![]() |
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:BIO and WP:DIPLOMAT. simply being an ambassador does not confer automatic notability. the only coverage I found confirms he was an ambassador but nothing indepth about him. LibStar (talk) 23:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 21:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This Google search doesn't yield anything that would seem to pass WP:42—some Encyclopedia Dramatica trolling, a few minor blog posts, and then basically a bunch of WMF stuff and mirrors. Nostalgia WP's cool and all, but I don't think it's notable enough for an article. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikimedia Meta-Wiki (2nd nomination): Our behind-the-scenes sites get a lot less press coverage than you'd think, most of the time. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 23:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. While not unanimous, the consensus here is that this article cannot be supported by the available sources without the use of original research. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
the term "enclaves" is a very POV term with negative connotations, I do note it is used commonly in the USA but not as much elsewhere. but also it is unclear what qualifies a suburb as listed in the article as an "ethnic enclave", is it 30% of the population that is born in a particular country? it is very POV how suburbs are included in this list without clear criteria. LibStar (talk) 23:39, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Australia's premier dictionary Macquarie Dictionary defines enclave as "a country, or especially, an outlying portion of a country, entirely or mostly surrounded by the territory of another country". sounds like Kosovo or Tibet to me. LibStar (talk) 05:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
how does a suburb get onto the list? what criteria is being used? LibStar (talk) 01:31, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kogarah is a listed as an ethnic enclave for Macedonians yet the article says top "countries of birth being China 12.0%, Nepal 6.5% and Bangladesh 4.4%." again complete POV. LibStar (talk) 02:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
you still haven't stated the critera to be listed on this list. no point correcting when there is no clear criteria for list inclusion. LibStar (talk) 02:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What proportion of the population by country of birth dominates which suburbs? Where are the most intense immigrant concentrations? And are these concentrations sufficiently distinctive to qualify as ethnic enclaves?
Those who oppose immigration and multiculturalism deride these suburbs as ethnic enclaves and ‘no go’ areas.
The most interesting product developed from these suburbs is the move from ethnic enclaves [negative] to cultural precincts [positive].
Silly late-night bickering.
|
---|
|
"An ethnic enclave is a spatial concentration of ethnic group members who establish businesses that serve and employ mainly members of the ethnic group and reinvest profits in community businesses and organization"and then discusses the Vietnamese enclave in Sydney and others in Australia.
Silly late-night bickering.
|
---|
|
you're basically suggesting a major rewrite of the current article to fit your sources and a more generic topic of Sources that perhaps list Sydney and ethnic enclaves on the same page without reference to specific suburbs. LibStar (talk) 23:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
please define the unambiguous criteria for listing a suburb in this article, no keep !voter has done this yet.- Don't be disingenuous, I clearly stated it above. The one and only criteria is reliable sources defining it as an ethnic enclave. We need no more, no less. And nothing prohibits us to make it an article about the enclaves in general, instead than a list-like article. --cyclopiaspeak! 08:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:25, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO. StringTheory11 (t • c) 23:25, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. No prejudice towards redirection. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:55, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO. StringTheory11 (t • c) 23:20, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 21:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD (nominated by a different editor) for the fallacious reason of all songs deserve articles. Original concern was "Lack of notability, the song has never been released as a single or promotional single. Not all songs with music videos require an article, and in this songs case that is the only notable thing about it." — Richard BB 22:05, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 15:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article reads as advertisement, has had a "no references" tag since 2009. Notability is not established. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:09, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:26, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence that this event even happened. A Google search comes up with this article and several fan made ECW events, but not one actually promoted by ECW itself Girfuy Ya Bawbag (talk) 21:05, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. LFaraone 01:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to fail WP:GNG and works as a coat rack. The high number of relevant people pictured, dies not necessarily make the sketch notable The Banner talk 20:56, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdraw. SL93 (talk) 20:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I found no significant coverage for this film. While Leslie Nielsen is notable, this film was not a significant part of his career. Fails WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 20:11, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Keep per WP:SNOW as there is no support for the nom. Warden (talk) 09:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article in unsourced and makes several false claims. Poorly written. Made redundant by articles on polyester, synthetic fiber, etc. Eliminate1337 (talk) 19:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note I would like to point out that the user account nominating this article for deletion appears to have been created solely for that purpose. This encourages me to be slightly wary. I would also point out that the nomination makes no explicit reference to any WP:POLICIES. The nominator should rectify this. Benboy00 (talk) 01:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that this article should certainly be kept, as it is, at least in theory, distinct from synthetic fibres. It does, of course, need a lot of work, as it has absolutely no sources. It also does not have much activity. I think this article has potential, but I myself am not going to work on it. If noone else expresses interest in working on it either, then I shall change my vote to a delete Benboy00 (talk) 01:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:27, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural nomination. Singularity42 (talk · contribs) PRODed it with the comment "Non-notable app". I have removed the PROD and nominated here instead because I thought that there may be objections. It's actually a pretty popular application, but that is irrelevant here. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 19:55, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:27, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No independent sources, no reliable sources, no notable bands for which he's played, salary of $7.50/hr per infobox (just kidding about the last one but is worth a chuckle) Boogerpatrol (talk) 19:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:11, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:BLP this article is not notable. There are hundreds and thousands of songwriters who have written or produced notable songs but where little is known about them as individuals they are often exempt from BLP articles as there often isnt enough information to warrnat the article or there isnt enough coverage from reliable sources. Both of which are a problem in this instance. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 00:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC) — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 00:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:11, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This long personal essay is essentially unsourced, citing only general textbooks. It has had no discussion, little participation, and is unlikely to be supportable by any sources. Dicklyon (talk) 20:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000(talk) 20:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously promotional article that might need WP:TNT if it were notable, but with only passing coverage in reliable sources, isn't. (The vast majority of the hits are about a giant truffle fungus, proceeds from the auction of which went to this group; there are also a number of paid press releases, other trivial mentions, and apparently one proper source.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:01, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 21:03, 18 August 2013 (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) 17:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WP:SNOW, and G11 as this is clearly intended to promote "Cloud Network Bank". The Bushranger One ping only 23:06, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reads like an essay, no sources, no evidence anyone actually uses this term. Original PROD reason was: "As written now, this is unsourced and doesn't even make sense. My guess is that whatever concept this author was going for is already covered in another article. Unless sources can be provided to show that this is a notable standalone concept, it should be deleted." Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:50, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A fair amount of work has went into this page, and I'm not keen to see it lost, but on the other hand, this does seem like a textbook case of WP:NOTDIR. Unless a compelling argument can be made for why we should keep this (AFAIK, no other disciplines have such lists), I think this one has to go the way of the dodo. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:29, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:GNG. Has not received significant coverage. Article's sole reliable source only mentions the subject in passing. Most of the article's information is unreferenced. Hirolovesswords (talk) 17:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of notability, no sources. A search for sources found no proof of notability, nor much information reH ghun ghunwI' 17:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 20:14, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-noteworthy political figure known for one event, and sources solely reflect that one event. Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. --BDD (talk) 21:42, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A PROD not made by me was contested with the reasoning that "Deletion on the premise of "missing white woman syndrome" is horrifically racist and not basis for said deletion." However, that fails to establish my and others' main problem: this is a routine news story that was blown out of proportion due to missing white woman syndrome - WP:NOTNEWS applies. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 16:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:29, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Only claims of notability are winning an online story contest and having some short stories in non-notable publications. Furthermore, the article has no reliable sources, with 8 out of the 11 references being pages on Amazon.com. Hirolovesswords (talk) 17:11, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Sean Hayes (actor). (non-admin closure) -- Trevj (talk) 09:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no doubt that this organisation has produced some notable TV shows but notability is not inherited. The organisation itself does not seem to meet the general notability guideline and the article does not establish notability. AussieLegend (✉) 09:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus, and therefore defaulting to keep. Reasonable arguments on both sides and further relisting seems unlikely to help. Kubigula (talk) 22:11, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A promotional article about a relatively minor group doing relatively minor local events. DGG ( talk ) 04:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
New York Sun Work dedicates to the sciences education which is extraordinary special. The info about the organization would be helpful and useful for audience who want to know the hydroponic and sustainability education in public school. Roger0206 (talk) 14:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 20:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable album. Barring sources that verify the album's existence/release dates in various territories, there are only three sources here that discuss it in detail - one of which cites the LiveJournal community Oh No They Didn't as a source. –Chase (talk / contribs) 16:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:29, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Society has not established notability OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 16:11, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An orphaned article about a residential area, tagged for 18 months but no improvement or attempt to fix any of the issues. Nothing encyclopaedic to be read here. I can't find even one WP:RS to verify its notability. Certainly not a NPOV. ww2censor (talk) 15:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SK#1: nominator urges merging, not deletion (and see Wikipedia:Merge and delete on why "deleted and merged" is such a problematic outcome to request). Please attempt to deal with merging through normal editing and discussion, per WP:ATD. postdlf (talk) 15:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article should be deleted and merged to: Muhammad Asad. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:01, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article does not fulfill criteria given in wp:NSONG. There are no reliable sources, and most of the article is about the album, not about the song. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 21:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This was included in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who have beaten Paul Morphy in chess but survived because it was not properly tagged. The reasoning remains the same: losing in chess is commonplace, even at the highest level, and therefore beating someone once is not notable. Mangoe (talk) 13:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD (tag removed with no edit summary), non-notable model aircraft engine, one of thousands. Article appears to be an advert for the product, sole editor appears to be a single-purpose account. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to J.G. Quintel. LFaraone 01:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Notability has not been established and the only sources I seem to find are various blogs and video websites Difficultly north (talk) - Simply south alt. 13:15, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete as a copyright violation. As noted the source does not claim to be released under a free licence. Hut 8.5 10:25, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is not 100% clear that this is a copyright violation because the site's note at the foot of http://www.pjsip.org/ mentions Creative Commons. However it mentions it for some icons, and does not appear to do so for the text. The wording is definitely identical. Instead of CSD I have brought it to AfD to give people the chance to consider the matter.
Of course there is also the issue of notability which may trump copyright by the entity not being notable anyway Fiddle Faddle 12:58, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Does not include any references or sources to establish notability. Even if a source can be found to verify the 1997 "International Starlet of the Year" award at the Barcelona International Erotic Film Festival, I believe that it is not sufficient to satisfy WP:PORNBIO Finnegas (talk) 12:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. LFaraone 01:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I created that page, and thought that this was a notable event, however, I realize now that this was one of do many events that occurred during the revolution, and it is not significant enough to be in an article on Wikipedia. Ahmad E Shahin (talk) 09:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:26, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know, this unsourced BLP has been around since 2007. But why it has is beyond me. He currently "works on pinups and covers" and used to be a comic book artist. But I can't find a single article on this person in Google News, except for one in USA Today that refers to his presidency of the non-notable National Atheist Party, and says that he is "a corporate legal representative for a finance company," not a comic book artist, which is the only conceivable claim this person has to notability. See [24], the article itself is not accessible. This looks suspiciously like an autobiography, as it was created by an SPA, and should be speedily deleted unless someone can come up with evidence that this person has received signficant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources as required in WP:GNG. Coretheapple (talk) 23:07, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just because the article as originally written claimed notability as a comic book artist does not mean that he could not later gain notability as an atheist political activist. It is likely that I would have agreed with deletion if the article had been nominated before publication of the USA Today/ Christian Century article. But we are discussing it after that publication. A Wikipedia biography can cover many verifiable aspects of a person's life, not just the accomplishment that makes them notable. So even if he is not notable specifically as a comic book artist, I see no reason why that can't be mentioned. I have already conceded that I see this as a borderline case, and see your recommendation to delete as perfectly reasonable although I am not quite persuaded. So, let's allow the debate to be played out, and see if any other reliable sources emerge. As for the "autobiography" issue, your suspicions are reasonable but unproven, and in any case, that is not a definitive reason to delete an article. Shortcomings in the current version of the article can be addressed through normal editing. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:28, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. LFaraone 01:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This page should be deleted, because it is a self-advertisement from the band. Considering that they have played inly two gigs in their country, no one knows so much details about music instruments and equipment they use. Also, information about albums is not neutral. For instance, Let Satan Speak Through Our Lips had ambient noise fill-ins in total of 20 minutes only to be qualified as full-length release, prooflink: http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/Dark_Domination/Let_Satan_Speak_Through_Our_Lips/74105/
Links don't work. Only two are OK. The one with the frontman interview and the one about burning books, that has no connections with the band. There are no objective links that can proove the band's statements.
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced and notability is far from clear. Google shows very little except wiki mirrors and the subject's facebook page (astounding since he died in 1960). Anyway, fails GNG and N. Spartaz Humbug! 06:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. LFaraone 01:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Only source is IMDB and a quick google search failed to provide anything other than social media. Appears to fail GNG/N and BLP requires at least one proper source. Spartaz Humbug! 06:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:26, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. I found one very short news story on nymag.com basically poking fun at him, and a couple of other mentions. But nothing that counts as in-depth coverage. I don't think Mercury Radio Arts is notable either (at the time of writing it's at AfD), so a merge there doesn't make sense. Colapeninsula (talk) 13:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 21:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pure Original research. Fiddle Faddle 13:18, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:28, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The list of references, the ones I've sampled, are all press release material. This is an internet startup, with a welter of PR, but no solid notability. The long list of pseudo-references persuaded me against Speedy Deletion as a non notable entity, but it probably does qualify for that route. Fiddle Faddle 11:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:28, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
one big piece of puffery and promo. Panthaki seems to fail wp:GNG as there are remarkable few Google hits for such a great guy who "swiftly went on to work with respected directors" and "After this run of theatre success, Panthaki then continued to cleverly balance the edgy Film roles with more mainstream commercial material." The Banner talk 00:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 04:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 15:33, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO. Although there are a fair number of hits on SIMBAD, none of them that I saw appear to actually study the star in question. StringTheory11 (t • c) 15:39, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:17, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
List based off of blog sources like this one that are terrifically unreliable. I don't consider this to be a plausible list name nor a plausible redirect to existing similar topics like Critically Endangered. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 06:09, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A list of species that have possibly survived to modern times would be an interesting list to create. I added only the best references to the animals and found many more out there for each.jbignell (talk) 06:14, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I both agree and disagree with SL93. I disagree with deleting the article, but I do agree that redirecting the article to List of cryptids is absurd and won't do anything expect get us all back to square one. No one take cryptids seriously! Besides, this article is leaning toward articles like this: List_of_critically_endangered_species like how it is supposed so. Basically, once I am finished creating my article, it will fit be part of this Conservation_status. The article itself is meant to be an offshoot of those articles within that template. Most likely an offshoot of the Data_Deficient and/or the Not Evaluated lists. See what I am aiming for now? Keeby101 (talk) 20:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not exaclty! Right now it looks like a fork of all of those articles, but if you are give the article time to grow and blossom you will see that it will a fork of none of them. Believe me on this. It is indeed necessary as there are so many species that yes are classified as extinct and critically endangered, but a lot of those species that are classified under those categories are rumored/believed to still be out there. That is what this article is taking about. Not creatures that have not been discovered yet like cryptids and not extinct or critically endangered species. This is talking about species that could still be out there. A prime example would be the Megaladon as it has gotten mass media attention and many people around the world believe that it is still alive off the coast of Africa. Keeby101 (talk) 21:20, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? Dead links? I have been trying to fix that just FYI and I have been putting in numerous sources for these animals. As I have said before and you can look on my talk page on this or even my user home page and it shows that I am very busy in real life. So if you were to help contribute to the article and cite actual book sources like how I have then it will no longer be look like a fork of other articles. I am not the one who put those blog sources on there. I only put book sources on my article. Other people have been contributing so they could very well be the ones who put up those blog sources. Keeby101 (talk) 05:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to add a few things. Recently I have added many more sources. Great books, but unfortunately for this article. Books aren't exactly going to work. I need newspaper sources as well as sources from news websites and/or science news websites to pull this off. Sources like the HistoryChannel.com, ScienceChannel.com, Yahoo Science, Yahoo News, NationalGeographic.com, etc at this point are the only sources that I will be able to truly rely on. Even sources such as Fox News, CBS, ABC, NBC and CNN would do far greater than any book. Because the sources that I listed get all of the recent information about these particular species that I have listed in this article. If you don't believe me? Here is one of them: http://tv.yahoo.com/blogs/tv-news/megalodon--is-it-possible-that-this-nearly-67-foot-shark-still-exists-off-the-coast-of-south-africa--213827765.html . Regards Keeby101 (talk) 21:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to George_Watson's_College#George_Watson.27s_College_Pipes_and_Drums. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
School pipe band - policy seems to be that only Grade 1 bands are notable. Jamesx12345 15:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 21:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see no indication of notability in this mixed use development, consisting mainly of a list of mostly non-notable vendors. There appear to be no major anchors. DGG ( talk ) 00:28, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 21:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A non-notable comic in a barely notable magazine. There is nothing on any website about this except for the Muse magazine website, forums, and WP mirrors. King Jakob C2 00:40, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:37, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unable to find sources to show that this artist pass WP:BAND or gng. If we can show reliable sources that the individual passes those in the language I am not opposed to withdrawing but for now I believe it doesn't pass gng. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 21:58, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No notability--ceo of non notable company, in the immediately adjacent AfD DGG ( talk ) 02:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to List of stars in Aquarius. LFaraone 01:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to List of stars in Aquarius. LFaraone 01:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:41, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to List of stars in Indus. LFaraone 01:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:42, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 03:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD : Un-sourced, cant find anything to verify any claims made as to being North Florida's largest and oldest free monthly entertainment publication. As it stands fails the WP:V policy. LGA talkedits 04:03, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 03:06, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed PROD with no reasons given for removal of PROD tag. Original and remaining concern: No reliable sources to verify this article. Singularity42 (talk) 22:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete, no prejudice against recreation based on reliable sources--Ymblanter (talk) 06:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a non-notable program. Even the most basic coverage from newspapers seems to be found nowhere. From their dates, it can easily be deduced that the Google Books hits are false positives. CtP (t • c) 19:26, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete, which has already been done per A7. The Bushranger One ping only 04:51, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable web show content creator. I was unable to find any interviews or coverage of the individual in reference to their show called "The Red Couch." Also, as it stands, the article currently reads like a resume. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 04:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. After being relisted twice, a consensus does not exist for deletion. Merge discussion can take place on the article's talk page if someone should feel so inclined. (non-admin closure) Dusti*Let's talk!* 04:56, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. This is a news topic which does not meet the threshold of notability to be included in Wikipedia. Stifle (talk) 14:15, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so this was speedy deleted yesterday, and has been recreated. I can see that the 'longest running snooker podcast' might well be a assertion of importance good enough for A7, so it's time to bring it here.
This podcast isn't notable in its own right. Richard is, the Leceister Square podcast is, the Collings and Herrin podcast is, but this one isn't, because there's no reliable sources talking about it in depth. It just doesn't meet the notability standard. Of the four sources provided in the article at the moment, the first is a blog, the second is a link to download the podcast, and the third is about a completely different Herring show. The fourth, whilst it does mention the snooker podcast, it's barely a mention and is written by the subject himself. All the other sources I've found are the same; a small mention, a para at most, in a feature on/interview with the undoubtedly notable Richard Herring. GedUK 11:52, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000(talk) 20:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced article about a non-notable tram stop. Fails WP:GNG. - MrX 13:37, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While team-on-such-season articles are common, this is the only one for the AHL. Add the fact that minor league hockey isn't all that notable, don't think it will become a precedent. igordebraga ≠ 23:15, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 04:52, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing more than rather trivial mentions. Not notable. Insulam Simia (talk) 12:29, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. LFaraone 01:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable product. The reliable sources (most of them tech show promo blurbs) do not mention this product. They mention other products, which this article claims are based on the sheevaplug, but there are no sources actually verifying that. Even if they are based on sheeva, notability is not inherited, and it is those actual products which could be notable, not this one. Vast majority of sources are unreliable self published primary sources from the developers (and it seems of the linux developers really, not the plug developers) Gaijin42 (talk) 13:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There doesn't seem to be any sourcing supporting notability of these charts. I can find sources from wikis, blogs, and discussion forums, but nothing that would seem to convey notability. —Kww(talk) 18:47, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
is considered the primary Ukrainian record chartcountered by the existence of the Gala radio chart, although top40-charts.com does take data from FDR.[33] However, without any reliable sources (probably not in English, hence our difficulty finding them if they exist) this article has nothing to base its intended encyclopedic content on. -- Trevj (talk) 10:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000(talk) 20:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No notability claimed nor shown. Just an ordinary radio show. One cite from Orlando Sentinel that "Bubba" was fired. Other than that, no WP:RS. No claim of audited radio audience which might be revealing. Student7 (talk) 22:51, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 22:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article has never had any secondary sources and in my searches I have not been able to find any. GB fan 23:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's this section page of stories about Alamy in the British Journal of Photography, I'm not sure if counts as notability. They certainly discuss the company as though you'll already know they exist, and there are lots of other discussions online of how to upload to them etc. Unsure of how to vote. Douglasi (talk) 15:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Michig (talk) 06:23, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced track listing, with no established notability. The only article content is cut/paste from Midnight Syndicate. Delete per WP:NALBUMS. Tgeairn (talk) 18:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to fail WP:PROF as well as WP:CREATIVE. This article is unreferenced and reads like a puff piece, so it needs work if it isn't deleted first. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 22:02, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article is plagiarized from, and contains no notable information not already present in, the existing articles for the individual films. The copyright violation is not difficult (but rather bothersome) to fix, though doing so would not change the fact that the article is redundant. Psychonaut (talk) 20:13, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, we have come to the consensus that this page shouldn't be deleted! Thanks!BBINDFAN (talk) 19:04, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Michig (talk) 06:20, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable software. No GHits other than blogs and promotional sites. No GNews hits. Declined prod. GregJackP Boomer! 01:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:41, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unremarkable band. Fails WP:NMG. The band has only released a couple of EPs and singles, and has had no studio album releases. No citations that establish notability. — Richard BB 11:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Null set. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:32, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it is unnotable and extremly poorly referenced. Only reference is to a facebook page and a page of which it is only a minor mention reH ghun ghunwI' 00:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. LFaraone 01:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BLP issues. This article was previously deleted in February 2012 as non-notable; it's now a little more complicated than that, as the amount of sources that exist suggests he probably passes WP:BIO. However, he's a pretty minor academic, and the sheer amount of negative content in this biography I think justifies deleting it under WP:IAR.
This brief article contains descriptions of the subject's sexual affairs, mental health problems, attempted murder and attempted suicide. That amount of negative information would be questionable in a biography of a highly notable celebrity; on a minor academic, it's downright awful. If it weren't so well-sourced, I'd have already nominated it for speedy deletion as an attack page. As it is, the best argument I can make for deleting it is WP:BASICHUMANDECENCY. Robofish (talk) 00:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They were actually Iselilja's cuts, not mine. I just reinstated them once they'd been reverted. I tend to agree with you that the stubbification was harder than was necessary, but I didn't have time to make a perfect stubbification attempt at the time, and didn't want to leave the article up in its entirety until I did. I think it's probably a good idea for some of us to start a noindexed sandbox draft of a better stub attempt; if no one beats me to it, I will when I have time Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC) [reply]
(edit conflict)I hate to go on a tangent but I'm significantly disappointed in the number of people who are trotting out accusations of censorship just because an article about a living person was temporarily stubbified while discussion was ongoing. No permanent deletion was made, and it's almost certain that most of the material will return, just worded and weighted in a better way than it originally was. The absence of material about him for a handful of days has done absolutely no harm of any sort to anything. We are supposed to veer on the side of caution when we are dealing with living people for a reason - our actions can have real effects on the rest of the world when they go wrong, and not infrequently, do. If the intention had been to censor the article, there are a million ways we could have done so more effectively. Not to get too beansy, but if someone had sneakily redirected his BLP to a small subsection of Pasadena City College's article and then argued that keeping in most of the material would've been undue for that article as a whole, there's a good chance it would've worked. If censorship was the goal, censorship would have been achieved. Robofish brought this here because he wanted an earnest discussion about a possible BLP issue; Iselilja stubbed the article pending discussion because that's not only what you're supposed to do by policy, but the morally right thing to do. Many of you need to go reread WP:AGF - I know it's a policy frequently ignored, but it exists for a reason.
I would suggest we close this AfD and begin to work on a noindexed sandbox of a new version of the article, so that we can discuss what belongs in the article, at what weight it belongs in the article, and how things should be worded. I'll do so myself tomorrow AM if no one else beats me to it (I'm taking my last final today, and am thus pretty busy.) That is how Wikipedia is supposed to work, not just by shouting NOTCENSORED. The actions taken by Robo, Ise, and myself in this situation have been in line with both Wikipedia's ideals, Wikipedia's black-letter policies, and the resolutions about living people passed by the Wikimedia Foundation's board of trustees, and have been responded to with personal attacks. Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:38, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. I am unable to uncover any significant reliable third party coverage of this fairly recently launched organization. The only sources I am able to turn up are the PR releases by the institute and its partner Gaza University. Perhaps there are some sources in non-English reliable sources that I am unable to discover? But barring those it appears the institute is just not notable by Wikipedia standards. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:25, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. Speedy kept - the "rationaile" given for deletion is not remotely based on policy. Snow Is Coming. If a policy-based reasion for deletion can be articulated than a renomination can be done. The Bushranger One ping only 04:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redundant list with zero additional information that would make a worthwhile WP:LIST article. A category would serve the purpose of this list equally well. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to America's Most Wanted (group). Mark Arsten (talk) 20:42, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This album did not receive enough reliable coverage to justify an article. All information minus tracklist is already found at artist page. Beerest355 Talk 02:09, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of this article may well become notable. At present the notability appears to be predicted for the future. I suggest the article be deleted without prejudice to later re-creation when true notability may be asserted and cited. Fiddle Faddle 14:54, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. The Bushranger One ping only 04:55, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On its face, it fails WP:GNG. Her only notability seems to be WP:INHERITED. Bbb23 (talk) 14:50, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article is about a business person which lacks the signficant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. The sourcing in the article not significant. My own searches find that mostly, he is quoted or mentioned, but lacks significant coverage. I did find this article covering his move to vCustomer. But that was it for anythign significant. Searches were also conducted under "Sujit Baksi", an alternate transliteration of his name that appears to be commonly used, but it turned up only more mentions. Whpq (talk) 13:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 03:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe this software passes the threshold of notability. All references in the article are to primary sources, and the claims of notability in the article rest only on these primary sources. I searched Google, Google News, and Google Scholar for independent sources covering the product in-detail and turned up empty-handed. Psychonaut (talk) 20:04, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To cite notability: "Sources of evidence include recognized peer reviewed publications". All of the references in the article are contributions to the most well-respected international scientific conferences and journals of the IEEE, the most important professional institution in the area of computer science. These kinds of scientific publications all have to pass a rigorous review process. I added more references from non-primary sources to the article, again scientific publications of well-respected conferences written by research groups around the world (Canada, Spain, India, Germany etc.). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuduprinz (talk • contribs) 17:40, 8 August 2013
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:44, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 19:03, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:44, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails WP:BAND. Koala15 (talk) 19:01, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:44, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 18:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:44, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet Notability guidelines Factchecker25 (talk) 13:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]