![]() |
The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 00:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The whole basis of this category is wrong: a) "Macedonian people" here is deliberate misdirection since these were Sclaveni leaders, and it is by no means certain that the Sclaveni were fully Slavs or, even more, the ancestors of the modern ethnic Macedonians, while b) the list itself is hogwash: St. Demetrius had nothing to do with the 6th century, while two of the others are not even related to Macedonia, since both Akameros and Tihomir were active in Thessaly, not Macedonia, and not in the 6th century either. Constantine ✍ 23:33, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. I will userfy this for the article creator if asked, but rather than try to use this case as a WP:COATRACK for discussion of a general problem, the suggestion of an article on Suicides for eviction in Spain sounds more promising. JohnCD (talk) 23:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fails a whole host of things, but none of them are CSD'able. WP:MEMORIAL, WP:BIO1E, WP:NOTNEWS. LGA talkedits 23:27, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. That is, delete all. Sandstein 10:08, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Magic: The Gathering duel decks are simply reprints of printed cards. The articles are stubs, and have been since their release, with the only "references" being postings on MTG-related sites. This topic belongs more on the MTG Wikia rather than here. These should either be merged into one article or deleted outright. I am nominating the following duel decks for deletion as well:
pbp 23:04, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Consensus is that though evidence of notability might perhaps exist, it has not been discovered. If it is, the article can certainly be re-created, and I will be happy to userfy it against that possibility if asked. JohnCD (talk) 00:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's a chance Dr. Țapu is notable, but I'm a little skeptical, for a few reasons:
No doubt she had an interesting career, but I just don't know if she rises to the WP:PROF notability level. - Biruitorul Talk 03:52, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 14:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary listing of people who are already on the episode list StewieBaby05 (talk) 21:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I was unaware of this page until now. --George Ho (talk) 00:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Secret account 04:22, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Game itself appears to fail notability. No reliable third-party sources. Already mentioned at Kaze no Stigma#Role-playing game (though that is unsourced as well). Atlantima (talk) 21:10, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete As consensus seems clear that the sourcing is based on some of the works this studio hosted and not the studio themselves. Willing to userfy it however. Secret account 04:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
the only references are to the subject's website. There is no independent information about this organization, it is a non-notable business, it is too short to be an encyclopedic article, it would appear to be merely an advertizement for the business. Kanuk (talk) 20:58, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) TBrandley (review) 04:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Found the article only because there is a template at TfD associated with it (found when wondering why duration was at TfD). Not notable, fails every criteria of WP:BAND (which seems to have changed a bit itself - please review it if you have not done so recently). Speedy was declined, as there are sources in the article, but many of them are trivial - "listen to new track" is two, a few lines about a single is another, and interestingly, a list of newly-released singles for a given week is a third. Chess Club is not a major label, and without knowing BBC's airplay criteria, having airplay (or not) is not a criterion of notability. None of the show reviews as sources is solely about them, and even The Observer notes that they are at a show in a "micro-venue" in London. There's an interview with the band, but it's only ten questions or so, and that's borderline in terms of "third-party information" if there's really nothing else there. Crack is one paragraph and a linked video. getreading.com is an article about local events in Reading, though the lead is fairly focused on the group; however, it's local news whether it's on the Web or not. I'm not seeing the sort of coverage I would expect for a smaller act to be WP-worthy. MSJapan (talk) 20:20, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 19:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One-sentence article on a random technical term, this article has not been expanded in four years and probably never will be. More of a dictionary definition than the subject of an encyclopedia article. Coretheapple (talk) 17:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I wouldn't object to closing of this AfD if the sentiment to keep is so overwhelming. It just reminded me of another article I encountered that had similar issues and was deleted. Coretheapple (talk) 02:14, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should wait a few more days. Can't hurt. The initial reaction was to merge, I see. Coretheapple (talk) 15:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete the whole shebang. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:50, 17 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 without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:19, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following articles for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Lady Gaga discography#Special releases. Sandstein 10:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Completely unsourced and it is just a demo Plmnji (talk) 16:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Consequently, in view of the numbers mentioned initially, I conclude that there is a (narrow) consensus that this should not be kept as a separate article, but that there is not yet a clear consensus about whether it should be deleted or merged or redirected, and, in the case of a merger or redirect, where to. Both potential target articles (linked to previously) are suggested an equal number of times by my count.
Accordingly, I close this discussion by finding a consensus not to retain this as a separate article, but that further discussion is needed to decide whether either to merge or to redirect it (and where to), or whether to delete it outright. In the interim (and subject to change as subsequent discussions may determine), I'm implementing a redirect to Public image of George W. Bush, because that merge/redirect target has been suggested most often in the second half of this discussion. Consequently, any decision about whether the page should be deleted outright (rather than merged or redirected) would require, in my view, a WP:RfD discussion. Sandstein 09:49, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fails criteria in WP:NEOLOGISM. No source has yet been presented about the term, as opposed to merely using the term. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 6 nominations for deletion? Seems excessive. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 18:33, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. See No original research. These newspaper articles have Bush Derangement Syndrome in their article title (making Bush Derangement Syndrome the main topic of the newspaper article). Primary sources for Bush Derangement Syndrome are the events (mostly political events) that surround Bush Derangement Syndrome and the above cited secondary sources are at least one step removed from those political events and they provide an author's own thinking based on the events that surround Bush Derangement Syndrome and provide independent information about the topic. The deletes appear to be requiring secondary sources that analyze Krauthammer's 2003 primary source column for the term. They are mistake in that the Wikipedia article is not about Krauthammer's 2003 primary source column. Rather, the article is about the Bush Derangement Syndrome topic. In addition to papers such as newspapers, Google books also provides plenty of source material for the topic that are about the events surrounding the topic as does Google scholar papers. There are more than enough reliable sources that provide information about the Bush Derangement Syndrome topic and that provide an author's own thinking based on the events that surround Bush Derangement Syndrome provide source material for the article to support this topic as its own article. -- Jreferee (talk) 12:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]"Bush Derangement Syndrome isn't new", Lexington Herald-Leader, p. A12, September 14, 2006, * "FISA and Bush Derangement Syndrome", Washington Times, p. A18, August 6, 2007, * Tony Blankley (September 26, 2007), "Swooning over Ahmadinejad \. A bad case of Bush derangement syndrome", Washington Times, p. A21, * Leonard Pitts Jr. (December 9, 2010), "From Bush Derangement Syndrome then to Obama Dementia now", St. Paul Pioneer Press, p. B9, * "Obama Dementia supplants Bush Derangement Syndrome", Charlotte Observer, December 9, 2010, * Barbara Kay (February 9, 2011), "Is George W. Bush a war criminal?; Another symptom of Bush Derangement Syndrome", National Post, p. A15.
The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 22:27, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No other article with the prefix New media in country exists. Wikipedia is not is appropriate here as it is can only be an essay. Additionally it is not notable as you don't see New Media in Europe or America articles due to the fact that New Media or media 2.0 is a globalised idea. GAtechnical (talk) 22:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Even Wikipedia contribution is being taught to schools in Ghana this year. Now more than ever Ghanaians are accepting responsibility for our content online.If this is not notable then? This article is going to built via a collaboration by the official community of Ghanaian bloggers and social media users. Time will tell if this is just an essay or an encyclopedic article capable of serving anyone that wishes to learn about the state of new media in this important African country. About there not being a new media in Europe or America articles, are you trying to say what is notable to an African country should be decided by some other culture? For social change that new media has achieved for mankind I am surprised there aren't even articles for Europe and others yet. It's long overdue, they should be created. Allow this article be. Watch it grow and then track the page views it will get and you will understand how much such an article is needed. Sandister Tei (talk) 21:48, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
The result was DELETE. The consensus here is a clear delete, but I am not entirely convinced this is a non-notable subject. This decision is therefore without prejudice to future recreation with clearer referencing and I am willing to userfy the article for anyone who wishes to work on it. It would make it a lot easier to assess whether or not all those links to foreign language sources are reliable or not if the source publication was properly formatted and a translation of a key sentence or two provided for the facts being verified. I would also suggest including only WP:RS sources to avoid criticism of due to unreliable sources. SpinningSpark 12:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No indications of notability. Although Kaisen appears to be a prolific writer, indications of his writings or his life having been the topic of any independent coverage cannot be found. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if he is what the article claims he is (a specific teacher of soto zen buddhism in Europe, ie. in more than one country in Europe), I think it is clear indication of remarkability concerning the "actual buddhism in the west" topic. But with the wiki based notability could be a problem, he is probably below the horizont. He is one of the hundreds of second generation europian teachers who had non-european masters (Deshimaru for his case). Whether he will be remembered by history is due to the "liquid modernity" question we cannot solve right now. :) If the potential relevant independent sources for notability are not in english, but in czech or polish for example (Kaisen lives in France, but he does mission to the several countries of eastern europe), it is relevant for "english wiki page" ? --Tomaham (talk) 21:59, 22 February 2013 (UTC) — Tomaham (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
And these references?
France:
http://www.buddhachannel.tv/portail/spip.php?article2395
http://www.buddhachannel.tv/portail/spip.php?article20371
http://buddhachannel.tv/portail/spip.php?article20591
http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?id=7,8474,0,0,1,0
http://www.sudouest.fr/2010/11/16/le-bouddhisme-zen-au-pic-lumineux-240329-1731.php
http://sweepingzen.com/794/
http://enews.buddhistdoor.com/en/news/d/1777
http://www.omyogapages.com/yoganews/news_item.php?newsitem=836
Poland:
http://www.buddyzm.edu.pl/cybersangha/page.php?id=309
http://www.dharma.pl/component/content/article/17-k/26-mistrz-kaisen---trylogia-mistrzow-zen
http://cojestgrane.pl/miasto/krakow/wydarzenie/afy/tytul/pyl-swiata
http://warszawa.dlastudenta.pl/lokale/?act=show_impreza&idi=10698
http://krakow.studentnews.pl/s/8/53030-Krakow-imprezy-koncerty-informacje/273977-Mistrz-Kaisen-w-Krakowie.htm?c1=11535&c2=11813
Czech republic:
From Czech TV:
http://www.ceskatelevize.cz/porady/1185258379-cesty-viry/206562215500009-rosi-kaisen/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5uwMnpDs0M&feature=share&list=UUrr9nrp59T2PwBjGQ9Xthzg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nbp8HP0XQas&feature=share&list=UUrr9nrp59T2PwBjGQ9Xthzg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1iI_hFXlJM&feature=share&list=UUrr9nrp59T2PwBjGQ9Xthzg
ISBN 978-80-7436-006-0 (one book concerning the present (2010) buddhistic groups in czech republic, which make it evident fairly well) http://www.dharmagaia.cz/kniha/800-jan-honzik-jednota-v-rozmanitosti-buddhismus-v-ceske-republice PDF: http://www.dharmagaia.cz/knihy/jednota-v-rozmanitos/Jednota-v-rozmanitosti-minibook.pdf
http://neviditelnypes.lidovky.cz/spolecnost-mistr-kaisen-08n-/p_spolecnost.asp?c=A060929_115728_p_spolecnost_wag http://www.metropolislive.cz/detail/6015/0/ http://www.htf.cuni.cz/HTF-80-version1-13Buddhismus.pdf http://www.htf.cuni.cz/HTF-154-version1-NZCR18Buddhismus2012.pdf http://is.muni.cz/th/74822/ff_b/BAKA.txt www.sacra.cz/Scany/2010_1.pdf http://www.christnet.cz/magazin/zprava.asp?zprava=11821 http://dspace.k.utb.cz/bitstream/handle/10563/7844/adam%C3%ADk_2009_dp.pdf?sequence=1 http://www.dingir.cz/archiv/Dingir406.pdf http://www.portal.cz/scripts/detail.php?id=3479 http://www.ivysehrad.cz/data/products/down_1880.pdf http://www.havelka.info/p_zen.html http://www.fdb.cz/film/hra-mysli/67344 http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zazen http://www.carreau.cz/dokumenty/Zen%20buddhismus.docx http://www.kinoartbrno.cz/film/prach-sveta
http://www.sotozen.cz/uploads/clanek2009.pdf http://www.sotozen.cz/uploads/mp3/rozhovor.mp3 http://www.sotozen.cz/uploads/ostrava1.gif http://www.sotozen.cz/uploads/ostrava2.gif http://www.sotozen.cz/uploads/ostrava3.gif http://www.sotozen.cz/uploads/zenovy_mistr_v_praze.htm http://www.sotozen.cz/uploads/lidovky.gif http://www.sotozen.cz/texty/rozhovory-a-clanky/seznam-clanku/
Slovakia:
http://www.topky.sk/cl/5/127158/
http://www.ludmila.sk/zazen.php
http://www.obroda.sk/clanok/26027/eSiak-Majstra-Kaisena/
http://aktualne.atlas.sk/kaisen-ak-sa-chcete-stat-osvietenym-budhom-tak-sa-nim-aj-stanete/dnes/zaujimavosti/
http://www.sme.sk/c/2144129/kultura.html
http://gregi.net/clanky/majster-kaisen-v-bratislave/
http://zazen.sk/index.php?id=361 http://zazen.sk/fileadmin/chefs/images/ucenie/Kaisen-Vitalita_1-2007.pdf
Russia:
(мастер сандо кайсен)
http://www.sunhome.ru/interview/exclusive_interview/kaisen
http://www.sunhome.ru/religion/11295
http://ariom.ru/wiki/Kajjsen
http://www.chaskor.ru/article/dzen_-_praktika_antirazvitiya_20398
http://zen-russia.livejournal.com/18477.html
http://www.tamqui.com/buddhaworld/%D0%9F%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D0%9C%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B0_%D0%B4%D0%B7%D0%B5%D0%BD_%D0%A1%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B4%D0%BE_%D0%9A%D0%B0%D0%B9%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B7%D0%B5%D0%BD-%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B3%D1%85%D0%B5
http://buddhismofrussia.ru/news/113/
http://lurkmore.to/%D0%94%D0%B7%D0%B5%D0%BD
http://www.nofollow.ru/detail131715.htm
Ukrain: http://www.artukraine.com.ua/articles/458.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zendojo (talk • contribs) 14:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
more: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/6080092/French-game-of-boules-hailed-by-Buddhist-master.html http://www.lesboules.hk/petanque/fun-facts/petanque-meditation-tool http://www.franceculture.fr/oeuvre-l%E2%80%99art-de-la-petanque-enseignements-d%E2%80%99un-maitre-zen-de-kaisen.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.208.1.197 (talk) 18:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to PSR B1257+12. Whether anything should be merged from the history is unclear from this discussion and can be subsequently decided through the editorial process. Sandstein 09:58, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have been unable to identify any reliable sources for the existence of this planet. AstroMark (talk) 05:02, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We find that the simplest interpretation of the frequency derivatives implies the presence of a fourth planet with a mass of ~100 MEarth in a circular orbit of radius ~40 AU.
A very intriguing possibility is that the observed P is due to a dynamical influence of a distant long-period fourth planet in the pulsar system.
Further attempts to pursue this idea have led us to believe that there may be a sub-Pluto mass body in a 2.4 AU, 4.6 yr orbit around the pulsar (Wolszczan & Konacki, unpublished). Unfortunately, as shown in Fig. 5, the TOA variability observed over the last ten years is not periodic and can be fully explained in terms of slow changes in the pulsar’s dispersion measure.
The result was keep. Opinions for and against are fairly balanced, but the nominator's withdrawal tips this to keep. JohnCD (talk) 23:07, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Notability of this lawsuit not established by secondary sources. The sources cited are all primary: court documents and the blog of one of the lawyers involved. BigJim707 (talk) 14:58, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 22:30, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm listing this as a test case. I'm not sure what notability guidelines are for a fictional character, I can't find anything. But, if we were treating this as a real person, this article would fail monumentally. There are absolutely no sources, other than the character bio on Fox, which I would argue is not third person. I don't know if I'd consider a fictional character notable, and the content of this article could certainly be merged in with the show page, and the episode lists. Fbifriday (talk) 05:37, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus to delete. Notability is clearly somewhat borderline, and reasonable editors seem to disagree on exactly whether it crosses the line or not. Ultimately this is the kind of topic that does very little harm if the page is left up, so we'll err on the side of keeping it at this point. ~ mazca talk 02:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed this article was was proposed to be deleted once before last. Bringing to AfD as notability seems thin. Curb Chain (talk) 00:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. A two-year history of concerns about the reliability and independence of the article's sources, combined with no support for its retention in this debate. The consensus appears to be that this article is based on a very shaky foundation of unreliable sources. ~ mazca talk 02:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It comprehensively relies on primary sources. No successful results has been announced by independent sources. There are no RS coverage and no secondary sources (under WP:RSMED) in the article and all are unreliable medical sources. ●Mehran Debate● 13:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Secret account 04:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't meet any of the criteria of WP:NACTOR: Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. She is a working actress, but not notable. Boleyn (talk) 06:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Dave Wolverton#Ravenspell Series. J04n(talk page) 14:55, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Book fails to meet WP: GNG. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 04:16, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Keeper | 76 14:30, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One notable role (Really Me): Fails WP:ENT. Poor sourcing (a blog and a dead link to that show's page): Lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources, failing WP:GNG. Not notable. SummerPhD (talk) 03:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to 194th Regional Support Wing. Consensus is that there is no real indication that this flight is independently notable. Interested users can feel free to merge any useful information to the target page as the article history has been left intact. ~ mazca talk 02:07, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This stub with 320 characters (not including external links or templates) does not have enough significant coverage from multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject to be considered notable. Generally units of this size (smaller than a squadron/company) are not considered notable by WP:MILUNIT, nor is it a combat unit. — -dainomite 01:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to 113th Wing. This seems the most agreeable redirect target from the discussion, as there is no indication of independent notability here. Interested users can feel free to adjust the redirect target and/or merge any useful information to the target page as the article history has been left intact. ~ mazca talk 02:10, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not have enough significant coverage from multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject to be considered notable. Generally units of this size (smaller than a squadron/company) are not considered notable by WP:MILUNIT, nor is it a combat unit. — -dainomite 01:50, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. In view of the low participation, this is a WP:SOFTDELETE; as with a PROD, the article will be restored on request at WP:REFUND, but may then be renominated. JohnCD (talk) 22:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No references and a Google search reveals almost nothing but databases/directories and sites written by the camp itself. King Jakob C2 23:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 19:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a dictionary Bg9989 (talk) 12:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 19:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a textbook Bg9989 (talk) 11:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 19:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a textbook Bg9989 (talk) 11:50, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Secret account 04:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The estate do not meet notability per WP:GNG. No significant coverage in WP:RS. Amartyabag TALK2ME 11:38, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 10:03, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An article for the list of movie theatres for every city isn't needed in an encyclopedia. Tentinator (talk) 11:33, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:03, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:CRYSTAL. Unsourced, unaired Canadian sitcom. Funny Pika! 11:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. A complete lack of sources (WP:V) mandates deletion. Sandstein 10:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Crystal ball. No sources to show that the car will be produced. Biker Biker (talk) 10:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 10:07, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet WP:N and WP:RS. Dewritech (talk) 10:27, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:06, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Considering subject to be WP:REVDEL
10:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
10:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC) 10:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
ref http://www.ftkindia.com/indian-fashion-photographer-ipsito-das-awarded-by-effie-netherland/ 10:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC) Poorly referenced BLP of a non-notable photographer. I was unable to find any reliable sources with which to establish that the subject is notable per WP:BIO. - MrX 09:53, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:10, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Banana Fingers (talk) 09:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. My rationale is basically the same as the closer's comments at Afd3. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated this article for deletion twice before. One debate resulted in delete, and the other resulted in keep. I am nominating it for a fourth time because I feel that enough time has passed to make it clear that this article meets all three criteria of a BLP1E, and should thus be deleted. A lot of the information in the article is only mentioned in local news, uncited, and cited with links that no longer work. This article has become a Pseudo-biography, and I feel that most of the information presented in the article is not encyclopedic. Rogerthat94 (talk) 08:56, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
((subst:Afd-notice|ARTICLE NAME))
which was recommended here. I apologize for doing so incorrectly. I did not intentionally try to mislead anyone and all of my actions have been conducted in good faith. I informed the article's creator, involved admins, and people who voted in favor and against keeping the article in the past in order to have a fair debate. Rogerthat94 (talk) 22:15, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]The result was delete. Secret account 04:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet notability requirements. 132.162.87.96 (talk) 08:15, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What is so special about the "information" alleged herein that makes the subject deserving to have an article on Wikipedia. The answer: nothing. None of what is alleged comes anywhere near to asserting, much less proving, any form of notability. Furthermore, the article sounds like it was written by the subject of the article himself. On top of all that, a BLP violation warning has been affixed to this article for nearly six (6) years. Delete. Thank you. OGBranniff (talk) 06:19, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Keeper | 76 14:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A mere chess organizer and author of some books on poker nobody bought. Not notable. The title of Candidate master fails to impress as well. Potential BLP issues abound as this article not only is not sourced to anything substantive, but it cannot be sourced. The subject here has been weighed, measured, and found wanting. Thank you. OGBranniff (talk) 06:14, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question. "[...] author of some books on poker nobody bought." On what basis do you say that? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:40, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was nomination withdrawn (per speedy keep criterion 1). Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:29, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. None of the "facts" alleged in the article make for any notability. They say he beat Staunton with a pawn and two move odds. I say, Big deal. Fodder for speedy deletion if any. Pure tripe. Thank you. OGBranniff (talk) 06:09, 9 March 2013 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn per User:Sasata's sources. Thank you. OGBranniff (talk) 19:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. clear consensus; clear notability DGG ( talk ) 20:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just how any of this makes is subject notable is a mystery to me. This article should be on the speedy delete dustbin of Wikipedia history. Not notable in any way. Wikipedia is not an antiquarian society. Delete. Thank you. OGBranniff (talk) 06:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:05, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
None of the information in the article even as much as alleges that the subject is notable in any way. If this is all that can be said for the subject, then this article should have been speedily deleted. In short, this fellow is NOT NOTABLE in any way, shape, or form. He has been weighed, measured, and found lacking. Thank you. OGBranniff (talk) 06:00, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. His best resuts establish notability (drawing a match with Levenfish in 1910 is no mean feat). Toccata quarta (talk) 14:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:22, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
None of the claims in the article even allege notability, much less prove it. All this chap seems to have done is lose chess games. Is this a "losers hall of fame"? Wikipedia is not an antiquarian society to be filled with whatever curios about which anyone wants to write. This article definitely should have been speedied. Not notable in any way, shape, or form. OGBranniff (talk) 05:50, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:26, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Correspondence chess Grandmasters are not inherently notable. This article also has had a BLP uncourced tag since June 2012. No sources available. Delete please. Thank you. OGBranniff (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. No prejudice towards a merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:06, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here is that this person is only known for inventing the chess problem of the Grimshaw (chess), which already has an article. The instant article contains nothing more than a re-hash of the Grimshaw chess problem, with no information about the subject as a person that would make him notable outside of the Grimshaw chess problems. The article is basically unsourced, as the "chessgames" source only contains a link back to the wikipedia article here. Since the subject of the article is not notable independent of the "Grimshaw" chess problems, and independent sources about this gentleman are lacking, this article sadly must be deleted. Thank you. OGBranniff (talk) 05:33, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another list of "webisodes" for a series of commercial products. I see no possible reason to consider this content of encyclopedic value: it looks like listcruft to me, written by and for fans. Drmies (talk) 04:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as an attack page. The only content was unsourced and unverifiable negative speculation concerning living individuals. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:14, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
article might not be notable NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 05:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:07, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NSPORTS "Sports rivalries are not inherently notable." Tennis guidelines say the same. There seems to be a steady stream of these rivalry pages lately. Tennis is a sport that inherently has players near the same ranking playing each other on a regular basis. See also WTA Big Three and Azarenka–Sharapova rivalry for other recent arrivals. We've also had deletions for Agassi–Rafter rivalry, Davenport–V. Williams rivalry, Davenport–Hingis rivalry, Becker–Sampras rivalry, Federer–Hewitt rivalry, etc... It's one thing to list this on a page like List of tennis rivalries, but to make a separate article seems like a poor choice to me. One can always find a few news sources for two tennis players describing a rivalry... it's easy, but it's not encyclopedic.
One would assume that once or twice a decade a special rivalry will come about that lifts a sport to amazing media coverage...Laver–Rosewall, Borg–McEnroe, Sampras–Agassi, Navratilova-Evert, Federer–Nadal, and several others. But just because they are the hot item right now doesn't give Federer/Nadal/Djokovic/Murray and disproportional piece of the rivalry article pie. We have Federer–Murray here, but we also have Federer–Djokovic Rivalry, Djokovic–Murray rivalry, Nadal–Djokovic rivalry, a proposed Nadal–Murray rivalry. Where does it end? This is the nature of tennis throughout it's history. Do we create rivalry pages for any players that play 10x? Anyone that wins a major and plays another that has won a Major gets a rivalry page? I would say no. We have an article here on wikipdedia that lists rivalries where sheer number of times met at important tournaments is the criteria. It's at List of tennis rivalries. Very few require stand alone articles but it gives readers a chance to see a list of tennis personalities who played each other a lot. That's all we really need here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation. Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet. However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface. If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate. Theworm777 (talk) 04:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I wrote before, I created the page and obviously I'm going to defend it. You conceded that Federer-Nadal and Federer-Djokovic justify rivalry pages, but Federer-Murray have played in 3 Grandslam finals and Federer-Djokovic only one. Another reason you gave to delete was that Federer-Djokovic was a "proper" rivalry because they have played in "a ton of finals", in reality Federer-Djokovic have played in the exact same number (8 finals) as Federer-Murray. So how is it that you can claim which rivalry pages are relevant and which are not. Also Federer and Murray are currently #2 and #3 in the world and conceivably will play many more "important" matches in the future. Also how can you delete Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray rivalry pages which are about some of the greatest rivalries in tennis history while not deleting stupid rivalry pages like Serena Williams-Hingis (which has barely any content on it compared to the work I did creating this page) or Serena Williams-Henin? This is a golden age of tennis and rivalry pages concerning Federer (who is near universally acclaimed as the greatest tennis player of all-time), Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray are not part of the meaningless rivalry epidemic of mediocre players that will be forgotten about in several years. These are historically relevant rivalries of these four specific players and should be protected. This is not a leather bound encyclopedia and has room for these rivalry pages of these four players who are single-handedly making tennis more relevant than it has been in 40 years. Please do not delete this page, smaller and insignificant rivalries are OK but not Federer's rivalries with Nadal, Djokovic, or Murray. Praline97 (talk) 00:53, 23 February 2013 (PST)
There is a very heavy slice of WP:RECENTISM running through this entire concept. I tracked back and had a look at the base article of all these rivalry article - List of tennis rivalries. There is NO, none at all, substantiation of the criteria for a Tennis rivalry.
Why? Such a narrowly defined criteria should have the backing of outside sourcing.
Again, why? The majors have come to assume an incresingly higher standard over other tournaments, but the ranking mentioned above is not drawn exclusively from majors results.
Again, why? The basis of a rivalry should be its notability, not its statistics. From Wikitionary The relationship between two or more rivals who regularly compete with each other.[32] It makes no mention of a rivalry being bound by any form of statistics except the number of participants. In summary - if we can't even successfully define a tennis rivalry, then these definitions should not be used as a basis for creating further rivalry articles. I would like to see the List of Tennis rivalries deleted, as it fails GNG by its own definitions. --Falcadore (talk) 13:01, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:33, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not my field, but is " Hot Dance Club Play chart " among the accepted charts for notability of songs? DGG ( talk ) 04:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Sandstein 10:05, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
repeatedly recreated promotional article for non notable product. DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Depth of coverage The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple[1] independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability.
Audience The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary.
The Hal Apeno (talk) 13:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was 'Proceedural keep. (Non-admin closure) Wrong venue, this needs to be brought to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 07:32, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This category has caused conflict. StewieBaby05 (talk) 04:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:08, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Previously deleted multiple times as not notable. Speedy declined on differing content grounds. Nothing has happened since the last discussion to change this. Sources do not establish notability and two of the four are not independent of the subject. Salted for six months after four seperate attempts to re-create article. This should be deleted again and salted permanently and attempts to re-create need to be applied for and reviewed for the proper improvements required to establish notability. Fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. 121.220.107.74 (talk) 02:55, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. (non-admin closure) TBrandley (what's up) 11:36, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
List seems unnecessary. StewieBaby05 (talk) 03:00, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Doolittle Raid#List of the participating crewmen. Keeper | 76 14:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, to Doolittle Raid#List of the participating crewmen like another Doolittle Raider: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas C. Griffin. WP:BIO1E and WP:NOTMEMORIAL are applicable in this case. EricSerge (talk) 02:18, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Doolittle Raid#List of the participating crewmen. After a search for sources, I couldn't find anything good. –TCN7JM 02:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:10, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable, promotional. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Referenced with primary sources. RadioFan (talk) 02:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:21, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Spam for an obscure businessman who has allegedly appeared on some TV shows. The involvement of several s.p.a. or COI editors, of course, should not influence whether the article is to be deleted: but I do want to warn readers of the history that the number of editors is clearly smaller than the number of account names used. Orange Mike | Talk 02:07, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 17:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet WP:NFOOTY. WP:NOTMEMORIAL also seems to come into play. It should be noted that the article creator in a matter of days has created over a dozen articles, half have been CSD, and the editor themselves has been indefinitely blocked. Mkdwtalk 23:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. and rename List of superhero productions created by Toei Keeper | 76 15:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are no sources saying that "Toei Superheroes" is some form of classification used by either Toei or the general fandom. In addition, the later years are bogged down in listing individual film productions for series already listed. If kept, suggest moving to "List of superhero productions created by Toei" or something similar. Johnboy3434 (talk) 03:48, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 17:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NSPORTS "Sports rivalries are not inherently notable." Tennis guidelines say the same. There seems to be a steady stream of these rivalry pages lately. Tennis is a sport that inherently has players near the same ranking playing each other on a regular basis. See also WTA Big Three and Azarenka–Sharapova rivalry for other recent arrivals. We've also had deletions for Agassi–Rafter rivalry, Davenport–V. Williams rivalry, Davenport–Hingis rivalry, Becker–Sampras rivalry, etc... It's one thing to list this on a page like List of tennis rivalries, but to make a separate article seems like a poor choice to me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:06, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. SpinningSpark 17:41, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Close paraphrase of his web page, and promotional, and dubious notability. (I thought it close enough to be a speedy G12, but no other admin seems to have agreed in 24 hours.)
The key claim is no.17 out of 25 on the Forbes Midas list . I do not think this amounts to notability -- looking at our article, the people in the top 4 or 5 on the list seem to be generally recognized as notable enough to have articles, but not the others. The criteria for people in this profession must be either real non-PR based press coverage or major national awards. , and I think not a single one of the references amounts to independent coverage, except for #6, .privateequityonline.com, which I think routine coverage in a more general article, and the Forbes interview at #3, connected with his placement on the list. I think we need an opinion whether this is enough; if it is, then it's a matter of rewriting the article so it follows the sources less closely. I could argue either direction. DGG ( talk ) 05:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to 145th Airlift Wing. according to the consensus DGG ( talk ) 01:56, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not have enough significant coverage from multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject to be considered notable. Generally units of this size (21 personnel) are not considered notable by WP:MILUNIT. — -dainomite 01:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 23:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable, has not been updated since 2010 Davey2010 Talk 00:44, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was KEEP. I am swayed by DGG's argument, at the top of the WP:NFOOTY page is:- The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below. Since it is at the top of the guideline in bold, we must conclude that this is the most important point on the entire page. It calls for either GNG or NSPORT to be met. GNG has a similar clause:- A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right. The argument that GNG supercedes the requirements of NSPORT, while this may be a valid and popular viewpoint, has no basis in current policy. SpinningSpark 11:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Subject just about passes WP:NFOOTY as he has played one match in a fully professional league but is essentially non notable as a lack of substantial third party sources means he fails WP:GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Secret account 04:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This stuntman is no Yakima Canutt. This is about all I can find about him. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:20, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. consensus, with which I agree. WP:PROF is not met. The journal is minor DGG ( talk ) 01:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Self Promotion, notability is not observed Jussychoulex (talk) 18:02, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Consensus has been established DGG ( talk ) 01:40, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet WP:BIO for notability. All his books are self published, no press in mainstream media outside of a few blog posts. PearlSt82 (talk) 00:06, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 10:07, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable drag queen. Only acting credit on imdb is The Many Strange Stories of Triangle Woman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burnberrytree (talk • contribs) 22:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was KEEP. SpinningSpark 20:27, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable drag queen that is most likely not an actual person; as per "Truth Fiction" sectionBurnberrytree (talk) 23:02, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The characterization as "non-notable" seems belied by his/her extensive coverage in the print media and television, including The New York Times (repeatedly) and the Village Voice. I agree that the ambiguity surrounding whether this was a real person or a persona of somebody else is odd, and might be better addressed in the article, but deletion clearly seems wrong. Uucp (talk) 02:15, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]