![]() |
The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 11:24, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Requested by WP:BLPN. Lacking sources completely (Note Google Search is not a valid reference). BLP issues <redacted>. Seems marginally notable but needs either major expansion and properly writing, or deleting. I would have PRODDED it but I think the author would have removed the template and just ignored it. Barney the barney barney (talk) 23:57, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the summer of 1970 the BBC turned to Wilfred De'Ath to "explain" the countercultural phenomenon in England. De'Ath—whose eclectic interests were those of a freelance opportunist—had no particular connection with the...
The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 11:32, 6 April 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) 23:45, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. —Darkwind (talk) 03:35, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Creating new terms for existing ideas Xkcdreader (talk) 13:54, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realize how much I could put for reasons. So .. Seed AI seems to be a person describing Evolutionary_computation Evolutionary_algorithm Genetic_algorithm Reflection_(computer_science) Self-modifying_code and inventing their own name for the concept. The only source for calling this Seed AI over a genetic algorithm is the "inventors" own company. It appears the person who "invented" Seed AI is repackaging others ideas with new names and taking credit for the concept. It is not a notable idea outside of the authors own projects, and the other articles I provided offer a much more comprehensive examination of an algorithm that can modify itself. Xkcdreader (talk) 13:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tuntable (talk) 04:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 11:39, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No reliable sources that this organization even exists, let alone that it is "prominent". I believe it to be a hoax, but my speedy deletion request was removed. The article was created by an indefinitely banned editor. RNealK (talk) 23:14, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 11:50, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Woman who has weight problems and as a result has been featured in that ever reliable publication The Daily Mail. Also badly written. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:52, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is significant no of people search internet about her. You can edit this page and make more useful to users. Poorly written because of language and technical barrier. Editing Wikipedia is technically difficult for me (I don't know coding and there is no easy tools like gmail ..--Heaviest567 (talk) 23:08, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 11:53, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This film quite simply doesn't meet the notability requirements of WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. In particular, the film was never widely distributed and I can't find in-depth coverage by reliable third-party sources. Only three of the references provided can reasonably considered independent of the subject. The first is an anonymous review on www.videoviews.org which, as far as I know, is a pretty obscure website. The second is a list of nominees and prize winners at the World Music and Independent Film Festival. This is a very small festival and although Key won best horror film, it is worth pointing out that none of the films in that competition were ever distributed in theaters (and two of them were short films). The last is from a more credible website but it's a six sentence blurb and certainly doesn't qualify as "in-depth" coverage. I also don't see any signs that the director or other people involved (lead actor, co-scriptwriter/producer, cinematographer, music composer) are notable for other projects. Much of the content is unsourced but that is made possible by the fact that the film's director is also the author of the article. Pichpich (talk) 22:37, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 13:05, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Two or three matches. No notable yet. No feuds, storylines or years in the business HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:22, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 13:08, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again? A WWE Contract doesn't make a wrestler notable. Too soon to create an article, she doesn't make any notable at the moment. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:20, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This so stupid. If you're going by that rule then you need to delete more than have of the NXT rosters wikipedia page & some people on the main roster. & Who are you to deceide if a person is notable enough. If you are signed by WWE & have actually appeared on one of their shows that should be enough notice. DJ8946 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:33, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.profightdb.com/wrestlers/davina-rose-8206.html Check that out. Not only has she competed for the top independent womens wrestling promotion she has faced some of the top indy female wrestlers. --DJ8946 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:30, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. —Darkwind (talk) 03:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyler Reks and Curt Hawkins (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Puerto Rican Nightmares. Like in the aforementioned AFDs, this article is about a tag team that had minor success in a developmental territory for WWE and did not translate to a significant run on programming. They teamed together for over a year, but they didn't accomplish anything of note during their time on the main roster. No feuds. No exposure. No accomplishments. No brainer. Feedback ☎ 21:48, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to List of diplomatic missions in Ottawa. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 03:04, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. recent AfDs have shown embassies are not inherently notable. No evidence for this either. Those wanting to keep must show evidence if third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 17:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 13:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not show notability of subject, and as it stands seems to be purely promotional. Nageh (talk) 21:26, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: There is a possible WP:COI concern considering an account called "Billatnapier" edited the article. Also, I want to give a heads up that searching for "Bill Buchanan" will result in a string of results for a "24" character. Searching for "Bill Buchanan" + "Napier" -24 results in a few thousand hits, but they all seem like replicates of the other. Click to see for yourself. Feedback ☎ 22:28, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 13:47, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No citations, no signs of significance smileguy91talk 21:25, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
*Yes, redirect because it is a likely search term and there is hardly anything to merge (and what there is is wrong!). However, the East Coast Main Line article rather loses focus north of the border so Edinburgh to Aberdeen Line would be a better target. The latter does actually mention this historical railway company. References are available and there is no reason to delete.[2] Thincat (talk) 22:49, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
*Redirect to North British Railway with which it appears to have merged in 1880 according to this source. The historical company may have been notable, but I see no evidence of that on the internet and redirection would not prejudice recreation if somebody came up with the material. --AJHingston (talk) 23:25, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Although the opinions for keep were numerically superior there were policy based arguments against a stand alone page that were not refuted. A discussion on the merits of merging can certainly continue on the talkpage. J04n(talk page) 20:00, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No reliable sources, possibly insignificant. smileguy91talk 21:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 00:37, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable and fails WP:NME Mrwikidor ←track 20:04, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 03:06, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable daily newspaper which fails WP:NME Mrwikidor ←track 20:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 00:36, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable newspaper that fails WP:NME Mrwikidor ←track 19:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 13:52, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is way to premature to assume notability. The tag team has been around for very little time and as of now, their very little history is already in both Brodus Clay and Matt Bloom. If they're still around after a few months and have had a significant run, then the article can be recreated. Until then, it's WP:CBALL. Feedback ☎ 19:51, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to United States Army Corps of Engineers. Article content remains in the page history if anyone feels there is anything merge-worthy. —Darkwind (talk) 03:50, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:HOAX. No evidence whatsoever of a separate organization called the Engineer Branch as opposed to the Army Corps of Engineers. Sources in article all refer solely to the Army Corps of Engineers. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:51, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
--Lineagegeek (talk) 22:34, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 20:37, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Self published source submitted on 1/23/04. The person as well as the organization is no doubt doing great works but the subject fails to meet WP:GNG Mrwikidor ←track 19:36, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 20:40, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Joseph Pennachetti does not appear to meet Wikipedia's guidelines for notability. The article has been flagged for notability and secondary sources for 3 years, and no secondary sources have been added.
The result was DELETE. SpinningSpark 02:58, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This new article is poorly written and duplicates the majority of information already on the main Lancia article. The presence of this new article, without any new refs, only adds confusion.
The result was Wrong venue, moving to RFD, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:36, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why this page was ever created. It's not the name of a song or an album Case has ever recorded or released. It redirects to her album The Tigers Have Spoken but there is no song on the album by that name. "Tigers are Noble" is simply a phrase she says during some pre-song banter.
The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 20:44, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination As the creator of this page I sought to replace a previous page, of the same name, that had been deleted for lack of notability.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 03:07, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable NGO. Mrwikidor ←track 18:54, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While the criteria in WP:DIPLOMAT are somewhat narrow, as Necrothesp notes the subject of the article was knighted, which is classified as a "significant award or honour" as noted in criterion one of anybio notability requirement. Therefore, the result of this AFD is keep. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 03:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable under any WP categories. Completely fails the criteria of WP:DIPLOMAT. No noteworthy achievements, was not involved in any notable events, only links in Wikipedia are in lists of, or as successor or predecessor to other, ambassadors. No secondary literature about him or any doisucssions about him in any literature as far as I can see. Smerus (talk) 18:33, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Nomination withdrawn per sources found. Non-admin closing. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 03:50, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Christian denomination in El Salvador. No secondary sources used in the article except for directory entries, and none seem to exist on GNews. Furthermore, a comment on the talk page about a previous speedy nomination seems to confirm that we should not expect to find anything susceptible to save the article from deletion. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 17:49, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. and rename to American Presbyterian Church (founded 1977). I have not created any dab pages as suggested, but I concur with the idea that they would be useful. —Darkwind (talk) 04:00, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Small Christian denomination that consists of two congregations. (Don't be fooled by the name.) Of the sources used, only one is non-primary and it's merely a directory entry. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 17:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 20:48, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability, fails Wikipedia:JOURNALIST. Albacore (talk) 17:04, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete all. Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:15, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable band, fails WP:NBAND. The article has been unreferenced since its creation in 2006, and the only external link is to the band's Myspace page. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:12, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages on the band's albums, because they also show no evidence of notability:
The result was delete all. —Darkwind (talk) 04:03, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages:
Reasons:
The result was delete. —Darkwind (talk) 04:20, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No sources. Fails WP:NSOFT. Dewritech (talk) 13:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Deleted as an unsourced negative article. ϢereSpielChequers 16:59, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a hoax. Can't find anything in The Times or Guardian archives. Nothing in Who's Who (except Sir Victor Johnson, 6th Baronet who is clearly different. Looking at birth records there is a Peter V. Johnson born in 1946 in Glamorganshire, but no-one of a similar name in 1945. Article is unreferenced. Barney the barney barney (talk) 12:36, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. No prejudice against re-creation with appropriate sources. —Darkwind (talk) 04:23, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unremarkable company with no references to assert notability. Along with sister article United-21 there is likely some sockpuppetry going on. I suspect this is employees of the company. See Admin notice at Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Corbettreso. Biker Biker (talk) 10:40, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is no place for such companies Uncletomwood (talk) 14:20, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE most/all of the users involved in editing this article have been blocked on Wikipedia for sockpuppetry (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Corbettreso/Archive). --Biker Biker (talk) 18:31, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. —Darkwind (talk) 04:24, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a page of total bollocks and, as far as I can see, is irredeemable. The first sentence is wrong: "Transportation emissions are gases released into the air that come from fossil fuels." So, burning coal in the home is a transportation emission? And it goes on the same: "The gases emit CO2": no they don't, the gases don't emit anything. etc etc. The image used to illustrate has absolutely nothing to do with transportation! The article is written in a "you can do this" attitude - hardly encyclopaedic. It contains a very long list of See also links which seem to be largely random (Stench !). This seems, at best, a rough draft for a schoolkid's homework. I have frequently argued in AfD that a poorly written aricle is not grounds for deletion but a spur to improvement. In this case, I make an exception since there is nothing to salvage or merge to other places. Emeraude (talk) 09:35, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. SpinningSpark 12:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable band, fails WP:BAND.
There is a lengthy list of references, but most of them are to unreliable sources such as Facebook and Myspace, or other sites associated with the artists. I see no sign of the independent coverage in reliable sources which would satisfy WP:GNG, nor of anything to meet the other criteria in WP:BAND. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:34, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Lorraine_Heggessey#Boom_Pictures. —Darkwind (talk) 04:27, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Company that has been in existence for less than a year. No major productions AFAICT. Article is clearly to promote the company and probably should have been speedied. Note that company's logo is not trademarked and fair use but has been created by the author of the page. Barney the barney barney (talk) 08:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete A7. James086Talk 09:06, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
not notable enough Ushau97 talk 08:39, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Insufficient sources to establish notability. —Darkwind (talk) 04:28, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No sign of significance of the topic; nothing remarkable found in Google search. smtchahal 07:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can find something remarkable by searching the Chinese characters of Jip Deng (摺櫈). What's more, the cultural meanings of Jip Deng is actually in many Hong Kong people's mind and we are trying to record them on Wikipedia.Mary tmy (talk) 11:16, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
More informations can be found when you search Chinese characters '摺櫈' in Google. Jip Deng (摺櫈 or 摺凳) is of fundamental importance in Hong Kong from 1960s to 1990s. Till now, Hong Kong people still use Jip Deng (摺櫈) in many different aspects like local restaurants. Jip Deng (摺櫈) carries historical values and cultural meanings of Hong Kong. Further elaboration of this topic would be valuable as people worldwide will know more about Hong Kong cultures.Evelineleung (talk) 12:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jip Deng is a phrase we speak in Cantonese like Dai Pai Dong. Jip Deng implicitly symbolizes low-income family in Hong Kong as it is one of the affordable furniture for them. Also, it was a common used prop in previous Hong Kong movies. Therefore, it represents Hong Kong's collective memories and cultures and it is extraordinary important to record it on Wikipedia.Siulingng6 (talk) 12:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When we mention Jip Deng in Hong Kong, Hong Kong people immediately think of some releavant memories like the famous scenes of the movies about triad society, or the old Hong Kong style. Especially Jip Deng was common to be found in people's homes in the past or in the food stalls called Dai Pai Dong, it was because Jip Deng could save a lot spaces while the spaces were valuable in Hong Kong. Therefore Jip Deng contains the cultural memories of Hong Kong.Wwkwongvega (talk) 12:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Crash Canyon#Season 1. Redirecting to the parent article just in case this is ever entered as a search term. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 03:16, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't meet notability guidelines. I couldn't find any secondary sources on this episode so it shouldn't have it's own page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Television_episodes#Process_for_creating_articles_on_television_episodes ♦ Tentinator ♦ 06:53, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Crash Canyon#Season 1. Redirecting to the parent article in case this is ever entered as a search term. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 03:17, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't meet notability guidelines. I couldn't find any secondary sources on this episode so it shouldn't have it's own page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Television_episodes#Process_for_creating_articles_on_television_episodes ♦ Tentinator ♦ 06:52, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Michig (talk) 07:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD: Unreferenced stub with no indication of notability . Illia Connell (talk) 05:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Michig (talk) 07:25, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Heavily edited by a user with an obvious conflict of interest (the developer). Having searched for sources, I couldn't find anything that would allow this product to be considered a notable one. Promo, notability and sourcing templates were all edit-warred out of the article. Stalwart111 04:55, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Accusations from blocked editor.
|
---|
|
The result was keep. —Darkwind (talk) 04:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
academia spam Krushia (talk) 04:40, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. postdlf (talk) 16:26, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fancruft, sourced using potentially copyvio external links ViperSnake151 Talk 22:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into main MTV article, not notable on its own. --24.145.65.56 (talk) 14:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
* FYI, I now have an account. --Hisasi Zing-Zing (talk) 14:17, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. —Darkwind (talk) 04:30, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is still unsourced and still lacks coordinate information. There are also no links to this page in the mainspace. Eyesnore (PC) 17:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Politics of Eritrea. Courcelles 05:26, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article say it is a list of rulers of Eritrea but contains nothing but links to two other pages which list heads of state and provincial heads. As this article wouldn't ever contain anything that doesn't duplicate the other two, I don't see any reason for it to exist. Sarahj2107 (talk) 15:31, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete and salt for 3 months. It is noted for the record that the only comments in favor of keeping the article were made by apparent SPA accounts, possibly indicating some form of puppetry. —Darkwind (talk) 04:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Subject of the article is a functionary in a Non Governmental Organization and has won various minor, non notable honors. PROD declined without explanation by a sock puppet of the article creator. Safiel (talk) 03:26, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is hence submitted that this entry should not be deleted.
kelvinchongyh (talk) (talk • — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.164.117.127 (talk) 14:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete, G11, pretty obvious promotion. --Kinu t/c 04:00, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable book lacking ghits and Gnews of substance. Appears to be self-published. Fails WP:NOTBOOK. reddogsix (talk) 03:09, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Charli Baltimore#Singles. —Darkwind (talk) 04:36, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet notability requirements per Wikipedia:MUSIC#Songs - ChakaKong (talk) 04:31, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to SNP file format. Plausable enough, that we really shouldn't leave this redlinked Courcelles 05:25, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article is basically a duplicate of SNP file format (and would also be an implausible redirect). The other article has more information (and was also created earlier), so it should be the one that remains. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 21:57, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. NPASR if sources are not found. —Darkwind (talk) 04:38, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced article about the secondary school. I would say this is speedy deletion material, however, seach does find something about the school - I just can not collect the results and make an article out of them. Let us discuss. Ymblanter (talk) 14:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Does not appear to pass WP:GNG as none of the sources count as significant coverage. No prejudice against userfyfing the article should someone find the content merge-worthy. —Darkwind (talk) 04:41, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
unremarkable game,i dont think it needs to be on wikipedia,let the community decide.Uncletomwood (talk) 14:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC) Uncletomwood (talk) 14:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have added external references, including to two published books on the subject of games of this type. Bgoldnyxnet (talk) 17:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 05:21, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable album and the artists page is now a redirect so this page doesn't really link to anywhere. Koala15 (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The article as it currently exists does not meet WP:V, and People of India does not appear to be a reliable source sufficient to rewrite the article. No prejudice against recreation iff appropriate sources can be found. —Darkwind (talk) 04:45, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Prod contested without comment. My prod rationale was "This appears to be original research: 'The Sikkaligar people that we did research on...', 'A 210-item wordlist was collected...' Wikipedia is not for publishing of original research." Some of the quoted verbage has since been removed, but not what was the apparent OR itself. I can find a few mentions of Sikkaligar in lists available in Google Books, but that is it, not enough information to write an article without OR. LadyofShalott 19:22, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Borderlien keep/no consensus matter here Courcelles 05:20, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTDIC, does not meet GNG. — Bdb484 (talk) 19:40, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 05:18, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he is signed to an MLS club that he has played pro matches. While true, none of the matches in which he has played were fully pro, and being signed to but not playing for a fully-pro club is explicitly excluded as a source of notability per WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:11, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WP:N and the other notability pages are official guidelines, and we can't just ignore them and let a non-notable page persist. This isn't being fussy; this is upholding community standards. This is a clear case of WP:TOOSOON, and the Wikipedia community would welcome this article's re-creation if the game becomes notable. —Darkwind (talk) 04:49, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable indie game (equivalent to a self-published book) with no meaningful coverage. Orange Mike | Talk 00:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
the promotinal material is a problem and noteability is a huge issue for me, i can not convince you i just can not do that, i am only 1 guy doing this article i am lucky if i do get help at all. its easy to make a page but jesus christ is there a part in the article i did not mess up in?--Indienews (talk) 22:25, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed a change in the staff section that lost two of its staff members, so i'm going to guess that beta tester is another promotional word or that it was removed since it lacked noteability?? --Indienews (talk) 16:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 00:30, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know I started this very article myself a few years ago, but now I'm a little older and taken a second look at it.. I'm not so convinced it meets the Wikipedia standards of notability. No famous architect, and subsequently no overly interesting organization is housed in the Melchers. —♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 00:13, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. While the deletion of an article you created can be discouraging, WP:N is an official guideline. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. —Darkwind (talk) 04:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a non-notable DNA project. FamilyTreeDNA currently has 7,347 such surname projects [20]. These projects are administrated by "unpaid volunteers who have an interest in the history and genealogy of a particular haplogroup, lineage, geographic region, or surname" [21]. Anyone can create a surname project [22]. The creator of the article is User:Nigelbrooks; the adminstrator of the surname project is "Nigel Brooks" [23]. The only published thing I could find about the project on Google and GoogleBooks was by a publisher (Ceed Publishing) pushing Wikipedia articles.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 11:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Article has been written in an unbiased way and would welcome a 3rd party analysis added to it - you would have hoped people with the intellect of Brianann MacAmhlaidh and expertise on DNA would help with this rather than trying to get all FTDNA Surname Projects removed from Wikipedia - I question if Brianann MacAmhlaidh has a 3rd party reason for attacking such pages when they do not constitute their own personal views - I have read many Wiki articles where this user has attacked an article when they do not represent this users views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nigelbrooks (talk • contribs) 12:41, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is certainly not written for publicity and great pains went into making sure any external links to research and websites by the original creator of the page were not included. - This is very discouraging. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.1.82 (talk) 19:49, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]