![]() |
The result was delete. Keeper | 76 00:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A NXT Rookie that was fired and disappear. In his brief stint in WWE, he does nothing notable and in the indy is like a ghost. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 00:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge with The Corporation (professional wrestling). Everybody agrees that there is no individual notability, and noobody so far objected against the merger.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article says "short lived". No notable HHH Pedrigree (talk) 00:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was KEEP. I have to take issue with Isarra's claim that WP:N does not really apply. It most certainly does apply, in particular WP:ENTERTAINER is explicitly indicated as the relevant guideline by WP:ATHLETE. However, no argument was advanced that this article does not meet that guideline. The shortness of their existence is not an argument based in policy. Length of the period of notability is not one of the guideline criteria. SpinningSpark 01:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A controversial article. ShoMiz won the unified tag team titles and defend it in WM, but the tag team lived for 3 months only. I think that is is a short lived tag team that we can redirect to the articles of the wrestlers. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 00:07, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Secret account 20:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Short lived tag team without notability or feuds HHH Pedrigree (talk) 00:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Please note that The Chickbusters article did not have the afd notice tag on it, and as it was the only one discussed here that had any "doubt" as to whether to delete, therefore I did not delete it. Recommend relisting individually to open discussion. UPDATE, I see here that an IP removed the tag at the same time as adding substantial information to the article. Still, it was a couple of days ago. With the additions to the article, including several references (I didn't check to see if they were at all notable or help the article meet WP:GNG), it should still be relisted individually, if at all. Keeper | 76 00:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's rather quite silly that we have these articles in the first place. Not only were they only active for a little over very small timespans, they literally did nothing of note. I would have speedied this if I didn't know better than to make such a rash and immediate call. Being perfectly frank, I don't see how someone can convince me that this is notable. Then again, AfD is exactly the place for me to find out. Feedback ☎ 22:51, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Ceza#Discography. J04n(talk page) 00:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably a youtube video. No attempt made even to link to it, still less to show that it is notable. (Disputed prod.) — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was NAC procedural removal, page is nominated by its creator and only editor. Redirect is fine but if nominator wants it deleted it can be easily G7'd. Not necessary to go through AfD procedure for this. Shadowjams (talk) 01:50, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Material was moved to List of colleges in Haiti. Auto redirect was rm because it was (now) misleading. Student7 (talk) 23:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Keeper | 76 00:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Subject does not meet WP:NMMA since he has only 3 MMA fights, none for a top tier organization. The references are not significant and independent--they're for his seminars, school, and fight record. Merely being part of the Gracie family is WP:NOTINHERITED and running a BJJ school doesn't show notability. Papaursa (talk) 22:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Please note that The Chickbusters article did not have the afd notice tag on it, and as it was the only one discussed here that had any "doubt" as to whether to delete, therefore I did not delete it. Recommend relisting individually to open discussion. UPDATE, I see here that an IP removed the tag at the same time as adding substantial information to the article. Still, it was a couple of days ago. With the additions to the article, including several references (I didn't check to see if they were at all notable or help the article meet WP:GNG), it should still be relisted individually, if at all. Keeper | 76 00:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's rather quite silly that we have these articles in the first place. Not only were they only active for a little over very small timespans, they literally did nothing of note. I would have speedied this if I didn't know better than to make such a rash and immediate call. Being perfectly frank, I don't see how someone can convince me that this is notable. Then again, AfD is exactly the place for me to find out. Feedback ☎ 22:51, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 01:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced list that contains nothing but a list of names. This could be easily accomplished with a category. If this article were a table that gave some meaningful statistics, okay, that's useful, but just a list is not useful. B (talk) 22:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:30, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This one might be a little controversial, but that's what AfD is for. I am a firm believer that not every WWE tag team should have its own Wikipedia page. Curt Hawkins and Tyler Reks are a fine example of a tag team which had longevity (11 months), but didn't accomplish anything of note. Their crowning moment was probably a backstage segment at WrestleMania. They were mostly booked at the bottom of the undercard and rarely had a feud. Their very few exposure was on NXT Redemption where they had one or two feuds which didn't really amount to anything.
My point is, there's nothing in this article that isn't talked about in both Curt Hawkins and Tyler Reks' individual articles. And with Rek's retirement, it doesn't seem like they will be adding anything anytime soon.
There's also the fact that this article has way too many week-by-week results of trivial developments in minor feuds which aren't very encyclopedic. This level of detail matters to very little people and shouldn't be in every article. If we cleaned it up, the article will probably end up a stub anyway.
It's time we make a precedent that not every tag team needs an article. Hawkins and Reks' deletion should be an example for others to follow. Feedback ☎ 22:46, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. King Jakob C2 23:29, 26 March 2013 (UTC) (WP:Non-admin closure)[reply]
Non-notable film with no reliable sources. Atlantima (talk) 22:38, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Minori (company). Atlantima - be bold!. Feel free to redirect these "easy calls" when you see them. No need to bring them here. If you get reverted, discuss on talkpages, and maybe bring to discussion if that doesn't work? Keeper | 76 00:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable video game with no reliable third-party sources. Delete or redirect to Minori (company). --Atlantima (talk) 23:00, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge with the Richard Justin article. GiantSnowman 19:43, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article Richard Gastin Lado is about the same footballer as the article Richard Justin. --Benny 23 (talk) 22:06, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 16:30, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't really a trail, that is, it isn't a pathway constructed in its own right like a hiking trail or the Oregon Trail. It's nothing more than a walking tour in San Francisco which is sponsored by the San Francisco Museum and Historical Society. While they managed to get the city to allow permanent markers of the sites on the tour, it appears to be privately run, and I have not been able to get information about the path or specific points on the tour from any source other than the tour's own website, which apparently is separate from the SFMHS. At any rate you seem to have to pay to get a map. External references all seem to be tourist info books/sites saying "in SF, take the Barbary Coast Trail for a tour pof the historic sights." Mangoe (talk) 21:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as CSD A7, no credible assertion of significance. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 02:50, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable junior athlete. —teb728 t c 21:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep and move to Death of Marco McMillian. I wouldn't consider a mayoral candidate a public official, but consensus seems to agree that this meets our rather strict BLP1E guidelines, but not as an individual article. If nothing continues in this case after a few months, feel free to renominate it for AFD. Secret account 21:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As of right now, what we have here is an unelected candidate (thus not qualifying for an article under WP:POLITICIAN) for the mayoralty of a small town (a political office not significant enough that he'd necessarily qualify for an article under WP:POLITICIAN even if he'd been the actual mayor), who is thus notable only for having been murdered (thus violating WP:CRIME). While it's possible that the incident might accrue greater notability in the future (e.g. if it ultimately turns out to have been a properly verifiable anti-gay hate crime), Wikipedia does not keep articles about news stories just because they might become genuinely notable someday — we only allow them after permanent notability has already been demonstrated. That isn't yet the case here — as of right now, unconfirmed speculation about possible motives for the murder is all that exists in any media source whatsoever. Accordingly, this is a WP:NOTNEWSPAPER violation as things currently stand. Delete for now; we can recreate it in the future if genuine significance as anything more than a passing news story ever actually materializes. Bearcat (talk) 19:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to San Jose Earthquakes#Mascots. Keeper | 76 00:38, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Only reference present is not about the subject but simply lists the mascot along with others from the Bay Area. Does not appear to be interdependently notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Keeper | 76 00:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Dutch statistics provide no details for cities, only for municipalities and (statistical) neighbourhoods. To compile these list, someone has to make a definition of the city involved (= WP:OR) and than calculate/estimate the population (= WP:OR). For what it is worth: even the Dutch WP has removed the page due for WP:OR... The Banner talk 19:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn. GiantSnowman 21:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PROD contested by article creator, no rationale given. The original rationale was "No evidence of notability; minimal sources available, and I cannot see any that cover the subject in great detail" which, despite some minor improvements to the article, remains valid. GiantSnowman 16:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The article was deleted in 2008 according to the closing admin's deletion log. I believe that the closing admin userfied the article by restoring it but then neglected to redelete it, but there are some technical wrinkles I can't explain. In any event, the article, as deleted, is not that different from the article as it currently stands. Therefore, I see no reason to relist this discussion to obtain more !votes. Bbb23 (talk) 01:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article Survivor Sucks appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:WEB. The article is about a forum based on the show Survivor, the references are not independent of the subject, and need to be to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list. Paul "The Wall" (talk) 15:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Michig (talk) 17:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a how to guide. There is already an article on persistence of vision displays, of which this is but one example. The article title would not serve as a useful redirect to the existing article. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. G7, author blanked page. Yunshui 雲水 10:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. The only thing that would save this article from a speedy A7 is a vague mention of "international awards". Since the article is not specific about those awards, this cannot be verified. Also, plenty of sources used in the article, but all of them are primary and consist of pages on Facebook, Youtube, and the like. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 15:35, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Keeper | 76 02:02, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The previous AfD was closed, mistakenly I believe, as a "no consensus". He fails WP:NMMA with no MMA fights for a top tier organization and the coverage I could find of him was just routine sports reporting (WP:NOTNEWSPAPER) or PR. The most notable thing I could find was a 2nd place finish at the IBJJF European championships, but it turns out there were only 3 competitors so he may not have even won a fight if he got the bye. That result does not seem to be enough to meet WP:MANOTE.Mdtemp (talk) 15:13, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Keeper | 76 02:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Almost certainly talented but ELs and Ghits do not meet the requirement of significant coverage in reliable sources to satisfy WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. ukexpat (talk) 14:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Michig (talk) 17:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:GNG, as a Google search fails to turn up any more in-depth coverage sufficient to justify a biographical article like this. The sole source used in this article is an unreliable fan-generated source. --DAJF (talk) 14:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep - nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 16:16, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by Nominator: I've still got a lot to learn about Article Deletion and AfDing this was clearly a mistake. Someone close this thing as a Speedy Keep. MIVP - (Can I Help?) (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) 09:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see no sources in this article and something about the External link screams 'not allowed' (of course I could just as easily be wrong about the second part) and correct me if i'm wrong but isn't there some rule that hty must have a gold before they are considered notable? Even if my hunches are wrong it still lacks sources and could possibly have gone for A7 instead of an AfD. MIVP - (Can I Help?) (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) 14:01, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2 Speedy Keeps from experienced users, Do I feel like an idiot or what >_> Worth closing? MIVP - (Can I Help?) (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) 11:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done that. MIVP - (Can I Help?) (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) 09:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) TBrandley 17:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Been tagged for notability since Dec 2010. Besides being the first black female pilot I cannot find sources for her. Suggest it be deleted Gbawden (talk) 13:53, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to List of Spooks characters. Keeper | 76 14:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No sources, only reference is the BBC's website, basically it looks like something that could go for A7 if this was a real person. MIVP - (Can I Help?) (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) 13:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Any significant character in notable fiction should get a one or two paragraph description. Any non-trivial character in a notable work should at least have a single line description in a list, and a redirect to it. (It doesn't matter how many characters there are--the more complicated the story, the more need to explain it fully and properly). We're here to provide encyclopedic information--and if the main work is worth covering in the first place, people are likely to want some degree of detail. Why else would you use an encyclopedia in the first place, if you didn't want detailed coverage? And, there is no valid reason why there should not at least be a redirect, so deletion is inappropriate. Anything anyone might rationally want to look up should have a redirect if there's relevant content in Wikipedia. DGG ( talk ) 00:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 00:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was KEEP. SpinningSpark 18:46, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Text book case of WP:BRANCH where the organization is notable but the local church building is not inherently notable. No WP:SIGCOV to suggest otherwise. Mkdwtalk 06:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. This is close to a keep, but several of the keep arguments make no reference to policy, and seem to invent their own criteria for notability. Some of the delete arguments, however, fail to address the fact that there are sources and thus at least a possibility of notability. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Text book case of WP:BRANCH where the organization is notable but the local church building is not inherently notable. No WP:SIGCOV to suggest otherwise. Mkdwtalk 06:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:51, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Has lots of titles but none are signifinant tiles, Gelinas lacks coverage in independent reliable sources, listings and passing mentions only. original research. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Those sources need to be (selectively) cited in the article. Looks like you've got some work to do, SwisterTwister! (and others, of course...) Keeper | 76 02:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
no real claim to notability almost an a7, lacks coverage in independent reliable sources, listings only. original research. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Keeper | 76 02:35, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-WP:notable surname. PROD removed by author. Although there may be any number of people in the world named Avsharyan (or its variant Avsharian), none of them appear to have articles in the English Wikipedia. The present article lists redlinks to two people that the author felt worthy to include, but there is no indication that either of them would actually meet the criteria for inclusion. When (if) such article exist, there might be a need for an Avsharyan (surname) article, but not before then. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Secret account 21:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would be the last to want to delete an article about Puerto Ricans, but I don't think they meet the general notability criteria. They teamed for less than half a year in a small developmental territory in Florida. Whatever is covered here can be covered in the individual articles. Feedback ☎ 11:21, 18 March 2013 (UTC) Feedback ☎ 11:21, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 00:49, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable album, referenced only to the website of one of the musicians. A google search throws up no independent sources to expand the article, so if it is kept it will re main remain as a permastub sourced only to its creators.
The result was delete. Michig (talk) 17:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Spammy article about non-notable book. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Since only the nominator commented, and it's already run for 2 weeks, I'll treat this as a WP:SOFTDELETE (meaning it's like a WP:PROD, so if anyone objects after the fact they can request undeletion) Qwyrxian (talk) 12:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Completing nomination on behalf of an IP editor, whose rationale (as posted on the article's talk page) is included verbatim below. On the merits, I have no opinion. I do note, however, that the most recent edits from User:Bcjmarketing were very recent and didn't change much - large parts of the article have been in place since 2011 and before. They may be a marketing account for BCJ (and I have cautioned them not to edit this article on that basis), but they did not introduce the problems cited by the IP - else, we'd just revert and be done. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article reads like an advertisement. Shouldn't it be deleted? --74.0.166.140 (talk) 16:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will be participating in this forum within the next few days after I establish my formal Wikipedia account. I stumbled upon this article by accident; when I read it, I felt that it was a fluff piece for the company. I noted that it was recently edited by the account "Bjcmarketing". I would be willing to bet that this user is the public relations firm for the company. I don't feel that there is any notability for this entry; the Wikipedia article is more like a company page on Facebook that users there could "like". I don't know if I have the right to vote on this nomination prior to establishing my Wikipedia account. If I am allowed to vote, I would vote to DELETE the article. When I do formally establish my Wikipedia account, I will identify myself on this page and merge this comment into the comment that I leave with my new name. Thank you for your time. --74.0.166.140 (talk) 14:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
--TheGuyFromPhilly (talk) 20:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Michig (talk) 17:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Software fails WP:N Dewritech (talk) 10:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Michig (talk) 17:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that Sevillano has yet to play a match for any of the fully professional soccer clubs he has been signed to. Yet again, s always, etc, etc. Shirt58 (talk) 09:38, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. In its revised format as a disambiguation page, this seems to have overcome the original deletion rationale; if someone feels the dab should be deleted, it should be conisdered under its own merits. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:01, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Total garbage. The word "word" isn't even spelled correctly. Just a dictionary article with no encyclopedic content. Bueller 007 (talk) 08:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Consensus seems to be that this article is a coatrack for non-NPOV comments about a broadcasting company. One possible alternative to this article would be to start an article on Australian Broadcasting Corporation controversies to document controversial events related to the company, rather than a random list of cherry-picked negative comments about the company. That would, of course, depend on whether there actually have been documented controversies, and if the description of those controversies are too long to fit in the Australian Broadcasting Corporation article itself. ‑Scottywong| squeal _ 17:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article is based only on an editorial. It is clearly an unremarkable WP:EVENT. I am One of Many (talk) 07:33, 18 March 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)) . |
Allegation of bias within the ABC is always a topic of remarkable attention regardless of which side a person belongs to. Let wiki contributors add SUBSTANTIATED evidence as they see fit. What is remarkable is that user "I am One of Many" wants to delete a page that was created less than 20 minutes ago and pre-determines a deletion before the page can be completed. Sub judice comes to mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ABCWatch (talk • contribs) 07:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The page was created only 20 minutes ago and there are still citations to be added. It is amazing that in that time there are already calls for the page to be deleted before it is even completed. Is this the usual behaviour from people not wanting the truth to be seen? Or should we have all the information collected before creating the page? I thought it usual for Wiki to have a "page under progress" at the top of a new wiki entry?
The person making this accusation is steadfastly lying. This wiki page is most certainly not built on an editorial. In fact it is in the process of being built and added to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.191.73.19 (talk) 08:58, 18 March 2013 (UTC) — 124.191.73.19 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The other page that was created earlier had a wrong title; please feel free to delete as this was created in error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.224.232.65 (talk) 09:17, 18 March 2013 (UTC) — 60.224.232.65 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
This is not an editorial as the ABC have investigated these claims as well. Their former Chairman has also complained about bias and the issue has been the note of many academic papers; it is relevant, current and contentious which makes it perfectly fit for a wiki article.ABCWatch (talk) 09:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"*An account created just 5 minutes ago making the same point as ABCWatch...hmm--" Well yes that's true given I have to create a Wiki account to add information into the Wiki page. And given I have never created a Wiki page before I wonder why the paranoia about a new account?
I have tidied up some sections with quotes and MADE SURE to include the ABC Director's comments that he thought claims such as these were "insulting." The page has to be substantiated!!! I keep saying this! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ABCWatch (talk • contribs) 00:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC) --202.0.15.181 (talk) 04:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC)— 202.0.15.181 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
--202.0.15.181 (talk) 05:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC) I'd settle for an "ABC Controversies" page with "Allegations of Bias" as a significant section (if there is enough to go on). Keep this page until the "ABC Controversies" page is ready to go, with a notice that this page is to be shifted sometime into the future once a volunteer fills out the broader topic. In the meantime, you have a volunteer for at least the "Allegations of Bias" section. Also, the Allegations of ABC Bias page should include reference to the fact that the creation of the page itself was jumped on for deletion within 5 minutes by ABC sympathisers on Wikipedia. Comment: I think that the page should be given time to develop. There appears to be the basis of an argument that is supported by material from both sides. As it grows there is enough information around to be cited covering both sides of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darryl Richards (talk • contribs) 05:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This page seems a wholly reasonable article for Wikipedia. There are accusation of bias, as there are retorts of balance. This appears to be a prominent debate in Australia, one that various institutions including academia, parliament and the press have tackled, as such it should be kept and developed. Ddragovic (talk) 08:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The board was stacked by a conservative government with conservatives. This stacking had no effect on ABC content. Unless of course you want to argue that the ABC has a Left wing bias. Recent polls showed that more than 70% of Australians believe that ABC funding is either right or in need of an increase. This would indicate the most Australians do not consider the ABC to be bias.
Keep: The article is on 'allegations of bias' not bias so many of the above arguments wanting proof of bias fall. Similar pages exist for other broadcasters, the material would swamp the main ABC article if included there, issues with the text can be dealt with by editing, and the topic passes all Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. Rsloch (talk) 09:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep I am writing an assignment on media bias in Australia and more pages like this would be very helpful. ≠ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.224.232.65 (talk) 11:38, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - The ABC is a taxpayer-funded entity and must be open to public scrutiny. Removal of articles related to this scrutiny can only be regarded as malicious censorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.128.31.147 (talk) 12:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. ‑Scottywong| yak _ 17:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This page should be deleted, because it is not a real diet. It promotes promiscuity. Lucy346 (talk) 06:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. ‑Scottywong| verbalize _ 17:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One of a great many such articles about minor artworks in the collection of one particular museum. This particular one is one of many modern mass-produced copies of a sculpture. This is a misuse of an encyclopedia--nobody except the visitors to this particular museum would care about this particular copy DGG ( talk ) 04:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. ‑Scottywong| prattle _ 17:29, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One of a great many such articles about minor artworks in the collection of one particular museum. This particular item is a modern mass=produced 19th century garden object. If it is of any particular importance, the article does not indicate so. This is a misuse of an encyclopedia--nobody except the visitors to this particular museum would care about this particular copy DGG ( talk ) 04:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. ‑Scottywong| chatter _ 17:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One of a great many such articles about minor artworks in the collection of one particular museum. This particular one is one of many miniature modern mass=produced copies of a famous Roman copy of a lost ancient Greek sculpture. The original work very properly has an article. This is a misuse of an encyclopedia--nobody except the visitors to this particular museum would care about this particular copy DGG ( talk ) 04:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep.. Your argument for deletion is completely biased and ridiculous. You have failed to complete even the most minor bit of research as to the historical importance of this artwork, but have simply offered to delete it and other because you personally don't think it is important. This artwork, which is over 100 years old, is part of the cultural fabric of Oldfields, a National Historic Landmark. I suggest you either begin to research the artworks you are trying to delete or leave them alone. --RichardMcCoy (talk) 11:46, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is absurd. These artworks are part of the cultural fabric of Oldfields, a National Historic Landmark. Plus this article meets all of the general notability guidelines. Just because the editors here don't see its value based on their personal opinion, doesn't make it any less valuable. --RichardMcCoy (talk) 11:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No one has proven anything close to a notability argument here or elsewhere, and everyone has based their decision entirely on their own subjective decision if this piece is notable to their personal taste. You simply cannot judge artworks by general notability guidelines, because artworks are not general -- they are highly specific things that are located in time and space to give them context. These artworks have received comparatively "significant coverage", considering the fact that, unlike every single sporting event that by itself gets significant coverage no matter how significant the event, it has been published in multiple scholarly locations. How is the museum's reference not the definitive reference for this artwork? How is the museum itself not reliable? It is a public charity. There are as many sources for this work as can possibly be acquired for an artwork -- the fact is that many have written about it. But this is not a fact of its significance, but rather a fact of the lack of interest in sources to write about art in today's society. Of course the information is independent of the subject. Take an honest look at these articles. Be deleting them you are basically saying that there is little room for articles about cultural heritage in this Encyclopedia because their is comparatively more interest in other subjects. You simply cannot judge artworks by general notability guidelines, because artworks are not general. Of course, we already know that, but the ones wanting to delete it would be the ones responsible for proving this. --RichardMcCoy (talk) 11:58, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. ‑Scottywong| chat _ 17:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article already had significant issues (WP:NOTABILITY, WP:COMPANY and WP:ORPHAN). Subject company now appears to be out of business, with nonexistent website. It's unlikely that problems with the article will be fixed, so deletion seems like the simplest and best solution. Jmozena (talk) 03:18, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. ‑Scottywong| confess _ 17:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An MMA fighter with no fights for a top tier organization and the article's only link to his fight record, thus failing both WP:NMMA and WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 03:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. ‑Scottywong| yak _ 17:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An MMA fighter with only 1 top tier fight so he fails WP:NMMA. There's also a lack of significant independent coverage to show he meets WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 03:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. ‑Scottywong| comment _ 17:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Single laboratories are rarely notable and this one is no exception. It should perhaps also be noted that in the French system, such a joint CNRS-University lab (UMR) only exists for a limited time (up to 15 years maximum). In any case: No independent sources about the laboratory. Does not meet WP:ORG. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 10:36, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. ‑Scottywong| confess _ 17:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Subject fails WP:NMMA with no top tier fights and lacks any significant non-routine coverage. Papaursa (talk) 03:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Keeper | 76 01:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot figure out what the notability consists of . A local high school teacher, and local historian, well known in her own community and unknown elsewhere. The relevant policy is NOT MEMORIAL. DGG ( talk ) 02:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:37, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't a travel guide - this belongs on Wikivoyage, not here Davey2010 Talk 02:54, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
http://traveline.info/ is the correct source and a secondary source the bus operators. Mark999 (talk) 20:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC) It is NOT impossible to maintain services dont change that often! Mark999 (talk) 20:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:37, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't a travel guide - this belongs on Wikivoyage, not here Davey2010 Talk 02:53, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Crack cocaine. ‑Scottywong| squeal _ 17:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is an orphaned page, with no incoming links except from Stem (a disambiguation page). It has not been significantly edited since 2008. It does not have any references, and has been tagged as such for five years. Its content consists of a dictionary definition and a paragraph that discusses legal technicalities. Wikipedia cannot provide legal advice, and this paragraph is unsourced anyway. —Bkell (talk) 02:51, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:38, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't a travel guide - this belongs on Wikivoyage, not here Davey2010 Talk 02:53, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:39, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't a travel guide - this belongs on Wikivoyage, not here Davey2010 Talk 02:53, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. ‑Scottywong| soliloquize _ 17:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't a travel guide - this belongs on Wikivoyage, not here Davey2010 Talk 02:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. ‑Scottywong| confess _ 17:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't a travel guide - this belongs on Wikivoyage, not here Davey2010 Talk 02:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. ‑Scottywong| talk _ 17:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't a travel guide - this belongs on Wikivoyage, not here Davey2010 Talk 02:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. ‑Scottywong| express _ 17:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't a travel guide - this belongs on Wikivoyage, not here Davey2010 Talk 02:51, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:41, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Creator contested PROD. Notability not established. (Note: I am opening this as a favor to the PRODder who had attempted to re-tag. I have no opinion on the merits.) Sperril (talk) 02:51, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. ‑Scottywong| prattle _ 17:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't a travel guide - this belongs on Wikivoyage, not here Davey2010 Talk 02:51, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. ‑Scottywong| confess _ 17:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't a travel guide - this belongs on Wikivoyage, not here Davey2010 Talk 02:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. ‑Scottywong| chat _ 17:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't a travel guide - this belongs on Wikivoyage, not here Davey2010 Talk 02:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. ‑Scottywong| spout _ 17:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't a travel guide - this belongs on Wikivoyage, not here Davey2010 Talk 02:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. ‑Scottywong| confer _ 17:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't a travel guide - this belongs on Wikivoyage, not here Davey2010 Talk 02:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. ‑Scottywong| spout _ 17:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't a travel guide - this belongs on Wikivoyage, not here Davey2010 Talk 02:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. ‑Scottywong| speak _ 17:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't a travel guide - this belongs on Wikivoyage, not here Davey2010 Talk 02:46, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The nationality of an MMA fighter doesn't affect their notability. ‑Scottywong| communicate _ 17:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Subject is an MMA fighter who fails to meet WP:NMMA because he has no top tier fights. Papaursa (talk) 02:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Michig (talk) 08:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially just a dictionary definition, and unlikely, I believe, to be significantly expanded. Most of the search results I see aren't precisely using it in the indicated sense, but simply as the simple combination of the words in the phrase. Open to a redirect to Person of interest or something better. Note that [18] appears to be taken from Wikipedia. j⚛e deckertalk 02:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:41, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Subject is an MMA fighter who fails WP:NMMA since he has only one top tier fight and I didn't find sources that show he meets any other notability criteria. Papaursa (talk) 02:39, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Will userify upon request. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
After a relatively extensive search, I find nothing of note on this artist. The sources given does not mention Ammo. I have found a 'source' (http://hamadamania.wordpress.com/2012/10/17/jessie-j-collaborates-with-joshua-ammo-coleman-for-new-album/). It's wordpress, but if someone can find the original source, this article might be saved, otherwise, I fail to find notability for the subject. Kinkreet~♥moshi moshi♥~ 01:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Keeper | 76 01:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
apparent advertisement for a particular method of liposuction DGG ( talk ) 02:29, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Michig (talk) 21:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
appears to be essentially an advertisement for a particular method of liposuction DGG ( talk ) 02:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to HTC One (device). ‑Scottywong| gossip _ 17:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Proprietary technology only used on "one" phone (pun intended), not yet independently notable. ViperSnake151 Talk 15:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. ‑Scottywong| spill the beans _ 16:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
one-off neologism, nn, best merged into something if it can be Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:35, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • AAPT) 02:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This subject of this article has no significance whatsoever at this point in time. It has has not produced any records, and as of my submitting this, hasn't even played a single show yet, according to the article. I fail to see any notability here. If they release an album and tour, then fine. But for now, I see no notability here whatsoever. L1A1 FAL (talk) 16:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • AAPT) 02:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A user opened this AfD page as his/her first and only edit, so I can't tell if the nomination is in good faith or not. My guess is that the user was trying to nominate the article for deletion on advertising/notability grounds. I am neutral and have no prejudice against an early closure of this AfD if the OP or any other user does not provide a valid deletion rationale. —KuyaBriBriTalk 20:03, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G3 blatant hoax. The article's claim that this 16-year-old was elected to a council office in 2016 is, unsurprisingly, not confirmed by the cited sources. JohnCD (talk) 14:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC) JohnCD (talk) 14:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Teenager elected fantasizing about future election to city council in what is not one of a small state's larger cities; possibly self-created article fails WP:POLITICIAN Daniel Case (talk) 02:14, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Kentucky Secretary of State election, 2011. Nobody argued keep, and there have been strong arguments that redirecting is better than deleting.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable candidate and random teacher. KYBrad53 (talk) 01:34, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was KEEP. SpinningSpark 19:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Restored article deleted per A7. There's still no assertion of notability in the article, and the group doesn't meet WP:BAND. The creator asserts notability because its members are notable, inasmuch as they each have articles, but two of them are tagged with ((notability)) and have very weak sourcing. The band's name gets no Google News hits and few general hits. --BDD (talk) 01:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - "If Steven is the only notable musician in the band, then the article should redirect to him". --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article is advertising. Business Intelligence 3.0 is not used in any research/journal articles. Described features are already included in Business Intelligence 2.0 (e.g. Social Media). Cited sources go back to company Panorama or Forrester (Kobielus) working with Panorama. 85.180.132.85 2013-03-04T18:53:43 [28] (paperwork done by John Vandenberg (chat) 01:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]
The result was delete. Michig (talk) 07:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Conspiracy theory article with sourcing only to WP:FRINGE websites. Fails WP:GNG and no WP:RS seem to be available. There is one syndicated column I found, but it seems to be written by a journalist known for... less than truthful reporting. Needs coverage in multiple reliable sources, and it only seems to have coverage in one dubious source and multiple garbage sources. Sailsbystars (talk) 00:03, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]