![]() |
The result was redirect. The argument that he is notable within the context of Guitar Hero players/fans is an interesting point. Consensus in this case seems to favor the notion that he is not notable enough for a stand-alone article, so the page is being redirected to Cultural impact of Guitar Hero, where it is noted that this person is already mentioned. If there is further content worth merging it can be pulled form the page history. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A "world record" for a computer game isn't, in my opinion, notable. My opinion doesn't really count though. This individual does not meet the general notability guidelines due to the absence of significant coverage. Contested prod. QU TalkQu 22:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to The Room (film). Bmusician 14:47, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Only sources are facebook and IMDb. Only one notable role. Last AFD resulted in keep due to many !voters saying her role in The Room was sufficient, but WP:NOTINHERITED and all that. Also, the last AFD was rife with SPAs. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 07:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Month-old news website, doesn't appear notable per WP:WEB. Only one independent source cited, see WP:V. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 23:09, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet notability criteria of WP:N. Claims of honourary degrees from Northwestern and UWO are unsubstantiated (and lists of recipients do not name him). Evalueserve web site does not list him as a co-founder or Managing Director. No references, and BLPPROD tag continually removed by author. ... discospinster talk 21:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 21:22, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As the previous dicussion notes, this does not have any lasting effects. Also, it fails WP:AIRCRASH as it is a light aircraft and nobody involved were notable. It did receive heavy news coverage, but so did the Norwegian Hercules crash (in Norway and Sweden) and Turkish army Sikorsky crash (in Turkey). This event did not cause any change in policy (which is also required per WP:AIRCRASH). Ysangkok (talk) 20:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Despite Glrx's interesting analysis, there is no consensus that the case is not notable enough for inclusion. Sandstein 07:40, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominating page that I created for deletion (reason: notability) as discussed at Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard#Plummer v. State (of Indiana). Also see Rescue list: Plummer v. State --Guy Macon (talk) 19:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delelte. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
French autor, clearly unknown in his country and in the french WP. His books are published as author's account. In fact, i suppose that it is a self publicity article.--Cchasson (talk) 15:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 07:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article about an individual who is not notable outside of his work within a famous person's Foundation. Some COI/AUTOBIO editing has taken place. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. NW (Talk) 00:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All sources appear to be primary sources, and I cannot find anything that meets WP:RS or indicates if notability as an academic is met (as I am unsure if her organization is in itself notable). No evidence that the subject meets WP:GNG. Any coverage I find about "Anna Balazs" are about the completely unrelated professor of engineering of the same name at the University of Pittsburgh. Possibly part of a walled garden related to the article Henriett Seth F. (see the deletion discussion of said article). Kinu t/c 04:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. In view of limited participation, this is a SOFTDELETE; as with a PROD, the article will be restored on request, though it may then be renominated. JohnCD (talk) 21:26, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Issues with notability and lack of references for almost 2 years. I've searched online for reliable coverage about Kandarian, under her birth name and her DJ names, without much success. I search for reviews of her film, without success. The majority of the article seems unverifiable and subject doesn't seem to meet any of the notability criteria. Sionk (talk) 01:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 21:27, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is this professor sufficiently notable? Nothing in the article indicates that he is. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 18:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 21:27, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There was a 2004 nomination that was never closed correctly. I do not think this crime victim is sufficiently notable. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 17:35, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any indication that this just-released independent mixtape is notable. Perhaps the information could be merged into the Melody Thornton article. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 17:21, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There aren't no reason for this deletion. Vitor Mazuco Talk! 00:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 07:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:GNG. A Google News search gets zero results using her anglicized name. Bbb23 (talk) 16:44, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Kubigula (talk) 03:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Faiils WP:GNG. A Google News search reveals that it is known only in Milwaukee as a film made in Milwaukee. Film article was created by film maker - only edits he's done at Wikipedia. Bbb23 (talk) 16:40, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything particularly notable. It was deleted once before for lack of notability. Readro (talk) 16:04, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
this is clearly a business, and there doesn't seem to be anything extraordinary about it. Less than one percent of all businesses are influential enough to need there own wikipedia page, and i see no reason why this is one of them. Joshzz42 (talk) 15:44, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southtree
The result was keep. Topic meets WP:GNG. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:59, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This model has always been a quiet, lowkey, private one and hasn't done much over the years to have an entire page. Reports and documented articles about her have been minor over the decades, with absolutely none in the news now. She should be listed in the Sports Illustrated section as a model, but other than that, her life is really a lowkey one. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kara_Young KYNY (talk) 14:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)— KYNY (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Completing nomination for anonymous editor. Their rationale was "Yes, so instead of reverting why don't you do it? This is just an ad probably written by Konrath - zero reason to exist." On the merits, I have no opinion. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:54, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Consensus seems to favor the notion that this incident is not notable enough for a stand alone article. Will be happy to userfy if anyone wishes to use it as the basis for additions to a related existing article or list. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable per WP:AIRCRASH. Nobody notable on board which is a criteria for military crashes. WP:NOTNEWS also applies
The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 21:39, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Intro paragraph says it all: "a proposed international auxiliary language [...] presented by two undergraduate students [...] in 2006. Apart from the two students who invented it, it has no support from any scholars or public officials, has never been used by anyone, and has never been referenced by a reliable source". This is essentially still a correct summary of the state of affairs. This article has existed for six years and no reliable sources providing any amount of testable notability to it have ever been added. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7 SmartSE (talk) 13:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article was speedily deleted via CSD under the criterion A7. The article was recreated with no comment on why. I can't find any indication of notability or significant coverage. I'm taking it to AfD to decide. -Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 12:47, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 21:41, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be a non-notable events company that does not meet the notability criteria of WP:NCORP. Article is cited to the websites of business partners and a press release. I cannot find any substantial, independent, reliable coverage online. Sionk (talk) 12:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 07:40, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, their website only uses their own archived versions of external articles as sources, therefore unverifiable. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 11:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. But wait, I can hear you saying, surely the consensus is to just flat-out keep it? If this were a vote, even with all the sockpuppets and possibly canvassed votes, sure, it would be a slam-dunk keeper. But this is not a vote, and the vast majority of those commenting in the "keep" camp have failed, as is noting in the relisting statement, to present a valid argument with a solid basis in WP policy. Linking to a policy and saying "this meets (or does not meet) the following policy" without explaining why is not helpful. I would add that Wikipedia does not, has not, and will not require users to have a personal interest in a subject before they are allowed to discuss it or edit it, in fact it is pretty much the opposite. Persons without a personal interest are far more likely to be able to view a subject objectively and apply policy evenly.The most reasonable suggestion I see here is the one that says to merge all these events into an omnibus article, and it's disappointing to see the lack of response to this eminently reasonable idea that would allow preservation of content while alleviating the concerns about the notability of the individual events. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:EVENT and WP:SPORTSEVENT, the only source older than than 24 hrs after the event is an unofficial source of Pay-per-view stats, there is no coverage for this event outside the specialist MMA publications and what there is from those publications is just WP:ROUTINE coverage. Mtking (edits) 08:39, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as par WP:GNG, WP:EVENT, WP:SPORTSEVENT, WP:SENSE and for the clear fact that the nominator is fighting an already lost war against any MMA event on here. He's been claiming that any MMA event on here is just WP:ROUTINE and that because of this, they should all go (and has tried so many times from looking at past AfD cases). Well clearly not, because consensus says that UFC events meets more policies than it fails which gives them the right to remain on here. And because of this if any other major promotion has event pages also, as long as they receive a similar amount of coverage, then they can also remain on here. Like I said, its consensus that agrees to keeping these pages, if anyone disagrees with this, you are in your rights to vote against it, but if you start openly questioning the people who vote 'KEEP' in any AfD debate that is swaying for the overall majority vote to Keep the page/s, then maybe it would be for the best to avoid the topic altogether. Better out of it than given yourself heart strain over simple pages which are easier kept than destroyed. BigzMMA (talk) 19:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also, for anyone interested, look up this event and determine yourselves whether it is notable or not - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BAMMA 9 BigzMMA (talk) 09:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Request to close AfD case now Can an admin please just close this AfD, this case has been going on for weeks now and with the clear consensus telling the world to Keep this article (only one delete vote made compared to the double figure Keep votes), its time we just end this 'debate' now. BigzMMA (talk) 09:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. joe deckertalk to me 04:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This individual has essentially no coverage in independent sources. The claims made in the article are unreferenced, the links are either dead or not about him, and any outside coverage is apparently limited to this. It's safe to say that one paragraph in one article from 1996 does not make for encyclopedic notability. - Biruitorul Talk 05:13, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 21:43, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a Pakistani hakeem (traditional healer); no sources beyond a non-reliable web essay on the local history of his village (evidently written by the same person who created the article). No reliable info, no realistic indication of anything beyond strictly local notability. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Kubigula (talk) 03:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of the article appears to be a non-notable person. The subject lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for biographies. The article has been deleted twice under A7. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 00:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He is the founder of Traiettorie music festival, one of the most important contemporary music festival in Italy. He is the president of Prometeo Foundation and Art Director of Ensemble Varese. He's professor at Univerisity of Parma, at the Faculty of Literature and Philosophy. His music is published by NEOS and Die Schachtel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martino Traversa (talk • contribs) — Martino Traversa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The result was delete. The text is substantially a copyright violation of [21], which is a translation of [22]. Sandstein 07:54, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
non notable film, failing WP:NFILM prod removed by creator, one of several films all from the same festival created by this same editor. Most nominated (excepting those winning several awards given then benefit of the doubt) Gaijin42 (talk) 17:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 23:15, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Scotiabank Caribbean Carnival Toronto. This article can remain a redirect to the main article for attribution purposes. —SW— verbalize 01:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps some of this content can be fitted into the parent, but this one, as it stands, is unencyclopedic: we are neither the news nor a gathering of news items. Drmies (talk) 04:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Incorporation of "an examination of the history" of Police, media and the black community interaction at Caribana is possible, but care would have to be exercised to avoid lapses from NPOV, VER and original research. I think it would have been better if the concerns of those who argue for delete or merge here had been raised on the talk page, or through editorial tags, first rather than immediately jump to ((afd)). If attempts to address them failed, then deletion might be an appropriate next step. Geo Swan (talk) 22:42, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. However would be happy to userfy for anyone who wished to follow up on the suggestion to merge. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable journal: no independent sources, not listed in any major, selective databases. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals. Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No Consensus to delete with no prejudice against speedy renomination. This has been relisted for over a week with no additional comments. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Such list do exists, but these are for notable drivers who fatally crashed or drivers who have crashed in a notable meetings/championships. For lesser notable drivers, entries only exist in lists for circuits that is notoriously dangerous or a race or series, supported by reliable third party sources.
The question is how many of these drivers are really notable to have their own article here enough to meet Wikipedia guidelines, only a small percentage, which is why I am nominating this for deletion as only a tiny handful and do we need a memorial for people who will never be notable enough for their own article. Not forgetting that I do not see any reliable third party source to back these up apart from the one whose death had nothing to do with this entry (both died outside the UK) as well that they are poorly sourced. Plus drivers in club racing series does not qualify for notability unless they moved up to bigger things. It should be known that the majority of these listed are in club series. Donnie Park (talk) 21:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Evans & Sutherland . v/r - TP 00:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable projection product, and a non-notable list of places that use that product. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 07:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge a brief mention to company article. - Frankie1969 (talk) 10:57, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bringing this to AfD as I have strong doubts about the notability of the subject. In ten pages of ghits, I saw nothing that looked like an RS, and the article itself doesn't appear to have any either. I am not commenting about the subject himself or his 'teachings'. Those may be the key to the future or total cobblers. The question to me is, 'Is there notability?'. Peridon (talk) 09:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing wrong with this article to delete, needs more inputs — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reachmyke (talk • contribs) 05:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 09:15, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Notability concerns. Primary sourcing, casual mention in a list, and imdb isn't enough. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is "ALL MUSIC" not a notable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theultravisitor (talk • contribs) 17:18, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- A high school teacher in Montreal (although he likes to refer to himself as professor), six self-published books [26], publishes a local Romanian newspaper in Montreal (circulation unknown because all searches for Romanian Morning Star circle back to Fornade links). No significant coverage found in any reliable source. (Note that who's who book entries like this are commonly vanity self-submissions.) Without any coverage independent of the individual, this bio fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO and WP:PROF. — CactusWriter (talk) 23:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 09:11, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am unable to find significant reliable sources that discuss this magazine. Google search for "No Cigar magazine" only results in about eight pages. Search for "No Cigar" magazine is unhelpful. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 03:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. joe deckertalk to me 22:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I was not able to find enough independent, reliable sources for this proprietary, closed sourced OS. Bordeline advertising too. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC) This is a new system, that just came out of the university labs. There are not so many public references yet, but these will come gradually, as the page is being completed. BenRodriguezLobera 23:10, 9 March 2012 (WET)[reply]
The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 21:11, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:((subst:spa|username)) ; suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)) ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)) . |
The article was PRODed for the lack of significant coverage from reliable souces. The PROD was removed by the creator (which also removed maintenance tags, which I restored) of the page. Renominating to AfD for the same concern. -Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 02:03, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As was said in the previous discussion, the article is sourced almost exclusively by blogs acting on Recentism, and it fails the notability standard of significant coverage. A paragraph in Family Circus and Jersey Shore's respective parody sections is good enough, but a separate article for the blog is in no way needed. ~jcm 03:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 09:05, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTABILITY -- I'm not finding any reference supporting his notability; certainly, the references listed do not qualify. Nat Gertler (talk) 00:47, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable artist. He has some mentions, but not substantial coverage. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:28, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 01:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary dab page - all covered in hatnote except for possible spelling mistakes. If we have a dab page, then someone wanting the Canberra orgn will have one further click to do (CAMRA redirects to Campaign ..., would then have hatnote to dab page, with link) (I absent-mindedly took this to MfD forgetting how dab pages should be treated, and it was procedurally closed there). PamD 07:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable web forum. Can not find any reliable sources covering the forum. Fails WP:WEB. Gogo Dodo (talk) 08:58, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect that it's not notable or has little impact - It's very popular in Australia and around the world. There are visitors from around the world though most are locally from Australia. There are few science-oriented sites as good as SSSF, due to the style of the site. Billzilla (talk) 23:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SSSF is by far Australia's major science-related internet forum, receiving over 400000 posts per annum. It is the first internet forum listed if you Google "site:au science". Ordinary Person (talk) 11:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You've made a f'ing stupid decision. Billzilla (talk) 07:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 21:05, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Almost notable, but not quite. One release on a major indie label (one release on a non-notable label) and no members notable enough for their own WP articles. Fails WP:BAND. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 17:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 01:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet WP:V and WP:N; no reliable sources found in Google News search Miniapolis (talk) 21:12, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]