![]() |
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Theopolisme 00:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DICTIONARY -- simply the definition and "advantages" of a term. While it has sources and content it is, in the end, a term -- perhaps a move to Wiktionary? Theopolisme 22:00, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, the article (when originally nominated for deletion) looked substantially different than it does now -- I'm in agreement that a keep is now appropriate. Theopolisme 00:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Tennessee, 2008#District 4. SarahStierch (talk) 05:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unsuccessful candidate in an election, no other claim to notability. HangingCurveSwing for the fence 22:53, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 05:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This was kept before, in an AfD which though full of good will and optimism failed to produce reliable sources testifying to the notability of the topic. Drmies (talk) 20:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 05:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per notability - I arrived at this page following a COI discussion and attempted to have a clear up - the more I did the more that it turn out things just where not being backed up - the 'Professor' part I found very difficult to find a source for - the vast majority of the books are self-published (he's a director of 21st Century Books) and most of the sources were to a set of websites that are all variations on a theme of 'Promote Colin Turner'. I'd like this to be looked at by some more people with a view to removing... Fayedizard (talk) 20:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Keeping, per previous nomination, and there isn't a guideline about how many citations are needed for notability - there are also more sources, we just need to add them. And public artwork? Surely notable! SarahStierch (talk) 05:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A house in Toronto that has an unusual sculpture in front, but no notability. The only reliable source presented in this article is a mention in a fluff piece on unusual houses, where it is mentioned amongst several others. This alone doesn't really meet the notability requirements. This was actually nominated for deletion some years ago, however the nominator withdrew after someone promised to add more sources. That never happened, and I am unable to find any others on my own through various searches. Rorshacma (talk) 22:22, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — ΛΧΣ21™ 19:40, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced article about a printing company in Delhi that existed between 1933 and 1947, with no apparent relevance to an encyclopedia. I proposed deletion here on 23 September with rationale " Unsourced very short article with no real indication of notability. While the publishers of the works mentioned may merit an article, this appears to be simply a short-lived printing company". It was deprodded on 30 September with "historically important" given as the reason, but after requesting some evidence of historical importance or encyclopedic relevance on the article's talk page the same day, nothing has been presented. Google Books has no coverage, Google News only has a couple of wanted ads in Indian Express from 1944 requesting printing machines. Michig (talk) 19:21, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Per WP:SNOW. If certified members of the ARS agree, and a couple of admins and seasoned editors, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines, there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that this well be kept. Drmies (talk) 18:01, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Appears to have no encyclopedic value. Eeekster (talk) 18:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is supposed to be a sub article for The James Young High School. It has value to those who know the school and particularly would interest all students, staff and wider community. Danielj27052705 (talk) 18:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Henry Norris (courtier). I'm closing as merge rather than delete as this would make a reasonable redirect. Editors are welcome to change the target of the redirect if they find a better one. Also, on a tangential note, we need to find out whether she was Henry Norris's mother (as claimed in this article), or his wife (as claimed in the Norris article). — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 06:02, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Only claim to notability appears to be relationship with other well-known persons, as discussed at WP:BIO#Invalid criteria FunkyCanute (talk) 17:53, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Fails notability SarahStierch (talk) 05:58, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This woman isn't notable at all and the article can't be expanded, all she has ever done is voice a fictional DJ in 1 video game. One of the two references is to her personal profile on a social networking site, the other is to iMDB. NYSMtalk page 18:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 15:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable music release per WP:NMUSIC. No significant information beyond a track listing. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 19:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. There seems to be a consensus here that this article is not fit for inclusion in Wikipedia. There is less of a consensus that the general subject is non-notable, but proposed recreation must go through WP:DRV. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:41, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pessimistic as to whether this will work, given this latest fad on Wikipedia of Muslim-baiting among some editors (for the record, I might as well say that I think that the Mohammed article should have his pic in it - this is a different cup of tea altogether though) but let's at least try. The article is a straight up POV WP:COATRACK which basically synthesizes everything bad done by a person or people who happened to be Muslim to others. It's obvious agenda pushing. None of the sources deal with the subject of the article, they're just cherry picked for anecdotes and isolated statements. Volunteer Marek 17:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
very best wishes (talk) 04:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete This is clearly, clearly a WP:COATRACK, based on the title of the article. It's not a guideline or policy, per se... but WP:NUKEANDPAVE may be in order here. Nothing good can come of this. Roodog2k (talk) 17:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Floppy disk variants. (non-admin closure) Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I merged most of the article's body into Floppy disk variants. I also userfied the article and its talk page. ❤ Yutsi Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 17:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 05:26, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This individual fails every criteria of WP:PROF. No research of significant impact, no prestigious academic awards, not a "distinguished professor", no publications of note (only a Ph.D. thesis), and no independent sources. In short, not notable enough for Wikipedia. Ἀλήθεια 17:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 02:42, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable cricket comptetition. See also the related Varanasi cricket team (AfD) and Dr.Sampurananand Stadium (AfD). -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 15:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — ΛΧΣ21™ 02:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable stadium. Contested proposed deletion. See also the related Varanasi cricket team (AfD) and Uttar Pradesh Cricket Cup (AfD). Gogo Dodo (talk) 15:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Nenana Ice Classic, after deleting the page history. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 05:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article is about a Non Directional Beacon. This cannot possibly meet Wikipedia guidelines on notability as there must be thousands of these things in the world. Does every one of them deserve and article? I B Wright (talk) 15:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 04:13, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL JMHamo (talk) 15:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. Deb (talk) 12:31, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. Bad-faith nomination Acroterion (talk) 14:36, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable school. they do nothing important. also possibly a hoax since there are nor eluable sources other than a shaky fakw esbite. Brownmessissue (talk) 14:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unencyclopedic list, unlikely ever to be articles about the contents of the list, only sources are the websites of the companies themselves. jpgordon::==( o ) 16:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article claims no notability for this "reality TV Show". A search found no usable sources. Most of article simply lists episodes; most of the text appears in the lead, consisting largely of a commercial-sounding quote (and at 58 words, it may well be a copyvio) with the article's only reference. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable online school - references do not support claims of notability, no significant Ghits either. Fails WP:GNG. ukexpat (talk) 17:51, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. The article was improved during the deletion discussion, but not to the point of there being consensus to keep it. However, there also is no meeting of the minds that the page should be deleted. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 15:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable college lecturer, fails wp:prof. GregJackP Boomer! 16:05, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Users are free to start this over on a general topic. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article with low quality or nonspecific references apparently intended to promote the probably non-notable organisation http://www.womeninlogistics.org.uk/. DGG ( talk ) 20:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Guy Manning. Redirecting rather than deleting as WP:NALBUM indicates that redirection is preferred. This can be turned back into a full article if multiple reviews of the album appear in reliable sources. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour (have a chat) 03:51, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable album. One of several created by the artist. No independent WP:reliable sources. Google not showing anything significant noq (talk) 19:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very odd to make an exception of this 13th album over the other 12? Note this album has only just been released and so is only just starting to get written about. It has been discussed on RADIO stations during interviews with me however. Why this one album in particular? I have been adding accurate content to WIKI since I discovered some very inaccurate material on the site about me some years ago. I keep it all up to date periodically with purely factual content...i.e no superlatives!
If you do not want information about me on WIKIPEDIA (because it is no important enough etc) then kindly delete the whole site set (my own Guy Manning artist site plus ALL the MANNING albums) and I will not contribute to it upkeep anymore...it is up to you.
Each album published on WIKI has had review links added to keep them relevant, timely and objective. Some of these original referenced articles are now only to be found on my own website however because the original content has long since disappeared from the source site (such is the nature of the internet), but, each review published at the BURNSIDE web site cites the original source and author. (Guy Manning) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GuyManning (talk • contribs) 09:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am unable to find multiple reliable sources that show this singer is notable by WP:N, WP:BIO, or WP:MUSIC. Maintenance tags requesting this information are continually removed by the article creator (who happens to have the same name as the subject). The singer has not yet released a full album. Google search comes up with mostly YouTube and other video sites, and directory entries. ... discospinster talk 19:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Previous AFD nominations have shown that this meets GNG; only work has to be done now. (non-admin closure) — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:05, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article has not improved since it was nominated the first two times. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:43, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:COMPANY. No significant coverage. Minor coverage about their product but they are not inherently notable because of the product. Tried to find sources to keep the article alive but there is nothing that I can find that is significant. UsedEdgesII (talk) 18:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:43, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No sources listed and obviously not notable. Was unable to find an IMDB page or other websites and even the pages of this film on foreign language wikis didn't have sources. Michael5046 (talk) 20:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:43, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A subject that appears to be notable only for height or show size. Its a non notable topic only small number of sources are relevant and appears to be a case of WP:BLP1E Blethering Scot 21:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:43, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable person. Only coverage is blogs and minor publications. Harry the Dog WOOF 15:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Pinoy Big Brother. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour (have a chat) 03:38, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A duplicate of some sections in the article, Pinoy Big Brother. Better this be merged to that article. Renzoy16 | Contact Me 19:24, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Pinoy Big Brother. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour (have a chat) 03:37, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A duplicate of some sections in the article, Pinoy Big Brother. Better this be merged to that article. Renzoy16 | Contact Me 19:24, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) KTC (talk) 00:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article is written like an advertisment, doesn't have any legitimate sources, and is not a notable business to have an article. Endofskull (talk) 22:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There has to be some Reference to prove that this company exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamme1234 (talk • contribs) 03:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. A possible merge of this content could be made into G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra and/or Funny or Die, as the voters proposed. (non-admin closure) — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable web content, fails WP:GNG. The limited coverage I found is just passing mentions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:18, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Gongshow Talk 07:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hoax radio station. This callsign is not mentioned anywhere in the official website of the company. The flagship FM for this company is DZMB. Enric Naval (talk) 08:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Never mind, it was hidden in a list of local radio stations that is in image format[19] (google can't find text in images). Please someone close this, I'll just ask for a merge to the main article. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:11, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Some concerns were shown over the detail and quality of the information, but the overall consensus points at keeping the article. (non-admin closure) — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:12, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a content fork of Ryukyu Islands made by User:Masanori Asami, a now blatantly nationalistic editor attempting to push a nationalistic point of view concerning the geopolitical status of the islands. Masanori Asami has also been attempting to push this nationalism on multiple projects, turning the existing redirects into similar articles. There is nothing here that cannot and is not stated on Ryukyu Islands. —Ryulong (琉竜) 07:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ryukyu Arc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is not a content fork of Ryukyu Islands. Ryukyu Arc is the technical term of fields of Earth science, Ecology and Archaeology. If you don't have any knowledge of "Ryukyu Arc", please search the word "Ryukyu Arc" at Google, then you will find most of Google search ranking top 20 of "Ryukyu Arc" are the articles in the field of Plate tectonics or Volcanology of Earth Science, and more than half of which are written by Japanese scientists, for not only "Ryukyu Arc" is in Japan but also Japan is the leading nation of the study of Plate tectonics and Volcanology (for there are 3 or 4 tectonic plates in Japan, while there are 2 or 3 in US, and there are many volcanos in Japan. ), and English is the international language of science.(Masanori Asami (talk) 23:39, 5 October 2012 (UTC))(Masanori Asami (Masanori Asami (talk) 01:50, 6 October 2012 (UTC)) (112.70.9.71 (talk) 14:27, 6 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]
No. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:27, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Ryulong(琉竜) began to edit substantial contents of Ryukyu Arc[edit]Ryulong(琉竜) began to edit substantial contents of Ryukyu Arc after had made this board for deletion of Ryukyu Arc. The editing of substantial contents of Ryukyu Arc contradicts the proposal for the article deletion. That means the withdrawal of the proposal by Ryulong(琉竜).(Masanori Asami (talk) 23:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC))(Masanori Asami (talk) 00:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Ryulong(琉竜) should apologize to me in having proposed the article deletion.(Masanori Asami (talk) 00:19, 7 October 2012 (UTC))[reply] |
The result was redirect to My American Heart. There is a consensus that he doesn't pass WP:NMUSIC. I'm redirecting instead of deleting because the title is a likely search term. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour (have a chat) 03:35, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It fails Wikipedia:Notability (music). The references are not reliable enough. Probably self-promotion. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 07:10, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
((prod blp))
) was reverted by the article creator. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 20:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article is about an online jewelery company in Singapore. It makes no indication of why this company is notable and gives no independent sources (no sources at all, actually). This is a new user's first contribution so I'm not worried about the fact that it's listed as a disambig, that's easily fixed if the article is kept. Wittylama 06:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete multiple reasons. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 07:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article is not written to comply with Wikipedia guidelines and author failed to write about it's importance to be on an encyclopedia. ʂaɳɖaƙɘɭʉɱ ʈaɭƙ 06:36, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete, non-notable. Yunshui 雲水 13:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously on the wrong Wiki. I'd speedy this, but I don't know what, if anything, is the proper criterion for that. AutomaticStrikeout 04:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was nomination withdrawn. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 04:32, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fails the notability guidelines for biographical articles. Supplied sourcing does not cover the article's topic, and a Google search did not reveal any reliable sourcing. I'll withdraw if anybody else has better luck finding sourcing of the article's topic (which, in my opinion, would not be sourcing that only covers the meme, loose relationship the meme has with this actual person withstanding). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 03:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that El Espectáculo de Jimmy Russels was largely forgotten to time due to the fact that its first episode failed to air due to Jimmy Russels dying of a heart attack during the shooting of the first episode. I worked in the Canal 13 headquarters custodial staff for a number of years and was instructed to throw away documents about the show. I happened to be in the live audience that witnessed Jimmy Russel have his heart attack and decided to save the documents. Now, having immigrated to the United States, I have the internet and the means to share my information about Jimmy with the world. I have lost the documents I had about the show, along with the video from the first episode during my move to the States, however, i will try to find them and upload them as soon as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moonikwa (talk • contribs) 03:39, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article is lookalike a fake only without any source and wrong content ---zeeyanketu talk to me 03:02, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:19, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A new pages patroller has left this on my talk page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bashereyre#Proposed_deletion_of_Thomas_de_Bodham
I have had two similar articles proposed recently so......
please read this one Bashereyre (talk) 06:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John_Plemth[reply]
to see if it should be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bashereyre (talk • contribs) 06:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can't come up with a policy-based reason to delete. --Nouniquenames 05:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Page not needed. PatGallacher (talk) 11:23, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:DABMENTION is clear: If a topic does not have an article of its own, but is mentioned within another article, then a link to that article should be included. Boleyn (talk) 10:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]