Reason: This article shows that the lady exists, but does not assert any notability for her. The references verify her existence and the fact that she is an artist. There are a great many artists who exist, are not notable, and whose basic facts of existence and being an artist are verifiable. Without notability she may not remain here.
Reason: Please do more than verify the existence if this journal. There are many journals. This article needs to assert the notability of the journal and verify that notability. Wikipedia is not a directory of journals. It requires higher standards.
Reason: This article does not assert the
notability of the game, nor does it have any
references in
reliable sources. Without these it does not meet the generally accepted quality threshold here and should be deleted. With them it may qualify to remain.
Reason: I hesitate to propose this for deletion, but it is unpleasant rather than notable. I fear that drive by killings happen all the time. They do make the news, but, unless significant for other reasons, then they fade away as unremarkable, but unpleasant, incidents.
WP:NOTNEWS applies. We are sad for those who knew and were affected by the dead young man, but this cannot be an article here unless his death is otherwise notable than being just another drive by killing.
Reason: There is insufficient context to know the location, and there is no
notability asserted nor any
references. Without these things the article may not remain here.
Reason: There is limited
notability asserted in this article, probably insufficient to pass
WP:GNG. There are no
references. Without these the article may not remain here. Even with them it must pass
WP:GNG if it is to remain.
Reason: This is pure
original research unhampered by
references, and not even
notable. It makes a great blog post, but is unacceptable as a Wikipedia article.
Reason: There is no assertion of
notability sufficient for this to remain, nor are there any
references. With them it stands a chance, without them it must go
Reason: At present this is an essay and conjecture. It has no valid
references, preferring instead to make wikilinks appear to be references. There is also not
notability asserted for the term.
Reason: There can be no
notability because the series only starts to screen in late September 2013. Wait until notability is present and re-create the article then.
Reason: This is an essay. No
notability is asserted, though it feels notable. With a rewrite and
references this can become a valid article, but, in its present form, is not acceptable.
Reason: I am failing to see a clear pass of
WP:ACADEMIC for this person. Associate professorship tends not to be sufficient of itself and his other achievements do not seem to clear the
WP:GNG hurdle.
Reason: This article, short as it is, meanders. Citrus crossing now appears to be a shopping mall where students live, with a theatre surrounded by other stuff. Non notable, and confused, with no references
Reason: The article shows a pretty standard Professor. Nothing in it demonstrates that he meets the criteria in
WP:ACADEMIC, however. Without this it is unlikely that this article may remain here.
Reason: The article shows a pretty standard Professor. Nothing in it demonstrates that he meets the criteria in
WP:ACADEMIC, however. Without this it is unlikely that this article may remain here.
Reason: Notable for
one event only, though the criticism of anti-semitism and child abuse may just allow him to pass
as inherently notable if built on and cited in
reliable sources. At present there is insufficient notability asserted and
verified in the article.
Reason: It has references, so passes the criteria for BLPPROD, and it asserts some notability (passing CSD), though not enough to remain here. At present it is an unhappy mix of personal and corporate material. If the lady is notable her article needs to state it. If her corporation is notable it requires its own article. This article nether asserts sufficient notability nor verifies it sufficiently for an article here.
Reason: Ignoring the imperfect citation parameters, presumably awaiting translation from Spanish, this article fails to assert
notability for the organisation. Without that it can not remain here. I've chosen the PROD mechanism to try to give editors time to assert and
verify notability in
reliable sources, but other deletion mechanisms exist and may take precedence.
Reason: While the Royal Mint obviously has a chief executive, notability is not inherited by the postholder. This gentleman has no inherent personal notability.
Reason: There is insufficient context at present to let the average reader understand what this is. It is notable, presumably, but may be better as a part of the parent article of which it is stated to be "a part" if such an article exists. IT requires
references in
reliable sources or it may not remain here as an article.
Reason: At present we see a $7m budget organisation, not small, not enormous, and we see many primary sources. What we don't see is an assertion of
notability which is
verified in
reliable sources. WIthout these essential items the article, while interesting, should not remain here.
Reason: While presumably a
notable topic, this article fails to assert the notability and to
verify it in
reliable sources. This means it is presented as
original research and thus may not remain here. Correcting those issues, may not ensure that it remains but will increase the probability the better it gets.
Reason: Some
notability is asserted, but there is no
verification in
reliable sources. Verification must be present or the article has no place here, and simply looks like an advert.
Reason: Many people are the First Something. That does not make them notable. No full
notability is asserted and
verifiec in
reliable sources, which may be paper sources, naturally. Without this material the article may not remain here.
Reason: While there is a strong possibility that this is a
notable organisation, the article fails to assert its notability, and does not
verify it in
reliable sources. Without these items it may not remain here. It is not notable simply because it is a charity and does good works.
Reason: That the company exists is not in doubt, but the article asserts no
notability and the only
references are not in [[W{:RS|reliable sources]]. If these matters are not corrected then the article has no place here.
Reason: Some notability is asserted, but none is verified. Halls of residence generally should be a part of the academic institution they are a hall for, assuming that is what this is. But the article doesn't explain this in any meaningful manner.
Reason: While there is sufficient
referencing and assertion of
notability to avoid speedy deletion or
WP:BLPPROD, this article does not assert sufficient notability to ensure its place here. Without this it may not remain.
Reason: I looked at
no:Medieoperatørene, but found no useful additional material. There are no
references in
reliable sources to back the limited assertion of
notability either here or there. For a TV production house with this number of credits that is a sad lack. It appears that it is notable, but the rules are clear. Notability must be asserted and verified in reliable sources for an article to remain here. The great swathe of redlinks militates against this being notable, certainly yet, in the English language Wikipedia.
Reason: A morass of
WP:POV and
WP:OR and not a little
WP:SYNTH this article needs a brutal edit to see the wood form the trees to even discern whether it is
notable. At present it requires
WP:TNT
Reason: Lacks asserted
notability together with
references in
reliable sources. Asserts just sufficient notability to avoid speedy deletion, but insufficient to remain.
Reason: That something exists does not make it
notable, and no notability has been asserted, nor has it been
verified in
reliable sources. Without these items it may not remain here as an article.
Reason: This adds nothing to the many and major articles here on
climate change, and is an
opinion piece, an essay and pure
original research. As such it is not a valid item for Wikipedia despite being interesting and informative. If points are missing form the other articles then they may be and should be added there.
Reason: This is little more than an extended Dictionary Definition, and somewhat of an essay, albeit with references. Much is padding to seek to make it an article. However there is no place on Wikipedia for dictionary definitions.
Reason: This is little more than an extended Dictionary Definition, and somewhat of an essay, albeit with references. Much is padding to seek to make it an article. However there is no place on Wikipedia for dictionary definitions.
Reason: A specialist conference reported by a specialist magazine specialising in that specialism does not mean this is a
notable conference, which is definitely appears not to be. Being magic that may be an illusion, but it does it very well. So well, in fact, that the conference fails
WP:GNG and has no place here.
Reason: Confused article about a film that has yet to see the light of day, alleged to be released in December 2014. No valid
references and no
notability. The article is not even self consistent about the length of the film. When the film is notable it may have an article here, but not before then. Speculative articles promoting films are not acceptable.
Reason: Would the gentleman have been
notable enough for an article here before his death? He doesn't appear to be sufficiently notable post mortem, and references do not leap into view online. Are there non online sources that affirm his notability? If not I fear the article should go.
Reason: This describes something in the future.
WP:BALL applies. When and if this project happens and achieves notability it may have an article here. Not until then, please.
Reason: Flagged as unsourced since August 2007 we know the organisation exists (0.9 probability), but we do not know from the article that it is
notable, and there are no
references to show it. Further, it is outdated, thus unlikely to be an accurate reflection of the current status. It also quotes a large tract of text stated to have been issued by the organisation itself and thus is likely to be a
Copyright violation. The article would probably benefit from
a ground up rewrite if the organisation is sufficiently notable for a place here.
Reason: It is not simply having
references that allows an article to remain here. The article must also show the subject's
notability, and this one does not. Currently fails
WP:GNG.
Reason: I'm having trouble seeing this lady as more than just a jobbing actress who is below the
WP:GNG threshold for inclusion here. The lead shows no reason for inclusion, nor does the main body of text. Without any extra information I cannot see the value to WIkipedia of this article remaining.
Reason: This organisation fails
to establish notability and has no
references in
reliable sources. An organisation fo 40+ years standing ought to have made some impression in, eg, Google, but I can find nothing so far. Without references this article may not remain here.
Reason: As presented in this article the claim of notability is not correctly
verified in
reliable sources. Without this verification the article may not remain here.
Reason: Having worked in and analysed this article, while wishing it were not so, I see it as a huge and cleverly constructed piece of self advertisement for Renouf and her husband the musician, crafted as self promotion by Renouf herself, against strong advice on her talk page. The article itself is poor, covering pretty much only the fact that Renouf and Middleton exist. Evidence of this is that Renouf has exhibited in galleries, as have many artists of varying reputations, but there is no discussion of her work and style and technique by others. It relies on primary sources, the exhibition catalogues themselves, which contain puffery written either by the exhibitors or their agents. It should be deleted as an advert. It meets all the criteria for
WP:VANISPAMCRUFTISEMENT and complete
WP:COI as it is at present. If it is to remain it requires application of
WP:TNT, hence this nomination for deletion
Reason: The aims of the organisation seem laudable, but there is nothing int he article to show its
notability, nor are there
any references. Without these the article may not remain here.
Reason: The intent of the foundation is laudable, but good intentions do not justify an article. However the article contains no
references. nor does it make the
notability of the organisation clear. Without these items the article may not remain here
Reason: At present there is only trivial detail in this article, but the gentleman appears not to pass
WP:ACADEME. More information and verification is required for the article to remain here.
Reason: I have declined a speedy deletion on this article because I believe there is just sufficient notability asserted to avoid that process. However I feel the gentleman does not pass
WP:GNG without substantial further research and citations within the article to show that he is notable.
Reason: The references tell us that the gentleman exists, but nowhere is any sort of
notability stated in the article, nor
verified in
reliable sources. Without these it may not remain here.
Reason: Because Wikipedia has a partial use as a gazetteer I have chosen to give this article time to develop by sufficient context being added for a determination on notability to be made, but, if it is not improved, it is very likely to be deleted. Where, for example, are these gardens? Why are they notable?
Reason: Neither of these things are useful attributes for notability. He happened to be a barrister during a notable event, but that does not grant him notability. His brother is an interesting fact, but that does not make this man notable.
Reason: Laudable, yes, but there is no
notability established for this organisation. Since it has laudable aims I have chosen this slower proposed deletion route to allow the shortfall to be addressed.
Reason: I havem at present, found no sources to
verify that this organisation is
notable. It has a web site, but Google News (for example) has trouble identifying
reliable sources that discuss the organisation. There are primary sources, but, if this organisation has notability it would, surely, feature in news items. I'm happy to be proven top be incorrect, and that sources exist that I haven;t been able to find, so I am choosing the PROD mechanism as a slow burn deletion route that allows article improvement to meet our need for verification of notability.
Reason: This corporation has had a remarkably similar article speedily deleted once as failing
WP:GNG. The references are Press Release material or primary sources, and there is no obvious reason that the organisation is at all notable. It appears to be a run of the mill brokerage with nothing to justify an article here. The username of the creating editor also implies some sort of COI and thus trade puffery. I see this as
WP:VANISPAMCRUFTISEMENT
Reason: Pure
WP:OR essay and
WP:POV piece, suitable for a blog or media article, but not for Wikipedia. Such
references that exist are wholly insufficient.
WP:TNT is a valid solution here.
Reason: There is sufficient here to pass speedy deletion, a route already declined, but there is insufficient
notability for this company to pass the threshold for the article to remain here. If notability can be shown and
verified then it may remain.
Reason: This is a
WP:OR essay based around a set of primary sources.
notability is lacking as are references in
reliable sources. It is part of a series of articles by the same editor(s) which appear to be intended as
WP:VANISPAMCRUFTISEMENT to create notability for the protagonists in the project(s).
Reason: There are no
references in
reliable sources for this film. It appears not to be
notable. WIthout notability and verification of it this article may not remain here.
Reason: Articles may not remain here unless they are
notable and have that notability
verified in
reliable sources, though the references do not have to be in English. Welsh is acceptable if any can be found.
Reason: This article has lots of lovely references, but is
original research and
synthesised original research and is an essay. To be retained it requires a major rewrite. Even then it does not appear to be
notable, something that is a pre-requisite for all articles here. Without that it may not remain,
Reason: This is a political
soapbox, not a neutral article. It must be rewritten in neutral terms and fully referenced or it must go. Wikipedia articles may not do more than report what is documented in reliable sources, and the material must also be notable.
Reason: While this article purports to be about a person it s actually about one or more corporations. WIthout a significant rewrite it cannot remain here as a biography. A valid option would be to move it to a title that reflects its content. However, it is about MMI and MRG. Mr Weisfisch is the common link, but that is all. On the basis of this difficulty I submit that the article requires deletion or a substantial rewrite.
Reason: A potentially pleasant embryo essay or dictionary definition, but there is nothing
notable about it. However pleasant it may be it is not material for an encyclopaedia.
Reason: The gentleman may well be notable, but the article is vague about notability. Additionally, if there is notability it must be shown by references to reliable sources. Such sources need not be online sources, but sourcing must be present. Without demonstrable notability this article may not remain.
Reason: This is an interesting tale. However, to place this in an encyclopaedia one needs more than interest. It needs to be notable, and substantial references are required in reliable sources. As a side issue, should the article be improved such that it may remain here, I am concerned about the title. It is, surely, an inscription, not an edict?
Reason: There is nothing to suggest that this is a
notable book, nor are there any
references for it. It has been hanging around waiting to be expanded for ages. It needs notability to be established, or it must go. References that are not in English are wholly acceptable.
Reason: What award? There are no
references and this single sentence article is insufficient. IT requires substantial improvement if it is to remain here.
Reason: Only primary sources are used and this has been so for over four years. We require references from significant coverage about the entity, and independent of it, and in
WP:RS please. See
WP:42.
Reason: Unreferenced BLP. Provide references and it can stay. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in
WP:RS. No references and it has to go.
Reason: While not a copyright violation (the source is licenced for onward use) this is unsuitable as an article for the many reasons flagged at the head. In brief summary of this it is unreferenced
WP:OR. Rather than ask for simple deletion I ask that it be moved to the Draft: namespace in order to grant the author time to work on it and to create a suitable article from the draft.
Reason: The organisation is non notable. I offered it at CSD before, but, on seeing that the orginator has long vanished, I feel this is the better approach.
We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in
WP:RS please. See
WP:42. My opinion is that this article, if it went through
WP:AFC today, would be pushed back for improvement because it is not likely, in its current form, to survive. However, adding the references to verify notability will save it.
Reason: This person is not notable, or his notability is not asserted and verified. For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in
WP:RS. Solve that and the article may remain here. Fail to solve it and it is likely to be deleted
Reason: The references do not demonstrate, nor does the article assert, notability. For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in
WP:RS.
Reason: This is a broadly empty article on a school which goes up to year 7, with no references about a school which is not inherently notable, and has no individual notability asserted nor verified
Reason: Unreferenced and non notable. For this to survive here we require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in
WP:RS please. See
WP:42. If those are not forthcoming this has no place here.
Reason: For this to remain we require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in
WP:RS please. See
WP:42. IT has not come through the
WP:AFC process, despite the banner announcing that it has done so. No notability is asserted nor verified.
Reason: This is a premature move from Draft: space to main namespace. Ordinarily I would move it back, but the contributing editor has moved it here twice, now, and I doubt any further improvement will happen in Draft: space. The article requires better references that assert and verify its notability. We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in
WP:RS please. See
WP:42. Without those references it cannot remain here. With them there is no issue.
Reason: The referencing is seriously lacking. This appears to be
WP:ADMASQ. with pseudo-references to generic things, directories or PR pieces. The routes for this are deletion, improvement where it stands, or return to draft space to be worked on. We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in
WP:RS please. See
WP:42. References that do not comply with this need to be replaced.
Reason: There are no references to verify any notability.
WP:ADMASQ. We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in
WP:RS please. See
WP:42. Without those it may not remain here
For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in
WP:RS. Without that this article may not remain.
Reason: Unreferenced. Notability is not verified. We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in
WP:RS please. See
WP:42
Reason: We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in
WP:RS please. See
WP:42. With references meeting those criteria this may remain here. Without them it needs to go
Reason: I do not consider an "honourable mention" to confirm
WP:N. This needs further referencing to confirm that it has notability. We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in
WP:RS please. See
WP:42
Reason: Fails
WP:CORP We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in
WP:RS please. See
WP:42. Without those it may not remain here.
Reason: Fails
WP:GNG. PROD added to give author a fighting chance to sort out referencing
We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in
WP:RS please. See
WP:42. Please also see
WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and
WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this article survive (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
Reason: Without references it is impossible to deterge whether this is
original research or
a synthesis of published material Placing this notice of proposed deletion grants a finite time for references to be provided.
We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in
WP:RS please. See
WP:42. Please also see
WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and
WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this article above to remain here (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
Reason: Unreferenced with no assertion of notability. PROD is used here to give editors time to improve the article, but with an end date when it becomes eligible for deletion. Looking at the talk page it seems to me that it is very unlikely that notability can be verified. If you can verify it then remove this notice
Reason: No evidence that the image is under an acceptable free licence. Ownership or possession of a photo, proprietorship of the equipment used to take the photo, or being the subject of the photo does not equate holding the copyright. The copyright holder is the photographer (i.e. the person who took the photo), rather that the subject (the person who appears in the photo) or the person possessing the photo, unless transferred by operation of law (e.g. inheritance, etc.) or by contract (written and signed by the copyright holder, and explicitly transfers the copyright).
Reason: While it is likely that the gentleman is inherently notable, this is not the article that asserts it nor verifies it. As written he is a
run of the mill businessman. The majority of the references are for his corporations. One at least is an interview with him, thus both unreliable and primary. It needs to be re-written to be about the gentleman, with his corporations simply being matters of interest, not the major thrust. If his corporations are notable they may have a separate article, but they have
undue weight in this article. Draftification and incubation there with reviewer comments and eventual acceptance might be the route to go other than deletion should the relevant improvements not be forthcoming main space
Reason: Two of the alleged references are to fundraising pages! The third is to a fan page. This is an advert, both for the unit and to raise money for it
Reason: This is an overblown
WP:DICDEF for a Google created IT Neologism. A précis might have a place in Wiktionary, but this article is not suitable for an encyclopaedia. All the references return to Google
Reason: The sole reference is a permanent dead link. I cannot find anything on Google Scholar to show he passes
WP:NPROF, and
WP:BEFORE does not find a great deal of anything useful.
Reason: There is no significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article. Lacks notability and has not been shown to pass
WP:BIO
Reason: This article purports to be about the venue but majors on the exhibitions mounted. I've suggested this deletion process to encourage the contributing editors to shake it into shape. It has, I think, escaped from Draft: space too early, and might benefit from being placed back there in order to be worked on in peace and quiet, but I've chosen not to do so because mainspace has a habit of attracting editors who will turn it into a worthwhile article
Reason: This article shows that the lady exists, but does not assert any notability for her. The references verify her existence and the fact that she is an artist. There are a great many artists who exist, are not notable, and whose basic facts of existence and being an artist are verifiable. Without notability she may not remain here.
Reason: Please do more than verify the existence if this journal. There are many journals. This article needs to assert the notability of the journal and verify that notability. Wikipedia is not a directory of journals. It requires higher standards.
Reason: This article does not assert the
notability of the game, nor does it have any
references in
reliable sources. Without these it does not meet the generally accepted quality threshold here and should be deleted. With them it may qualify to remain.
Reason: I hesitate to propose this for deletion, but it is unpleasant rather than notable. I fear that drive by killings happen all the time. They do make the news, but, unless significant for other reasons, then they fade away as unremarkable, but unpleasant, incidents.
WP:NOTNEWS applies. We are sad for those who knew and were affected by the dead young man, but this cannot be an article here unless his death is otherwise notable than being just another drive by killing.
Reason: There is insufficient context to know the location, and there is no
notability asserted nor any
references. Without these things the article may not remain here.
Reason: There is limited
notability asserted in this article, probably insufficient to pass
WP:GNG. There are no
references. Without these the article may not remain here. Even with them it must pass
WP:GNG if it is to remain.
Reason: This is pure
original research unhampered by
references, and not even
notable. It makes a great blog post, but is unacceptable as a Wikipedia article.
Reason: There is no assertion of
notability sufficient for this to remain, nor are there any
references. With them it stands a chance, without them it must go
Reason: At present this is an essay and conjecture. It has no valid
references, preferring instead to make wikilinks appear to be references. There is also not
notability asserted for the term.
Reason: There can be no
notability because the series only starts to screen in late September 2013. Wait until notability is present and re-create the article then.
Reason: This is an essay. No
notability is asserted, though it feels notable. With a rewrite and
references this can become a valid article, but, in its present form, is not acceptable.
Reason: I am failing to see a clear pass of
WP:ACADEMIC for this person. Associate professorship tends not to be sufficient of itself and his other achievements do not seem to clear the
WP:GNG hurdle.
Reason: This article, short as it is, meanders. Citrus crossing now appears to be a shopping mall where students live, with a theatre surrounded by other stuff. Non notable, and confused, with no references
Reason: The article shows a pretty standard Professor. Nothing in it demonstrates that he meets the criteria in
WP:ACADEMIC, however. Without this it is unlikely that this article may remain here.
Reason: The article shows a pretty standard Professor. Nothing in it demonstrates that he meets the criteria in
WP:ACADEMIC, however. Without this it is unlikely that this article may remain here.
Reason: Notable for
one event only, though the criticism of anti-semitism and child abuse may just allow him to pass
as inherently notable if built on and cited in
reliable sources. At present there is insufficient notability asserted and
verified in the article.
Reason: It has references, so passes the criteria for BLPPROD, and it asserts some notability (passing CSD), though not enough to remain here. At present it is an unhappy mix of personal and corporate material. If the lady is notable her article needs to state it. If her corporation is notable it requires its own article. This article nether asserts sufficient notability nor verifies it sufficiently for an article here.
Reason: Ignoring the imperfect citation parameters, presumably awaiting translation from Spanish, this article fails to assert
notability for the organisation. Without that it can not remain here. I've chosen the PROD mechanism to try to give editors time to assert and
verify notability in
reliable sources, but other deletion mechanisms exist and may take precedence.
Reason: While the Royal Mint obviously has a chief executive, notability is not inherited by the postholder. This gentleman has no inherent personal notability.
Reason: There is insufficient context at present to let the average reader understand what this is. It is notable, presumably, but may be better as a part of the parent article of which it is stated to be "a part" if such an article exists. IT requires
references in
reliable sources or it may not remain here as an article.
Reason: At present we see a $7m budget organisation, not small, not enormous, and we see many primary sources. What we don't see is an assertion of
notability which is
verified in
reliable sources. WIthout these essential items the article, while interesting, should not remain here.
Reason: While presumably a
notable topic, this article fails to assert the notability and to
verify it in
reliable sources. This means it is presented as
original research and thus may not remain here. Correcting those issues, may not ensure that it remains but will increase the probability the better it gets.
Reason: Some
notability is asserted, but there is no
verification in
reliable sources. Verification must be present or the article has no place here, and simply looks like an advert.
Reason: Many people are the First Something. That does not make them notable. No full
notability is asserted and
verifiec in
reliable sources, which may be paper sources, naturally. Without this material the article may not remain here.
Reason: While there is a strong possibility that this is a
notable organisation, the article fails to assert its notability, and does not
verify it in
reliable sources. Without these items it may not remain here. It is not notable simply because it is a charity and does good works.
Reason: That the company exists is not in doubt, but the article asserts no
notability and the only
references are not in [[W{:RS|reliable sources]]. If these matters are not corrected then the article has no place here.
Reason: Some notability is asserted, but none is verified. Halls of residence generally should be a part of the academic institution they are a hall for, assuming that is what this is. But the article doesn't explain this in any meaningful manner.
Reason: While there is sufficient
referencing and assertion of
notability to avoid speedy deletion or
WP:BLPPROD, this article does not assert sufficient notability to ensure its place here. Without this it may not remain.
Reason: I looked at
no:Medieoperatørene, but found no useful additional material. There are no
references in
reliable sources to back the limited assertion of
notability either here or there. For a TV production house with this number of credits that is a sad lack. It appears that it is notable, but the rules are clear. Notability must be asserted and verified in reliable sources for an article to remain here. The great swathe of redlinks militates against this being notable, certainly yet, in the English language Wikipedia.
Reason: A morass of
WP:POV and
WP:OR and not a little
WP:SYNTH this article needs a brutal edit to see the wood form the trees to even discern whether it is
notable. At present it requires
WP:TNT
Reason: Lacks asserted
notability together with
references in
reliable sources. Asserts just sufficient notability to avoid speedy deletion, but insufficient to remain.
Reason: That something exists does not make it
notable, and no notability has been asserted, nor has it been
verified in
reliable sources. Without these items it may not remain here as an article.
Reason: This adds nothing to the many and major articles here on
climate change, and is an
opinion piece, an essay and pure
original research. As such it is not a valid item for Wikipedia despite being interesting and informative. If points are missing form the other articles then they may be and should be added there.
Reason: This is little more than an extended Dictionary Definition, and somewhat of an essay, albeit with references. Much is padding to seek to make it an article. However there is no place on Wikipedia for dictionary definitions.
Reason: This is little more than an extended Dictionary Definition, and somewhat of an essay, albeit with references. Much is padding to seek to make it an article. However there is no place on Wikipedia for dictionary definitions.
Reason: A specialist conference reported by a specialist magazine specialising in that specialism does not mean this is a
notable conference, which is definitely appears not to be. Being magic that may be an illusion, but it does it very well. So well, in fact, that the conference fails
WP:GNG and has no place here.
Reason: Confused article about a film that has yet to see the light of day, alleged to be released in December 2014. No valid
references and no
notability. The article is not even self consistent about the length of the film. When the film is notable it may have an article here, but not before then. Speculative articles promoting films are not acceptable.
Reason: Would the gentleman have been
notable enough for an article here before his death? He doesn't appear to be sufficiently notable post mortem, and references do not leap into view online. Are there non online sources that affirm his notability? If not I fear the article should go.
Reason: This describes something in the future.
WP:BALL applies. When and if this project happens and achieves notability it may have an article here. Not until then, please.
Reason: Flagged as unsourced since August 2007 we know the organisation exists (0.9 probability), but we do not know from the article that it is
notable, and there are no
references to show it. Further, it is outdated, thus unlikely to be an accurate reflection of the current status. It also quotes a large tract of text stated to have been issued by the organisation itself and thus is likely to be a
Copyright violation. The article would probably benefit from
a ground up rewrite if the organisation is sufficiently notable for a place here.
Reason: It is not simply having
references that allows an article to remain here. The article must also show the subject's
notability, and this one does not. Currently fails
WP:GNG.
Reason: I'm having trouble seeing this lady as more than just a jobbing actress who is below the
WP:GNG threshold for inclusion here. The lead shows no reason for inclusion, nor does the main body of text. Without any extra information I cannot see the value to WIkipedia of this article remaining.
Reason: This organisation fails
to establish notability and has no
references in
reliable sources. An organisation fo 40+ years standing ought to have made some impression in, eg, Google, but I can find nothing so far. Without references this article may not remain here.
Reason: As presented in this article the claim of notability is not correctly
verified in
reliable sources. Without this verification the article may not remain here.
Reason: Having worked in and analysed this article, while wishing it were not so, I see it as a huge and cleverly constructed piece of self advertisement for Renouf and her husband the musician, crafted as self promotion by Renouf herself, against strong advice on her talk page. The article itself is poor, covering pretty much only the fact that Renouf and Middleton exist. Evidence of this is that Renouf has exhibited in galleries, as have many artists of varying reputations, but there is no discussion of her work and style and technique by others. It relies on primary sources, the exhibition catalogues themselves, which contain puffery written either by the exhibitors or their agents. It should be deleted as an advert. It meets all the criteria for
WP:VANISPAMCRUFTISEMENT and complete
WP:COI as it is at present. If it is to remain it requires application of
WP:TNT, hence this nomination for deletion
Reason: The aims of the organisation seem laudable, but there is nothing int he article to show its
notability, nor are there
any references. Without these the article may not remain here.
Reason: The intent of the foundation is laudable, but good intentions do not justify an article. However the article contains no
references. nor does it make the
notability of the organisation clear. Without these items the article may not remain here
Reason: At present there is only trivial detail in this article, but the gentleman appears not to pass
WP:ACADEME. More information and verification is required for the article to remain here.
Reason: I have declined a speedy deletion on this article because I believe there is just sufficient notability asserted to avoid that process. However I feel the gentleman does not pass
WP:GNG without substantial further research and citations within the article to show that he is notable.
Reason: The references tell us that the gentleman exists, but nowhere is any sort of
notability stated in the article, nor
verified in
reliable sources. Without these it may not remain here.
Reason: Because Wikipedia has a partial use as a gazetteer I have chosen to give this article time to develop by sufficient context being added for a determination on notability to be made, but, if it is not improved, it is very likely to be deleted. Where, for example, are these gardens? Why are they notable?
Reason: Neither of these things are useful attributes for notability. He happened to be a barrister during a notable event, but that does not grant him notability. His brother is an interesting fact, but that does not make this man notable.
Reason: Laudable, yes, but there is no
notability established for this organisation. Since it has laudable aims I have chosen this slower proposed deletion route to allow the shortfall to be addressed.
Reason: I havem at present, found no sources to
verify that this organisation is
notable. It has a web site, but Google News (for example) has trouble identifying
reliable sources that discuss the organisation. There are primary sources, but, if this organisation has notability it would, surely, feature in news items. I'm happy to be proven top be incorrect, and that sources exist that I haven;t been able to find, so I am choosing the PROD mechanism as a slow burn deletion route that allows article improvement to meet our need for verification of notability.
Reason: This corporation has had a remarkably similar article speedily deleted once as failing
WP:GNG. The references are Press Release material or primary sources, and there is no obvious reason that the organisation is at all notable. It appears to be a run of the mill brokerage with nothing to justify an article here. The username of the creating editor also implies some sort of COI and thus trade puffery. I see this as
WP:VANISPAMCRUFTISEMENT
Reason: Pure
WP:OR essay and
WP:POV piece, suitable for a blog or media article, but not for Wikipedia. Such
references that exist are wholly insufficient.
WP:TNT is a valid solution here.
Reason: There is sufficient here to pass speedy deletion, a route already declined, but there is insufficient
notability for this company to pass the threshold for the article to remain here. If notability can be shown and
verified then it may remain.
Reason: This is a
WP:OR essay based around a set of primary sources.
notability is lacking as are references in
reliable sources. It is part of a series of articles by the same editor(s) which appear to be intended as
WP:VANISPAMCRUFTISEMENT to create notability for the protagonists in the project(s).
Reason: There are no
references in
reliable sources for this film. It appears not to be
notable. WIthout notability and verification of it this article may not remain here.
Reason: Articles may not remain here unless they are
notable and have that notability
verified in
reliable sources, though the references do not have to be in English. Welsh is acceptable if any can be found.
Reason: This article has lots of lovely references, but is
original research and
synthesised original research and is an essay. To be retained it requires a major rewrite. Even then it does not appear to be
notable, something that is a pre-requisite for all articles here. Without that it may not remain,
Reason: This is a political
soapbox, not a neutral article. It must be rewritten in neutral terms and fully referenced or it must go. Wikipedia articles may not do more than report what is documented in reliable sources, and the material must also be notable.
Reason: While this article purports to be about a person it s actually about one or more corporations. WIthout a significant rewrite it cannot remain here as a biography. A valid option would be to move it to a title that reflects its content. However, it is about MMI and MRG. Mr Weisfisch is the common link, but that is all. On the basis of this difficulty I submit that the article requires deletion or a substantial rewrite.
Reason: A potentially pleasant embryo essay or dictionary definition, but there is nothing
notable about it. However pleasant it may be it is not material for an encyclopaedia.
Reason: The gentleman may well be notable, but the article is vague about notability. Additionally, if there is notability it must be shown by references to reliable sources. Such sources need not be online sources, but sourcing must be present. Without demonstrable notability this article may not remain.
Reason: This is an interesting tale. However, to place this in an encyclopaedia one needs more than interest. It needs to be notable, and substantial references are required in reliable sources. As a side issue, should the article be improved such that it may remain here, I am concerned about the title. It is, surely, an inscription, not an edict?
Reason: There is nothing to suggest that this is a
notable book, nor are there any
references for it. It has been hanging around waiting to be expanded for ages. It needs notability to be established, or it must go. References that are not in English are wholly acceptable.
Reason: What award? There are no
references and this single sentence article is insufficient. IT requires substantial improvement if it is to remain here.
Reason: Only primary sources are used and this has been so for over four years. We require references from significant coverage about the entity, and independent of it, and in
WP:RS please. See
WP:42.
Reason: Unreferenced BLP. Provide references and it can stay. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in
WP:RS. No references and it has to go.
Reason: While not a copyright violation (the source is licenced for onward use) this is unsuitable as an article for the many reasons flagged at the head. In brief summary of this it is unreferenced
WP:OR. Rather than ask for simple deletion I ask that it be moved to the Draft: namespace in order to grant the author time to work on it and to create a suitable article from the draft.
Reason: The organisation is non notable. I offered it at CSD before, but, on seeing that the orginator has long vanished, I feel this is the better approach.
We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in
WP:RS please. See
WP:42. My opinion is that this article, if it went through
WP:AFC today, would be pushed back for improvement because it is not likely, in its current form, to survive. However, adding the references to verify notability will save it.
Reason: This person is not notable, or his notability is not asserted and verified. For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in
WP:RS. Solve that and the article may remain here. Fail to solve it and it is likely to be deleted
Reason: The references do not demonstrate, nor does the article assert, notability. For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in
WP:RS.
Reason: This is a broadly empty article on a school which goes up to year 7, with no references about a school which is not inherently notable, and has no individual notability asserted nor verified
Reason: Unreferenced and non notable. For this to survive here we require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in
WP:RS please. See
WP:42. If those are not forthcoming this has no place here.
Reason: For this to remain we require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in
WP:RS please. See
WP:42. IT has not come through the
WP:AFC process, despite the banner announcing that it has done so. No notability is asserted nor verified.
Reason: This is a premature move from Draft: space to main namespace. Ordinarily I would move it back, but the contributing editor has moved it here twice, now, and I doubt any further improvement will happen in Draft: space. The article requires better references that assert and verify its notability. We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in
WP:RS please. See
WP:42. Without those references it cannot remain here. With them there is no issue.
Reason: The referencing is seriously lacking. This appears to be
WP:ADMASQ. with pseudo-references to generic things, directories or PR pieces. The routes for this are deletion, improvement where it stands, or return to draft space to be worked on. We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in
WP:RS please. See
WP:42. References that do not comply with this need to be replaced.
Reason: There are no references to verify any notability.
WP:ADMASQ. We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in
WP:RS please. See
WP:42. Without those it may not remain here
For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in
WP:RS. Without that this article may not remain.
Reason: Unreferenced. Notability is not verified. We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in
WP:RS please. See
WP:42
Reason: We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in
WP:RS please. See
WP:42. With references meeting those criteria this may remain here. Without them it needs to go
Reason: I do not consider an "honourable mention" to confirm
WP:N. This needs further referencing to confirm that it has notability. We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in
WP:RS please. See
WP:42
Reason: Fails
WP:CORP We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in
WP:RS please. See
WP:42. Without those it may not remain here.
Reason: Fails
WP:GNG. PROD added to give author a fighting chance to sort out referencing
We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in
WP:RS please. See
WP:42. Please also see
WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and
WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this article survive (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
Reason: Without references it is impossible to deterge whether this is
original research or
a synthesis of published material Placing this notice of proposed deletion grants a finite time for references to be provided.
We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in
WP:RS please. See
WP:42. Please also see
WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and
WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this article above to remain here (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
Reason: Unreferenced with no assertion of notability. PROD is used here to give editors time to improve the article, but with an end date when it becomes eligible for deletion. Looking at the talk page it seems to me that it is very unlikely that notability can be verified. If you can verify it then remove this notice
Reason: No evidence that the image is under an acceptable free licence. Ownership or possession of a photo, proprietorship of the equipment used to take the photo, or being the subject of the photo does not equate holding the copyright. The copyright holder is the photographer (i.e. the person who took the photo), rather that the subject (the person who appears in the photo) or the person possessing the photo, unless transferred by operation of law (e.g. inheritance, etc.) or by contract (written and signed by the copyright holder, and explicitly transfers the copyright).
Reason: While it is likely that the gentleman is inherently notable, this is not the article that asserts it nor verifies it. As written he is a
run of the mill businessman. The majority of the references are for his corporations. One at least is an interview with him, thus both unreliable and primary. It needs to be re-written to be about the gentleman, with his corporations simply being matters of interest, not the major thrust. If his corporations are notable they may have a separate article, but they have
undue weight in this article. Draftification and incubation there with reviewer comments and eventual acceptance might be the route to go other than deletion should the relevant improvements not be forthcoming main space
Reason: Two of the alleged references are to fundraising pages! The third is to a fan page. This is an advert, both for the unit and to raise money for it
Reason: This is an overblown
WP:DICDEF for a Google created IT Neologism. A précis might have a place in Wiktionary, but this article is not suitable for an encyclopaedia. All the references return to Google
Reason: The sole reference is a permanent dead link. I cannot find anything on Google Scholar to show he passes
WP:NPROF, and
WP:BEFORE does not find a great deal of anything useful.
Reason: There is no significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article. Lacks notability and has not been shown to pass
WP:BIO
Reason: This article purports to be about the venue but majors on the exhibitions mounted. I've suggested this deletion process to encourage the contributing editors to shake it into shape. It has, I think, escaped from Draft: space too early, and might benefit from being placed back there in order to be worked on in peace and quiet, but I've chosen not to do so because mainspace has a habit of attracting editors who will turn it into a worthwhile article