![]() |
The result was delete. Keeper | 76 00:38, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Iraqi academic with no evidence of notability. Seems to be a WP:COI with SPA User:Science flag. According to that user's talk page someone tried to speedy the article when first created but I can't see where that happened. A Template:notability tag was removed by an IP within an hour of being added. Le Deluge (talk) 00:00, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 00:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very heavily promotional article about a proposed civilian/reserve military variant of the C-17 Globemaster. It is quite inappropriately biased toward promoting the concept, in great detail. However key sections are based on documents which are claimed but cannot be independently verified, creating a WP:RS problem in addition. It is not clear that it is notable in terms of the GNG. In my view a small section of the C-17 article could discuss this proposal in a much more neutral (NPOV) manner. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 00:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I prodded this article as "almost entirely unsourced", with serious reliability and BLP issues. Another editor deprodded it, removing much of the content and adding "sources". However, these are all unreliable, and all bar one appear to be to a mirror of the original article.
The article does not establish the notability of this group, nor anything else except that it exists. The (apparently reliable) source confirming its existence contradicts most of the other information in the article. RolandR (talk) 16:37, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article also appears to suffer from a severe attack of sock-puppetry; I have identified at least a dozen IPs and SPAs which have edited only this article, often making the same or a very similar edit, and which have disappeared after a day. RolandR (talk) 17:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 02:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Promotional. Does not meet any of the notability criteria for entertainers: "has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" (no); "has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following" (no); "has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment" (no). AfD at Wikipedia in Spanish. Technopat (talk) 18:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Keeper | 76 00:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very few incoming wiki links, malformed reference, notability not established. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 22:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Secret account 04:15, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Notability:being a paid employee of an elected politician does not make you notable Simonjon (talk) 22:02, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 00:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable neologism, recently coined as one of the references http://www.modernhhc.com/open-source-system says. Other references are not useful or are self referential. Disputed PROD Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:40, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete all. JohnCD (talk) 00:51, 16 March 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 by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following articles for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:43, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Keeper | 76 00:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PROD contested by article creator, no reason given. This article appears to fail both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 21:21, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete under G5. James086Talk 17:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-Notable company fails WP:ORG, WP:RS, and WP:COI. Only sources locatable for article content are primary sources and secondary sources which for the most part are reprinted press releases from primary sources or the subject of the article, patents, and books which are marketing literature associated with the organization. Additionally, this article was created and vetted by a paid freelance writer and the subject of the article itself (see this entry in the AN/I noticeboard for this editor.). Cannot find any reliable secondary sources nor any third party sources. Non-notable private company. Article is just advertising puffery. Equalsmsquared (talk) 20:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Roy Maloy. About half of those commenting here advocate deletion in some fashion, however some of those along with the editors favouring redirection note that it's a possible search term for Roy Maloy, therefore I've closed this AfD by redirecting. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 00:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a term without widespread use outside of a single person, who apparently was also the editor that created the article. Fails basic notability; no book hits, nothing. A bunch of external links were removed as they were borderline spam. There is simply nothing to indicate that this is a known or accepted variant of impressionism. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
<ref name="Roll up, roll up to wolf">((cite web|last=Carbone|first=Suzanne|title=Roll up, roll up to wolf|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Non-Blended_Impressionism|work=The Age|publisher=Fairfax|accessdate=9 March 2013))</ref>
^ Lewisohn, Cedar (2008). Street art : the graffiti revolution. New York, NY: Abrams. ISBN 9780810983205. ^ Cherbo, edited by Vera L. Zolberg, Joni Maya (1997). Outsider art : contesting boundaries in contemporary culture (1. publ. ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-58111-7. ^ Rewald, John (1979). The History of Impressionism. New York: Museum of Modern Art. ISBN 0870703606 Parameter error in ((ISBN)): checksum. ^ Whiting, Cécile (1997). A taste for pop : pop art, gender and consumer culture (1. publ. ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. ISBN 0-521-45004-7.
Please read these references carefully and in full, before responding. Please also refrain from making personal acts, as this is a place for discussion about facts, not feelings. If you continue to make personal acttacks, you will be reported for vandalism. ~~Nissa13~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nissa13 (talk • contribs) 05:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC) — Nissa13 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
You can also find independent references to this genre included in the article. As an earlier contributor has commented, please refrain from using this discussion as a personal attack on the artist, as this discussion is about creating a useful reference for people. --Powerknow100 (talk) 00:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)— Powerknow100 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Blended_Impressionism" source: http://www.facebook.com/RoyMcPhersonArt/posts/534346833277059 I think that just about nails the coffin shut on this one. Wikipedia is not a free self-advertizing site. If it was, we'd all have a page. The 'Roy Maloy' page undoubtedly could use an overhaul, too, if anyone's up for it. I dread to think how much unsubstantiated self-marketing rubbish is being spewed out there by 'Roy' and his 'manager'. Nobodyonahill (talk) 05:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)— Nobodyonahill (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 17:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This an all other similar articles provide nothing that Category:Physics does not while introducing another place to maintain what is essentially categorical information. WIki categories are a better solution here as they are hierarchal instead of flat like these articles. RadioFan (talk) 18:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because reasons listed above:[reply]
The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 00:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This comic strip is run in only one newspaper, which is not enough to be notable. The article's only source is a primary one from the same newspaper which prints the strip. A google search returns a facebook page and unrelated items. Page was previously PRODed, which was declined by the page creator. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 00:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because this is a local organization with no indication or evidence of notability per WP:Notability or WP:ORG. Note: I am separately starting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen J. Blackwood for an article about an individual associated with this organization. Orlady (talk) 17:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Keeper | 76 00:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article subject is not notable under either WP:GNG or WP:ACADEMIC; most of the article content is not supported by sources. I propose to merge and redirect to Ralston College, as Blackwood's only claim to notability at this point is his founding of this still-not-operational start-up college, of which he is president. The college has a valid claim to notability through coverage in a blog piece by Stanley Fish on the New York Times website. Blackwood is named in that piece but he is not the topic, and we need to remember that notability is not inherited. Some information about him belongs in the Ralston College article, but a stand-alone article is not warranted. Note on related XfDs: I am separately starting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. George's YouthNet, for an organization with which Blackwood is associated, and I intend to go to WP:CFD with some categories related to Ralston College. Orlady (talk) 17:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Anti-Pakistan sentiment. J04n(talk page) 22:31, 8 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)) . |
Per WP:NOTDICDEF, "To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term. This problem is inherent in this article, which is currently a WP:SYNTHESIS of quotes that, as said in the preceding passage, only use the term. Wikipedia is not Wiktionary or Wikiquote, and this article in its current state is a WP:QUOTEFARM. There are dozens of quotes which only use the term with passing mention, and say nothing about the term. 95% of the information here is more suited to an article on violence during the Partition of India and Anti-Pakistan sentiment. Those who want to propose a merge of some of the content into relevant article/s may voice their opinion on this AfD too. Mar4d (talk) 16:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This phrase ignited widespread ethnic carnage in the Punjab in 1947. It is encyclopaedic and very notable. Are you kidding me, you doubt its notability? Notability is not temporary. It needs work, not a deletion. Over use of quotation is not a ground for deletion.
There is NOT a single PROBLEM with this article which can't be surmounted. United States and state terrorism also attacks one country! It has lengthy quotes too. Should we also delete it? And what about countless other articles like it? What about Death to America? I mean what is going on? Wikipedia contents don't need to be censored. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 05:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But this article certainly targets a country!-- so freaking what? There is NOT ONE PROBLEM with this article which can't be surmounted. United States and state terrorism also attacks one country! It has lengthy quotes too. Should we also delete it? And what about countless other articles like it? Wikipedia contents don't need to be censored.
"I also have references that state far worse sayings about India, should I start creating an article on those phrases?"- Sure if you think the quotes merit a separate article, why not? That very phrase had and still has certain types of social and historical repercussions in the same vein that Pakistan Zindabad had or has.
"Then may be you will understand what an encyclopedia is"
- I won't be lectured by you on what Wikipedia is and what it won't be. Wikipedia, among many things, is not censored based on people's emotional demands. I will try to desist from quibbling with you. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 05:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) :History, don't make people laugh, please read above mentioned one one word that is written by Fut.Perf.. We should follow neutrality rather than related to emotional demands, we are editors not the part of political actors.Justice007 (talk) 08:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep Pasilin, delete El Habib. In future please nominate separately, unless the two articles are the same or similar subject (ie same player). It becomes very difficult to make a proper assessment of the debate when it diverges between the two articles. SpinningSpark 13:33, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Concern was that the article fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:35, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following article for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:49, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As to Mr Pasilan, the official match sheet confirms his appearance in the AFC Challenge Cup quali. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 01:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The topic lacks indepth coverage from secondary sources. If this is the standard for articles about songs then Wikipedia will have an article for every single track that appeared on an album in the past 10 years. Should be deleted as a failure of WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS. Till 23:58, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Keeper | 76 00:51, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also included in this nomination:
This set of articles constitutes a "walled garden" of highly promotional articles which do not appear to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. All three articles were created and edited by a group of users and IPs (User:Micheal Krimshaw, User:Stibbatha, User:108.54.150.54, User:173.251.90.50) who appear to have a connection to the subjects and who have made no other contributions to Wikipedia. Peacock (talk) 15:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. The nominator !voting Keep? Thought I'd seen it all...and somebody please clean up this article? Keeper | 76 00:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It would make more sense if there were a summary of writers on List of The Simpsons episodes StewieBaby05 (talk) 15:58, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you've changed the layout of the page. ...I'm speechless. --George Ho (talk) 21:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Fox Sports Asia. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Same content with Asia. No need for a separate article for this. The difference between PH and Asia are just commercial ads. Better delete this article for the reason of redundancy. AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 15:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Little Manhattan. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme (talk) 04:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With only one significant acting role (I can't find any evidence that she actually starred in an ensemble of "Pippin"), no awards or nominations, no major fan base (except for hardcore Little Manhattan fans), and no evidence of contributing or influencing the entertainment industry in any way, Charlie Ray fails both WP:NACTOR and WP:ANYBIO. The first AfD five years ago ended in Keep only because editors voted that due to the popularity of Little Manhattan. I do not know what the notability guidelines were back then, but to say an actress is notable just because she starred in a notable film violates WP:NOTINHERITED. Just because a film is popular does not mean the actors are The Legendary Ranger (talk) 14:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Secret account 04:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are keep talking about nationalist issues and rankings. I explain you very well the practical and encyclopedic use for this list but you are refusing to see it maybe because your mind is stacked into your imaginational nationalism. I show you trains and you see flags. Sorry but that's your problem!
The threshold of 300km/h is used for simplicity. There is no need for a long list including every old or obsolete technology when we are talking about the today's fastest high-speed trains. The concept of high speed train is after all something relative and changes over the time. A few years ago 200km/h was considered as high speed, today as high speed train everybody understands speeds around 300km/h or more and there is a trend towards to even higher speeds for the near future. The whole high speed train industry is booming right now, more and more new technologies appear and dynamical lists like this make now more sense than ever.Clicklander (talk) 12:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with FlyAkwa and with some other guys is that you are looking at lists like this from a wrong perspective. The purpose of Wikipedia and any other encyclopedia is to provide general information to the reader. It is not to analyze and come to conclusions. Therefore lists inside encyclopedias do not aim to make comparisons but just to give an overview to the reader. In this specific case the reader just wants to see all the available technologies listed together and have a general overview of what each one is about. If somebody wants to find out which is the best train technology or which one is the most appropriate for his/hers needs, encyclopedias are not the right way to go. It is needed a deeper research to get more technical or statistical information from various more specialized sources.
In this sense, the reader don't expect to see the actual top operated speed in such a kind of list. The official top commercial speed provided by the manufacturer, the speed that the train is designed for, is enough to give an idea to the reader about the technology, no matter if this value applies in reality and no matter how reliable is the specific technology to sustain its advertised top speed in long term services. Those are not encyclopedic issues.Clicklander (talk) 08:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Born–Oppenheimer approximation. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 07:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be unpublished WP:OR that has no place on Wikipedia. ukexpat (talk) 14:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Breakfast Serials. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 00:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Links do not mention the company at all. Lack reliable sources. Kinkreet~♥moshi moshi♥~ 13:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Secret account 18:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is simply WP:Listcruft Roger (talk) 13:08, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Yes ma'am, the data on the MiG is inaccurate [...] we happened to see a MiG 28 do a 4g negative dive."
The result was speedy delete. no indication of importance; just an attempt at short advertisement listing DGG ( talk ) 18:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Corporation with no obvious notability Le Deluge (talk) 11:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. First off, it's silly to nominate deletion of the "2080's" but not the surrounding decades. Arguing that the years may not happen is really pointless -- because if they don't happen, we won't be here anyway, and there won't be anyone to point out that Wikipedia had an article about a time period that never actually happened. The article isn't baseless and provides information about lunar events, milestones, etc scheduled to happen. Presumably, as we get closer to 2080, more events will be added. The article could use more references for some of the information. Improving the article to look less like WP:CRYSTAL and be more informative would be a better solution than deleting it. Any admin that feels this closure is inappropriate is more than welcome to reverse it and speak to me on my talk page. (non-admin closure) Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 23:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Common Core could be recreated as a plausible redirect to Common Core State Standards Initiative, however, that makes sense. Keeper | 76 00:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-noteworthy college curriculum. Can likely be handled in a small section at University of Chicago. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Jenks24 (talk) 13:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable album, fails WP:NALBUM. The only refs are to the band's own website and to its sale listing on Amazon.com. The Amazon ref probably shouldn't be there at all, and neither ref does anything to establish notability. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to The Smashing Pumpkins discography. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been able to establish this as Wikipedia-notable Lachlan Foley (talk) 13:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 07:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:V guidelines. WP:GNG states "The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition". Out of the 5 references used for this page, reference 1 is from the website of the person the article is about, reference 2 is from a speaking company that represents the person the article is about, reference 3 is from a very small online publication and reference 4 and 5 are the same link to a harpercollins page for a book that has yet to be released. There are not enough secondary sources as per WP:GNG. Furthermore, majority of the article cites to reference 2 which comes from a biased source and therefore does not meet the WP:V guidelines. Fort Du Quesne (talk) 15:46, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 13:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy nomination. Original article author wants it gone, but too many edits from others for G7 deletion. PROD was contested, so to AFD it goes. TexasAndroid (talk) 14:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 13:12, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Completely unable to find WP:RS refs for this on Google or Google News. Trine Day is a notoriously unreliable publishing house, the other references are blogs. The pdf from GWU completely fails to mention "Operation Dormouse" anywhere at all. [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 04:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 13:12, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This company does not appear to be notable to me, and the article seems to be a puff piece. Tazerdadog (talk) 06:37, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Michig (talk) 06:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I declined an A7 nomination because the article contains citations to four articles from an apparent reliable source, Tulsa World, though the text did not give me great hope this could meet notability on the merits. I was able to locate one of the four Tulsa World articles in that newspaper's online archive, and have linked it in the article. As you can see, though it's cited eight times in the article for all manner of specific detailed content, it miserably fails verification, containing seven words about him. This makes me trust the use of the other cited sources not at all. Meanwhile, I have performed Google Book and News Archive searches and found nothing at all.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:26, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 01:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
dictionary definition for phrase coined in 2012. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep - non admin closure, nomination withdrawn. ukexpat (talk) 16:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This may sound crazy, but yes I am nominating my own article for deletion. I am acting in good faith because the article is non-notable and instead of requesting speedy deletion, I would like fellow editors to discuss it. Thank you. JHUbal27•Talk•E-mail 03:42, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to The Ultimate Fighter: Team Nogueira vs. Team Mir. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 02:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Subject is an MMA fighter that has no significant independent coverage and fails WP:NMMA. I recommend a Redirect to The Ultimate Fighter: Team Nogueira vs. Team Mir as less drastic than outright deletion. Papaursa (talk) 03:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 13:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see how it meets the requirements of WP:CREATIVE DGG ( talk ) 02:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 07:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Zac Poonen was deleted in 2006 after the first nomination, due to lack of notability. It was deleted again in 2010 for the same reason. The current version still has no reliable independent sources to verfiy/substantiate Poonen's notability as per Wikipedia policy. Google searches will reveal many self-published hits (books, blogs, own media), but there are very few, if any, secondary sources where independent sources are talking about him. The information in the article, therefore, cannot be properly verified and therefore also fails Wikipedia's verifiability requirements. Wikipeterproject (talk) 02:08, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to write an article on an Evangelist Zac Poonen. He is quite famous for his Ministry and through his churches world wide. I dont understand why is it getting nominated for deletion with an invalid reason "lacking notability". He has written more than 25 books for which he doesnt ask for any royalty. I understand that Wikipedia's notable guidelines are different and stringent inorder to avaoid unnecessary content on the web. But I believe Zac Poonen definitely deserve a page on Wikipedia. I came to this conclusion based on the other articles I see on famous persons on Wikipedia. I urge whom so ever concern that Zac Poonen is also as famous as other Evangalists listed on Wikipedia.
Please help me how to get the Page about Zac Poonen get published on Wikipedia permanently without any debates or hurdles. I respect the intention of the reviewers and the deletion policy. At the same time, I need the page to be published avoiding nominations for deletion by the editors. I understand editord do not have the time to review the article again and again. I am sorry for troubling them. But please help me. Thanks, Abhinesh
The result was Snow Keep/withdrawn. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Creation of advertisement by COI account, since whittled back and properly sourced; but seems to me to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Orange Mike | Talk 02:06, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 01:43, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable actor getting some press as a result of History Channel series, but lacking ghits and Gnews of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 02:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted by User:Jake Wartenberg, CSD G7 Author requests deletion. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This list is a derivate of List of Curb Your Enthusiasm episodes. Well, it looks useful, but this list belongs somewhere outside Wikipedia. I did try to discuss its creators to come into his senses, but they went to no avail. I know that merging it is an alternative, but why should we archive history log? Even though I'm nominating List of Frasier writers for merging, this nomination is a test to find out whether all pages titled "List of... writers/directors/etc." should go. It was discussed in WP:VPP, and it was discussed in the page creator's talk page. One of my mentors approves this nomination. George Ho (talk) 01:19, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) JayJayWhat did I do? 23:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable band, no reason to suggest notability. JayJayWhat did I do? 00:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to List of Mattel toys. No sourced content in the article so nothing mergeable. Jenks24 (talk) 13:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
These toys seem to have gone completely unnoticed by the press and the bookpublishing industry: zero reliable sources to be found that discuss the topic; delete per GNG. Drmies (talk) 04:28, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Colombia–Malaysia relations. Jenks24 (talk) 13:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:ORG. embassies are not inherently notable. they need significant coverage of its activities. LibStar (talk) 00:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. There has been less participation in this AfD, but essentially the same arguments apply as advanced in [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Colombia, Seoul]]. It would therefore not be constructive to relist this debate. Creation of Colombia-Kenya relations is a matter of eidtorial decision outside of AfD but I will happily userfy the deleted article for anyone wishing to use it as material for such an article. SpinningSpark 18:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:ORG. embassies are not inherently notable. they need significant coverage of its activities. LibStar (talk) 00:11, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. The argument that embassies are inherently notable has no basis in policy. That argument would carry some weight with me if there was overwhelming consensus for it - after all, policy is merely the expression of consensus here. However there is no basis for it in either policy or consensus. The request to create Colombia-South Korea relations is not a matter for AfD, but I will userfy the deleted article on request for anyone wishing to use it as material for such an article. SpinningSpark 18:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:ORG. embassies are not inherently notable. they need significant coverage of its activities. being located near other embassies or a book store does not add to notability. LibStar (talk) 00:08, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 13:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article about an academic journal that does not seem to meet any of the minimum criteria of WP:NJournals. Unable to find any reliable, independent sources. - MrX 03:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 13:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
this miniseries is still in development and well from being released or done, should be put in incubation Lady Lotus (talk) 21:05, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]