newscasts and is a very popular site worldwide. Orlydumitrescu (talk) 09:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sources are Yelp, TripAdvisor and other user submitted content. Couldn't find any reliable secondary sources. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A great number of independent restaurant reviews were added, each reference containing in itself tens of reference. Most reviews refer to Tchai-Ovna as a landmark establishment in Glasgow. The venue is also popular with music band concerts, poetry readings and other artistic activities. werldwayd (talk) 21:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:GNG. Listed in the Institute article as one of the awards, but I couldn't find any secondary coverage of the award itself. All the past winners are redlinked. Bbb23 (talk) 18:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Real product, possibly popular, not notable. There is no significant coverage, and there is little hope of expanding this article past ingredients, sizes, and availability. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 02:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:52, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable neologism. One reference introducing the term does not make it notable. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:52, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Website is non-notable per notability (WP:N) and appears to have been created by site owner Jonathan Leung as an advertisement Fattestalbert (talk) 21:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Goodvac (talk) 17:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Recently created biography of a college football player drafted for the NFL. Although I'm sure he'll be accepted, I think that we should just wait and see. There are sources, but only in newspaper and the college website, not to mention the NFL drafts (guess that's obvious). Getting out of here (talk) 20:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
.
The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 01:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additional related articles also nominated for deletion:
Non-notable book series by a non-notable author. All books self-published. Contested PROD.
As a matter of disclosure, I did speedy delete the author's biography article at Shahryar Niazi per WP:CSD#A7 before the proposed deletions. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a Curriculum Vitæ, a Resumé, a LinkedIn profile. Wikipedia is not the place to attempt to place any of these things. In addition I have strong doubts that this person has any inherent notability. When they do a neutral article here is wholly appropriate, just not at present. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
non notable neologism and dictionary definition Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Author is (or has been) a "physics professor" at University of Regina. He is not listed on their website any more, but given that it was his first position after completing his postdoc, this was likely at the assistant professor level. the citation and publication data given in the article are, at first sight, stellar. This is deceptive, however: subject is first nor last author on any of the important ones, which have sometimes over 3000 (three-thousand!) authors. Apparently, Benslama was (is?) a member of several (very large) consortia and as is often the case in these mega physics projects, co-authors all papers coming out of it. However, there is no evidence that he had anything more than a very minor role. In conclusion, there is no real evidence of notability, does not meet WP:PROF. Hence: delete. Guillaume2303 (talk) 19:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Guillaume,
You lost any credibility in this case. You went beyond your way to ask for the deletion of my article in wiki french, after I told you it is published in the french wiki. I think this speaks volumes about your unfairness. I think you are taking this case very personally and this is against the wiki recommendations. You simply violated the neutrality article of the editors of wikipedia. Therefore, I respectfully request that another admin. takes care of this case. You have expressed your opinion and now it is time not to interfere since you are taking things personally. In fact I find it lamentable, you went ahead and interfered in the french version, knowing that you are strongly involved in the English one. This is unacceptable! Kamalbenslama (talk) 12:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The name of this article is misleading, and in fact it's something made up on a message board, according to the Straight Dope, and there is not a single reliable source (and no sign of any being found). Slashme (talk) 19:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence:
The result was Speedy Delete, G4 by User:The_JPS. Lenticel (talk) 00:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable neologism, and dictionary definition of that neologism. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:11, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article is nothing but WP:PLOT, doesn't indicate why one section of a book deserves it's own article. Should be deleted, not even worth merging into The Silmarillion GimliDotNet (talk) 19:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article has a very useful account of the Creation of Tolkien's world. If deleted should at least be transferred to Silmarillion's page. It sets the foundation of understanding for The Lord of The Rings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.178.3.101 (talk) 20:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An amateur footballer from Hong Kong. Claims to run a football review site. But, I can't find evidence. I think the site is this. But it is mostly a promotional site reviewing football equipment. Prod was contested Bgwhite (talk) 18:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Serves primarily as an advertisement vehicle, and the software doesn't appear to be represented in reliable sources beyond passing references. Yutsi Talk/ Contributions 18:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. If you want to take it to Wiktionary, just ask. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:29, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and this is a dictionary definition Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Although terribly confused and contorted, this article appears to be about a home, the home of the Barreto family in Goa, India. The author (apparently the current resident of the home) has attempted to give this home notability with many links and references, but none of them mention this home specifically. While it is true that a Francisco Barreto was a Portuguese viceroy in Goa in the 16th century, and may have been awarded a coat of arms recognizing said service, there is no evidence that this home has any relation to that man. If it does, and this can be verified, a simple mention of that at the Francisco Barreto article would suffice. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete. I am not seeing any deletion argument that is soundly based in policy. The nominator suggests "Problematic article that should be deleted and broken up into its component parts". This presents licensing issues as described at WP:MAD. "Delete with mergers or the creation of new lists as warranted" as proposed by User:Crazypaco has the same problem. I am persuaded by User:Milowent who says this is "an organizational dispute about where to include the various president lists" and this is effectively endorsed by User:DGG. The way forward is to take the discussion to the talk page to decide what to do with the content. After appropriate merging the existing page can be converted to a disambiguation page or parked as a sub-page somewhere to safeguard the attribution history, again as talk page consensus decrees. TerriersFan (talk) 21:30, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Problematic article that should be deleted and broken up into its component parts. First, there's nothing significant about being an "Ivy League president" that is distinct from being President of X University. Second, the Ivy League is a sports conference. Third, the Ivy League didn't exist until 1954, why are there president dating back to the 17th century? GrapedApe (talk) 02:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. No quorum, so a WP:SOFTDELETE Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Real product, possibly popular, not notable. There is no significant coverage, and there is little hope of expanding this article past ingredients, sizes, and availability. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 02:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. No quorum, that makes this a WP:SOFTDELETE Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a storybook. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 05:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus due to insufficient participation. Rlendog (talk) 16:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced of notability and there appears to be a COI issue. Eeekster (talk) 10:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 01:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't pass WP:PROF. Although I see a h-index of 15 from citations-gadget, I don't think that alone would be sufficient. — Pewfly (talk) 20:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Rlendog (talk) 16:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article has an interesting history. It was written in the main by the curator, and looks to be very much a promotional vehicle to advertise the gallery. That editor then himself removed the speedy deletion tag on 'his own' article. Even so the gallery itself has laudable ambitions. Despite the numerous mentions in sundry media I'm not sure that it is actually notable, though the Marriott parentage may be sufficient notability. Many of the mentions seem to be 'mentions in passing' so to speak.
So, since I am not sure, I'm asking the community to look at the article with care, not to be bamboozled by the number of references, but to follow them (and consider removing irrelevant ones so that the wood may be seen from the trees here), and to reach a consensus about whether it should remain, and, indeed, in what form. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus (non-admin closure). Nom has retired, no support for nomination after 2 relists. -- Trevj (talk) 10:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
non notable article. Almost no decent sources that I can find other than their website. Kumioko (talk) 22:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced biographical article, seems to be a non-notable architect and teacher. I can only find the briefest of mentions online in IRS Sionk (talk) 00:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pure hoax. Article attempts to assert the notability of this person based on links to her twitter account, and comments she has posted on news sites (claiming the title of one article as "Prince Harry's friend Maria Noela says..." where Castaneda was merely one commenter among many on an online news story). Request that the page be salted based on repeated creation. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 19:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete the sources just don't stack up the one RS is for the less notable electricity theft rather than the SEG. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Searl. --Salix (talk): 08:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A non-notable perpetual motion machine. The references in the existing article are very poor and there doesn't seem to be any decent sources out there so that it meets GNG. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Completing nomination on behalf of IP editor 2.27.98.195. On the merits, I have no opinion. Note that the article was initially tagged on 25 February, and the nomination dated likewise; I'm processing it on 27 February, so use that as the start date. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The original rationale, from Talk:Abdul Waheed (suspected aircraft bomb plotter), reads as follows:
I strongly believe this article should be deleted, and it's important for privacy and neutrality within Wikipedia that it should be deleted. The article refers to a suspect in the 2006 transatlantic aircraft terrorist plot I believe that is a notable event: however, this suspect is not notable in his own right. This article contains a lot of personal biographical information that is not relevant to the event and does not belong in an encyclopedia such as this.
A previous discussion, in 2006, resulted in a 25-27 vote. A record of this is linked above. Since the time of that vote, the subject of this article has been cleared of any crime. And, several years have passed without anything further notable around the subject. I have not had the opportunity, but articles on other suspects, such as Cossor_Ali might also be considered for deletion on the same basis. A fuller list of suspects can be found at the AfD link, above.
I am not a regular wikipedian, so please forgive any errors, but I did check the documentation for relevant deletion policies: - Person was notable for being charged in a terrorist plot: since he was cleared, he is not notable for this one event (WP:BLP1E "Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article.");
- extensive biographical information that's not relevant to the charges (WP:NOTWHOSWHO "Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. (See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for more details.)");
- I previously made a speedy deletion tag where I said (in addition to the above 2 points): biographical information is likely to be incorrect/is contradicted elsewhere. A more experienced wikipedian deleted my speedy deletion tag on this basis with the explanation that this info comes from "RSs" - I do not think this makes it encyclopedic or notable, and this doesn't answer my other two points which are backed up strongly with Wikipedia policy; — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.27.98.195 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The notability of the academician is not clear and BLP which needs more sources. Amartyabag TALK2ME 11:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A noted economist, policy advisor and writer. His Pricing, Planning and Politics featured prominantly in the Times (London) editorial May 29 1984. Also I think he was an advsior to Rajiv Gandhi on the 1991 economic reforms. His theory book Philosophy of economics: on the scope of reason in economic inquiry is also well known and well cited and I have added multiple independent reviews of it to the article. Published a lot in The Statesman as "contributing editor". (Msrasnw (talk) 16:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Keep: Professor Roy has likely influenced a significant number of individuals in his academic career and through his writings. "Philosophy of Economics" is notable in economic literature for its plain language and use of dialogue to illustrate issues. — Preceding Scott Peterson comment added by (talk • contribs) 17:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. I will userfy upon request. Rlendog (talk) 16:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Clearly original research - the article even says "just one of the great scientific research work carried out by micah samba" (i.e. the author). Unencyclopaedic too. andy (talk) 10:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PROD contested by article creator, no rationale given. This player fails WP:GNG, as well as WP:NFOOTBALL, as he has never appeared in a fully-professional league. GiantSnowman 09:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted by User:Ronhjones under criterion G7. (non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 22:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another contribution from TBrandley (talk · contribs), who has had several articles up for deletion this week and really needs to learn our proper article criteria. Unsourced information about Simpsons episodes that meet a certain parental ratings guideline (the American TV Parental Guidelines) only applicable to airings in the United States, and even then only in the original airing (if true); episodes are edited down below TV-14 to meet standards in syndication. A related category is also up for a CfD. Nate • (chatter) 09:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Rejecting Jane. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:15, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We already have an article for the hoax which he perpetrated. There are a few citations, but I don't think that the other things he has done are noteworthy enough NotFromUtrecht (talk) 09:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep (SK1). Withdrawn by nominator here [37], procedural reclosing, The Bushranger One ping only 22:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 19:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Concern was: Reads like a manual or essay, unsourced OR, doesn't seem possible to re-write neutrally Eeekster (talk) 02:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete per DGG --Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NEO at its finest. Invented on Facebook. No CSD category covers it, so here we are. (ie: fails general notability guidelines for a neologism) Dennis Brown (talk) 01:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable event and unreferenced. JayJayTalk to me 00:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The consensus is clear enough already. DGG ( talk ) 22:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity production company for Genndy Tartakovsky only one series produced then the company ceased operations. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 00:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 21:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little surprised that this list has lasted as long as it has, as it's a direct violation of WP:NOTMEMORIAL: 'Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements.' In general, 'lists of the dead' do not belong on Wikipedia, and have been rejected in many previous discussions. Tragic though this disaster was, creating online memorials is not what Wikipedia is for. Robofish (talk) 00:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]