![]() |
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:24, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Submitted per User:Antiqueight from request at WT:AFD. Lists (note, one appears to be a printed text with ISBN #) do not show any signs of notability, and as contemporary lists in the last few years, don't show any signs of reliable sources outside of themselves. No real merge or redirect topic exists (and due to the copyvio issues, if there was, this should be deleted before the merge/redirect).
Note that prior to this AFD , I have removed the reproduction of the two lists due to the fact both lists are based on subjective selection and thus is considered a copyright violation. Whether the lists are included or not is a separate issue on whether the lists themselves are notable. MASEM (t) 23:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:19, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a musician that is not yet there perhaps and is therefore promotional. The only obvious claim to notability (often regarded as one of the best indie films of the 2012 summer) is sourced to a press release. The rest of the references are repetitive, not reliable or not enough to establish real notability. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 22:32, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did you see the 5th best new rapper of 2012--TheMaclin (talk) 23:37, 20 September 2013 (UTC)TheMaclin[reply]
((cite web))
: |first=
missing |last=
(help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
The result was speedy delete. G3 (hoax). Will redirect to the 2004 Ford GT after deleting, as this does appear to be a commonly-used slang name for it. The Bushranger One ping only 04:57, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-existent car. None of the three external links show any indication of a "GT43" from 1968; the name is used solely for throwaway remarks about the 2004 Ford GT. The GT40 was still being used in 1968; the article's entire formatting style further promotes the hoax. If the consensus is to redirect, please delete the hoax information beforehand. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Company does not appear to meet our notability standards, see WP:CORP. Sources all look like PR releases. Contested prod. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:13, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:21, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable actor, fails WP:BIO. I can find no coverage in reliable sources. let alone significant coverage. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:47, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. If we have insufficient sources then merging to a list a seems counter-intuative. Spartaz Humbug! 16:42, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:BIO and WP:DIPLOMAT. previous AfDs have shown no inherent notability for ambassadors. a search for "Clive Carruthers" finds very little coverage. LibStar (talk) 06:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I don't find much coverage in gbooks either [1]. LibStar (talk) 02:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:59, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unnotable film, does not meet WP:NF. No information on production, no significant coverage in media. May be WP:TOOSOON. Dwaipayan (talk) 20:19, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:59, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable new journal, having published just a handful of articles yet. Article creation vastly premature. References do not even mention the journal. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 20:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to The Fairly OddParents (season 5). Mark Arsten (talk) 01:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Only one source, this article has virtually no production and reception from reviewers and ratings, all nothing but fancruft. JJ98 (Talk) 18:52, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No extensive coverage in independent nor reliable sources, therefore non-notable. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 18:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:02, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TOOSOON. All this is pure speculation at this point. The election is three years away. ...William 16:55, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This character does not establish notability independent of The Return of Ultraman 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) 16:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 03:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural. Not notable. CSD A7 declined by IP. GregJackP Boomer! 01:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I denied a speedy, but I have serious doubts about this person's notability. There's a few references that could help in establishing some notability for the subject, but it's a bit iffy--I don't consider this reliable, for instance). Drmies (talk) 16:51, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NOTSTATS. taking this article to its logical complete state would include an entry for every team in every season since 1917. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 21:43, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:25, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:NOTSTATS. Taken to its logical complete state would contain and entry for every team from every season since 1920. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 21:44, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:36, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Incomplete nomination by User:Mikefromnyc, who gave the reason: page is advertising for a "for profit" company, absolutely not encyclopedia material. The sourcing looks dubious, is largely non-independent, some links are dead, and the article is rife with marketing-speak. The latter two are not by themselves reasons for deletion, but we still need third-party sources for establishing notability.
I will also note that the AfD notice pointing to nowhere has remained in this article for six days. Clearly nobody seems interested in maintaining this article. Also not a reason for deletion, but well… this is embarrassing. Keφr 13:34, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. --BDD (talk) 18:45, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just a college campus building. No indication of independent notability and the article is woefully lacking in sources. WP is not a school project. Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 04:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Page moved to Extended theories of gravity, undue weight noted regarding Hernández et al work. (non-admin closure) -- Trevj (talk) 10:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lacks the independent notice necessary for notability in the sciences. jps (talk) 03:32, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. no prejudice against recreation Mark Arsten (talk) 03:37, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
currently, just a list of people, with two unsourced statements about trends. I don't see how this can be turned into an article without simply starting over. the only other 'decade' article for India, as far as I can tell, is 1990s in India, which also has problems, although not as severe. on the other hand, the year articles are sensibly formatted (e.g., 2000 in India). Frietjes (talk) 22:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 16:45, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article seems to be promotional in nature, and it looks like this person does not meet notability guidelines. None of the references seem very reliable, almost all are promotional in nature. The WSJ article names her in passing, so maybe this counts as notable? Also, the creator, ScoringGoals14, seems very suspicious. Looking through the contribs, it feels like an experienced wiki editor created a new account just to create this article, but made a few very minor edits to other articles before and after creating this one so as to arouse less suspicion, and perhaps try to avoid being tagged as a new user on page curation? (which did still tag the user as new.) This would maybe suggest that it was created by a publicist of some sort? (This is pure speculation, but perhaps still important). Nevertheless, the main point is that this article seems overly promotional in tone, and does not source important parts (like the background.) At the very least, as a BLP article, the unreferenced stuff has to be stripped, and if that happened, there would be very little substance to this article anyway).
Benboy00 (talk) 01:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Upon your suggestion, I have removed unreferenced content. I've worked on this a while and thought it was well-written and well-referenced. I'm still learning the process and would welcome any other advice on how to improve this page. ScoringGoals14 (talk) 01:49, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Self promotional flim-flam. Notability not apparent. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:41, 9 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Comment As this is a BLP, I am now going to remove all unsourced information that was not removed in the last purge. Please note that this may significantly decrease the length of the article and possibly turn it into a stub.
Benboy00 (talk) 16:28, 10 September 2013 (UTC)--[reply]
Comment Now that this article is better sourced, the big problem for me is that it's mostly just a list of books shes written, organisations whove published her, and a list of clients. There no real content, and it still (to me), after multiple edits, screams "advert". I also have a problem with the last paragraph: Almost two thirds of those 23 items do not have a reliable (or indeed any) source. I have searched for sources on google, and have found several, but they are not particularly reliable. I have looked for many (though not all) of the articles that are presumably being referenced, but cannot find them. I also still have a problem with her personal website being source for a significant portion of this short article. Benboy00 (talk) 16:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have removed the unsourced content from the area you mentioned. I also re-organized the content to highlight her notability as an author, which others have agreed is apparent. Additionally, I included two more references (one to the New York Times), for a total of 21 with only one coming directly from her site. Please let me know what else I can do to resolve this. Thanks. ScoringGoals14 (talk) 20:47, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure if its appropriate to mention this here, but the creators editing habits still seem extremely suspicious. ScoringGoals14 edits in infrequent batches. These batches always include the Susan RoAne article, or the deletion page. All edits to other pages are just adding links which, while a helpful activity, is at the same time a bit odd. Why would someone make what is presumably a new account, only to add links to pages (and then create one page)? Could it be an IP contrib who found the urge to create a page? There seems to be no relationship between edited pages, varying from Slow programming to Redcurrent sauce, and almost all of the edits consist purely of adding square brackets to terms to turn them into wiki links, like this and this and this and so on. I'm surprised that there isnt a bot for that (maybe there is). I agree with Agricola44 in that the background section is pretty much an advert, but I actually think that much of the short lede is advertising, and I also just realised that for bits of it, the source doesn't say what the article says (for example, doesnt talk about publishers weekly, and there isn't anything about her being an "expert on face to face interaction", which sounds hugely like a marketing term. Also, thanks for the policy link. I deal with promotional BLP's quite a lot, and I never realised there were wp guidelines on it. Benboy00 (talk) 16:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have reduced the bibliography section to be a selected listing per the comments. I'm new to Wikipedia and just trying to learn the process. If my posting is strange, I do apologize. When you first sign up the site guides you to change basic things like spelling or adding links and guides you through a series of random pages. I also enjoy that button on the sidebar. Based on the ongoing response to this article, I've stuck with the basic edits until I learn more about the process and resolve this one first. I truly want to avoid this type of reaction with future major edits. ScoringGoals14 (talk) 23:17, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:28, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot see the notability here. He was a student at Christian Brothers College and was killed in France in 1917. Very tragic, but millions were killed in the trenches in France, there does not seem to be anything exceptional in this one death. Possibly he could be mentioned in the CBC article, but I will post the current contents of the article to the CBC talk page and leave it to editors there to decide. That way this AFD does not need to get distracted with the possibility of a merge. SpinningSpark 14:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:28, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:MUSIC. CSD contested by User:Alenseed, who may or may not be the subject of the article. Ishdarian 13:55, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lacks notability Loginnigol (talk) 11:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Wong Kiew Kit. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:40, 28 September 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)) . |
Nominating for deletion, primarily on notability grounds. The original AfD debate in 2009 closed with a Redirect to Wong Kiew Kit (who I do think passes notability) and was reverted to full article soon after. The issues from that time are essentially the same.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:43, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete. Copyright violation. (WP:G12) Singularity42 (talk) 16:27, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A contested PROD. Original concern was "Some notability is asserted, but none is verified. Halls of residence generally should be a part of the academic institution they are a hall for, assuming that is what this is. But the article doesn't explain this in any meaningful manner." I also tried to help, but couldn't find any news sources to verify the subject's notability. Minima© (talk) 11:17, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:MOVIE and WP:RS. This is definitely not a notable film and is not backed-up by reliable sources. NoyPiOka (talk) 10:50, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deletion, A9, non-notable album ... discospinster talk 20:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hoax. Not a single reliable source indicates that this album exists. There is a long-term vandalism issue over Adrian Visby and his creations (see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Horizontal Law and WP:Articles for deletion/Adrian Visby). It is unclear whether this person exists at all, but if he does, he is certainly not notable, and therefore his compilation album of Marc Ribot songs is also not notable (if it even exists). WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 10:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:04, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Withdrawn by nominator. Not speedy as the full discussion period has passed. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 00:27, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable band. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:06, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Etymology of Wicca. (non-admin closure) -- Trevj (talk) 09:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I came across this as a WP:G4 speedy, but declined it since the current version has more sourcing and slightly more content. Because of that, and that the previous AfD had been in 2006, I thought that this would benefit more from getting a more full discussion at AfD. There are some sources in the article that look legit, but also some that fall under blog sources. My predominant concern is that this is essentially a dictionary definition when you get down to it and would be better served as an entry in Wiktionary. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 05:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Compartmental models in epidemiology. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fails notability, based on a single as yet unpublished paper. Gareth Jones (talk) 16:22, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to SpongeBob SquarePants (season 8). Mark Arsten (talk) 02:31, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This episode does not meet WP:GNG. JJ98 (Talk) 19:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Vajra Enterprises. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't meet notability guidelines in the slightest. I can't find any reliable sources on the game. Pretty self explanatory. It seems to be a non-notable indie RPG game, which is fine and all, but it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Inanygivenhole (talk) 19:22, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:CORP. No evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. Triplestop (talk) 19:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to The Million Second Quiz. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:09, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Blatant WP:BLP1E violation. No indication of notability outside of The Million Second Quiz. A redirect to The Million Second Quiz would be more appropriate (and is my suggested course of action). RJaguar3 | u | t 02:34, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to The Fairly OddParents (season 4). Mark Arsten (talk) 03:48, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This episode has no sources or references, all nothing but excessive plot or fancruft. JJ98 (Talk) 19:30, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) -- Trevj (talk) 09:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable organization and simply a commercial advertisement for a rehabilitation center. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 19:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Passages Malibu. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable organization and simply a commercial advertisement for a rehabilitation center. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 19:54, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I nominate him for deletion.
yes he won the OAM, but since thats the only noteworthy aspect he deserves a reference on THAT wikipedia page, and not this vanity page which reads like a resume that lists every single award he got in highschool. Plus he's done basically nothing noteworthy since leaving highschool so definitely should delete and just mention him in the OAM page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.216.99.150 (talk) 14:33, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:29, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Notability Ijon Tichy x2 (talk) 04:46, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Features of the Marvel Universe. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This does not establish notability independent of Marvel 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) 15:29, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Munster Senior League (association football). Mark Arsten (talk) 03:51, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. I don't believe participation in the FAI Cup makes them notable. May just pass WP:NFOOTY but still fails WP:GNG in my opinion. JMHamo (talk) 16:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Being the author of two self-published books and getting occasional mentions in local press is insufficient evidence of notability. Other than that, this article is basically a resume. bd2412 T 18:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was City Delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:01, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails WP:CORP (tagged since 2010), and no sources show that the in-universe restaurant in South Park episode plots is directly related to this real-world company. Any details about the in-universe City Wok from South Park is contained within that episode article's plot description. AldezD (talk) 20:31, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Outside of the nominator, there are no calls for the article's deletion. The consideration of the article's notability by those who joined the discussion offers an affirmation of the article's notability, as per Wikipedia guidelines. Any perceived shortcoming can be addressed with editorial input and referencing; removing the article from the website appears to be an extreme solution. A non-admin disclosure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:17, 27 September 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)) . |
Discussion at the talk page has highlighted the lack of notability; the few reliable sources that exist are brief reviews on websites that review any and every distro that requests it; this doesn't show notability. Having an entry on DistroWatch doesn't show notability because you can simply buy your way into DistroWatch, and the rankings are based on pageviews and does not attribute towards notability. This article's subject fails WP:GNG and comes nowhere close to meeting WP:NSOFT. Aoidh (talk) 01:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is all of the above factors taken together, collectively, which lead me to endorse a Strong Keep.
--Kevjonesin (talk) 08:34, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]