![]() |
The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 23:26, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was that the article Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:42, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following articles for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 23:30, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Footballer who has not played a professional game. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL. This remains valid. He has played in the Danish cup since the last deletion, but since this was a match a against a lower division club, this does not confer notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following article for similar reasons. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The player in question has been called up to his national side, so must meet the notability requirements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.85.4.196 (talk) 21:59, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. I deleted this, but it was recreated. It's not common practice, I believe, for the deleting admin to close the AfD in a case like this, but I don't see why it would be problematic, and then we can move on to the next AfD. Drmies (talk) 16:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I added the WP:PRODBLP at first (because neither of the external links are a reference of anything the article currently has or had. But I change it to AFD as the constant re-creation has persisted. According to Liz, the lattest re-creator, Belcher is notable. In more than five years no one has proven why Belcher passes the minimal criteria of WP:GNG, or explained why his bio can't be located at Selmedica, as he is/was their CEO. Google refs only speak about this event of his life, no more. If he has notability aside from Selmedica it can be kept, but the article nowhere indicates he is notable on his own. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 23:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep (non-admin closure) without prejudice for improving and expanding the article. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 20:53, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Userfy into User:SimonTrew's space per his request.
This article has been ((notability))-tagged for the last 4 years. I have done a Google Books search, looked through about nine pages of results, and was unimpressed. I also did a Google News Archive search customized to exclude press releases, some trade publications, and one local website. Then I looked through every single search-results page. It returned lots of hits but nothing that impressed me. I want to see articles in major mainstream media, not just articles in trade publications. WP:CORPDEPTH says that neither coverage in "media of limited interest and circulation", nor coverage in local media, are enough. Passing mentions don't help either. Please show me something impressive: maybe some significant coverage in The New York Times or the print version of BusinessWeek. But if we can't find any suitable mainstream sources, I think it's time for our article to be removed from mainspace.
P.S. Our article also reads like a news release. I'm a firm believer in a theory I once read — that, regarding articles on non-notable topics, COI editors tend to out-edit the COI fighters.
Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 22:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 23:33, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article needs huge cleanup, but I'm pretty sure that even when properly formatted, there would be no real claim of notability here. This is a BLP of a university football player. He is not mentioned anywhere except on a page of the university website, it seems. He fails WP:NGRIDIRON. Benboy00 (talk) 20:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Vast majority of sources are to sites selling his music or to iTunes pages doing the same. only one non-commercial reference. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 19:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 23:33, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This was originally PRODed (by myself) on the basis that notability is not inherited. An IP removed the PROD, with an edit summary that improvements would be forthcoming. None have occured. However, today another IP tried to re-PROD the article on the basis of lack of notability. Obviously, that PROD is incorrect, but I think it is time to bring this here for a deletion discussion. Singularity42 (talk) 16:21, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 22:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable person. No sources. Google hits on social networking sites or other people. DarkAudit (talk) 01:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 23:34, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:ORG. the limited coverage i could find is one line mentions. LibStar (talk) 06:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Universal Eclectic Wicca . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:ORG. no gnews hits. LibStar (talk) 06:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Female Gridiron League of Queensland. Redirect to Female Gridiron League of Queensland. Will save the history. Drmies (talk) 23:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable sports team, founded last year. No independent showing of notability. Neutralitytalk 19:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Ultra Monsters. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As with most 'monster of the week' non-recurring villains, there is insufficient coverage in reliable third party sources to meet the requirements for an article. See also WP:NOTPLOT. While normally I would suggest a merge into either a characters list or an episodes list, neither appear to exist in a form that would make merging a suitable option, with the closest approximation to a characters list being Ultra Monsters, which is not a prose list, or possibly List of Ultraman monsters, which seems limited in scope. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Acland baronets. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem to meet WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 19:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Ultra Series. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:59, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While a recurring character, there does not appear to be sufficient coverage in reliable third party sources to justify an article (i.e. it doesn't meet WP:GNG). Sven Manguard Wha? 20:07, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Ultra Monsters#Ultra Q. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Does not appear to be notable. Appears in a few episodes but I can find no reliable sources, and there isn't any sourcing at the Wikia page. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:40, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating a group of remix albums by the one artist. They lack coverage in independent reliable sources. Lack reviews, charting, awards. Nothing coming close to WP:NALBUMS. Just a bunch on bad external links trying to publicise the album. The only references are the artist own site, internet archive, garageband. None independent reliable sources. The external links are just linkspam. Others nominated are:
The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 16:10, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Contested CSD. Refs often PR/duplicating news release. Inc. Mag. not enough for WP:CORP. Promotional: "... to develop a unique line of BBQ items ..." Dewritech (talk) 11:12, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be a non-notable venture capitalists. Article has no real sources, Google hits show no hits for his name. Article was written with a promotional tone, in general, which I already scaled back. The company that Randy founded, Outlook Ventures, doesn't appear to have standalone notability either. Delete. CitizenNeutral (talk) 17:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 23:36, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of this BLP seems non-notable. Both of the references listed are user generated, and I cant find any information relating to the "Rajiv Gandhi Rashtra Nirman" award. Benboy00 (talk) 16:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. BLP with no sources or significant claims to notability. hiroko yamashita actress -wikipedia returns four IMDB pages and a bunch of "Results for similar searches," such as a linguist with the same name. --BDD (talk) 16:01, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@BDD: by the way as per User:Calathan comment on deprod (Removing prod - Not a valid reason for deletion. Older unreferenced BLPs are not deleted solely due to being unreferenced. If you searched for sources but couldn't find any, that would be a valid reason for deletion, but the prod didn't imply that.) no one should ever PROD a BLP which has sources in the interwiki article (in this case ja.wp) if they cannot read the interwiki article (in this case Japanese). There have been many discussions about this but I am concerned that the PROD guideline still doesn't make this clear. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:02, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This does not establish notability independent of Transformers through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of overly in-depth plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 15:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Ultra Series. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:02, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This character does not establish notability independent of the Ultra Series through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 15:57, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, the nomination gives no reason given why it should not be at least a redirect. There's a good explanation for that: there is no possibly valid reason. Anything someone might want to look up, for which there's relevant content in Wikipedia, should have a redirect. merge or redirect If it is not significant enough for a separate article, it still should certainly not be deleted. Asking for deletion is saying that we should not even have a cross-reference, that someone who comes here and looks for it will find nothing. Has the nom any reason to say that such is appropriate? If there's no reason against redirection, we shouldn't be asking for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 02:59, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
![]() | This page has been blanked as a courtesy. |
The result was redirect to Tab stop. Merge can take place from the history — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:GNG – all sources are self-published and hence unreliable, only provide trivial coverage, or both. I'd have proposed a merge into Tab stop, but that article already mentions elastic tabstops, and I don't think the topic warrants more coverage than it already has there per UNDUE. —me_and 15:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable Phatwa (talk) 14:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This gentleman is, certainly in the current version of the article, borderline notable at best. Yes he has written some books and been a lecturer, but he fails to pass WP:GNG Fiddle Faddle 11:15, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deletion (G11). (Non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 17:24, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed PROD. Reason was "Some notability is asserted, but there is no verification in reliable sources. Verification must be present or the article has no place here, and simply looks like an advert." Fiddle Faddle 10:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to The Fairly OddParents (season 9). (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 00:22, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This episode does not establish its notably due to lack of sources. JJ98 (Talk) 08:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Prompted from London Easylink AfD. Long defunct non notable company with no chance of expansion. aycliffetalk 07:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to The Ultimate Fighter: Team Bisping vs. Team Miller. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 00:16, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable MMA fighter with no top tier fights. I merely want to Redirect to The Ultimate Fighter: Team Bisping vs. Team Miller at which has was a participant (although he lost by TKO in qualifying for moving into the house). I did redirect this article, but it was reverted and I received my usual cursing out by an IP user. He clearly doesn't meet any notability criteria for an article of his own. Papaursa (talk) 05:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Michig (talk) 07:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Once deleted in 2007, re-created out of process. The article is supported by 2 (possibly 3) reliable sources but the coverage is the very definition of trivial. Kiruning (talk) 03:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Michig (talk) 07:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
neologism that was used in a couple of stories about the current US/Syria crisis. The second paragraph of the article is clearly the author's original thought and derisive commentary, and doesn't belong here. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 06:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PROD rejected for no reason. Article fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. ArsenalFan700 (talk) 00:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]