Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. References are pages not mentioning her, an archived page formerly on her own web site, dead links, a Wikipedia article, an advertising page, etc.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The references are pages on on the company's own web site, a dead link, and a page not mentioning Triple XXX.
Reason: No evidence of notability. Currently the only reference is a dead link, which from its URL was not an independent source; earlier references, now removed, are either pages not mentioning him at all or dead links. The article was created by a single purpose account which also posted unambiguous promotion for Prince's company.
Reason: The cited sources neither confirm the content of the article nor establish notability under the terms of Wikipedia's guidelines. Other sources confirm his existence, but do not establish notability.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The references are all dead links, and online searches have failed to produce suitable sources.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. No independent sources cited, and very little in independent sources found on searching.
Reason: (1) Despite periodic attempts to de-spam the article, it has remained substantially an advertisement throughout its history. (2) There is no evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines: references are largely sources which are not independent, or don't give substantial coverage, or both.
Reason: Unsourced article on a proprietary concept with no evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. (Created by a single purpose account that also created a promotional article, now deleted, on the company responsible for "Visibility Scorecard".)
Reason: Notability was questioned about a year and a half ago, and since then no evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability has been produced. At most one of the references could possible be considered substantial of a book by Cziko (even that one not of Cziko per se).
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Cited sources mostly barely mention her, in some cases don't mention her at all, and many are not independent sources.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Only one of the cited sources gives more than passing mention of Amarildo Fecanji, and that one is not an independent source.
Reason: No evidence of notability. Sourced to YouTube, Facebook, download sites, etc. Apparently he acted in what appears to be a non-notable non-commercial film, and that's it.
Reason: A rather promotional article, not citing any sources, and not in English. The subject may be suitable for a suitable article, but this is not that article.
Reason: A local student newspaper, without evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The references are not substantial coverage of the subject.
Reason: No evidence that this topic has received enough coverage to be regarded as notable. The only source was added by an editor with a conflict of interest in that source.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. No independent sources. (Repeatedly edited in promotional ways by numerous single-purpose accounts.)
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The only one of the references which is primarily about this farm is on the web site of the company owning the farm.
Reason: A largely promotional article without evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Most of the "references" don't even mention Cogora, & the few that do either only briefly mention it or are not independent sources, or both.
Reason: Promotional article on a book which does not satisfy the notability guidelines. (Created by an editor who self-identifies as the author of the book. Articles on the author's other book and on the author have both been deleted at AfD.)
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Article is in Georgian, and attempts to understand it via Google translation do not provide any evidence that it is about a notable topic. It also seems that it may infringe copyright of the cited source.
Reason: Still no evidence of notability, despite being tagged for sources for seven years. The references are (1) a stock market listing, which does not show notability, and (2) a dead link to the company's own web site.
Reason: No evidence of notability. The references (some of which are repeated) are mostly a mixture of pages not mentioning him at all and pages merely listing his name in credits. May are blogs, listings at Discogs, etc. The only significant coverage is a couple of reports on a legal claim he has made.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. (Of the references, one is the party's own web site, one barely mentions the party in passing, and the others don't mention it at all.)
Reason: No evidence of notability. References are one passing mention, one local report, and one speech by a person who describes the film-maker as his "friend". (Created by an editor with a a conflict of interest.)
Reason: No evidence of any notability. Fails
WP:GNG. (NOTE: This is one of dozens of similar unsourced articles created by the same editor, using a number of accounts, most of them now blocked. Most of the articles have already been deleted.)
Reason: No evidence of any notability. Fails
WP:GNG. (NOTE: This is one of dozens of similar unsourced articles created by the same editor, using a number of accounts, most of them now blocked. Most of the articles have already been deleted.)
Reason: No evidence of any notability. Fails
WP:GNG. (NOTE: This is one of dozens of similar unsourced articles created by the same editor, using a number of accounts, most of them now blocked. Most of the articles have already been deleted.)
Reason: No evidence of any notability. Fails
WP:GNG. (NOTE: This is one of dozens of similar unsourced articles created by the same editor, using a number of accounts, most of them now blocked. Most of the articles have already been deleted.)
Reason: No evidence of any notability. Fails
WP:GNG. (NOTE: This is one of dozens of similar unsourced articles created by the same editor, using a number of accounts, most of them now blocked. Most of the articles have already been deleted.)
Reason: No evidence of any notability. Fails
WP:GNG. (NOTE: This is one of dozens of similar articles created by the same editor, using a number of accounts, most of them now blocked. Most of the articles have already been deleted.)
Reason: No evidence anywhere of notability. Even the url which was previously given in the article as the station's web site address now redirects to spam sites.
Reason: No evidence at all of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. He was the subject of a single one-sentence mention in a book, and that is all. Also, most of this article is not even about Lucius Petrosidius.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. (Most of the references are by Felton, not about him, and give the appearance of being there to publicise his work.)
Reason: Most elementary schools are not considered notable enough to be the subjects of Wikipedia articles, and nothing indicates that this one is exceptional.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Still no independent sources after being tagged for over six and a half years, and searching failed to produce suitable coverage.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. No sources except a publisher's promotional announcement. Two as yet unpublished books, published essays etc. Also, the article is distinctly promotional in tone.
Reason: Non-notable early twentieth century parish church. There must be countless thousands of churches neither more nor less significant than this one.
Reason: There is no indication of satisfying the notability guidelines. After existing for over eight and a half years, and being tagged for notability for almost six years, there are still no sources except two dead links which do not seem to have been independent sources, and one which is not publicly visible but which appears to be merely a record of his death.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying the notability guidelines. Four of the five references don't even mention Joshen Bernardo, and the other one merely includes his name in a list.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Sourced only to non-independent sources, pages not even mentioning Team H2politO, and dead links.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Most of the references are not substantially about Zac Nichols, and those that are are not significant enough coverage.
Reason: Unsourced and incoherent article, much of it not written in proper English. It also looks very much like a machine translation, suggesting it may infringe copyright.
Reason: Promotional article on a subject without evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Sourced to download site, YouTube, promotional sites, etc.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability standards. Sourced only to fringe sources which are presented as though they were uncontroversially factual.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. References include sources only barely mentioning him in passing, sources which are not independent, promotional sources (e.g. a site which says "Our mission is to raise the visibility of tech startups in the silicon prairie region in order to connect entrepreneurs to entrepreneurs and to connect great talent with great companies") a link to a page publicising a book he wrote, and so on...
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. None of the sources does more than briefly mention him in passing, and several merely include his name in a list.
Reason: Unsourced article on a film with no evidence of notability. (It was created by a block-evading sockpuppet of an editor with an extensive history of creating often promotional articles on non-notable films and actors.)
Reason: No evidence of notability in the article, and very little to be found anywhere else. Still totally unsourced after being tagged for sources for nearly three months.
Reason: A list of one unsourced item, together with two "might be" items which don't even qualify, both suggested years ago and then dropped? Not at all notable. A brief mention in the article
Oregon might be considered, but that's all.
Reason: A rather promotional article without evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. None of the references does more than list his name.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability standards. The references give no more than passing mentions, or inclusion of her name in a list.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. One reference is a dead link, one only briefly mentions Astroglide, and the other does not mention Astroglide at all (it merely considers properties of a substance which is included in Astroglide).
Reason: An unsourced biography, without any real evidence of notability. It has never had any sources, and has been tagged for sources for over seven years.
Reason: After being tagged for notability for six years, the article still does not indicate notability. Almost all of the references are dead links or pages which don't mention him at all or mention him only briefly or non-independent sources.
Reason: (1) The subject of the article seems to be publicly visible because of one incident, without evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. (2) Most of the content of the article is unsourced. (3) Such a an article on someone "alleged" to have committed a crime is probably contrary to the policy on biographies of living persons.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. (Refs are a dead link, two papers co-authored by him, not about him, and a page on the web site of a company he works for.)
Reason: The cited source does not provide evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and her greatest significance seems to be once being a runner-up in a not very notable contest.
Reason: Minor actress who has played only small parts. (For example, the cast list for "Godzilla (2014)" at IMDb lists her as "SF School Bus Kid #1" out of five "SF School Bus Kids", and for "Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Dog Days" IMDb lists her way down the cast list as "Snack Bar Girl".) The sources are IMDb and a couple of sites which merely give a list of films she has acted in, there is no substantial coverage.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The one source that might be considered independent (Russia Journal) only briefly mentions him in passing.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Some of the references don't mention Hudson, others merely briefly mention him or just include his name in a list, some are by him (not about him) and none that I have seen is substantial coverage in an independent source.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. (Neither of the references which are not on Wikipedia does more than barely mention her.)
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Several of the references are dead links, several are her own web site or other sites which are not independent of her. The only one which could be regarded as an independent source is a post in an "online diary" (i.e. blog) on the web site of the New York Times, which gives a few remarks about her blog, not even about her art.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Many of the references are dead links, several are pages which don't mention her, others are a blog which merely quotes a "Tweet" by her, a page which merely includes her name in a list of 94 artists who have work at the institution on whose web site the list appears, and several pages by her (not about her).
Reason: Not remotely suitable as a Wikipedia article. It looks sort of like a text book example to illustrate some mathematical methods, except that it is too incoherent to belong in any decent textbook.
Reason: A article which is somewhat promotional in tone, without evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Two of the references don't even mention her, and none of the others is an independent source.
Reason: Still no clear evidence of notability, after being tagged for 16 months. References include non-independent sources, such as publicity for a gallery showing her work, and sources barely mentioning her.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. References are wikia, IMDb, and two pages that don't even mention her. Nothing better found on searching.
Reason: This article has spent most of its history containing entries most of which were not Bangladeshi, not comedians, not notable, and in some cases all three. It may to have been created as vandalism. Now that these spurious entries have been removed, it is a pointless list with just one entry.
Reason: No evidence either that any of these are peculiar to Karnataka, or that the topic as a whole satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Even the creator of the article has stated that there are no reliable references available!
Reason: It is difficult to determine exactly what this is about, but as far as I can judge from Google translation, it is at best a personal essay, and possibly promotional.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The references include blogs, sources which only briefly mention the subject, a review in a minor source, etc.
Reason: No clear indication of notability, somewhat promotional, and if it is to be kept it needs a complete rewrite from scratch to make it coherent English.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The one reference cited gives a brief 2 sentence mention of him, and searches found little in independent sources.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. (No independent source cited in the article, and nothing suitable found on searching.)
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. No independent sources cited, and no substantial independent coverage found on searching.
Reason: No evidence whatever of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. No independent sources. Paid article created to publicise or promote it subject.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. All of the references are either not independent sources, do not mention her, or barely mention her.
Reason: I can't actually find any mention of "Unbounded success" in any of the references. (If it is there, please provide clearer information, at least a page number.)
Reason: I am doubtful that this team satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines at all, but the particular team membership for one season comes nowhere near to being notable enough to justify having its own article.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying the notability guidelines. The references are a report of one lecture he gave, and a three-sentence reference to his work in a book. He appears to be a fairly ordinary academic.
Reason: No evidence of notability. (The college's web site consists largely of place-holder pages, its "All Teacher List" lists just one teacher, and it is difficult to find any other source about it other than Facebook.)
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines, wither in the article or found on searching. Article still unsourced more than 11 years after creation & more than 7 years since being tagged for sources.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines, wither cited in the article or found on searching. (Still totally unsourced after being tagged for over 5 years.)
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. (Sourced only to prnewswire and a listing at companies house, and searches produced no significant coverage.)
Reason: No context, no indication of the formula's significance, and not at all meaningful to anyone not already having an expert knowledge of the background. Unsuitable for an encyclopaedia aimed at the general reader.
Reason: No context, no indication of the formula's significance, and not at all meaningful to anyone not already having an expert knowledge of the background. Unsuitable for an encyclopaedia aimed at the general reader.
Reason: Neither the content of the article, the cited references, nor anything else found gives any indication that the subject satisfies Wikipedia's
notability guidelines.
Reason: Absolutely no evidence of notability, either in the article or elsewhere. Sourced entirely to the organisation's own web site. Sources are no better than they were nine years ago when concerns were raised.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. (After being tagged for references for five months it is still sourced only to blogs.)
Reason: Not notable. Even after being tagged for sources for almost 8 years, there is a lack of independent sources, and no evidence of notability elsewhere.
Reason: No evidence of notability. The only ref is a dead link. Google search for his Korean name gives Wikipedia, another wiki, instagram, facebook, twitter, youtube, etc. Search for "Lee Jae-hwang" similar results. IMDb lists only 3 of the roles listed here, & has a one-sentence bio of him.
Reason: There is no evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Some of the references aren't even about this film, others are not significant coverage.
Reason: I put a proposed deletion (
PROD) on this article, giving my reason as "There is no evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Some of the references aren't even about this film, others are not significant coverage." The creator of the article,
Goodbadnugly, removed the proposal, giving as reason that the film derives notability from its connection to the earlier film
Plan 9 from Outer Space of which it is a take-off, and from "the presence of notable internet personalities". As anyone familiar with Wikipedia's notability standards will know, a subject is not considered to be notable because of association with other notable subjects, and must have evidence of notability in its own right.
My reason for this nomination is the same as the reason for my earlier deletion proposal, but here is a more detailed account of why the cited sources don't do it. Out of the eight sources cited, four are about the earlier film, and don't even mention this one. Not only are the other four not being significant coverage, but also none of them is an independent reliable source either. Two of them are at www.horrorsociety.com, which not only publishes user-submitted content, but also says "You want to promote your movie, do it here." Another source is at letterboxd.com, which reproduces film data from TMDb (www.themoviedb.org); TMDb consists entirely of user-submitted content, and appears to be if anything an even less reliable source than IMDb, of which it is clearly an imitation. That leaves just one more cited source, which is at plan9movie.com, and I think the URL says it all. The editor who uses the pseudonym "
JamesBWatson" (
talk) 16:37, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Reason: Absolutely no evidence at all of satisfying the notability guidelines. Most of the references are either mere listings of credits or unreliable sources (e.g. Wikipedia & IMDb) and the others give him only minor coverage (in one case none at all) or are not independent sources.
Reason: No evidence of notability, either in the article or found elsewhere. She seems to have mainly performed in non-notable works. Still no source cited apart from IMDb after being tagged for sources for over 5 years.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines, either in the cited sources or anywhere found on searching. He's a judge, and that's about it.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines, either in the cited sources or anywhere found on searching. He's a judge, and that's about it.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines, either in the cited sources or anywhere found on searching. He's a judge, and that's about it.
Reason: No evidence that this concept is notable. It appears to be mentioned only in a limited range of related sources, and when the word "laddership" appears it usually does not refer to this movement.
Reason: Neither the cited sources nor anything else I have been able to find gives any evidence that this is anything other than a neologism which has yet to become notable. (Most if not all of the links given are to pages which don't even mention "Réalité Pliée".)
Reason: Insourced, and no evidence that this topic is notable, or that it has any significant coverage anywhere other than the book in which it appears. (Incidentally also a complete mess: a seriously misformatted article, apparently not proof-read by its creator.)
Reason: Absolutely no evidence of notability. (After being tagged for sources for more than a year, the article has no references that actually mention "The Beautiful Letdown".)
Reason: Personal photograph of the uploader, used only in numerous self-promotional user pages created in 2013 and now deleted. Unlikely to ever have any legitimate use.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The "proposed" name of a party that does not yet exist, with the only reference being merely an announcement of the intention of forming the party.
Reason: Absolutely no sources, no indication of satisfying the notability guidelines, and no significant content. Numerous similar articles have been deleted as a result of time-wasting discussions: let this one go without such waste of time.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying the notability guidelines. References are passing mentions, inclusions in lists, blogs, the press's own web site, etc.
Reason: Proposed future film with no substantial coverage yet in any significant source. The article is sourced only to IMdB, and even that does not support the content of this article: for example, the cast list is strikingly different.
Reason: No evidence of notability. It looks like an impressive list of references, but checking with Google translate they do not turn out to be substantial coverage in independent sources.
Reason: There is no evidence that this is a generally recognised category. Searches for sources indicate that the expression is entirely or almost entirely restricted to one school exam syllabus, and there does not seem to be substantial coverage of it as a subject.
Reason: A fan-produced page without evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The one reference is merely a list of biographical details, not substantial coverage.
Reason: No independent coverage of this "upcoming" show, and even the one non-independent source gives only trivial coverage and does not support most of the content of the article.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. He appears to be a perfectly ordinary academic. Most of the references are papers by him, not about him, two merely include him in lists, and the other one is a paper which refers to a result of his, but is not about him.
Reason: Not notable. Sourced only to a paper by Barratt & Milnor, and my searches for other sources have produced very few mentions, almost all of those being Wikipedia, Wikipedia mirrors, etc, and the odd exception to that mentions the topic but does not give it substantial coverage.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. References are just listings in catalogues and the editors' bios on a web site of the publisher.
Reason: Little more than a dicdef for the concept. Both the references are written by people who run "sales acceleration" businesses, and appear to exist for promotional purposes. No evidence of satisfying the notability guidelines.
Reason: Unsourced article which reads more like a personal essay than an encyclopaedia article. There does not seem to be much coverage of this topic per se, and its validity was questioned 15 years ago, and not clarified since.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The only independent source cited does not even mention the Monaghan Intermediate Football Championship.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. None of the sources contains significant coverage of the Kashmir Monitor, and one of them deosn't even mention it.
Reason: No evidence of notability. Over three years ago it was questioned whether this concept has been used outside the original paper, and since then no evidence has been provided. All the other uses of the expression that I have found are either not in reliable sources, not referring to thee meaning described in this article, or both.
Reason: There is no evidence that this concept exists anywhere except in the work of one person, who has posted to blogs and other unreliable sources about it. The creator of this article has stated that he is that blogger. The status of this article as "original research" was raised on the talk page as far back as 2008, and it should have been deleted long ago.
Reason: The sources do not establish notability by Wikipedia standards, nor does anything else. (Also largely promotional, created by an editor with an unambiguous conflict of interest.)
Reason: There is no evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's
notability guidelines. The cited sources are basically just announcements that it is going to be aired.
Reason: This is just a dictionary entry, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The suggestion was made that it be transwikied to Wiktionary, but that suggestion was declined by a Wiktionary administrator, who (quite rightly) pointed out that it does not satisfy Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. (References are blogspot, YouTube, WordPress pages, sources not independent of the creator of "ThinkBlocks", sources not giving substantial coverage to the subject.)
Reason: At best the film is not notable, and possibly nonexistent. None of the verifiable references mentions this film, and one of them is completely unrelated to the topic. Searches have produced only a small number of unreliable sources, some of them clearly derived from Wikipedia.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines; in fact it's difficult to find anything anywhere which uses the word "Paraspace" in this sense.
Reason: No evidence anywhere of notability. No citations to significant coverage in any independent reliable sources, and none found on searching either.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability standards. The article has been tagged for notability and sources for 9 months, and the creator has repeatedly been informed of the need for sources, but still has no suitable sources.
Reason: The copyright statement is inaccurate. It says "In America, public domain is extended for works 70 years from Publication if the artist is anonymous", but in fact the figure is 95 years from publication for works published 1924–63, as can be seen at
List of countries' copyright lengths. This file is stated to have been published in 1943, which is less than 95 years ago.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. No suitable, reliable and independent, source has been provided, even after sources were requested months ago, both here and directly to the creator of the article. Nor have web searches provided suitable sources.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. (The only independent source is a 4-sentence report of a meeting. Searches also failed to find reliable independent coverage.)
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Neither the cited sources nor searches provide any significant coverage in reliable independent sources.
Reason: Unsourced, and no more than a
dictionary definition. Also, I have searched, and been unable to find any substantial coverage of this concept anywhere.
Reason: No evidence of notability. The references include sources by the founders of the "institute", pages on web sites run by them, pages promoting similar ideas but not actually mentioning the "Small Planet Institute", and so on, but nothing that is substantial coverage in an independent source.
Reason: Non-notable student radio station. Neither cited in the article nor found on searching is there any substantial coverage in independent sources. Almost all content is unsourced, most of it parochial and of no significance outside the sphere of the college.
Reason: No evidence whatever of satisfying Wikipedia's notability standards. None of the references is either a substantial coverage or an independent source, let alone both.
Reason: A substantially promotional article, created by a single-purpose account, which, despite being tagged for better sources for 9 months, has never had citations to substantial coverage in independent sources, nor have searches found such coverage.
Reason: Personal photograph, used only by a vandal, now indefinitely blocked, in multiple copies of a hoax vanity page, now all deleted. Unlikely ever to have any legitimate use.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. None of the cited references is substantial coverage in an independent source. (One of the sources has only a one sentence mention of the band.)
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Despite the impressive looking number of references, they turn out to be mostly, if not all, press releases, articles in business promotion publications, and such like.
Reason: Appallingly promotional, and also little if any evidence of notability. In effect almost unsourced, as most of the "references" are either not references for any content of the article, not about Hafiza Khatun, or both.
Reason: Personal photograph, currently unused, of an editor whose sole purpose here has been self-promotion. No likelihood of ever being any use for encyclopaedic purposes.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The sources cited are a book by Franklin, his own web site, a dead link to a nonexistent page on the web site of a local newspaper, and a report of a speech that Franklin gave.
Reason: No evidence whatever of notability. The references are mostly about one incident, not giving substantial coverage of her. Several of them even refer to her in such terms as "small time Tamil actress", "playing a small role", etc.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability standards. No independent sources cited, and nothing even vaguely appropriate found on searching.
Reason: No evidence to support the claims about the word "Paddywhack". Google searches produce almost entirely web sites copying this article, and no reliable sources.
Reason: No evidence of notability. No independent sources have ever been cited, despite tagging for notability for 9 years, and no significant independent coverage has been found on searching.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Two of the three references don't mention the Voicing Erasure project, and the other is not an independent source, being on the web site of the organisation responsible for the project.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. All references but one are to the organisation's own material, and searching failed to produce anything of much value.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. No independent sources have ever been cited, despite the article having been tagged for sources fof over twelve years.
Reason: No evidence whatever of notability. Still unsourced after being tagged fo sources and notability for eight years, & searches have failed to find coverage in reliable sources. (Article created by a COI SPA.)
Reason: No evidence of notability. The article cites no sources except a dead link, and my searches have produced nothing but wikis and other unreliable sources, and one advertising web page.
Reason: Substantially a personal essay or reflection, almost all unsourced, and without any citation to any source which treats this concept as a subject in itself.
Reason: No evidence of notability. The one so-called "reference" currently in the article doesn't even mention flatsy dolls, and another one in older versions of the article is a dead link.
Reason: A substantially promotional page, tagged as such since 2017, which has never had any references to independent sources, and for which significant coverage in independent sources has not been found on searching.
Reason: Very much more like a personal essay than an objective account. Multiple statements of opinion or judgements. Trying to clean it up, retaining only material citeable to objective statements in reliable sources would leave virtually nothing.
Reason: The article has never had references to significant coverage in independent sources, nor has any been found on searching. Does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines.
Reason: The cited sources do not provide evidence of notability in Wikipedia's terms. (Created by an account which, apart from precisely 0 edits leading to autoconfirmation, was a single purpose account editing about the products of one company.)
Reason: The cited sources do not provide evidence of notability in Wikipedia's terms. (Created by an account which, apart from precisely 0 edits leading to autoconfirmation, was a single purpose account editing about the products of one company.)
Reason: No evidence of notability. No independent sources giving substantial coverage are cited, nor have I been able to find any. Also, since this is an ordinary low-level amateur sports club, it is not to be expected that it will satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines.
Reason: No evidence of notability. No independent sources giving substantial coverage are cited, nor have I been able to find any. Also, since this is an ordinary low-level amateur sports club, it is not to be expected that it will satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Apart from a couple of announcements of his death, none of the references gi es any significant coverage of him.
Reason: The references in the article don't indicate notability in Wikipedia's terms, nor does anything else found on searching. (Also, the article has throughout its history been promotional in tone.)
Reason: Nothing to indicate satisfying the notability guidelines. Cited sources are all one or more of promotional, not significant coverage, not independent.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying the notability guidelines. All but one of the references merely briefly mentions "Yes", and the other one is on an advertising site (pro.rbc.ru).
Reason: Unsourced, promotional article without evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines (created by hijacking an article on another school, but that one was no better, so reverting wouldn't achieve much)
Reason: There is no evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Virtually every reference is unambiguously not independent, and scarcely an of them comes anywhere near to being substantial coverage.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Her only claim to sugnificance is being related to some famous people, the cited references are neither reliable sources nor substantial coverage, and nothing better has been found on searching.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Cited sources are mostly blatant promotion sites, also content on a web site associated with him, pages that barely mention him,or even don't mention him at all, etc...
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Cited only to the company's website, and searching found no substantial coverage in any independent reliable source.
Reason: No evidence of notability. The article has never had any significant content, nor any references to anything other than the school's web site, despite being tagged for sources for over 13 years, and even that web site is now a dead link.
Reason: No evidence whatever of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. (References are two links to the newspaper's own web site, one to a mere list of titles, and two dead links, of which one was evidently a blog post, and the other apparently a list entry.)
Reason: No evidence of satisfying the notability guidelines. None of the cited sources is substantial coverage of Ravi Varma Adduri, and all evidence indicates that he has only had fairly minor roles.
Reason: No evidence whatever of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Almost all of the references are either pages on the web sites of the business or the schools it owns or else mere listings on a government web site. The few exceptions are not substantial coverage.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. There are references which don't mention her, or only briefly mention her, or are by her not about her, etc.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The only reference in the article now, and as far as I can see the only one there has ever been, is an article by Traugott Rohner in "The Instrumentalist", which has just two single sentence mentions of this work.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying the notability guidelines. Currently sourced only to a dead link and IMDb, and past versions had no suitable sources either. Tagged for sources since 2017.
Reason: No evidence at all of satisfying the notability guidelines. No sources at all cited, and no significant coverage in reliable sources found on searching.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability standards. The cited sources aren't substantial coverage of him, and being a local councillor does not constitute notability.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. None of the cited references is substantial coverage in an independent source, nor was anything better found on searching.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. References are pages not mentioning her, an archived page formerly on her own web site, dead links, a Wikipedia article, an advertising page, etc.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The references are pages on on the company's own web site, a dead link, and a page not mentioning Triple XXX.
Reason: No evidence of notability. Currently the only reference is a dead link, which from its URL was not an independent source; earlier references, now removed, are either pages not mentioning him at all or dead links. The article was created by a single purpose account which also posted unambiguous promotion for Prince's company.
Reason: The cited sources neither confirm the content of the article nor establish notability under the terms of Wikipedia's guidelines. Other sources confirm his existence, but do not establish notability.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The references are all dead links, and online searches have failed to produce suitable sources.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. No independent sources cited, and very little in independent sources found on searching.
Reason: (1) Despite periodic attempts to de-spam the article, it has remained substantially an advertisement throughout its history. (2) There is no evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines: references are largely sources which are not independent, or don't give substantial coverage, or both.
Reason: Unsourced article on a proprietary concept with no evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. (Created by a single purpose account that also created a promotional article, now deleted, on the company responsible for "Visibility Scorecard".)
Reason: Notability was questioned about a year and a half ago, and since then no evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability has been produced. At most one of the references could possible be considered substantial of a book by Cziko (even that one not of Cziko per se).
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Cited sources mostly barely mention her, in some cases don't mention her at all, and many are not independent sources.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Only one of the cited sources gives more than passing mention of Amarildo Fecanji, and that one is not an independent source.
Reason: No evidence of notability. Sourced to YouTube, Facebook, download sites, etc. Apparently he acted in what appears to be a non-notable non-commercial film, and that's it.
Reason: A rather promotional article, not citing any sources, and not in English. The subject may be suitable for a suitable article, but this is not that article.
Reason: A local student newspaper, without evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The references are not substantial coverage of the subject.
Reason: No evidence that this topic has received enough coverage to be regarded as notable. The only source was added by an editor with a conflict of interest in that source.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. No independent sources. (Repeatedly edited in promotional ways by numerous single-purpose accounts.)
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The only one of the references which is primarily about this farm is on the web site of the company owning the farm.
Reason: A largely promotional article without evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Most of the "references" don't even mention Cogora, & the few that do either only briefly mention it or are not independent sources, or both.
Reason: Promotional article on a book which does not satisfy the notability guidelines. (Created by an editor who self-identifies as the author of the book. Articles on the author's other book and on the author have both been deleted at AfD.)
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Article is in Georgian, and attempts to understand it via Google translation do not provide any evidence that it is about a notable topic. It also seems that it may infringe copyright of the cited source.
Reason: Still no evidence of notability, despite being tagged for sources for seven years. The references are (1) a stock market listing, which does not show notability, and (2) a dead link to the company's own web site.
Reason: No evidence of notability. The references (some of which are repeated) are mostly a mixture of pages not mentioning him at all and pages merely listing his name in credits. May are blogs, listings at Discogs, etc. The only significant coverage is a couple of reports on a legal claim he has made.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. (Of the references, one is the party's own web site, one barely mentions the party in passing, and the others don't mention it at all.)
Reason: No evidence of notability. References are one passing mention, one local report, and one speech by a person who describes the film-maker as his "friend". (Created by an editor with a a conflict of interest.)
Reason: No evidence of any notability. Fails
WP:GNG. (NOTE: This is one of dozens of similar unsourced articles created by the same editor, using a number of accounts, most of them now blocked. Most of the articles have already been deleted.)
Reason: No evidence of any notability. Fails
WP:GNG. (NOTE: This is one of dozens of similar unsourced articles created by the same editor, using a number of accounts, most of them now blocked. Most of the articles have already been deleted.)
Reason: No evidence of any notability. Fails
WP:GNG. (NOTE: This is one of dozens of similar unsourced articles created by the same editor, using a number of accounts, most of them now blocked. Most of the articles have already been deleted.)
Reason: No evidence of any notability. Fails
WP:GNG. (NOTE: This is one of dozens of similar unsourced articles created by the same editor, using a number of accounts, most of them now blocked. Most of the articles have already been deleted.)
Reason: No evidence of any notability. Fails
WP:GNG. (NOTE: This is one of dozens of similar unsourced articles created by the same editor, using a number of accounts, most of them now blocked. Most of the articles have already been deleted.)
Reason: No evidence of any notability. Fails
WP:GNG. (NOTE: This is one of dozens of similar articles created by the same editor, using a number of accounts, most of them now blocked. Most of the articles have already been deleted.)
Reason: No evidence anywhere of notability. Even the url which was previously given in the article as the station's web site address now redirects to spam sites.
Reason: No evidence at all of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. He was the subject of a single one-sentence mention in a book, and that is all. Also, most of this article is not even about Lucius Petrosidius.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. (Most of the references are by Felton, not about him, and give the appearance of being there to publicise his work.)
Reason: Most elementary schools are not considered notable enough to be the subjects of Wikipedia articles, and nothing indicates that this one is exceptional.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Still no independent sources after being tagged for over six and a half years, and searching failed to produce suitable coverage.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. No sources except a publisher's promotional announcement. Two as yet unpublished books, published essays etc. Also, the article is distinctly promotional in tone.
Reason: Non-notable early twentieth century parish church. There must be countless thousands of churches neither more nor less significant than this one.
Reason: There is no indication of satisfying the notability guidelines. After existing for over eight and a half years, and being tagged for notability for almost six years, there are still no sources except two dead links which do not seem to have been independent sources, and one which is not publicly visible but which appears to be merely a record of his death.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying the notability guidelines. Four of the five references don't even mention Joshen Bernardo, and the other one merely includes his name in a list.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Sourced only to non-independent sources, pages not even mentioning Team H2politO, and dead links.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Most of the references are not substantially about Zac Nichols, and those that are are not significant enough coverage.
Reason: Unsourced and incoherent article, much of it not written in proper English. It also looks very much like a machine translation, suggesting it may infringe copyright.
Reason: Promotional article on a subject without evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Sourced to download site, YouTube, promotional sites, etc.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability standards. Sourced only to fringe sources which are presented as though they were uncontroversially factual.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. References include sources only barely mentioning him in passing, sources which are not independent, promotional sources (e.g. a site which says "Our mission is to raise the visibility of tech startups in the silicon prairie region in order to connect entrepreneurs to entrepreneurs and to connect great talent with great companies") a link to a page publicising a book he wrote, and so on...
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. None of the sources does more than briefly mention him in passing, and several merely include his name in a list.
Reason: Unsourced article on a film with no evidence of notability. (It was created by a block-evading sockpuppet of an editor with an extensive history of creating often promotional articles on non-notable films and actors.)
Reason: No evidence of notability in the article, and very little to be found anywhere else. Still totally unsourced after being tagged for sources for nearly three months.
Reason: A list of one unsourced item, together with two "might be" items which don't even qualify, both suggested years ago and then dropped? Not at all notable. A brief mention in the article
Oregon might be considered, but that's all.
Reason: A rather promotional article without evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. None of the references does more than list his name.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability standards. The references give no more than passing mentions, or inclusion of her name in a list.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. One reference is a dead link, one only briefly mentions Astroglide, and the other does not mention Astroglide at all (it merely considers properties of a substance which is included in Astroglide).
Reason: An unsourced biography, without any real evidence of notability. It has never had any sources, and has been tagged for sources for over seven years.
Reason: After being tagged for notability for six years, the article still does not indicate notability. Almost all of the references are dead links or pages which don't mention him at all or mention him only briefly or non-independent sources.
Reason: (1) The subject of the article seems to be publicly visible because of one incident, without evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. (2) Most of the content of the article is unsourced. (3) Such a an article on someone "alleged" to have committed a crime is probably contrary to the policy on biographies of living persons.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. (Refs are a dead link, two papers co-authored by him, not about him, and a page on the web site of a company he works for.)
Reason: The cited source does not provide evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and her greatest significance seems to be once being a runner-up in a not very notable contest.
Reason: Minor actress who has played only small parts. (For example, the cast list for "Godzilla (2014)" at IMDb lists her as "SF School Bus Kid #1" out of five "SF School Bus Kids", and for "Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Dog Days" IMDb lists her way down the cast list as "Snack Bar Girl".) The sources are IMDb and a couple of sites which merely give a list of films she has acted in, there is no substantial coverage.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The one source that might be considered independent (Russia Journal) only briefly mentions him in passing.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Some of the references don't mention Hudson, others merely briefly mention him or just include his name in a list, some are by him (not about him) and none that I have seen is substantial coverage in an independent source.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. (Neither of the references which are not on Wikipedia does more than barely mention her.)
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Several of the references are dead links, several are her own web site or other sites which are not independent of her. The only one which could be regarded as an independent source is a post in an "online diary" (i.e. blog) on the web site of the New York Times, which gives a few remarks about her blog, not even about her art.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Many of the references are dead links, several are pages which don't mention her, others are a blog which merely quotes a "Tweet" by her, a page which merely includes her name in a list of 94 artists who have work at the institution on whose web site the list appears, and several pages by her (not about her).
Reason: Not remotely suitable as a Wikipedia article. It looks sort of like a text book example to illustrate some mathematical methods, except that it is too incoherent to belong in any decent textbook.
Reason: A article which is somewhat promotional in tone, without evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Two of the references don't even mention her, and none of the others is an independent source.
Reason: Still no clear evidence of notability, after being tagged for 16 months. References include non-independent sources, such as publicity for a gallery showing her work, and sources barely mentioning her.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. References are wikia, IMDb, and two pages that don't even mention her. Nothing better found on searching.
Reason: This article has spent most of its history containing entries most of which were not Bangladeshi, not comedians, not notable, and in some cases all three. It may to have been created as vandalism. Now that these spurious entries have been removed, it is a pointless list with just one entry.
Reason: No evidence either that any of these are peculiar to Karnataka, or that the topic as a whole satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Even the creator of the article has stated that there are no reliable references available!
Reason: It is difficult to determine exactly what this is about, but as far as I can judge from Google translation, it is at best a personal essay, and possibly promotional.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The references include blogs, sources which only briefly mention the subject, a review in a minor source, etc.
Reason: No clear indication of notability, somewhat promotional, and if it is to be kept it needs a complete rewrite from scratch to make it coherent English.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The one reference cited gives a brief 2 sentence mention of him, and searches found little in independent sources.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. (No independent source cited in the article, and nothing suitable found on searching.)
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. No independent sources cited, and no substantial independent coverage found on searching.
Reason: No evidence whatever of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. No independent sources. Paid article created to publicise or promote it subject.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. All of the references are either not independent sources, do not mention her, or barely mention her.
Reason: I can't actually find any mention of "Unbounded success" in any of the references. (If it is there, please provide clearer information, at least a page number.)
Reason: I am doubtful that this team satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines at all, but the particular team membership for one season comes nowhere near to being notable enough to justify having its own article.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying the notability guidelines. The references are a report of one lecture he gave, and a three-sentence reference to his work in a book. He appears to be a fairly ordinary academic.
Reason: No evidence of notability. (The college's web site consists largely of place-holder pages, its "All Teacher List" lists just one teacher, and it is difficult to find any other source about it other than Facebook.)
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines, wither in the article or found on searching. Article still unsourced more than 11 years after creation & more than 7 years since being tagged for sources.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines, wither cited in the article or found on searching. (Still totally unsourced after being tagged for over 5 years.)
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. (Sourced only to prnewswire and a listing at companies house, and searches produced no significant coverage.)
Reason: No context, no indication of the formula's significance, and not at all meaningful to anyone not already having an expert knowledge of the background. Unsuitable for an encyclopaedia aimed at the general reader.
Reason: No context, no indication of the formula's significance, and not at all meaningful to anyone not already having an expert knowledge of the background. Unsuitable for an encyclopaedia aimed at the general reader.
Reason: Neither the content of the article, the cited references, nor anything else found gives any indication that the subject satisfies Wikipedia's
notability guidelines.
Reason: Absolutely no evidence of notability, either in the article or elsewhere. Sourced entirely to the organisation's own web site. Sources are no better than they were nine years ago when concerns were raised.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. (After being tagged for references for five months it is still sourced only to blogs.)
Reason: Not notable. Even after being tagged for sources for almost 8 years, there is a lack of independent sources, and no evidence of notability elsewhere.
Reason: No evidence of notability. The only ref is a dead link. Google search for his Korean name gives Wikipedia, another wiki, instagram, facebook, twitter, youtube, etc. Search for "Lee Jae-hwang" similar results. IMDb lists only 3 of the roles listed here, & has a one-sentence bio of him.
Reason: There is no evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Some of the references aren't even about this film, others are not significant coverage.
Reason: I put a proposed deletion (
PROD) on this article, giving my reason as "There is no evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Some of the references aren't even about this film, others are not significant coverage." The creator of the article,
Goodbadnugly, removed the proposal, giving as reason that the film derives notability from its connection to the earlier film
Plan 9 from Outer Space of which it is a take-off, and from "the presence of notable internet personalities". As anyone familiar with Wikipedia's notability standards will know, a subject is not considered to be notable because of association with other notable subjects, and must have evidence of notability in its own right.
My reason for this nomination is the same as the reason for my earlier deletion proposal, but here is a more detailed account of why the cited sources don't do it. Out of the eight sources cited, four are about the earlier film, and don't even mention this one. Not only are the other four not being significant coverage, but also none of them is an independent reliable source either. Two of them are at www.horrorsociety.com, which not only publishes user-submitted content, but also says "You want to promote your movie, do it here." Another source is at letterboxd.com, which reproduces film data from TMDb (www.themoviedb.org); TMDb consists entirely of user-submitted content, and appears to be if anything an even less reliable source than IMDb, of which it is clearly an imitation. That leaves just one more cited source, which is at plan9movie.com, and I think the URL says it all. The editor who uses the pseudonym "
JamesBWatson" (
talk) 16:37, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Reason: Absolutely no evidence at all of satisfying the notability guidelines. Most of the references are either mere listings of credits or unreliable sources (e.g. Wikipedia & IMDb) and the others give him only minor coverage (in one case none at all) or are not independent sources.
Reason: No evidence of notability, either in the article or found elsewhere. She seems to have mainly performed in non-notable works. Still no source cited apart from IMDb after being tagged for sources for over 5 years.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines, either in the cited sources or anywhere found on searching. He's a judge, and that's about it.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines, either in the cited sources or anywhere found on searching. He's a judge, and that's about it.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines, either in the cited sources or anywhere found on searching. He's a judge, and that's about it.
Reason: No evidence that this concept is notable. It appears to be mentioned only in a limited range of related sources, and when the word "laddership" appears it usually does not refer to this movement.
Reason: Neither the cited sources nor anything else I have been able to find gives any evidence that this is anything other than a neologism which has yet to become notable. (Most if not all of the links given are to pages which don't even mention "Réalité Pliée".)
Reason: Insourced, and no evidence that this topic is notable, or that it has any significant coverage anywhere other than the book in which it appears. (Incidentally also a complete mess: a seriously misformatted article, apparently not proof-read by its creator.)
Reason: Absolutely no evidence of notability. (After being tagged for sources for more than a year, the article has no references that actually mention "The Beautiful Letdown".)
Reason: Personal photograph of the uploader, used only in numerous self-promotional user pages created in 2013 and now deleted. Unlikely to ever have any legitimate use.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The "proposed" name of a party that does not yet exist, with the only reference being merely an announcement of the intention of forming the party.
Reason: Absolutely no sources, no indication of satisfying the notability guidelines, and no significant content. Numerous similar articles have been deleted as a result of time-wasting discussions: let this one go without such waste of time.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying the notability guidelines. References are passing mentions, inclusions in lists, blogs, the press's own web site, etc.
Reason: Proposed future film with no substantial coverage yet in any significant source. The article is sourced only to IMdB, and even that does not support the content of this article: for example, the cast list is strikingly different.
Reason: No evidence of notability. It looks like an impressive list of references, but checking with Google translate they do not turn out to be substantial coverage in independent sources.
Reason: There is no evidence that this is a generally recognised category. Searches for sources indicate that the expression is entirely or almost entirely restricted to one school exam syllabus, and there does not seem to be substantial coverage of it as a subject.
Reason: A fan-produced page without evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The one reference is merely a list of biographical details, not substantial coverage.
Reason: No independent coverage of this "upcoming" show, and even the one non-independent source gives only trivial coverage and does not support most of the content of the article.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. He appears to be a perfectly ordinary academic. Most of the references are papers by him, not about him, two merely include him in lists, and the other one is a paper which refers to a result of his, but is not about him.
Reason: Not notable. Sourced only to a paper by Barratt & Milnor, and my searches for other sources have produced very few mentions, almost all of those being Wikipedia, Wikipedia mirrors, etc, and the odd exception to that mentions the topic but does not give it substantial coverage.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. References are just listings in catalogues and the editors' bios on a web site of the publisher.
Reason: Little more than a dicdef for the concept. Both the references are written by people who run "sales acceleration" businesses, and appear to exist for promotional purposes. No evidence of satisfying the notability guidelines.
Reason: Unsourced article which reads more like a personal essay than an encyclopaedia article. There does not seem to be much coverage of this topic per se, and its validity was questioned 15 years ago, and not clarified since.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The only independent source cited does not even mention the Monaghan Intermediate Football Championship.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. None of the sources contains significant coverage of the Kashmir Monitor, and one of them deosn't even mention it.
Reason: No evidence of notability. Over three years ago it was questioned whether this concept has been used outside the original paper, and since then no evidence has been provided. All the other uses of the expression that I have found are either not in reliable sources, not referring to thee meaning described in this article, or both.
Reason: There is no evidence that this concept exists anywhere except in the work of one person, who has posted to blogs and other unreliable sources about it. The creator of this article has stated that he is that blogger. The status of this article as "original research" was raised on the talk page as far back as 2008, and it should have been deleted long ago.
Reason: The sources do not establish notability by Wikipedia standards, nor does anything else. (Also largely promotional, created by an editor with an unambiguous conflict of interest.)
Reason: There is no evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's
notability guidelines. The cited sources are basically just announcements that it is going to be aired.
Reason: This is just a dictionary entry, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The suggestion was made that it be transwikied to Wiktionary, but that suggestion was declined by a Wiktionary administrator, who (quite rightly) pointed out that it does not satisfy Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. (References are blogspot, YouTube, WordPress pages, sources not independent of the creator of "ThinkBlocks", sources not giving substantial coverage to the subject.)
Reason: At best the film is not notable, and possibly nonexistent. None of the verifiable references mentions this film, and one of them is completely unrelated to the topic. Searches have produced only a small number of unreliable sources, some of them clearly derived from Wikipedia.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines; in fact it's difficult to find anything anywhere which uses the word "Paraspace" in this sense.
Reason: No evidence anywhere of notability. No citations to significant coverage in any independent reliable sources, and none found on searching either.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability standards. The article has been tagged for notability and sources for 9 months, and the creator has repeatedly been informed of the need for sources, but still has no suitable sources.
Reason: The copyright statement is inaccurate. It says "In America, public domain is extended for works 70 years from Publication if the artist is anonymous", but in fact the figure is 95 years from publication for works published 1924–63, as can be seen at
List of countries' copyright lengths. This file is stated to have been published in 1943, which is less than 95 years ago.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. No suitable, reliable and independent, source has been provided, even after sources were requested months ago, both here and directly to the creator of the article. Nor have web searches provided suitable sources.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. (The only independent source is a 4-sentence report of a meeting. Searches also failed to find reliable independent coverage.)
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Neither the cited sources nor searches provide any significant coverage in reliable independent sources.
Reason: Unsourced, and no more than a
dictionary definition. Also, I have searched, and been unable to find any substantial coverage of this concept anywhere.
Reason: No evidence of notability. The references include sources by the founders of the "institute", pages on web sites run by them, pages promoting similar ideas but not actually mentioning the "Small Planet Institute", and so on, but nothing that is substantial coverage in an independent source.
Reason: Non-notable student radio station. Neither cited in the article nor found on searching is there any substantial coverage in independent sources. Almost all content is unsourced, most of it parochial and of no significance outside the sphere of the college.
Reason: No evidence whatever of satisfying Wikipedia's notability standards. None of the references is either a substantial coverage or an independent source, let alone both.
Reason: A substantially promotional article, created by a single-purpose account, which, despite being tagged for better sources for 9 months, has never had citations to substantial coverage in independent sources, nor have searches found such coverage.
Reason: Personal photograph, used only by a vandal, now indefinitely blocked, in multiple copies of a hoax vanity page, now all deleted. Unlikely ever to have any legitimate use.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. None of the cited references is substantial coverage in an independent source. (One of the sources has only a one sentence mention of the band.)
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Despite the impressive looking number of references, they turn out to be mostly, if not all, press releases, articles in business promotion publications, and such like.
Reason: Appallingly promotional, and also little if any evidence of notability. In effect almost unsourced, as most of the "references" are either not references for any content of the article, not about Hafiza Khatun, or both.
Reason: Personal photograph, currently unused, of an editor whose sole purpose here has been self-promotion. No likelihood of ever being any use for encyclopaedic purposes.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The sources cited are a book by Franklin, his own web site, a dead link to a nonexistent page on the web site of a local newspaper, and a report of a speech that Franklin gave.
Reason: No evidence whatever of notability. The references are mostly about one incident, not giving substantial coverage of her. Several of them even refer to her in such terms as "small time Tamil actress", "playing a small role", etc.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability standards. No independent sources cited, and nothing even vaguely appropriate found on searching.
Reason: No evidence to support the claims about the word "Paddywhack". Google searches produce almost entirely web sites copying this article, and no reliable sources.
Reason: No evidence of notability. No independent sources have ever been cited, despite tagging for notability for 9 years, and no significant independent coverage has been found on searching.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Two of the three references don't mention the Voicing Erasure project, and the other is not an independent source, being on the web site of the organisation responsible for the project.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. All references but one are to the organisation's own material, and searching failed to produce anything of much value.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. No independent sources have ever been cited, despite the article having been tagged for sources fof over twelve years.
Reason: No evidence whatever of notability. Still unsourced after being tagged fo sources and notability for eight years, & searches have failed to find coverage in reliable sources. (Article created by a COI SPA.)
Reason: No evidence of notability. The article cites no sources except a dead link, and my searches have produced nothing but wikis and other unreliable sources, and one advertising web page.
Reason: Substantially a personal essay or reflection, almost all unsourced, and without any citation to any source which treats this concept as a subject in itself.
Reason: No evidence of notability. The one so-called "reference" currently in the article doesn't even mention flatsy dolls, and another one in older versions of the article is a dead link.
Reason: A substantially promotional page, tagged as such since 2017, which has never had any references to independent sources, and for which significant coverage in independent sources has not been found on searching.
Reason: Very much more like a personal essay than an objective account. Multiple statements of opinion or judgements. Trying to clean it up, retaining only material citeable to objective statements in reliable sources would leave virtually nothing.
Reason: The article has never had references to significant coverage in independent sources, nor has any been found on searching. Does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines.
Reason: The cited sources do not provide evidence of notability in Wikipedia's terms. (Created by an account which, apart from precisely 0 edits leading to autoconfirmation, was a single purpose account editing about the products of one company.)
Reason: The cited sources do not provide evidence of notability in Wikipedia's terms. (Created by an account which, apart from precisely 0 edits leading to autoconfirmation, was a single purpose account editing about the products of one company.)
Reason: No evidence of notability. No independent sources giving substantial coverage are cited, nor have I been able to find any. Also, since this is an ordinary low-level amateur sports club, it is not to be expected that it will satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines.
Reason: No evidence of notability. No independent sources giving substantial coverage are cited, nor have I been able to find any. Also, since this is an ordinary low-level amateur sports club, it is not to be expected that it will satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Apart from a couple of announcements of his death, none of the references gi es any significant coverage of him.
Reason: The references in the article don't indicate notability in Wikipedia's terms, nor does anything else found on searching. (Also, the article has throughout its history been promotional in tone.)
Reason: Nothing to indicate satisfying the notability guidelines. Cited sources are all one or more of promotional, not significant coverage, not independent.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying the notability guidelines. All but one of the references merely briefly mentions "Yes", and the other one is on an advertising site (pro.rbc.ru).
Reason: Unsourced, promotional article without evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines (created by hijacking an article on another school, but that one was no better, so reverting wouldn't achieve much)
Reason: There is no evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Virtually every reference is unambiguously not independent, and scarcely an of them comes anywhere near to being substantial coverage.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Her only claim to sugnificance is being related to some famous people, the cited references are neither reliable sources nor substantial coverage, and nothing better has been found on searching.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Cited sources are mostly blatant promotion sites, also content on a web site associated with him, pages that barely mention him,or even don't mention him at all, etc...
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Cited only to the company's website, and searching found no substantial coverage in any independent reliable source.
Reason: No evidence of notability. The article has never had any significant content, nor any references to anything other than the school's web site, despite being tagged for sources for over 13 years, and even that web site is now a dead link.
Reason: No evidence whatever of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. (References are two links to the newspaper's own web site, one to a mere list of titles, and two dead links, of which one was evidently a blog post, and the other apparently a list entry.)
Reason: No evidence of satisfying the notability guidelines. None of the cited sources is substantial coverage of Ravi Varma Adduri, and all evidence indicates that he has only had fairly minor roles.
Reason: No evidence whatever of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Almost all of the references are either pages on the web sites of the business or the schools it owns or else mere listings on a government web site. The few exceptions are not substantial coverage.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. There are references which don't mention her, or only briefly mention her, or are by her not about her, etc.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The only reference in the article now, and as far as I can see the only one there has ever been, is an article by Traugott Rohner in "The Instrumentalist", which has just two single sentence mentions of this work.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying the notability guidelines. Currently sourced only to a dead link and IMDb, and past versions had no suitable sources either. Tagged for sources since 2017.
Reason: No evidence at all of satisfying the notability guidelines. No sources at all cited, and no significant coverage in reliable sources found on searching.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability standards. The cited sources aren't substantial coverage of him, and being a local councillor does not constitute notability.
Reason: No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. None of the cited references is substantial coverage in an independent source, nor was anything better found on searching.