![]() |
< 5 November | 7 November > |
---|
The result was speedily deleted by User:Amatulic under criterion G11. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 11:44, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Promotional article for a product does not meet the general notability guidelines or the notability guideline for products. The citations listed in the article are either blogs or self-published, and thus not reliable. The PROD was contested. xanchester (t) 22:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily deleted by User:Jimfbleak under criterion G11 with additional comment "unsourced biography of a living person". (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 11:46, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No sources demonstrating the subject's notability. A search for news articles doesn't bring up anything. The subject does not meet the general notability guideline or the notability guideline for biographies. PROD was contested. xanchester (t) 22:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/User:Kevin12xd/Twinkle sandbox
The result was delete. Just as in the very similar discussion about UFC 155, WP:NOT concerns need to be weighted far more highly than WP:N concerns. To expand, an article can pass WP:N and WP:V, and still be unsuitable for inclusion based on a single accurate WP:NOT concern. In this AFD, "keep" voters have not successfully overcome the concerns based on WP:NOT.—Kww(talk) 21:47, 13 November 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)) . |
This sports event fails WP:NOTNEWSPAPER policy, the event does not even have a confirmed venue as of yet.
The sources are purely routine announcements of who is going to appear NOTNEWSPAPER explicitly says "is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. They are also not from WP:reliable sources, the Bleacher report (see here is not, the mmaconvert source (ignoring the fact the url contains "rumors") is nothing more than a fight card and the mmajunkie.com one has a link recommending readers go to the rummer section of the website, something you would not associate with a source that has "a reputation for fact-checking". Mtking (edits) 21:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
*Speedy Gonzales keep per WP:DENY as it is obvious the nominator is just a deletionist fan boy trying to create a compendium of Afds. Well, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of articles; it is not a collection of deletion discussions. The article clearly passes WP:N and WP:RS (policies) due to extensive coverage in neutral sources with a reputation for fact checking. Saying otherwise is akin to saying butts don't defecate! --65 Edits Per Hour (talk) 13:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC)Blocked sockpuppet
[reply]
*Keep as per WP:SPORTSEVENT. The article contains well sourced prose concerning historically notable fight results. --Keep UFC Articles (talk) 17:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)Blocked sock[reply]
The result was merge to Brandon Sanderson. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser TSU 02:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No indication of notability per WP:V#Notability; no third-party sources cited. Like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sanderson's First Law, but more so. Sandstein 21:28, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Brandon Sanderson. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser TSU 02:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No indication of notability per WP:V#Notability; all cited sources are of the self-published variety. Could be mentioned briefly in the article about the author instead. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sanderson's Second Law. Sandstein 21:27, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily deleted G1 by Amatulic (G1: Patent nonsense, meaningless, or incomprehensible). Housekeeping closure. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:39, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It’s not clear what page is: original research? and/or copyright violation? and/or republication of primary sources? In any case it doesn’t appear to belong in Wikipedia. It seems to be connected with the same author’s rejecting the redirection of Kizh Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians to Tongva people. —teb728 t c 20:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC) —teb728 t c 20:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Unanimity that the subject fails to meet the notability guidelines. TerriersFan (talk) 14:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable minor league free agent... article has a few sources but this guy is already 26 and seems like a run of the mill career minor leaguer Spanneraol (talk) 20:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme 02:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are concerns about the notability of the subject, the source of the content (appears to be copy/pasted from several sources online), and the style of the article (needs lots of cleanup). The copy/pasting may not be a breach of copyright if the subject is writing the article himself, but then the issue of autobiography and notability is raised. FratHoneyBee (talk) 00:51, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The first and second paragraphs were once all of the Amazon pages for Stefan Gries, but they were removed recently. They still appear when phrases are searched with Google. The first paragraph appears here: http://books.google.com/books?id=c6Ii092IX9oC&pg=PA249&lpg=PA249 The second paragraph appears here: http://english.ua.edu/life/symposium Most of the third paragraph appears here: http://www.ugent.be/doctoralschools/en/doctoraltraining/courses/archive/2012-2013/2012-2013-digital-humanities.htm
There is a notability argument on the article's talk page that goes along the lines of the journal he is editor of was founded by himself, and thus not the same as being appointed the editor-in-chief of an established top journal in the field (rather than a journal in a sub-field). FratHoneyBee (talk) 01:00, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, there is substantial evidence that the page was created by Stefan Gries (see User talk:Stgries). This is a contradiction of what Wikipedia Is Not (Self-Promotion and Autobiography). In the end, I think this article should be deleted and, if someone else starts it from scratch later, let it stay. But this page seems to be used by Stefan Gries as a means of self-promotion. FratHoneyBee (talk) 17:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted WP:CSD#G10 as much of it was a personal attack on a named person. Non-admin housekeeping closure.--xanchester (t) 19:57, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Original research with no citations. Wikipedia is not a host for essays. Article title indicates a POV and is not impartially descriptive. Contains a section that qualifies as a WP:ATTACK. Prod was contested. xanchester (t) 19:31, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable minor league baseball player who is a free agent. Previously nominated for deletion as part of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fort Myers Miracles players - Spanneraol (talk) 19:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Blatant autobiography which adds insult to injury by attempting to explain why references are not available. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:14, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FRom user Orlinski": OK, edit it, just dont removbe it! The world needs t6o know about certsin people! So i am not in the NY times - is this a reason to delete my article??? Again, every word in it is true, checkable, and i have not made judgements inside there. Please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.204.93.18 (talk) 02:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just published the firsrt two articles mentioning my name. A search in google books or other verigiable sources shows my name a lot. 02:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.204.93.18 (talk)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable executive. Appears to have no notability independent of the company ViSalus. A redirect to ViSalus has been objected too. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that. The rule certainly applies to executives working at the company. But isn't notability inferred when a person creates a notable company? i.e Zuckerberg is a founder of Faceboook--a notable company--and that makes him notable (alongside the other four facebook founders). Blake Mallen founded Visalus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlang (talk • contribs) 12:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable minor league baseball player who is a free agent Spanneraol (talk) 17:28, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep, nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure — Frankie (talk) 20:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No refs since tagged with ((notability)) in december 2007. If notable, refs should be added, or article recreated when someone finds a source. Bjelleklang - talk 17:45, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser TSU 01:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable minor league player who is now a free agent. Page was previously deleted and then recreated. Spanneraol (talk) 17:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable minor actor Orange Mike | Talk 17:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. (non-admin closure) Mdann52 (talk) 19:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This page, along with the numerous SAP-related pages to which it links, is just an advert for a company that doesn't seem especially notable. (Pages for similar companies have been deleted with broad support for doing so.) This article has been tagged as an advert for a year and a half with no improvement or claim to notability as far as I can tell. B.Rossow · talk 16:58, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) TBrandley 18:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This page, all of the pages it links to, and its parent page (SAP AG) are all thinly veiled (if that) adverts for a company that doesn't seem especially notable. (Pages for similar companies have been deleted with broad support for doing so.) The parent article has been tagged as an advert for a year and a half with no improvement or claim to notability as far as I can tell. B.Rossow · talk 16:55, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One of a series of adverts for non-notable MicroStrategy software maintained by an obvious COI editor, sourced to regurgitated press releases. Orange Mike | Talk 16:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable software; no substantial coverage. Orange Mike | Talk 16:09, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One of a series of adverts for non-notable MicroStrategy software maintained by an obvious COI editor, sourced to regurgitated press releases. Orange Mike | Talk 16:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One of a series of adverts for non-notable MicroStrategy software maintained by an obvious COI editor. Orange Mike | Talk 16:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser TSU 01:57, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NBOOK. Rafy talk 15:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 11:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The page seems to be about a prospective style of building designed by the writer. No evidence that any building have been constructed using this technique and no sources about this type of construction. There are two groups who have similar designs [14] [15] but dont use the term Phyllotaxy towers and these are concept pieces. The central concept has no references and fails WP:N. Salix (talk): 15:08, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You mean Wikipedia is a second-hand source of knowledge?
--2.187.98.165 (talk) 21:44, 7 November 2012 (UTC)You do not see evidence of any such sources because you can not see all the sources about the subject. Just everybody can do such a huge work (It can be a research itself). Therefore, there is always possibility to exist such a phrase in for example an analog book in indian pesrsian or Japanese language. who knows? It will take some years for you to prove it.[reply]
There's an expression says: Just everyone knows every-things.--2.187.111.34 (talk) 20:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Who has any official academic Architecture PhD. Degree here? I think it's better to ask an expert in the field.--2.187.111.34 (talk) 09:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We can not judge an article just through searching a "phrase" on Google. there are lots of analog books and other sources we don't know about them. just scientists in the field can judge truly.--2.187.111.34 (talk) 09:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's very weak point of Wikipedia that only 2 or 3 people participate in most discussions!!!
You can find more about "phyllotactic architecture" here--2.187.126.37 (talk) 20:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are lots of not been proven theories on Wikipedia. why don't you delete all of them?--2.187.97.249 (talk) 21:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to replace images with UN-watermarked ones...Regards.--Saleh Masoumi (talk) 08:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Phyllotaxy Towers (Phyllotactic Towers) are a kind of "Phyllotactic Architecture" or a sort of practical applying of "Phyllotaxis in Architecture". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saleh Masoumi (talk • contribs) 09:12, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Important point is "Phyllotaxy Towers" ARE a system of architecture not just a specific building. on the other hand there would be different types of phyllotaxy towers with using different phyllotactic patterns for different geographic areas.--Saleh Masoumi (talk) 09:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unknown organisation, does not meet notability criteria of wiki Shrikanthv (talk) 12:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was closed. - speedily deleted as A7 WilyD 08:22, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not finding any sources to show how this passes WP:GNG considered speedy nut thought that might be appropriate if there is references that can be found in the indian language Hell In A Bucket (talk) 09:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:14, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While there are some sources about this guy who creates song parody videos on youtube (as well as videos of himself playing video games), the coverage is not what I would describe as significant. Most of the coverage is news-like (see WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:BLP1E) along the lines of, "hey, go check out this weird video on youtube". He doesn't appear to pass any criteria at WP:CREATIVE. This is the fifth time this article has been created, the other four times it was speedy deleted A7. ‑Scottywong| express _ 05:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 11:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRYSTAL only notability is as a contestant on a talent show. WP:TOOSOON maybe if and when she wins and gets a record deal. Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Missbad92 (talk) 23:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:55, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence for notability, either by the GNG or WP:PROF. His company is not notable, his books are self-published, his papers are almost uncited--the two highest GScholar counts are 13 & 7. Highly promotional, so much so that it might even be a G11 candidate. I see my colleague Guillaume2303 has tried valiantly to fix it up, but after 2 months of work, ended up by tagging it for dubious notability. DGG ( talk ) 04:17, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree with the above based on Wikipedia's own rules and definitions about "notability"
Wikipedia:Notability (academics) Criteria
Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable. Academics/professors meeting none of these conditions may still be notable if they meet the conditions of WP:BIO or other notability criteria, and the merits of an article on the academic/professor will depend largely on the extent to which it is verifiable.
Instead of one condition required, here are five:
1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
Please see "Selected publications and research works" In addition see Microsoft Academic Search: http://65.54.113.26/Author/18014943 Cited by 14 authors
2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. In 1975 Ram won the ILA/IPA price for the best scientific publication honoring the late David Levine, "Image processing by computers". 3. The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g., the IEEE).
This list of scientific memberships appeared in the original submission on 19 June 2010, which was deleted on 29 March 2012 by Guillaume2303:
Scientific Memberships • Information Processing Association of Israel – IPA, since 1975 • Association for Computing Machinery – ACM, Voting member since 1981 • Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers – IEEE, Member since 1981 • The Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers – SPIE, member since 1982 • The American Association of Physicists in Medicine – AAPM, member since 1982
4. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.
Development of a new brain monitor, which was recognized and approved by the American Food and Drug Administration – the FDA.
5. The person is in a field of literature (e.g writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g., musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC.
Ram published five books 2 in English and 3 in Hebrew in diverse areas. His first book about ADHD was published by "Gvanim" and it is recommended by the Ministry of Education in Israel. The other books were published with a collaboration of Beit Alim for the distribution in shops, such as Steimatzky and Tzomet. The books in English appear also in AMAZON and B&N.
GNG - "Giora Ram" –wikipedia in Google gives about 17,500 results most are relevant. More than 2 years this article appeared in Wikipedia, it was edited by many Wikipedians, who did a good job in revising it. Accordingly, it is obvious that this article falls within the scope of Wikipedia and should not be deleted.
Yesikan (talk) 09:27, 7 November 2012 (UTC)(Note: User:Yesikan has made few or no edits outside of this and closely related topics. --MelanieN (talk) 14:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]
*Comment –
Thank you for your prompt and detailed response. I hope you understand that as the contributor of this article I have to defend it…
Obviously, it is clear from your response that you realize the existence of contribution and notability elements, but not to the extent that you would expect from a top level of world famous scientist.
I claim that we can still find at least one element out of the five mentioned, or the combination of his total contributions, which will comply with Wikipedia rules. Before submitting this article, I have researched many similar articles in Wikipedia. I must say that there are many articles/individuals in this category whose contributions and notability are far less than Ram's.
Accordingly, deletion is a too radical step. I would recommend making the necessary revisions by other Wikipedians as they would find it needed and respect those (you included) who invested time in revising this article for the last two years.
Yesikan (talk) 11:24, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to List of Bomberman video games. MBisanz talk 03:55, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of Notability, contains no independent links or sources. ReformedArsenal (talk) 02:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:56, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A transparent attempt to get two articles when there's barely enough for one. Unaccountably accepted from AfC, despite being a wholly promotional article with no notability separate from that of the company. It's already mentioned in the ViSalus article, I think sufficiently, but an alternative might possibly be a merge, since so many of the references for the two are identical. Of the references listed in the article: (:1) The Forbes article is about the founder of the company and merely mentions the Challenge (2) The Men';s Fitness article is primarily about Humphries, and incidentally mentions the challenge among other information concerning his chosen diet & his own promotional stunts (3) from the Washington Times is first of all primarily about the company and second is not a news item but a blog: "this is the Communities at WashingtonTimes.com. Individual contributors are responsible for their content, which is not edited by The Washington Times." (4) CNN Money is about the founder (5) is PR, (6}, (7) & (8) are the company's own website. DGG ( talk ) 02:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
I apologize if the page appeared promotional. The reason I submitted it through the AFC was because I was trying to protect against exactly that. During the creation stage, I sought advise from several wiki editors via the IRC channel and they assured me the Sandbox article was okay. I really do apologize. In line with DGG's suggestion, I've transferred some of the content of the Challenge program to the VISalus page. Given DGG's concern, this addition is mostly made up of the program's early history with nothing about it nutrition. I hope this was okay. I added that section because I thought it was considered normal as evident on other brand loss pages such as Slim fast and Special K.
Still, I defer to your obvious experience and familiarity with Wiki rules. Please let me know if I've made any mistakes and how I can better serve.
Kind Regards Carlang (talk) 10:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
After a cursory search, NotePub seems to have had a couple of reviews in 2009, but nothing bigger than GigaOM. I couldn't find any other mainstream source.
I feel the article lacks in notability (and has few chances to gain traction in the future: development seems to have stopped). It's been tagged as such since last November and has not been improved since. -- Luk talk 09:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 02:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No attempt made to show that this term is used by anybody. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:56, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article gives no indication of why the subject is notable, and none of the sources are independent of the subject. A Google search has found no independent sources other than advertisements. (At most small portions of the information from the article could be included in Miami University and Edgar Ewing Brandon, if desired.) --Stfg (talk) 11:54, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Zombie. MBisanz talk 03:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP1E All the "zombie" was known for was... Well, being a zombie! This fails notability guidelines and we should not have a biographical article on the zombie. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 13:46, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 02:47, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No indication that this one... thing is at all notable. I cannot even really figure out what it is. A "French dressing antenna"??? What the heck is that? The whole thing has something to do with foreign cartoons broadcast in France, but beyond that, I'm having trouble sorting the whole thing out.
References are all Primary, and in French. A Google search also turns up French pages.
Maintenance tags are repeatedly removed without being addressed. So given the lack of any real indication of notability, the lack of context of what it *is*, and the lack of good secondary sourcing to show notability, it's time for AFD. TexasAndroid (talk) 18:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have just done a rewrite of the article, in English English. Emeraude (talk) 09:59, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep (Non-admin closure) Go Phightins! 02:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability, only source is a database entry for the film. ReformedArsenal (talk) 19:53, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:57, 14 November 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)) . |
Non-notable model with a few minor roles in music videos and supporting roles in a few films. No evidence of non-trivial 3rd party coverage (references mostly only mention him in passing or credits, or are video clips). OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He's a genuine personality who is notable as a UK based model cum Indian actor who is in his initial stage of his career. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.211.153.3 (talk) 16:32, 1 November 2012 (UTC) — 106.211.153.3 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The result was keep. One of the delete recommendations occured before additional sources were provided and the editor never returned to confirm their delete afterwards. The nominator appears to have accepted the notability of the subject (although not the content of the article) by creating a fork article. This leaves only one other recommendation for delete. The creation of a fork article is entirely against guidelines and cannot be allowed to stand. I note that ANI has already censured Olowe2011 for doing this. As part of this close I intend to undo the fork by merging Music Boulevard into MusicBlvd. This will be a simple paste of the material with no attempt at copyediting. I leave it to editors of the article to do whatever is needed with the material. I am only here addressing the issue of an unwanted fork and this action is not to be taken as endoresment of material in either article; that is a matter for content editing. Nor is the action to be taken as endorsement of the current article title: editors are free to move it to a different title. Evidence has been presented at this AfC that the current website musicblvd.com is not the same as the subject of this article. Consequently, the external link will be removed from the article as part of this AfD pending further evidence. SpinningSpark 22:48, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This page is clearly falsely advertising this organisation / company and could be seen to be purly advertising. This company is not notable and the sources / references used in this article provide little information to prove this article notable. As said the sources quoted are either dead-linked or self published. Olowe2011 (talk) 14:09, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So now you've gone ahead and created Music Boulevard??? I've never seen a stunt like this at AfD before. This is a clear violation of WP:POINT. Qworty (talk) 07:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
User:Olowe2011's Comment Located [the Administrator Notice Board]
|
---|
|
The result was delete. Although there were a number of keep recommendations "article is useful" is not a policy based argument. The only "keep" policy based argument came from Batard0 asserting GNG had been met but with no links to sources (and claiming a blog as a source) SpinningSpark 19:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to fail WP:GNG. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:00, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fearing the notability about this one. Perhaps I just don't have the right notes down about television people or dancers. I fear he fails GNG just by doing some online research. Doesn't appear to be a lot of reliable third party coverage about him, but, maybe just appearing on TV is all he needs. SarahStierch (talk) 06:39, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser TSU 01:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does not appear to meet WP:NALBUMS Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]