![]() |
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very difficult to tell what the article is about, only one external link, no references, I doubt it meets WP:GNG, but not having enough substance in the article it would be hard to know what to look for. This needs major expansion and clarification. Otherwise, I'd vote to delete it. Go Phightins! (talk) 23:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:14, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable card game which was apparently made available only a few days ago.[dead link] There are no hits for "BRAAAAAINS!" "top media studios" on Google Books, News, or News archives, and the article was created by an account controlled by the game's publisher, Top Media Studios. CtP (t • c) 23:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was withdrawn by nominator. No other arguments for deletion. (non-admin closure) Gongshow Talk 04:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
another player who had a page created largely due to potential NFL prospects, having been cut, he fails WP:NSPORTS and again, do legal troubles, an ESPN player card (that every NCAA player in the known universe has), and a recruiting page really allow him to pass WP:GNG or WP:ROTM? Go Phightins! (talk) 22:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —cyberpower ChatLimited Access 15:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fringe notability: fails WP:NSPORTS...I see how a case can be made that the articles about how he was a great prospect and his legal troubles allow him to pass WP:GNG, but I just don't think he quite clears it. I suppose that would be the purpose of the discussion. Thanks. Go Phightins! (talk) 22:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -Scottywong| converse _ 16:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not a single or song charted and released. Not even confirmed SrGangsta (talk) 21:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —cyberpower ChatLimited Access 15:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article is a complete violation of Wikipedia's policy of not being a dictionary (another user even said that on the talk page back in December and the three references all say "dictionary"). Nothing in it is verifiable. Even if there is something encyclopedic about this "Abd" term, it is an Arabic word, not an English one, so it belongs in the Arabic version of Wikipedia, not this one. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 19:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Autobiography with no evidence of notability per WP:BIO or WP:AUTHOR; claims of notability are sourced only by her own blogs and the blog of another crime blogger of unknown notability; can't find any WP:Reliable sources online showing notability. Lone boatman (talk) 19:14, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article's only source is the organization's home page. There is nothing in the article that shows notability, such as meeting WP:MANOTE. Article is also partly written like an editorial and uses plenty of peacock terms. Papaursa (talk) 19:05, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As evident from the article creater's name, the article falls under WP:PROMOTION and should therefore be considered for deletion. Sesamevoila (talk) 18:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:41, 10 September 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)) . |
Article is partly promotional, partly an organizational directory, partly a list of past accomplishments. This fund has brought speakers to campus--great. That does not make it a notable organization by our standards. Drmies (talk) 03:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the Wikipedia community could make suggestions as to how we might change the Lecture Fund page for the better, but I feel as though the Lecture Fund page does not merit a deletion. Everything is carefully referenced and sourced, and the page fits in line with other Georgetown organization Wikipedia pages. Thom-293 (talk) 10:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable company. The article does not establish any notability. Jsharpminor (talk) 19:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Pennsylvania State University. It would also be perfectly acceptable for editors to change the redirect target to a specific section. If anyone strongly objects to having this page title as a redirect then we can work around that by using one of the steps in WP:MAD; if there are no other objections, though, it may be worth keeping this page as a redirect per WP:R#KEEP no. 4. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 14:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be a non-notable group and there are few third-party sources aside from these articles from the Centre Daily Times (the university's newspaper). Aside from these Google News links, Google News also finds irrelevant links to University of Toronto's Center for Medieval Studies. Although there are several Centre Daily Times articles, all of them appear to be simply announcements of events (gallery shows, picnic, etc.) rather than significant information about the group. Additionally, the group's website never seems to provide a "history" section. Considering that several of those newspaper articles suggest this program has existed for 16 years or possibly more, I think the best option to save the article would be to move the content to Pennsylvania State University, where there currently is no mention of the group there. I should also mention that the article was deleted in April 2012 as an expired PROD but the article was restored by User:Toddst1 with the suggestion of taking the article to AfD. SwisterTwister talk 00:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:ENT. Career as an actress/model is minor, GNews reveals no significant coverage. Mbinebri talk ← 12:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Mark Arsten (talk) 15:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From just reading the article they appear to fail WP:GNG. All of the citations are unreliable due to their nature (i.e. CDbaby) or just unreliable news sources (blogs). SarahStierch (talk) 05:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Mark Arsten (talk) 15:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SYNTH violation, duplicating/combining Bosnian War and Bosnian Genocide. Author is WP:SPA KatrinaIvanovic (talk · contribs) who declined the previous WP:PROD without explanation or fixing the problem. Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Mark Arsten (talk) 19:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable company Jsharpminor (talk) 19:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. After discounting the comments not based on Wikipedia deletion policy, there seems to be a rough consensus to delete. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 13:43, 12 September 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. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 15:31, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable company. The article does not establish any notability. Jsharpminor (talk) 19:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No indication that this San Diego pub is notable. Unreferenced since 2006. Google News Archive search found only routine mentions. MelanieN (talk) 03:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does not appear notable at this time. Searching on Google Books, News, and News archives for "Official Taekwondo Hall of Fame" yielded only this (which is probably a false positive because of its age) and this (which only includes a brief mention disambiguating the OTKDHOF from another Taekwondo Hall of Fame). CtP (t • c) 14:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete both. Fram (talk) 14:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable foundation and non-notable researcher. Both topics appear to fail WP:GNG.
I encountered these two articles while doing a DYK review of Edmund Marriage. Both articles have been created by the same editor, who appears to have a WP:COI, but has decided to "excuse" himself from COI restrictions on the grounds that his "interest simply involves saving the Garden of Eden". COI is no reason to delete an article, but it does encourage me to scrutinise a topic's notability.
Edmund Marriage is the director of the Patrick Foundation, and the two articles use an overlapping set of references, which I have examined against WP:GNG:
Further searches throw up little:
Sorry if I have missed anything in my searches. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:13, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/APA Tactical, more advertisement than notable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:59, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect because no one else could be bothered, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:05, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's a disambiguation page with two options both leading to the same article Ben Culture (talk) 11:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was The result was not needed - mistake nom. A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 10:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An editor (Aniruddha.khosla) has expressed concern that the article is not sourced, so rather than have the article go through repeated blanking, I'm proposing it for AfD. A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 09:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable faux order created by members of a self-appointed Royal House of Georgia. Sourced only to that organization's website and to the article creator's blog. No news hits, no Scholar hits, Google search dominated by Wiki mirrors and heraldry blogs. Fails the GNG. Serious COI, in so far as the article creator claims on his blog to be a "knight" of this order. [14] Ravenswing 09:01, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable faux order created by members of a self-appointed Royal House of Georgia. Sourced only to that organization's website. No news hits, no Scholar hits, Google search dominated by Wiki mirrors and various heraldry blogs. Fails the GNG. Ravenswing 08:59, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus over the boundary between "independent" and "affiliated" sources and therefore on the application of WP:GNG. Since the vast majority of the article is certainly verifiable, default to keep. Deryck C. 11:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would normally nominate an article of this sort of speedy G11 as highly promotional, but there seems as possibility that it might actually be notable enough to be worth sourcing and rewriting. DGG ( talk ) 20:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Editors should feel free to renominate after a couple of months if they still feel there are problems with the sourcing. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 12:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This list is based on the results of a single study, it seems to me this fails WP:N. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An excerpt from a paper by a group of different authors:"The raw data originally used by Easterly and Levine (1997) come from the Atlas Narodov Mira, a compilation of ehtnolinguistic groups present in 1960 based on historical linguistic origin. A first weakness of this data is that linguistic heterogeneity does not necessarily coincide with ethnic heterogeneity. For instance, most Latin American countries are relatively homogenous in terms of language but less so in terms of “ethnicity” or “race”. Fearon (2003) and Alesina et al. (2003) have compiled various measures of ethnic heterogeneity which try to tackle the fact that the difference amongst groups manifests itself in different ways in different places. The two classifications are constructed differently. Alesina et al. (2003) do not take a stand on what ethnicity (or language or religion) are more salient than others and adopt the country breakdown suggested by original sources, mainly the Encyclopedia Britannica (See the Appendix for more details). Fearon (2003) instead is trying to construct the ”right list” of ethnic groups which ”depends on what people in the country identify as the most socially rel- evant ethnic groupings” (page 198). This approach has the advantage of being closer to what the theory would want and the disadvantage of having to make judgement calls (or adopt others’ judgement calls) about what is the ”right list”. The sources used by Fearon (2003) are carefully described in his paper ..." Here is my proposal based on this excerpt: 1) I will add the list developed by Alesina et al. (2003) to the current page. 2) This way we will have two lists on the page, one corresponding to the direct data, and a more sophisticated one, closer to what conflict theory would want. 3) This way we will have multiple points of view and multiple references on the page. I hope people realize the importance of having such a list on wikipedia, both for students of conflict theory and the general public. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 17:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The page with multiple lists and more reference is now up. Comments will be appreciated.I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 03:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article now has more sources, but I don't see any secondary sources. It is now a case of WP:SYN I am afraid. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:47, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am still on the fence, but I can say for sure the article now is much better. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy keep, Criteria 5, page is linked on main page. Page can be re-nominated once this no longer applies. (non-admin closure). JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 16:48, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to fail general notability guideline. Some claims of significance/importance, but I can't find any significant coverage in reliable sources to back it up. (I think there are multiple Derek Woodgates in the sources, so that confuses matters.) Also vaguely promotional. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete; deleted as A7 by Jimfbleak (talk · contribs). CtP (t • c) 14:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]
His mention on IMDb for a single bit role appears to be user-generated. I an unable to locate any reliable secondary sources that would indicate that this person is notable per WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. VQuakr (talk) 07:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable Secondary Sources: Celebrity Tweets Celebrities Help Out Troops — Preceding unsigned comment added by JERRADV (talk • contribs) 07:58, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
— JERRADV (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The result was keep (nomination withdrawn). CtP (t • c) 23:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]
Non-notable musician. He's won a non-notable music award, but that doesn't seem to have got him more than blurb-length coverage, far short of that required by WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:MUSIC standards of musician notability (criteria 1, 9 and 12), Mark Edwards is a notable musician. First, the links in the article show that Mr. Edwards meets with criterion no. 1. Second, as for criterion no. 9, the Bruges Early Music (or Musica Antiqua) competition is the most notable early music competition in the world, its longtime judge and "spiritual leader" being Gustav Leonhardt. Please consult the Dutch MA Festival Wikipedia page I have cited in the article; you will find that the career of many a notable musician started by obtaining a prize in this competition. As for criterion no 12, Mark Edwards's concerts and recitals have been featured on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), although I cannot find an online record of the broadcast, and on American Public Media, for which I have given links to the radio program Pipedreams, which can be streamed online. Thank you Stuartyeates for pointing out some of the article's previous weaknesses. The article is now in my Watchlist: links will be amended as information on websites are archived. Please withdraw your proposal to delete the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JasonDaoust (talk • contribs) 11:17, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Most entries in the namelist are unreferenced. This is clearly a violation of WP:BLP. Most likely original research. There is no purpose in keeping such a unneutrally written and largely unreferenced article. And exactly what is the definition of dictator? Bonkers The Clown (talk) 07:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Biography of person who does not appear to meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG. bonadea contributions talk 07:22, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Miss Earth. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As per WP:CRYSTAL JetBlast (talk) 13:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Repeating the rationale from my earlier prod: This has been flagged for notability and primary sources for eight months with no improvement. The only source appears to be a set of web deadlinks (unqlspec.org resolves but goes to a blank page) and a press release. Google scholar finds highly cited research on something called UnQL, dating from the late 1990s, but it appears to be unrelated. The prod was declined, with the suggestion that this instead be merged with NoSQL, but I think this is a bad idea because the two subjects are at very different levels of technicality (one is a specific access language, the other a broad class of approaches to database organization) and because the same lack of reliable secondary sources that make this non-notable as a standalone article also make it non-notable as information to be kept by merging elsewhere. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:42, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is the second time that I've nominated this article for deletion. The first time was here. The EP has not been released yet. There is no reliable sources on this article. There's no confirmed track listing. It doesn't comply with WP:NALBUMS just yet. Devin (talk) 04:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:20, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable company and Google News produced two relevant articles here and here, and two links here (press release) and here focusing with the company's products. SwisterTwister talk 04:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:19, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable and it seems the company has never received notable news coverage as shown by Google News. The only links I have found are either primary or simply videos, the only link I found that wasn't primary or videos was this blog which would provide minimal support for this article. SwisterTwister talk 01:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Moot. Deleted and salted 22:16, 2 September 2012 (UTC) by Jimfbleak (talk · contribs). — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 11:28, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable, no reliable sources, previously deleted and recreated 3x, recommend delete and salt. GregJackP Boomer! 02:52, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This page violates WP:Not News. Possibly merge to Old Bridge Township, New Jersey. Tinton5 (talk) 01:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable street. Nothing but trivia. No sources found. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:26, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]