Various press-coverage has now been added, so whilst it lacks appropriate ref details (esp for quotes), it does now appear to meet N guidelines Chzz ► 11:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Reason: I agree; I considered writing an article on this person recently, but decided that she was not (yet) notable in her own right; there are only passing mentions, and no significant coverage.
Reason: No
reliable sources to show
notability - notability is not inherited through association with bands that have won awards etc. I cannot find any appropriate sources (nothing in Google News). I cannot find
verifiable information about the subject. See also
WP:BLP
Reason: For inclusion, an article needs significant coverage in
reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I cannot find any such coverage for this hotel. See
WP:GNG.
Reason: The article lacks any references to
reliable sources, and I am not able to find any information to show that this actress meets the
notability requirements (see also
WP:GNG). I have searched under this name, and 'Suzy Park' (mentioned in the article on
Rollo Weeks). There is no entry in IMDB and no news articles appear in Google.
Reason: This person does not (yet) appear to meet notability guidelines. There are 0 hits from Google News. The possible entry into a future competition seems to fail
WP:CRYSTAL. I can find no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources per
WP:GNG /
WP:BIO.
Technosys: endorsed PROD. 10:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Reason: Non-notable company (
WP:N), lacking 'significant coverage in independent, reliable sources' per
WP:GNG,
WP:CORP.
Following which, I chose to tag it as needing additional refs, etc. Same user had problems with another article, and seems to misunderstand V. Chzz ► 01:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I still don't think this passes notability, but in deference to
this discussion I've decided not to pursue this one. Chzz ► 09:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Reason: Why does this require disambiguation, if only one term is relevent, and the others cannot even be cited / form articles? suggest replace with a redirect; these don't appear separate / citable terms
Reason:
notability is not inherited; this article has no references to independent
reliable sources; it does not show that there is "significant coverage" about this place.
Has a single source of a mag; tagged as 'one source' and N concern. Chzz ► 14:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Reason: All references are press-releases; this org does not appear notable, per
requirements; I cannot find significant coverage in independent, reliable sources - a few passing mentions, and blogs. There are some hits on "trueslant.com" but I can't open those; this looks like an advert, and without appropriate sourcing, I think, actually, it might even come under CSD as "needs to be fundamentally rewritten" - but I think it's worth the debate here, to see if others can source it.
Was deleted 29 June, rewritten later with some slightly better refs. Chzz ► 09:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Reason: Appears to be a non-
notable documentary; I cannot find any independent
reliable sources, the only mention seems to be on primary-source websites
Some refs have been added, but does not appear notable. Chzz ► 14:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Reason: Appears to be an advert for a specific (or the only) producer of this 'type' of software, hence
WP:COATRACK - I can find no significant coverage in
reliable sources as required for
general notability
Reason: wasn't released until August of 2010 - time machine required for verification! Please, make the article when there is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the source" -
WP:GNG.
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. See
WP:VRS, etc.
Reason: I do not think that this meets
notability guidelines; a very brief mention in a (spplement) of a single publication is not sufficient. I am unable to find significant coverage in independent, reliable sources.
Reason: This appears to be a
neologism, and I do not see it as independently notable, per
WP:VRS /
WP:N, so I suggest redirecting it to the existing article on graffiti, and adding information to that with appropriate
reliable sources
Reason: This is borderline for 'speedy deletion' under criterion G11, Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. - however, as it is borderline, I am instead using a 'proposed deletion' in-case someone can fix it. Editors, if you have a
conflict of interest, please pay careful attention to
the business FAQ. Articles require "significant coverage in independent
reliable sources" - see
WP:VRS. They must also be of a
neutral point-of-view. But, if involved with this company, it is strongly recommended that you do not edit it; instead, wait until others do so.
Has now been pared down to something acceptable. Chzz ► 09:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Reason: This appears to be made-up; either
original research, or possibly
a hoax. The two references stated are available online, and neither mentions 'zoe' -
[1][2]. To avoid deletion, remonstrate notability, through
reliable sources.
August 2010
Damn the Flies: endorsed PROD. 02:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Reason: Appears to fail
notability guidelines, I cannot find significant coverage in reliable sources. This topic should probably be in an article about the driver itself, but as there is no referenced content, a merger seems pointless.
Reason: Per reasoning on
User talk:WhiteUmbrella#Proposed deletion of Nen (Hunter x Hunter); does not meet Wikipedianotability requirements, see
WP:VRS. "the only webs that create things are fan-sites, that are not reliable sources" - if the technique was actually
notable (in Wikipedia terms), there would be independent reliable sources, such as newspapers. Our
encyclopaedia covers any topic which has significant coverage in independent reliable sources. I suggest considering
other websites to document this.
Reason: I tagged this article for speedy deletion under criterion
G11 and although that speedy-deletion was declined, I stand by the statement - it "does nothing but promote some entity" and would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic. I queried the CSD removal
here, a week ago, no response so far. The author of the article has since been blocked as a username violation (
User:China JOY2010. I do not agree with the use of Wikipedia to advertise, and the article lacks any kind of appropriate independent references. Whilst I am aware that, potentially, a valid article could be written on this topic, and I am cognisant of
WP:BEFORE, I do not see how this can be 'fixed' through editing, as there is no referenced material other than the primary source claims.
See various notes and discussion; probably should have been CSD, but no response on that. Chzz ► 09:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Reason: This appears to fail the
WP:WEB criteria; I have looked for coverage in newspapers, etc, but I cannot find enough to satisfy the
general notability requirements.
Reason: This person does not seem to meet the notability requirements -
WP:BIO,
WP:BAND,
WP:VRS. I cannot find significant coverage in
reliable sources.
Reason: It is unclear whether this is about a person, or a company - but either way, it appears to fail the
general notability guidelines, or the more specific
WP:BIO or
WP:CORP guidelines. See
WP:VRS.
After various discussions, this was kept in AFC, largely I feel due to volume of supporters who did not seem to make policy-based arguments; but I decided to drop the stick. As far as I can see, there is no policy-based reason to keep it. Yes, it'll be notable after it happens, so - well, just 'meh' really. Don't want the DRAMA of DRV. Chzz ► 22:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Reason: Appears to be a short film or documentary, for which I can find no appropriate coverage in
reliable sources, therefore I do not think this meets the
notability requirements.
Reason: Does not appear to meet the
general notability requirements; I have searched Google News etc, and am unable to find appropriate significant coverage (
WP:VRS,
WP:GNG)
Reason: This person does not seem to meet the notability requirements
WP:BIO,
WP:GNG, as there are no provided
reliable sources other than a simple advertizement and a product search; there is nothing to show actual notability.
Reason: This individual does not appear to meet inclusion guidelines
WP:BIO /
WP:GNG - the news source mentioned is a blog, stating that the photographs were taken by the individual. Even if there were coverage of this story (which I cannot find), it would fail on the basis on being just
one event.
Reason: Does not appear to meet notability guidelines
WP:GNG /
WP:ORG, lacking appropriate
reliable sources to establish notability; I cannot locate appropriate sources
Reason: Unreferenced, and I cannot find evidence of notability - zero hits in Google News; therefore, this doesn't seem to meet essential notability levels;
WP:GNGWP:V
Reason: Does not appear to meet notability guidelines,
WP:GNGWP:BAND. I noted the user's edit summary when creating, of "Please leave more than 12 hour before deleting again. Not everyone sits on wikipedia editing it, in their parents basement all day." and, indeed, responded on their talk page; however, it has now been more than 2 days.
Reason: Unreferenced, not
verifiable and as far as I can see, not
notable - there are some Google hits, but only to sellers; I found nothing in Google News, so can't find evidence to support notability.
Reason: This individual does not seem to meet the
notabillity requirements, specifically
WP:BIO. There is only one reference, and I am unable to locate other appropriate
reliable sources.
Reason: This does not appear to be a notable company; see
WP:CORP. It has no references to independentreliable sources. Also, because it has unreferenced claims, it is advert-like.
Reason: This person does not seem to meet the notability requirements -
WP:GNG,
WP:BIO. Athough I accept that he illustrated the books, I cannot see any evidence of substantial coverage about this person. There in nothing in
google news] (except the briefest credit] - therefore, we cannot present encyclopaedic information about this person, based on
reliable sources.
Reason: Thinly-disguised advertisement for a book that does not appear
notable (see also
WP:NBOOK); references are not
reliable sources. The term itself does not appear notable enough to warrant an article per
WP:NOTDIC /
WP:NEO.
Reason: Title shows inherent problems with
original research (which is not permitted); no
reliable source have been given. It might be possible to create a "list of male models" - listing people who already have Wikipedia articles; but the title of this is, in itself, a problem; see
WP:NPOV and
WP:FIRST
Reason: This does not appear to be a
notable book (see
WP:NBOOK); it is a
future publication. A passing mention in Daily Mail is not enough to show notability; the publisher is a
primary source and splcenter.org is a blog, and does not appear to be a
reliable source.
Reason: Unambiguous advertising or promotion - would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic; ie same reason it was previously deleted 29 June 2010
Reason: This person does not appear to have "significant coverage in independent, reliable sources" (per
WP:GNG), hence does not appear to meet baseline notability requirements
WP:BIO. There doesn't seem enough information in
reliable sources to have an article.
Reason: No references, and does not appear to be
notable - see also
WP:BAND. This appears to be copied from a version which was deleted previously - or other sources - so there is also a copyright/attribution concern. However, as I can find no information about the band (e.g. searching "google news" archives), then that may become irrelevant. See
WP:FIRST.
Reason: This person does not seem to meet notability requirements,
WP:GNG /
WP:BIO - there are no
reliable sources, and I cannot find evidence of "significant coverage".
Reason: This event does not seem
notable; I can't find any information at all in google news, the only things I can find (via Google) are non-reliable sources and promotion from the companies involved.
Various press-coverage has now been added, so whilst it lacks appropriate ref details (esp for quotes), it does now appear to meet N guidelines Chzz ► 11:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Reason: I agree; I considered writing an article on this person recently, but decided that she was not (yet) notable in her own right; there are only passing mentions, and no significant coverage.
Reason: No
reliable sources to show
notability - notability is not inherited through association with bands that have won awards etc. I cannot find any appropriate sources (nothing in Google News). I cannot find
verifiable information about the subject. See also
WP:BLP
Reason: For inclusion, an article needs significant coverage in
reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I cannot find any such coverage for this hotel. See
WP:GNG.
Reason: The article lacks any references to
reliable sources, and I am not able to find any information to show that this actress meets the
notability requirements (see also
WP:GNG). I have searched under this name, and 'Suzy Park' (mentioned in the article on
Rollo Weeks). There is no entry in IMDB and no news articles appear in Google.
Reason: This person does not (yet) appear to meet notability guidelines. There are 0 hits from Google News. The possible entry into a future competition seems to fail
WP:CRYSTAL. I can find no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources per
WP:GNG /
WP:BIO.
Technosys: endorsed PROD. 10:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Reason: Non-notable company (
WP:N), lacking 'significant coverage in independent, reliable sources' per
WP:GNG,
WP:CORP.
Following which, I chose to tag it as needing additional refs, etc. Same user had problems with another article, and seems to misunderstand V. Chzz ► 01:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I still don't think this passes notability, but in deference to
this discussion I've decided not to pursue this one. Chzz ► 09:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Reason: Why does this require disambiguation, if only one term is relevent, and the others cannot even be cited / form articles? suggest replace with a redirect; these don't appear separate / citable terms
Reason:
notability is not inherited; this article has no references to independent
reliable sources; it does not show that there is "significant coverage" about this place.
Has a single source of a mag; tagged as 'one source' and N concern. Chzz ► 14:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Reason: All references are press-releases; this org does not appear notable, per
requirements; I cannot find significant coverage in independent, reliable sources - a few passing mentions, and blogs. There are some hits on "trueslant.com" but I can't open those; this looks like an advert, and without appropriate sourcing, I think, actually, it might even come under CSD as "needs to be fundamentally rewritten" - but I think it's worth the debate here, to see if others can source it.
Was deleted 29 June, rewritten later with some slightly better refs. Chzz ► 09:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Reason: Appears to be a non-
notable documentary; I cannot find any independent
reliable sources, the only mention seems to be on primary-source websites
Some refs have been added, but does not appear notable. Chzz ► 14:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Reason: Appears to be an advert for a specific (or the only) producer of this 'type' of software, hence
WP:COATRACK - I can find no significant coverage in
reliable sources as required for
general notability
Reason: wasn't released until August of 2010 - time machine required for verification! Please, make the article when there is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the source" -
WP:GNG.
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. See
WP:VRS, etc.
Reason: I do not think that this meets
notability guidelines; a very brief mention in a (spplement) of a single publication is not sufficient. I am unable to find significant coverage in independent, reliable sources.
Reason: This appears to be a
neologism, and I do not see it as independently notable, per
WP:VRS /
WP:N, so I suggest redirecting it to the existing article on graffiti, and adding information to that with appropriate
reliable sources
Reason: This is borderline for 'speedy deletion' under criterion G11, Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. - however, as it is borderline, I am instead using a 'proposed deletion' in-case someone can fix it. Editors, if you have a
conflict of interest, please pay careful attention to
the business FAQ. Articles require "significant coverage in independent
reliable sources" - see
WP:VRS. They must also be of a
neutral point-of-view. But, if involved with this company, it is strongly recommended that you do not edit it; instead, wait until others do so.
Has now been pared down to something acceptable. Chzz ► 09:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Reason: This appears to be made-up; either
original research, or possibly
a hoax. The two references stated are available online, and neither mentions 'zoe' -
[1][2]. To avoid deletion, remonstrate notability, through
reliable sources.
August 2010
Damn the Flies: endorsed PROD. 02:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Reason: Appears to fail
notability guidelines, I cannot find significant coverage in reliable sources. This topic should probably be in an article about the driver itself, but as there is no referenced content, a merger seems pointless.
Reason: Per reasoning on
User talk:WhiteUmbrella#Proposed deletion of Nen (Hunter x Hunter); does not meet Wikipedianotability requirements, see
WP:VRS. "the only webs that create things are fan-sites, that are not reliable sources" - if the technique was actually
notable (in Wikipedia terms), there would be independent reliable sources, such as newspapers. Our
encyclopaedia covers any topic which has significant coverage in independent reliable sources. I suggest considering
other websites to document this.
Reason: I tagged this article for speedy deletion under criterion
G11 and although that speedy-deletion was declined, I stand by the statement - it "does nothing but promote some entity" and would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic. I queried the CSD removal
here, a week ago, no response so far. The author of the article has since been blocked as a username violation (
User:China JOY2010. I do not agree with the use of Wikipedia to advertise, and the article lacks any kind of appropriate independent references. Whilst I am aware that, potentially, a valid article could be written on this topic, and I am cognisant of
WP:BEFORE, I do not see how this can be 'fixed' through editing, as there is no referenced material other than the primary source claims.
See various notes and discussion; probably should have been CSD, but no response on that. Chzz ► 09:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Reason: This appears to fail the
WP:WEB criteria; I have looked for coverage in newspapers, etc, but I cannot find enough to satisfy the
general notability requirements.
Reason: This person does not seem to meet the notability requirements -
WP:BIO,
WP:BAND,
WP:VRS. I cannot find significant coverage in
reliable sources.
Reason: It is unclear whether this is about a person, or a company - but either way, it appears to fail the
general notability guidelines, or the more specific
WP:BIO or
WP:CORP guidelines. See
WP:VRS.
After various discussions, this was kept in AFC, largely I feel due to volume of supporters who did not seem to make policy-based arguments; but I decided to drop the stick. As far as I can see, there is no policy-based reason to keep it. Yes, it'll be notable after it happens, so - well, just 'meh' really. Don't want the DRAMA of DRV. Chzz ► 22:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Reason: Appears to be a short film or documentary, for which I can find no appropriate coverage in
reliable sources, therefore I do not think this meets the
notability requirements.
Reason: Does not appear to meet the
general notability requirements; I have searched Google News etc, and am unable to find appropriate significant coverage (
WP:VRS,
WP:GNG)
Reason: This person does not seem to meet the notability requirements
WP:BIO,
WP:GNG, as there are no provided
reliable sources other than a simple advertizement and a product search; there is nothing to show actual notability.
Reason: This individual does not appear to meet inclusion guidelines
WP:BIO /
WP:GNG - the news source mentioned is a blog, stating that the photographs were taken by the individual. Even if there were coverage of this story (which I cannot find), it would fail on the basis on being just
one event.
Reason: Does not appear to meet notability guidelines
WP:GNG /
WP:ORG, lacking appropriate
reliable sources to establish notability; I cannot locate appropriate sources
Reason: Unreferenced, and I cannot find evidence of notability - zero hits in Google News; therefore, this doesn't seem to meet essential notability levels;
WP:GNGWP:V
Reason: Does not appear to meet notability guidelines,
WP:GNGWP:BAND. I noted the user's edit summary when creating, of "Please leave more than 12 hour before deleting again. Not everyone sits on wikipedia editing it, in their parents basement all day." and, indeed, responded on their talk page; however, it has now been more than 2 days.
Reason: Unreferenced, not
verifiable and as far as I can see, not
notable - there are some Google hits, but only to sellers; I found nothing in Google News, so can't find evidence to support notability.
Reason: This individual does not seem to meet the
notabillity requirements, specifically
WP:BIO. There is only one reference, and I am unable to locate other appropriate
reliable sources.
Reason: This does not appear to be a notable company; see
WP:CORP. It has no references to independentreliable sources. Also, because it has unreferenced claims, it is advert-like.
Reason: This person does not seem to meet the notability requirements -
WP:GNG,
WP:BIO. Athough I accept that he illustrated the books, I cannot see any evidence of substantial coverage about this person. There in nothing in
google news] (except the briefest credit] - therefore, we cannot present encyclopaedic information about this person, based on
reliable sources.
Reason: Thinly-disguised advertisement for a book that does not appear
notable (see also
WP:NBOOK); references are not
reliable sources. The term itself does not appear notable enough to warrant an article per
WP:NOTDIC /
WP:NEO.
Reason: Title shows inherent problems with
original research (which is not permitted); no
reliable source have been given. It might be possible to create a "list of male models" - listing people who already have Wikipedia articles; but the title of this is, in itself, a problem; see
WP:NPOV and
WP:FIRST
Reason: This does not appear to be a
notable book (see
WP:NBOOK); it is a
future publication. A passing mention in Daily Mail is not enough to show notability; the publisher is a
primary source and splcenter.org is a blog, and does not appear to be a
reliable source.
Reason: Unambiguous advertising or promotion - would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic; ie same reason it was previously deleted 29 June 2010
Reason: This person does not appear to have "significant coverage in independent, reliable sources" (per
WP:GNG), hence does not appear to meet baseline notability requirements
WP:BIO. There doesn't seem enough information in
reliable sources to have an article.
Reason: No references, and does not appear to be
notable - see also
WP:BAND. This appears to be copied from a version which was deleted previously - or other sources - so there is also a copyright/attribution concern. However, as I can find no information about the band (e.g. searching "google news" archives), then that may become irrelevant. See
WP:FIRST.
Reason: This person does not seem to meet notability requirements,
WP:GNG /
WP:BIO - there are no
reliable sources, and I cannot find evidence of "significant coverage".
Reason: This event does not seem
notable; I can't find any information at all in google news, the only things I can find (via Google) are non-reliable sources and promotion from the companies involved.