The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article has no sources that indicate notability. All the sources are just chart lists that happen to include this song in their list (or are dead links or the song's video on youtube or the artist's general web site, which doesn't seem to mention the song, or a place to download the song, or the artist's twitter account, etc.). The article was created (recently, 31 March 2013) by a user that has been previously blocked and repeatedly warned about creating spurious discography articles with no evidence of notability, and has subsequently continued the practice. The article has been tagged for questionable notability for a week, with no response. Once the article was created and stabilized (around the end of May 2013), it seems to have been basically abandoned by its creator and the community in general – except for a renaming discussion that raised some policy issues and had a rather questionable outcome. BarrelProof (talk) 00:13, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WP:USERFY available on request. Bbb23 (talk) 15:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No indication of notability on google, gnews, gbooks, etc [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 22:52, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:49, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable reality show contestant. Redirects are repeatedly undone. There is no justification for a standalone article and all relevant material already appears in the Big Brother Canada article. Whpq (talk) 22:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. No prejudice towards moving or a merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, the very existence of this article is completely UNDUE. It seems to attempt to list every single source related to this scandal, and that's not what we're supposed to be doing here--especially not if it concerns BLP matters. In relation to the Rob Ford article, it's completely over the top--this timeline is half the size of that article, where this already takes up an enormous amount of space. Basically, what we have here is a shit magnet that invites the inclusion of every single thing. Delete as UNDUE. Drmies (talk) 21:56, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:16, 24 August 2013 (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)) |
AfD restarted due to convassing and sockpuppetry issues. Previous rationale was "no indication of notability, unable to find sufficient RS (Gnews, google) to establish. [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 19:33, 9 August 2013 (UTC)" Black Kite (talk) 10:52, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:WEBCRIT. I could find only one reliable source mentioning this site. Not enough to satisfy Wiki standards for notability of a website. SMS Talk 17:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
More source:
ProPakistani
Spider Magazine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syedowaisalichishti (talk • contribs) 14:03, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. The nominator makes, in his deletion rationale, an argument that the article meets GNG. So long as the article meets that rationale, the article is deemed notable. (non-admin closure) Dusti*Let's talk!* 00:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article jams two non-notable topics into one page. NaiLab and Sam Gichuru may meet WP:GNG but they fail WP:ORG and WP:BIO. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Gichuru. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 15:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
More promotional editing around Cupsogue Pictures (afd) and Gene Fallaize (afd). Non notable fan film. There is no "full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics". Nothing historical about the film and there is no major awards.
The page has many sources but there is a lack of independent reliable sources. The best there is a local BBC puff piece about look what this local person is doing. Nothing significant. The rest are a mix of blogs, press release, crowd sourcing, imdb, fan sites and primary. None are good sources for notability.
This page was writteen by one of the team that made the film. Also rather telling about the intent for this article is the cherry picking of quotes. It is reviewed on the Movie Review Sunday blog (not MovieReviewSunday.com) which gives the movie a bad review (concluding"Maybe if it was cut down to 30 minutes, it might be salvageable, but in its current incarnation it's a big waste of time. 2 stars."). The author of this page, trying to keep things positive, ignores the basic premise of this review and cherrypicks the one good thing from the review. Wikipedia is being used for promotion. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:21, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Notability not established. Opinion piece. No references. WP:PEACOCK. Not written in encyclopedic tone. Portions not written in English. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:21, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. I think the idea of giving the article a month or so to see if its obvious issues can be addressed is a good one. If not, another AFD can always be opened. Black Kite (talk) 09:37, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Too broad of a list. There are hundreds of fictitious films, and it is constantly growing. Furthermore, what makes these notable? Just because one work of fiction makes up a work of fiction, does not mean it's notable. (I will like to include similar articles in this discussion, but I don't know how too) JDDJS (talk) 18:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet GNG or any special area notability guidelines. I am also convinced this is a WP:VANITY piece. First, the article seems to have been written by an SPA blocked for a WP:UAA violation, and was tagged as possibly autobiographical (probably because there are early life details in the article that were not mentioned in any source cited). AQs for actual content, the article calls her a "sex researcher", but she has done nothing that would be considered such - she has not worked above the undergraduate level. Undergraduate papers and a poster presentation at a conference do not meet WP:ACADEMIC. She was an "expert" for an app along with several other people (she was the most junior). The extent of her involvement is unknown. Her media coverage is local only (Burnaby Now is a local weekly). She was called a "sex columnist" but has written only twelve articles in eight months for HUSH magazine, almost all editorials, between Oct. 2012 and May 2013. That's more of an "occasional columnist", and just because it's on the Internet someplace doesn't make her notable in and of itself. She was a contestant (one of at least 40) for Miss World Canada, but I have been unable to discover if she even made it out of the website-based voting into a "real" pageant event (according to her FB, that page was a People's Choice award, and only the highest voted went to the final; it wasn't her). and she certainly did not win (and no named runners-up). MSJapan (talk) 17:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:17, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article does not meet GNG. Apart from a lack of coverage in English in the first place (which presents a bit of a problem), there seems to be nothing solid in GNews, either. The subject's last name was suppressed in the VoA article, so I'm not sure who even made the connection there. Addendum from following notification links: The article creator appears to be an SPA that was blocked for a UAA violation. This article has previously been speedied, recreated, and prodded. MSJapan (talk) 17:01, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 15:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:GNG. There are three Author repeatedly removes Notability tag. BVBinfo is a database, FIVB runs the Cahnpionships and awards she has gotten, and Volleywood.net has one paragraph for many players: "So happy for all the winners and of course all the beach volleyball players who competed this season. Despite a few tours getting cancelled, 2012 still marks as one of the most memorable seasons in the history of the FIVB Swatch World Tour." Surfer43 17:00, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
The result was Withdraw. SL93 (talk) 14:22, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I found no coverage that would make this pass WP:NF. Non-notable film. SL93 (talk) 16:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Only the creator of the article objected, and I feel that their arguments have been convincingly refuted.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:02, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
List of political parties, exclusively in Europe save for a few isolated random exceptions, arranged by how many members they have. I'm really struggling to think of a single reason why this would even be a useful or interesting comparison to be made across international borders in the first place — so the Chinese Communist Party has more members than the Swedish Moderate Party does? Great, now tell me why I should think that matters. China is a single-party state in which there isn't any other political party that anyone can join, in a country with a population of about a billion, while all of the other countries with parties listed are multiparty democracies whose entire population is smaller than the membership of the Chinese Communist Party alone, so the list just isn't giving me a useful point of comparison from one party to another. But even more importantly, the number of members that a political party has is in a constant state of flux: new members join, and old members die or move out of the country or quit, every single day, which makes a list of this type unmaintainable cruft that would literally have to be updated daily to remain accurate. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 15:54, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The list is about members of each party around the world, not the criteria wich you need to join, and the benefits of joining the specific party... — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexaHR (talk • contribs) 12:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy redirect. Article was redirected in 2009 and undone without consensus. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:48, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
mostly unsourced fancruft, I see nothing here that isn't already covered in List of Invader Zim characters. suggest deletion to avoid repeated reverts of the redirect. Frietjes (talk) 15:59, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Ktiv hasar niqqud. (non-admin closure) Ansh666 19:35, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing wrong with this article. However it is completely and verbatim repeated as a section of Ktiv hasar niqqud so it doesn't seem to have a purpose. The various forms of writing are best discussed together, so I propose that Ktiv haser become just a redirect to the "Ktiv hasar" section of Ktiv hasar niqqud. Zerotalk 13:44, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. default to keep (non-admin closure) Dusti*Let's talk!* 00:47, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not apparently notable - not seeing significant RS coverage. The only coverage that appears to be more than a passing mention is a WP:LOCALFAME-at-best story in the home and garden section of the Free Lance-Star and a paywalled Detroit News piece about a campaign contribution he made. (It's possible that the Beldon Fund may be notable? But there's no article to redirect his name to.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. No prejudice towards a merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:00, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A game developer is not inherently notable for doing the work he is paid to do. This game developer developed a game with an unpleasant, perhaps notorious, scene it it, but that of itself does not render him notable. WP:BLP1E applies for this item. The scene might render the game itself notable, but the developer does not inherit notability from the product. A number of the sources in the article are, at best, questionable with regard to WP:RS Fiddle Faddle 13:02, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification of nomination to be clear, my nomination means that I believe the subject does not pass BLP1E. Fiddle Faddle 08:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. No prejudice towards a merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not comply with Wikipedia notability guideline and does nothing but offering a vague description of the subject. Does not have any sources. Adobe Acrobat already does a better job, so anything a merge can do is already done. Codename Lisa (talk) 12:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:01, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Biography of a Turkish molecular biologist, apparently heavily edited by the subject himself. Being an autobio is absolutely no reason for deletion, of course, but does give a certain assurance that anything that might make the subject notable is present in the article (especially since it has been tagged for notability for about a month now). However, the subject does not appear to meet any of the criteria of WP:ACADEMIC and article creation seems to have been premature. The Web of Science lists 30 publications that have been cited 329 times (h-index = 9), so even assuming that these are all by the same person, that is not enough to meet WP:PROF#1 (especially since molecular biology is a high-citation-density field). The only award I can find is a Fulbright fellowship, of which there are thousands each year, so PROF#2 isn't met either. Geckil is not an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (#3). The article lists him as being the "lead editor" of a textbook, but that seems to concern translation only (see also here) and therefore does not meet #4 either. There is no evidence that Geckil at this point meets any of the remaining criteria or WP:GNG. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 12:45, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Userfyso the article can be finished.(Non-administrator closure.) Kumioko (talk) 04:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No article information, references or categories, just an infobox. May also be an advertisement. Kumioko (talk) 12:42, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted by User:Jimfbleak per CSD G11, with the summary "Unambiguous advertising or promotion: Essay, original research, no independent sources." (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000(talk) 16:11, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a paper, an essay, justifying a programme of work. It is not a Wikipedia article. It seems to have been created by the plan manager, who appears to have posted his autobiography as well and may be standing on a soapbox. Fiddle Faddle 11:37, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 15:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is almost entirely WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The article's creator has gone to great length to reference various examples of the influx of Taiwanese culture into the other places in the world in order to demonstrate the phenomena of the "Taiwanese Wave" - a term not mentioned in any of the references. The only reference that comes close - citation 1 and 11 (which is the same source) - mentions the Japanese term for this phenomena in passing. This is not enough to get past the very obvious OR/Synth problem this article has. Singularity42 (talk) 11:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn by nominator. I was unaware of such policy. Insulam Simia (talk) 16:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD, non-notable school per WP:NCORP. Creator removed PROD tag and added an event. I would like to remind the author that organisations are cannot be inherently notable; i.e. because of an event or a famous person. Insulam Simia (talk) 10:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 15:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Purely on notability grounds - amateur Peter Rehse (talk) 08:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Purely on notability grounds - amateur Peter Rehse (talk) 08:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 15:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Reason was: "This is a random intersection, equivalent to People in Grimsby with blue eyes". It's amusing, informative, even interesting, but totally non notable. This is WP:TRIVIA and has a place in a miscellany, not an encyclopaedia." Fiddle Faddle 06:45, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Closed early per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 18:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Promotional and non-notable. Could find no references where the school is discussed in detail. Page was created with the comment "they have more than 2400 students from 18 countries and deserve to be in wikipedia". Caffeyw (talk) 06:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This school has given over 10 trusted sources of news paper and other trusted sites and It is affiliated to International educational bodies like www.IB0.ORG and www.cie.org.uk. unsigned comment added by Bishwa 777 (talk • contribs) 04:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pure promotional. Search only brought up organization websites. No mention in outside sources to establish notability Caffeyw (talk) 06:18, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to List of Los Angeles Unified School District schools#Elementary schools. postdlf (talk) 15:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pure Promotional and non-notable Caffeyw (talk) 05:59, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Caffeyw, but I don't understand why you want to delete the page. Please reply! ~GEANETTI~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by GEANETTI (talk • contribs) 03:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 15:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A sportscaster with the CBS Sports Network, not notable. WisconsinBoyClevelandRocks228844 (talk) 20:42, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:01, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A Miami sportscaster; a non-notable sportscaster. WisconsinBoyClevelandRocks228844 (talk) 22:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC) These references are primary sources. WisconsinBoyClevelandRocks228844 (talk) 01:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Mark Arsten (talk) 17:01, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This topic does not appear to have attracted a sufficient amount of mainstream coverage to establish its notability Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 17:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:02, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 15:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:GNG Transcendence (talk) 06:25, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am inclined toward Keep. There are a couple of sources in the Google News archives (one in English, one in Spanish I haven't yet delved into) that look promising. I'll look up old Oregonian stories later today too and see what I can find. -Pete (talk) 17:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 15:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable building that was never built. A search for "Project 2000", at least for me, turns up some medical-related thing, which is definitely not this. The building appears to fail WP:GNG. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:57, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 09:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
nonnotable BLP, local organizer. No available sources about the subject, reads as biographical copy. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:29, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Chris Crass is presumed to be notable, because he has been the subject of multiple published[21] secondary[22] sources[23] that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Current Editor (talk) 17:41, 5 August 2013 (CST)
The result was redirect to List of stars in Piscis Austrinus. The edit history is preserved so anyone is free to merge content. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:37, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Metamatic (since this has been done, I have redirected). Black Kite (talk) 09:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSONG. Beerest355 Talk 22:46, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I found no sources covering this in significant detail. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 18:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Black Out the Sun (album). Mark Arsten (talk) 20:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This song is not independently notable. Even the two references do not establish subject notability or even pass WP:RS. I changed the article into a redirect to the band, Sevendust, but was reverted. Andrew327 14:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support a redirect to the album Black Out the Sun (album).—Iknow23 (talk) 04:57, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Mark Arsten (talk) 17:02, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable magician lacking Ghits and Gnews of substance. A number of awards, but they appear to be local or not major in nature. If the article could provide support for the awards, this AfD might not be necessary. Fails WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 16:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. No comments in three weeks - clearly no consensus to do anything. No prejudice against simply starting another AFd, though. Black Kite (talk) 09:43, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article is tagged for lacking notability since February 2010. I tried searching Download.com, Softpedia, Softonic, PC World and PC Magazine but only Softpedia had a small review, which is far from enough for notability. Codename Lisa (talk) 14:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. 14:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 14:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Jason LaRay Keener. postdlf (talk) 15:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The film does not appear to be notable per Wikipedia's standards. It does not have significant coverage from multiple reliable sources to satisfy the general notability guidelines. Nor does it meet any of the specific criteria at the notability guidelines for films. The best source I could find for this film was this blog, which is not reliable. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 15:12, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO guidelines. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 14:39, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 15:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No indication of notability. May be worth transwikiing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:12, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep (withdrawn by nominator) (non-controversial, non-admin close) -- Hillbillyholiday talk 10:57, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The term "Supermini" is not in common use and is a misleading description which confuses with the BMC Austin/Morris Minis and the current BMW Mini. The reference offered in the article in Section: Origins ot the term are so weak to be risible –
– Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard|— 05:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to List of stars in Taurus. The edit history is preserved so anyone is free to merge content. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:31, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 15:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable individual. Sources barely mention the individual, and do not establish "significant coverage". – Muboshgu (talk) 21:51, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to List of stars in Indus. The edit history is preserved so anyone is free to merge content. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:36, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to List of stars in Equuleus. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:34, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Emeritus Senior Living. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable trial level case. See discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law#Notabilty of lawsuits. GregJackP Boomer! 15:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 14001–15000#501. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I found no sources to demonstrate notability of this. Beerest355 Talk 15:10, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 15:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Closest thing to an RS I found was this, which repeats some of what's on this wiki article. I can't tell if they both came from an older version of the website or what. Anyway, PublishAmerica is a vanity press. JFH (talk) 12:57, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A person name "Sherif Francis" who is director, song-writer and so on certainly exists. It is asserted that Mr Francis is "primarily known for the success of his music videos. Also a recipient of a gold album as a music composer for several music hits he produced." As far as I can see, there is no evidence in significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject to verify this assertion. Shirt58 (talk) 12:29, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just another Cloud storage service amongst many others. Shirt58 (talk) 15:13, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't meet WP:NOTE standards Newjerseyliz (talk) 16:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 15:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. yes he was the inspiration for a Green day album cover but I can't find critical acclaim or third party coverage of him. I found coverage for other Sixtens as it is a Scandinavian first name. LibStar (talk) 06:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:07, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem notable. A quick google search didn't reveal much. Λuα (Operibus anteire) 00:41, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 15:09, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I found no significant coverage. The article says that they are shooting a feature film, but I found no proof of that. This fails WP:MUSIC. SL93 (talk) 03:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 15:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:BLP1E Transcendence (talk) 02:08, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:08, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:BLP1E Transcendence (talk) 02:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not a single secondary reliable source uses the term "Logical abacus". All GB and JSTOR results are about the Abacus itself. The article as it stands is original research by synthesis. The Legend of Zorro 02:02, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 15:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:ORG. No significant coverage found. Transcendence (talk) 02:00, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Move. SL7968 13:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not a single secondary reliable source uses the term "Abacus system". All GB and JSTOR results are about the Abacus itself. The article as it stands is original research by synthesis. The Legend of Zorro 01:58, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WP:SNOW. The Bushranger One ping only 05:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable, pending trial level court case. Soapbox for reform efforts of plaintiff. GregJackP Boomer! 01:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 15:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not-notable release. Only blog entries and storefronts in the first five pages on Google. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:19, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Pink Martini. postdlf (talk) 15:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in this article indicates that it means WP:NMUSIC. Trinitresque (talk) 04:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable musical group. Beerest355 Talk 18:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus--Ymblanter (talk) 08:07, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
AfD restart due to canvassing and sockpuppetry issues. Previous rationale was "no CSD for buildings. no indication of notability. building is not complete, and entry was tagged as outdated in 2010. no references, no coverage on google news. uses skyscrapercity.com, a forum site, in its list of ELs. [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 05:33, 10 August 2013 (UTC)" Black Kite (talk) 10:58, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Mark Arsten (talk) 20:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I found no coverage of this unlicensed Nintendo 64 hardware. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 04:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Keep. Closing early as nominator seeks an outcome other than deletion. I suggest a merge discussion be opened. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While the duo appears to have some notability (even if our article on it is gravely under-referenced), Shane Barnard appears not to pass WP:NM. The article has been without references for more than three years, i.e., since before the ten-day limit for BLPs came in. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:24, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 15:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like nonsense, waddles like nonsense, quacks like nonsense, e.g. "smaller photons", yin/yang symbol for neutron gamma-gamma illustrations ("Instant t + 4.4016x10-24 seconds"?). Clarityfiend (talk) 00:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
MARCOS BUIRA PARDO (talk) 14:19, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
MARCOS BUIRA PARDO (talk) 16:39, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your opinion,(is a nice exposure , and you're the first person who 'understands' the 'model' ) let me a simple question. when a neutron star dies, expelling quarks , gamma or ....? MARCOS BUIRA PARDO (talk) 00:17, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep/withdrawn - seemingly nominated on the basis of a misunderstanding. (Non-admin close). Stalwart111 03:02, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet WP:GNG and seems to be a part of a suite of articles written by single-use accounts trussing up subjects surrounding Nicholas Alahverdian, which is also being considered for deletion. May also violate WP:BLP. NewAccount4Me (talk) 00:45, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WP:SNOW. The Bushranger One ping only 23:24, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BIO, WP:PERP, and I didn't see any other criteria he'd fall under. Should either be deleted or redirected to Alahverdian v. Rhode Island Department of Children, Youth and Families, et al, but perhaps that article should be deleted as well. The edit history for the article is also a bit sketchy with a lot of WP:SPAs. Odie5533 (talk) 00:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]