The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:00, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable physician, nothing but press releases found at Google News, nothing significant found at Google Scholar. Unreferenced since 2005. MelanieN (talk) 23:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
City clerk, lacking coverage in reliable sources,fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG Valenciano (talk) 22:46, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
*'Keep - Looks like another personal notice for deletion. We as admins must not make these personal assumptions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pigfish23 (talk • contribs) 02:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC) Blocked indef as a sock of a blocked user, per checkuser. Black Kite (talk) 20:50, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Procedural close - wrong xfd. The Bushranger One ping only 21:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bizarre, self-promotional neolgism for a borderline non-notable chef/writer. Salimfadhley (talk) 22:26, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be an advert for a borderline non-notable writer/chef. Salimfadhley (talk) 22:24, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Difficult: most mentions are minor and/or press releases. However, one fairly significant source appears to exists. Closing as no consensus to delete (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:01, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable company--few clients, small size. DGG ( talk ) 21:50, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) →TSU tp* 14:35, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I read through the article, I am noticing a lot of unambiguous advertisement. The article is not worded very well, and there are no references in the article. Ceradon talkcontribs 20:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
... and there are certainly more sources out there. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to List of The Big Bang Theory characters and delete history per consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article created by a friend of the subject[1], fails WP:GNG. I was unable to find any sources except the odd passing mention. Only one which is indepedant and not a passing mention is [2] that was published back in 2010. Having a disambiguation page may be an option too.--Otterathome (talk) 20:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was closed, wrong forum. Anyone is free to nominate this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion if they believe it ought to be deleted. Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There has never been a Clerkenwell constituency, the page redirects to Finsbury Central, and no pages link to it Marplesmustgo (talk) 19:02, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Obvious NEO delete as per discussion (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Neologism. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 17:36, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Clear consensus for either a keep as is, or a move to a new title, but not for deletion, redirecting or merging. Whether it eventually should be renamed or not can be discussed at the talk page of the article (preferably with a link to this discussion, so that the comments in this AfD are taken into account as well). Fram (talk) 14:14, 26 June 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)) . |
No notability independent from Rangers F.C.. We don't have articles about the parent company vehicles of other football clubs. It is possible that this corporate entity will set up a genuinely new football club, but we don't know that yet. I suggest that this be a redirect to Rangers F.C. until the picture becomes clearer. I suggest this page is moved to Liquidation of Rangers F.C., which would allow a more comprehensive article about the issues at hand. James Morrison (talk) 15:48, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the Halifax Town example, were any assets / players transferred to the new organisation? I note also that they have differing crests and strips. "New Rangers" is expected to keep the same strip, crest, stadium, etc, so in that respect is probaly closer to the case of Fiorentina, although that club had a transitional period. Also worth noting is that while Rangers Football Club were founded in 1872, the business known as "The Rangers Football Club Plc" was not registered until sometime later (1899 I believe), and it is the Plc which is being liquidated - if there is to be a seperate article for each stage of the business side, surely then there would then have to be three articles? AlexGordovani (talk) 22:26, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keeprewrite as it should be about the company that owns the club as the articles endltd and that the company the club is the rangers footballl clubAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
commentdnt merge to new article on liquidation although i agree a liquidation article is required this article was created to try make it liek the new club but in fact the fact they put LTD in means it is about the company so the article need cleaned up an rewrttien to reflect the company that owns the club, this page was also made against conesus in teh first place as it was decided until more details are known that to keep it on the rangers fc page and if anytihng it should merger there but everything here is on that page toAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 13:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
THE RANGERS FOOTBALL CLUB LTD ARE A NEW CLUB GLASGOW RANGERS FOOTBALL CLUB PLC NO LONGER EXIST SO THE NEW CLUB DESERVES ITS OWN PAGE END OF STORY !!!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.41.158.219 (talk) 13:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no debate whatsoever,Rangers FC 1873 are now defunct the newco are a completely different enterprise and therefore deserve their own page,all that took place was an asset sale,Rangers FC ceased to exist, this was not a takeover,its entirely different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.113.175.58 (talk) 12:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
New club full stop. There has to be a new page, this is not a debate. Old club spent lots of money they didn't have on players for the team. The club is being liquidated and this page is about the new club. Only link to old club is they owner bought the assets of the old club. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.216.194 (talk) 14:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For anyone who still doesnt under stand this look at Celtic, Celtic are Celtic PLC http://companycheck.co.uk/company/SC003487 you will see Celtic's directors etc named there. They are the directors of Celtic as a whole, Celtic PLC is Celtic which is Celtic Football Club. Celtic arent just a name, they are Celtic PLC just as Rangers as we all knew them are The Rangers Football Club PLC known as Rangers. There is no such thing as a Parent Company or Holding Company. The Company that owns Rangers is The Rangers FC Group Ltd it is them who will still live, Craig Whyte owns them, The Rangers Football Club PLC aka Rangers, Rangers FC, etc is what is dying.--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 17:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
RFC(IA) hold an SPL Share. But D&P claim to have sold “the club” to another company owned by Charlie Green. The SPL Share that RFC(IA) hold cannot, as part of the sale of “the club”, be transferred to that other company.
The SPL appear to have acknowledged that RFC(IA) are no longer operating as a football club by its declaration today, they are not to be included in the 2012/13 fixture list.
Under the SPL Article 6 “…if a Member shall cease to be the owner and operator of a Club then such Member shall cease to be entitled to hold a Share.” RFC(IA) (no longer the owner and operator of a club) have automatically lost their entitlement to a share.
There is no debate. RFC(IA) are now no longer a football club, so have no right to a Share. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.101.50.206 (talk) 20:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think this should stay for the meantime. We have a new club located in Scotland. Surely no harm in keeping it alive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.101.50.206 (talk) 20:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is nothing more than a prime example of the petty nature of football fans in the west of Scotland, and it's entry does more to harm the reputation of all Scottish Football fans than it does to aid in it's original intention which is to try and further kick Rangers Football Club whilst they are down and undermine the process to move forward. I'll provide several points to back this up. As already noted wikipedia does not provide seperate pages for the corporate entities that own football clubs. The "club" and the "company" are two completely distinct things. This can be exampled by the fact that Rangers originated in 1872 (officially formed in 1873) but no corporate entity existed until 1899 when The Rangers Football Club Ltd was registered. Now by the logic of those who wish to keep this page that means that Rangers were not then founded until 1899, but this is clearly not accurate, the event in 1899 was merely the creation of a limited liability company which took over ownership of the "club" in place of the previous individual partners who owned the "club". The flotation of shares, which then again further altered the structure of the corporate entity by changing it from a private limited company (the Ltd suffix) to a public limited company (gaining the plc suffix), occured I believe sometime in the 20th century (forgive me for not having the precise year). This gave rise to the company as it was known, The Rangers Football Club plc. Now whilst this company remained solvent it was the owner of the club, which means that whoever owned the company The Rangers Football Club plc also owned The Rangers Football Club. When the company became insolvent and liquidation proceedings began the ownership of the "club" transferred to a new "company" by means of an asset sale. To address the matter of SFA or league membership, neither of these are required for a football club to exist, merely to play in an organised competitive structure. To illustrate, The Rangers Football Club was not a member of the SFA when they (the SFA) formed in 1873 and were not the member of a Scottish Football League until it was formed in 1890. The club despite this still existed before this so the logic that only Association or League membership confers the right of a football clubs existence is null and void. The name of the club; the club has always been called The Rangers Football Club. Indeed on the existing wikipedia page there is no mention of the corporate name The Rangers Football Club plc, as there is no mention of the corporate name of any football club on wikipedia, so it begs the question what makes Rangers different? I'll come back to that question. Now, a company registration does not confer ownership of a name. Only a trademark permits this. This trademark would be an asset which would have been transferred to the new corporate ownership along with the asset sale. Now, no football club, anywhere in the world, uses it's corporate identity as trading name or defacto name for the club, but this page alludes that this is the case for Rangers. So what makes Rangers different? Well what makes Rangers different is that it is part of the most extreme examples of football rivalries in existence. The where-with-alls of this rivalry are not for discussion here, but it's existence has created a culture, unfortunately, where there are those who will go to any end to essentially run them down. The existence of this page is an example of this. Now wikipedia is a fantastic thing to have in the world, but it only remains a good thing to have as long as it strives to maintain itself as accurate and fair and does not allow itself to be used as a tool in such petty squabbles. As I mentioned at the start the existence of the page does more to show us up as a small minded bunch of parochial and tribal thugs. Some of the comments that have been apparent on other online media serve to show that there are a great many number of us, again unfortunately, in that category. Some of the comments on this page, whilst not being offensive, allude to such a nature. Grand statements of the club being dead etc, no cohesive argument or proof to speak of mind, because in Scottish Footbal, and particularly in the case of the old firm, logic and proof are rarely asked for. The information contained on this page belongs on the Rangers F.C. page that already exists for all the reasons named above. The company named is new, yes, but the club is not new, it is merely under new corporate ownership. As I am not registered, some facts about me. I am from Glasgow. I am employed by HMRC. I deal exclusively with Corporation Tax matters, which means I have an in depth knowledge of insolvency procedures, CVA's, corporate identity and the transfer of assets between individuals, partnerships and companies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.155.20 (talk) 21:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Having read the comments above, I believe that a move to Liquidation of Rangers F.C. would be appropriate. That could be an extensive article looking back over the four months of administration and the causes of that, which would have undue weight if fully located within Rangers F.C. or even just the History of Rangers F.C. articles. There is insufficient information to determine whether the article in its present location has any merit. Only if it was established that this is a genuinely new club, as opposed to just a new corporate structure, would a separate club article be merited. James Morrison (talk) 22:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
James, I am the author of the above (long winded) response. This page has been created by someone who is trying to paint Rangers in a negative light, of that much you can be sure, and on that basis alone it should be deleted for a lack of neutrality. I agree all these events should be recorded on wikipedia but they should be recorded on the Rangers F.C page that has always existed and they should be neutral and factual. The problem we have right now is that there are too many people with an axe to grind who have not got the first idea of corporate law, business structure, asset sales (and what they actually are), history or even a decent grasp of logic. The "club" exists as it always had. I'll provide an example; if The Rangers Football Club plc remained solvent and a new owner decided they no longer wished to float shares on the stock exchange, they would need to restructure the corporate identity to The Rangers Football Club Ltd. Does this mean the club ended? No. So say the owner then decided that they no longer wished to operate as a limited company and instead wanted to operate as a partnership amongst the current shareholders, well in this instance The Rangers Football Club Ltd would be dissolved. Does this mean the club ended? No it means that the organisation restructured. The problem we have here is that the plc has been forced into this position and with that comes sanctions from footballing authorities. But the club still maintains it's same existence as before, it effectively only has a new owner. The most important thing here for me is the integrity of wikipedia, it should not be used as a tool for those who have an agenda to serve. I have considered registering here as I feel as an unidentified contributor it may mean people think that I myself am serving an agenda. And I am, my agenda is accuracy, that is all. I feel I may put my employment at risk if I do register and become more involved in these debates as HMRC take a dim view of their employees doing so, rest assured my knowledge and experience in these areas is vast. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.155.20 (talk) 22:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew, wikipedia is not a forum for you, or anyone else, to express your personal view. If you do believe the club "died", then I submit to you that you do not have a firm grasp of the processes involved in these matters. James, a separate article on the liquidation of The Rangers Football Club plc could be acceptable but I still think that this belongs in the main page as a major event in the clubs history. It could not be titled, however, the liquidation of Rangers F.C. as for all the reasons previously stated, that title would be erroneous. I nonetheless thank you for your responses and I am glad to see you agree the current page should not exist in the manner that it does. Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.155.20 (talk) 22:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry fishiehelper but you clearly have no understanding of corporate structure, insolvency or corporate identity. The whole point I was making is that whether it is a forced event or a voluntary one, restructure of a corporate vehicle does not change or end the subsidiaries that the company owned. The club would only have ended if there was no-one to take up the mantle and purchase the assets to continue it. In that event the assets would have been sold off individually to offer recompense to the creditors. What has happened is that the plc, by virtue of the limited liability it infers has in fact saved the club and allowed it to be transferred to a new corporation, partnership or individual. This is what Ltd and plc's exist for. I'll provide another example, John Smith opens a shop and calls it Smiths Shop, after a few months he registers as Smiths Shop Ltd. A few months later, the company is insolvent and liquidation is about to proceed, his next door neighbour John Jones steps in and buys all the assets of the shop under his existing corporate name Jones Holdings Ltd and then, rightfully, continues to trade the shop as Smiths Shop. Now being held under the corporate structure Jones Holdings Ltd doesn't change the right to the trading name nor does it change the fact that the shop existed there before and still does in it's present state. If Mr Jones hadn't intervened then the assets of Smiths Shop Ltd would have individually been auctioned off to pay back creditors and the business doors would have closed. The doors at Rangers remain very much open for business and the name above the door is still, and always has been, The Rangers Football Club. What we have here is an argument created by the detractors of Rangers which contain petty and inaccurate semantics. The example I have provided above is from one of my old training manuals on insolvency practices. This is how I make my living remember. Andrew, I apologise if I misunderstood your statement. I meant no offence. Regards.86.129.155.20 (talk) 23:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry fishiehelper but you are trying to pass off SFA statutes as corporate or business law and they are neither. I am not disputing that at the moment, due to SFA and SPL rules that Rangers does not have current Association or League membership, that is irrefutable fact, the point that I am making is that this is not a new "club", it is a new owner for the club. The point that Rangers maintain a vote on the SPL at the current time is an irrelevant coincidence of timing. The SPL rules do not allow for the vote to be removed until liquidation has begun and it will not formally commence until after this vote takes place. The share, as it is being called, in the SPL is owned by the plc and is, to my understanding, non transferable which is why it couldn't be part of the asset sale. But share or membership in an organisation does not infer existence. The club has transferred in it's whole form to a new corporate owner. It's identity and existence is not held by the SFA or SPL. Again these are inaccurate semantics. 86.129.155.20 (talk) 23:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is entirely different from Halifax Town A.F.C. - in that example the club was formally wound up. There was no asset transfer and when the new club was formed it was then required to use a new name and new branding. As I stated before, Rangers have been transferred in their whole form to a new corporate owner. It's the same as the first time a company was formed for them essentially in 1899. Regards. 86.129.155.20 (talk) 23:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If they took over the assets they would have the rights to any trademark on names and branding and would be entitled to continue using them, despite what the FA wanted or did not want. Halifax were liquidated before assets were sold (there was no asset transfer), Rangers have transferred assets before liquidation. Therein lies the difference, so it is you, my friend, who is wrong in your assertion. 86.129.155.20 (talk) 00:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Superbhoy1888, seriously? There is no better illustration of my point than your username. That combined with your obvious lack of understanding in these matters, evidenced by your response, where you repeat what I say but just transfer hyperbole to the negative, will serve as reason enough to disregard you from herein. Terriersfan, the existence of this page is the very definition of lack of objectivity. Again fishiehelper, and I sincerely mean no offence, you lack the knowledge and expertise in business and corporate affairs, structuring, law (your use of the legal entity phrase shows this up) etc and I don't have the time to offer lessons via this media and I don't think a continued back and forth from us is going to help on the matter. I am very much aware of the reality of the situation and that is what I wish to be portrayed on wikipedia, the reality. I refer to all previous points, none of which anybody has as yet been able to refute. I have yet to meet someone from within the "business" or "legal" worlds who does not accept the validity of the points I have raised here. I suspect this is for good reason and is also for good reason that the layperson is interpreting the facts as the choose to suit their agenda. I will not be contributing further on this debate as I have said all that needs to be said, and as I know the facts that I have raised cannot be quashed. I have enjoyed taking part however, I hope that the true nature of these events will be accurately and neutrally reflected on wikipedia soon as I do believe it is an invaluable resource in our modern world and as previously stated should not be a public tool for those with an axe to grind. Regards and take care all. 86.129.155.20 (talk) 00:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To illustrate the facts from the earlier comments about the club being distinct from the company and this is merely transfer of ownership, please see the following http://www.oldsquare.co.uk/pdf_articles/3100105.pdf specifically the section that states; ISSUE ONE: THE CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING WHETHER TUPE APPLY 2. It is now clearly established that, in order to decide whether TUPE apply to a particular transaction, it is necessary to ask two questions: 2.1 does the function which is being transferred constitute an economic entity? 2.2 will that entity retain its identity after the transfer? As TUPE has already been established to apply in the case of Rangers then they must have satisfied the courts already that they are the same economic entity as before and they have therefore retained their economic identity. This page is innacurate and in poor taste. Please amend accordingly or factually represent these events in the existing page. 212.137.36.231 (talk) 13:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
References 10, 11, and 12 on the current page you seem to hold so dear all reference that the players and employees are eligible to transfer under TUPE. TUPE can only proceed under the regulations as they have been outlined by 212.137.36.231. Satisfaction of the courts may be a bit misleading, but I think the point that is trying to be made is that these rights would hold up in court therefore if TUPE applies it means the economic identity, in this case Rangers and all it's history, has been preserved in the transfer of corporations. This is quite clearly a good citation of European case law and as citations lend more weight on wikipedia than personal opinion it should not be ignored or merely dismissed because it doesn't suit your argument. If you think it's wrong I suggest you find a citation that holds as much weight, based on precedent and facts instead of rhetoric and opinion and present it to be considered. Scottishfilmguy17 (talk) 20:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - first let me honest with you: I haven't read through all of this discussion. But I have read through two discussions about this on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football, and I was thinking "why not keep the article about Rangers F.C. as it is, and create new articles about newco and oldco" as natural spinoff articles, but this article should be about the newco not a new club. Rangers F.C. is still Rangers F.C. even though the company that owned the club is bankrupt and hence moving it to Liquidation of Rangers F.C. might be a little premature, as the club isn't really liquidized yet. Mentoz86 (talk) 18:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The New Club won't face the sanctions of the old club, I dont know why you think they will. If titles are stripped they will be stripped from Rangers, the New Club have no titles to strip, any fines etc that belonged to Rangers are now defunct as is any money owed to them or owed by them.--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 16:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Rangers FC article is about the old Rangers, and this article about the proposed new one, assuming a league can be found for the new club for next season. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
GAME, SET AND MATCH Here is the conclusive proof by Rangers, SFA and UEFA that Rangers are dying, the pictures are of the important bits, the websites are the sources of the pictures:-
Failing that, I point you to Richard Gough, Andy Goram, Alex Rae, Steven Naismith, Steven Whittaker and Walter Smith who have all called them "the new club". Failing that I quote none other than owner and chairman of Sevco Scotland talking about Dave King "For someone who's a Rangers fan, what he's suggesting is that, rather than get a CVA through that retains all history and tradition that we should vote against it and go down the newco route. I mean why would a true fan suggest that?".. Green himself even suggesting that the newco route retains no history and tradition and that would only be because its a brand spanking new club. --Superbhoy1888 (talk) 21:27, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Virginia, 2012#District 8. (non-admin closure) →TSU tp* 14:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable failed candidate, running again, still not notable in his own right. Orange Mike | Talk 15:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 05:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
unintelligble attack on living person Novo advogado (talk) 15:29, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Goal! (film). (non-admin closure) →TSU tp* 14:40, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article about a fictional person, but for some reason is written as though he is a real-life professional footballer. The article is subjected to constant vandalism; statistics are made up, transfers are added and removed. There are no references, because the character is not notable by itself independent of the films. BigDom 15:15, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 18:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable software, looks like written by the software creator (judging by the username) - self promotation and contains no references. 12dstring (talk) 15:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. A tough one: as a BLP and as a supposed entertainment-related discussion, the policies do need to be clearly gone through as opposed to !vote. Looking at (the very poor) references, I have to conclude that the person does not meet WP:CREATIVE or WP:ENT based on what has been provided, and even what I can find in journalism databases. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:54, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A "YouTube personality". Her main claim to fame is her Cinnamon challenge where she attempts to eat cinnamon and not much else (This could be considered a WP:ONEEVENT case). It is one of thousands of such videos and sources just have a sentence about her. Refs in the article come from the Univ. of Florida student newspaper (an alum), an interview with the Univ. of Kansas student newspaper and the Dartmouth newspaper. Unable to find any reliable and independent references that go into detail about her. Bgwhite (talk) 16:40, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Only keep !votes are from socks. If somebody wishes this userified, ping me. The Bushranger One ping only 18:30, 23 June 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)) . |
College football player that has not played professionally. Subject does not meet the general or topical notability guidelines for collegiate athletes. Media coverage merely includes a repeating of statistics and mentions in game summaries. See WP:ROUTINE. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 14:11, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Non-binding recommendation to move and rework the material in Resilience engineering. (non-admin closure) Spartaz Humbug! 03:47, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
After surviving one deletion discussion six months ago, this article continues to have multiple serious issues, including tone, notability, acceptable sourcing, conflict of interest in its primary author, and above all, clarity on the subject treated. What's more, there no longer seems to be any contributors willing to even try to rehabilitate it. Issues are well-documented on talk page. Snow (talk) 06:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep the whole shebang. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:10, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is merely a list of 12 links to deaths in each month. Those links can be put under the year article 2004. If necessary, this page should redirect to the "Deaths" section 2004#Deaths, similar to the redirect from Deaths in 1996 to 1996#Deaths. Quest for Truth (talk) 12:48, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages because they are also just lists of deaths in each month:
The result was keep. Consensus is to keep. Although some commentary is revealing about a possible move to a more generic name, the pop-culture arguments seem to put a wall up against that (that said, this is a good example of a "utility belt") (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article is deos not meet the WP:GNG should be deleted or merged with Batman. It gives WP:Undue weight to this trivial subject finaly being a work of fiction cannot be resonabley WP:V. Finaly this page creates too much overhead in patrol work. OrenBochman 12:15, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
The result was delete. WP:SNOW The Bushranger One ping only 21:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is clearly something the writer has made up. Silhouette photography has a long tradition, but except is the specific case of astronomical transits, nobody ever calls it "transit of ...". Mogism (talk) 12:07, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete - WP:SNOW, but also WP:CSD#A7. SmartSE (talk) 17:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like WP:MADEUP, unless someone can verify otherwise. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 11:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 18:33, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Article about a writing system that does not appear to be notable. Please see Talk:Keyscript for the author's argumentation in favour of the article being kept, as well as a list of links to websites where Keyscript is mentioned. Unfortunately, none of the sites is a reliable source (Best of the Web doesn't qualify I'm afraid), and only one of them ([12]) has more than a trivial mention of Keyscript, so the basic notability criterion of significant coverage in reliable independent sources (see WP:GNG) is not met. There is also no actual claim of notability per Wikipedia's definition in the article or in the reasoning on the talk page. That a number of people around the world have bought a product doesn't make the product notable. bonadea contributions talk 10:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following webpage has a non-trivial reference to Keyscript:
https://groups.google.com/group/gnu.emacs.help/browse_thread/thread/2f25e97ac9a9d9b2/5040f48a5040d120?show_docid=5040f48a5040d120&hl=pl & Go to Rustom Mody’s contribution
Cassyjanek (talk) 11:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Ding Hui Temple. (non-admin closure) →TSU tp* 14:44, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Content fork of Ding Hui Temple. All information is already included there. Kevinsam (talk) 10:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 20:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet notability requirements Slasher-fun (talk) 09:17, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. The discussion post-paring down of the article clearly leans toward "keep" (even if not, there would be no consensus to delete). (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:41, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article is entirely a dump of a single journal article. Every single statement is drawn from that article, including the author's opinion which is here stated as fact. There appears to be no significant attention to the subject from other reliable sources. The only thing that could taken from other sources would be a SYNTHy list of sources using the story. No other reliable source has discussed the meta-issue of the story, as far as I know. Zerotalk 10:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment. This AfD has now been going on so long that it doesn't even show up among "Old AfDs" on the AfD page. Should it not be either closed as no consensus or relisted to generate consensus? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 10:30, 23 June 2012 (UTC) Hadn't noticed that it had been relisted. Sorry. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 14:00, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Consensus is to Keep - but monitor for BLP violations (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural nomination based on an OTRS request. The subject has identified privacy concerns with the article and, given their borderline notability, they would like to have the article deleted. Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:34, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The list in question does not have Notability and is in violation of WP:NOTDIR Harsh Mujhse baat kijiye(Talk)(Contribs) 07:47, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. I'm sorry Jaydepps but the delete !voters make the stronger argument here. To meet criterion 11 of WP:BAND they have to be added to the rotation of a "major radio or music television network" not just a few stations. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't appear to meet the notability guidelines for bands or the general notability guideline (contested prod) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:35, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 18:34, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:GNG and WP:BKCRIT. Only cited source is a personal website. Google News Search comes up with a couple of articles in Comic Book Resources, one of which is a review, and other is a short mention. Any material could easily be covered in one or both of the main authors' articles. Bbb23 (talk) 18:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete - filelakeshoe 09:06, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Although I see this website used as citations in Google Books and as citations in many Wikipedia articles, this is non-notable. This may be a reliable source, but not all reliable sources are notable. Fails WP:WEB. SL93 (talk) 16:32, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. I was tempted to close as a "redirect" (which can still be done as an editorial decision) but MelanieN has a point. There should be some sources that link the two Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:20, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
People do have this surname, but there is nothing notable about it. SL93 (talk) 16:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:21, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is not notable under the Wikipedia:Notability (books) guidlines, i.e. not notable, no awards, no third party sources, etc. TuckerResearch (talk) 04:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages because they are related books and not notable either for the same reasons:
The result was redirect to Connor Fogel. A third relist is unnecessary A redirect to the founder seems eminently reasonable. DGG ( talk ) 05:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Community choir based in Ystrad, Wales. It has a notability tag since 15 days and is still valid. Hahc21 [TALK][CONTRIBS] 06:19, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Consensus is WP:TOOSOON thus delete (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A "Metatextbook" in development. There is one source (in the Deutsche Ärzteblatt) in a respected journal (cited as "recension" an incorrect translation of the German "Rezension", meaning "review"), but strangely enough, this review is written by the same person who established this "Metatextbook". In the absence of any independent sources, this fails WP:GNG, hence: delete. Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:01, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Guillaume is right in his understandings of the way my product is connected to the scientific publication systems. My resource is not founded by any third party or affiliated with a research organization and so on. It is not PUBLISHED-AND-PERISHED but it is improvingly developed with enthusiasm or one might say, something like agape. The publication model could not be that of a primary publication of a scientific resource (It had gone to BMC Med Res Methodol in my opinion at a further-developed stage), it got a secondary literature-type Publication of a resource description like a Book, a synergistic description of an item by the original promoter and the journals editorial team. Without peer review, this is a quite fast-track publication, which of course gives no impact factor counts, which are of no relevance to a practicing physician like me. The Publication in DÄ hasnt been retracted, so it is the valid literature description of this resource. DÄ has 400.000 readers in germany, and all physicians receive it, so its the best way to tell my peers what i have created. There is nothing 'strangely enough' if someone sets his or her real name under all his statements, there is no misconduct, no copied texts, no fraud, no companies opinion in behind, only the one stupid actor who did the programming, searching selecting indexing - and promotion of an essetially free and worthwhile resource. Since anybody has made the experience that publishing wikipedia articles has something in common with performing a heavy cognitive behaviour autotherapy session as breivig did, no one would take over the part of describing a resource which is cited less than 50 times - or enhancing his statements by obvious facts which are not worth publishing at 1500 USD - his work would be erased immediately. The german wikipedia is a hopeless heaven, maybe, because it is our common character to cut every grasshalm in our garden to exactly the same length and to enhance the overall appearance by assembling an ensemble of GartenzwerGartenzwerge, the latter watching out the scene like suricats (simply to tell any possible offender: the owner has no style appeal, burglary is not worth effort). It is a hypothesis to check out whether other populations feel something like editorial enthusiasm or if they are simply the judge actors in the of structure-vs.-progress trial. last, my transliteration of german "Rezension" was consistent with this, Webtranslator, sure i didnt check but did it from a spontaneous feeling of correctness. Think the right genre of the publication is that of a 'critique'. If Guillaume transliterates to review, he doenst even know how a systematic review on similar resources could be written under a 500 words limit ? --Ossip Groth (talk) 10:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus No prejuice against immediate relisting. The Bushranger One ping only 18:35, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unremarkable record label. Article is not supported by any first- of third-party sources. Also, it is written as an advertisement, directly pasted from the label's website. Hahc21 [TALK][CONTRIBS] 16:08, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 18:36, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Lyndon Baines Johnson Library and Museum. Deleted before redirecting. The Bushranger One ping only 18:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can not find any substantial coverage of the subject. Seems to be a lack of coverage in reliable independent sources, and coverage in reliable sources seems to be limited to very short press releases. Ridernyc (talk) 16:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 06:37, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lacking in notability Tiptoety talk 06:50, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is David Trowbride-I am not sure that this entry serves a useful purpose and I have requested that this page be deleted from Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.26.70.9 (talk) 01:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. No prejudice against recreation if sources can be found. The Bushranger One ping only 18:42, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The inventor of something for a chain saw and lawn mower. References are just the patents. Only refs that I can find are patent reports. No reliable, independent refs to be found. Bgwhite (talk) 05:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:36, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a non-notable Sunday League club (see here). Apart from this and related links, the only google hits are to wiki mirrors - therefore fails WP:GNG. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 04:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. consensus is to delete (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:37, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The contents of this article do not demonstrate the article's scope or purpose. Per Wikipedia's rules, everything must be reported in the press (of some sort), so the title does not make sense to me. By the intro sentence it seems to be a list of people whose billionaire status is only speculative and unconfirmed, which also warrants the article's deletion, and its brevity (and unclear inclusion criteria) does not provide any usefulness for the article. There are many other billionaire-related lists with similar material, but I do not see the possibility for a merge. Reywas92Talk 01:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 07:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a disambiguation based on original research; the inclusion criteria are simply the author's subjective opinion. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 00:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. deleted as copyvio. I had deprodded it, as the copyvio was not then specified, and the presence of several hundred libraries (and publication from a good reference book publisher) seemed to imply probable notability. My error for not checking copyvio. DGG ( talk ) 07:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
no indication of WP:NBOOK. Disputed prod. No WP:reliable sources to establish notability. Google searches find very few references. Prod disputed with a directory entry ref but no significant coverage. noq (talk) 00:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. No prejudice against a quick (but not speedy) renomination if sourcing isn't found. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While there seems to be a bit of coverage on Highbeam, I didn't find enough to established depth of coverage per WP:CORP. Usually the company is mentioned incidentally in articles discussing other topics. Further, it has been unsourced aside from primary sources since inception, and has been rewritten in the past to sound promotional by someone presumably involved with the company (see the very short article history). SÆdontalk 00:20, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 06:34, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable actress who meets neither WP:NACTOR nor WP:GNG. I've looked for sources, and while she's received some passing mentions, I couldn't find any in-depth coverage of her. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 04:56, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Consensus to delete as non-notable (yet) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Sources provided are all WP:PRIMARY. Googling failed to turn any better sources. This may become notable in the future but Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL. Msnicki (talk) 18:59, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep (nomination withdrawn). The nominator withdrew their nomination, and no !votes to delete were posted (other than the nomination). (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000(talk) 09:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cannot find any reliable sources that can verify the subject of this article, let alone support notability. Singularity42 (talk) 19:25, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 18:43, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does not appear to meet WP:NACTOR. Singularity42 (talk) 19:33, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Flash fiction#Internet presence. The Bushranger One ping only 18:44, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article created by someone who admits being editor of the site. Only sources added at the time of a poorly-attended AFD several years back are extremely weak and fall far short of establishing enough notability for a Wikipedia article. CNN article is for overal topic of flash fiction and not the site, this site is barely mentioned at all. It is not enough to merely be mentioned in passing in a reliable source, the specific topic of the article must have nontrivial coverage in multiple reliable sources, which this web site does not. Only other source is a not particularly good ranking on a best of poll on another entirely nonnotable website. If this is the best they have, they clearly fall way short of even being mentioned on Wikipedia at all, let alone having an article devoted to them. DreamGuy (talk) 20:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 18:45, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Completely unsourced. Could not find any reliable sources (per WP:RS standards) for this at all, let alone multiple notable reliable sources giving nontrivial coverage, which is required before a topic can have its own Wikipedia article. Previous AFD in 2008 had only three participants and the two keep !votes were based upon assuming there must be sources without actually trying to provide any. DreamGuy (talk) 20:50, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Could not find any reliable sources, but I can't tell how hard you looked. I found plenty of sources by looking at the above Google books and Google scholar links. Here's a few to start you off:
Preditors and Editors is also useful in finding out info about Agents and Editors.
Check Preditors and Editors.
Before accepting a professional editor's help with your manuscript, check them out. Preditors and Editors is good online resource for keeping tabs on scams and dishonest editors and agents.
Either way, be sure to check with "Preditors and Editors," a site which lists the sharks: the people out to fleece writers.
The Preditors and Editors website evaluates writing contests based on a set of criteria and feedback from their users.Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 03:16, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Also, please don't move articles that are at AfD, it makes closing a pain for the closing admin. Thanks. The Bushranger One ping only 18:46, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]