< 17 October | 19 October > |
---|
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 02:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable Canadian news anchor. Article has one source to her employers, and no good sources could be found. Christopher Connor ( talk) 23:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance to support claims. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb ( talk) 23:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. I reviewed the article, the arguments and the previous AFD discussions. There has been no significant improvement to the article since the February 2009 AFD. There is simply nothing here to support notability. Suggestions to merge or redirect offer no substantive reason to do so as the prior existence as a state road is unproven. JodyB talk 15:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable county highway in Florida. References show that the highway exists, but don't explain how/why highway is important. – Fredddie ™ 22:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
See also:
Delete Not notable. Goethe State Forest is (barely) notable, but not the nearby road. Some roads are more than asphalt. This one isn't. Sven Manguard Talk 02:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 21:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable band that fails WP:BAND. Aspects ( talk) 22:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Beeblebrox ( talk) 21:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Not notable. And probably WP:CB too :p Chzz ► 22:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Good rescue ( non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 21:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete: Poorly Written and provides no sources. Merge or Delete. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 22:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Peter Karlsen ( talk) 02:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Violates WP:NOT#INFO, just a list of non-notable bus routes. Delete Secret account 22:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable per WP:MUSICBIO, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Speedy deletion contested by WP:SPA. Top Jim ( talk) 22:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Non notable pageant contestant. Catfish Jim and the soapdish ( talk) 21:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD. Fails WP:ORG, also fairly spammy. Catfish Jim and the soapdish ( talk) 21:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge to List of Home and Away characters. -- Mike Cline ( talk) 18:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Article fundamentally fails the WP:GNG due to a lack of third-party sources that cover the subject in direct detail. Those sources are required to WP:verify notability. The only sources here are tangentially related, more suitable for the article about Jon Sivewright. The only sourced parts of this article are redundant to that one (which has at least WP:POTENTIAL to meet Wikipedia guidelines, unlike this one). Shooterwalker ( talk) 21:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, this article has no citations. JJ98 ( Talk) 21:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Canley ( talk) 05:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Recreation of previously deleted article on non notable local councillor. Per WP:POLITICIAN simply being a member of a local council is not sufficient to establish notability. A search for third party refs covering Tynan in detail fail to show up anything, so with a lack of coverage in 3rd party sources, he also fails WP:GNG Valenciano ( talk) 21:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Peter Karlsen ( talk) 02:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC) reply
It looks like people have genuinely tried to improve this article, but it just fundamentally lacks the potential to meet our most basic guidelines. The only sources I see are a few WP:GAMEGUIDEs which are insufficient to WP:verify notability. The other sources don't even mention the location, going completely off topic about a game that was released too early. Needless to say, the location does not meet the WP:GNG and should be deleted due to a lack of third-party sources. Shooterwalker ( talk) 21:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable band. Fails WP:MUS and WP:GNG. Sole reference is a review from a student newspaper. Catfish Jim and the soapdish ( talk) 20:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Musician with no independent notability. Fails WP:MUS and WP:GNG. Also unreferenced BLP. Catfish Jim and the soapdish ( talk) 20:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 02:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable software. No good sources in article and couldn't find any. Prod contested with "Remove delete: is notable, has sources". Christopher Connor ( talk) 19:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 02:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC) reply
New York community organisation. No good sources in article, and couldn't find any. Christopher Connor ( talk) 19:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 02:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable music producer. Article was created by subject. Sources in article are poor and couldn't find any better. Christopher Connor ( talk) 19:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Non notable academy player per WP:ATHLETE Mo ainm ~Talk 19:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Non notable academy player per WP:ATHLETE Mo ainm ~Talk 19:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Before even getting to the issue of sourcing, let me just ask everyone to ask themselves if they actually believe that the "Supernatant fraction obtained from an organ (usually liver) homogenate by centrifuging at 9000 g for 20 minutes in a suitable medium; this fraction contains cytosol and microsomes." sounds like something a general audience needs to be concerned about. A WP:PROD was declined without comment other than "removing tag." A "further reading" link to an book was added but clearly that was not actually used to construct the article as the actual article text was not changed when it was added. This article is a definition of an obscure term used in toxicology that is of no use to the average Wikipedia user. Or if you prefer: violates WP:NOTDIC and does not meet WP:N. Beeblebrox ( talk) 18:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 02:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC) reply
A fancy way of saying that a clock can be wrong. Article was WP:PRODed, Prod was removed with the assertion that "a stub is better than nothing." Although refs have been added, the article has not been expanded one iota on the basis of those new refs. To a lay person this an essentially useless article as it tells us nothing of substance. There is no evidence that this is a notable engineering concept. Wikipedia is not the glossary for an engineering textbook, or if you prefer, WP:NOTDIC. The sources are puffery and were clearly not actually used as the article is still a word-for-word copy of a government document. In short: What this is is explained in tech-speak and why it is important is not explained at all. Beeblebrox ( talk) 18:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 02:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC) reply
This nomination includes articles on his two books:
The biographical information in the article is completely unsourced; and the testimonials are sourced to his own web site. Statements in the article about "international acclamation," "huge fan club," and other puffery asserting notability are not supported by the citations given. ~ Ningauble ( talk) 17:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Glossary_of_anime_and_manga#B. ( non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 21:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable genre. Insufficient mention in reliable sources. Kenilworth Terrace ( talk) 17:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep, withdrawn. — David Eppstein ( talk) 19:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The author of all the substantive content on this page is apparently Muhammad Sahimi, based on the username (Sahimi54) and the fact that this user hasn't edited any other pages. I note that whilst Dr. Sahimi does meet one of the notability criteria for academics (he holds a named chair at a university), nevertheless on account of the self-promotional nature of this article (note the unnecessary and comprehensive list of his academic papers and newspaper articles) and also because of the absence of contributions from third parties, I think this article should be deleted on account of the autobiographical conflict of interest. Literatim ( talk) 17:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 02:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Purely WP:POV article as is. I'm skeptical as to whether any article which focuses on the list's cultural impact could be written, as I doubt whether this has the cultural relevance and garnered the response that some other lists have (such as the Rolling Stone (magazine) lists The 500 Greatest Albums of All Time and The 500 Greatest Songs of All Time). The group which put together this list -- the Mexican Cinema Club -- don't have an article yet, and while that doesn't necessarily mean they aren't notable, it should be noted. After some googling I've not managed to find much relevant content to support its inclusion - only some links which don't really meet WP:RS (such as [3]). I do concede that the language barrier may be impeding me here, though. Nonetheless, I think the contents fails WP:NOTOPINION, and the list fails WP:GNG.
What's more, this currently copies the list, and there are copyright concerns associated with that, too. Similar concerns were outlined with the RS lists, and the arguments can be read here. AllynJ ( talk | contribs) 16:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 02:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC) reply
prod removed by IP. No reliable sources to establish a depth of coverage per WP:ORG or WP:GNG. tedder ( talk) 15:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to List of Jeopardy! tournaments and events. Stifle ( talk) 10:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable game show tournament. Game shows often have special tournaments/episodes and while payouts are higher than normal or special contestants appear, they are not notable events.
Sottolacqua ( talk) 15:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete per WP:CSD#G11 - advertising. Pedro : Chat 20:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Non- notable company. A local Houston-based ad agency that has gained some local recognition, but nothing beyond the Houston region. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 15:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy deletion under WP:CSD A7 - Vianello ( Talk) 21:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Borderline speedy deletion, possible hoax. Even if he does exist there are no reliable sources so the article fails WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:GNG. Pax:Vobiscum ( talk) 15:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 10:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete No evidence of notability. Of the "sources" cited, one is the Pervade Productions website, and none of the others so much as mentions Pervade Productions. JamesBWatson ( talk) 14:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Washington & Jefferson Presidents. T. Canens ( talk) 11:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable club hockey organization, limited if any third-party coverage. Articles on similar teams regularly deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgia Tech Ice Hockey and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgia Ice Dogs men's ice hockey. Grsz 11 13:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
To expand on an earlier quote. Another "A local source is a source of information that is marketed to a limited geographical audience. These include, but are not limited to, newspapers, community papers, magazines, and journals representing a local city, town, or region, local television and radio stations (and their associated websites), and websites providing media to an area.". The papers you point to are all of those things. (emphasis mine) - DJSasso ( talk) 20:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Nom withdrew deletion, and several sources added. ( non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 21:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC) reply
article was originally sourced almost entirely by links to the band's myspace account, after i removed those and asked for proper sources the article author provided links to a website selling the band's albums. most refs in the article are directly associated with the band, the handful that aren't don't appear to indicate notability beyond local coverage as per WP:BAND. in addition, the article is written from the POV of someone with first person knowledge of the subject. very little in the way of factual statements, the majority of the information is WP:OR with refs provided as an afterthought. posting this AfD for other users consideration to gauge response before i render a "delete" or "keep". WookieInHeat ( talk) 13:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete due to lack of reliable sources to verify the existence and notability of this subject. -- RL0919 ( talk) 11:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Article purports to be about a Cryptolect from Tatar; but there are no sources (only link is dead), and I can't find any, anywhere. I'm concerned that this is actually a very subtle attack page. Furthermore, ru.wiki doesn't have an article under any of these names, which makes me even more suspicious. My feeling is that it if this is legitimate, it needs sources, and since it's been around for 3 years without them, it's time for it to go. Qwyrxian ( talk) 12:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect.With a WP:TROUT to the nominator. If you want to propose a merge do so at the article's talk page, this is for deletion discussions. Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Primary schools are not de facto notable, and only under exceptional circumstances of high importance are they accorded stand-alone articles. Our standard procedure is to merge and redirect to the school district or localiry. Kudpung ( talk) 12:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 10:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The list represents an unnecessary content fork for content which is already presented in a sufficient way at 2010–11 Indonesia Super League#Top Scorer, and also violates WP:NOT#STATS. Consensus for articles under the scope of the WikiProject on association football is to include the best ten scorers of a season, plus those players with an equal amount of goals as the tenth-best scorer if there are not too many of them, into the respective season article of the competition. Soccer-holic I hear voices in my head... 11:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following related page because of the same concerns, plus this list is highly unlikely to meet WP:N and also violates WP:RECENT:
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 10:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Appears to fail the WP:GNG guidelines as an non-notable market-specific use of the term and a lack of authoritative sources to demonstrate that Insurance has an accepted appreciably different usage of the generic term business intelligence. Apart from the usage promoted by Insfocus Systems Ltd (insfocus.com) for their software, there seems little independent evidence published in the literature (searching Google Books and Google Scholar) to support an encyclopaedic article. The article appears to be an unjustifiable content fork of Business intelligence. Fæ ( talk) 11:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Hi,
Companies operating in insurance business intelligence only:
Other firms discussing insurance specific BI:
Other sources:
Hi,
Then why do this terms exists ? Banking_business_intelligence —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanantaiber ( talk • contribs) 13:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was No Consensus. -- Mike Cline ( talk) 18:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable university debating society. Article is unreferenced and reads like a fan site. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry ( talk) 22:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete:-The subject of the article is Non notable without awards or significant inventions.She has just written a book that has been reviewed in some newspapers but that in no way establish the notability and significance of the subject as well as the article.When nominated first it was deleted and it is likely that the subject kept on screaming to keep it and previously deletd page can't be put up like this.see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nabila_Jamshed Also the weeks link do not work.External links have a blog.Also book has not been published by any significant publisher.It just small new house with few books.Mere media coverages can't establish notability.The coverages must speak about the notability which this article is lacking.Just a way of self promotion.I suggest strong delete of the article.Moreover the subject has written just one book that is no bestseller or award winning book.Just this is a case of self promotion.-- Poet009 ( talk) 21:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC) reply
1>In the footnotes the link of the Week is a dead link. 2>The Indian Express link just mentions that Girl has released a novel.The coverage includes many others.The coverage does not show why the subject is notable. 3>The NDTV Coverage just shows that she has released a novel upon terrorism.Nothing significantly told about the subject. 4>The Hindu link gives a book review with some minor details. So just one media coverage(Hindu) is there which gives a review of the book and a bit about her.Just one media coverage cannot make a subject notable.Jamshed is likely to be a self promoter editing her bio from anonymous IP addresses.Taking a look at wikipedia's policies a bio can't stand as a wiki article basing on a book which is neither a roaring best seller nor has been a subject of wide review.No awards, no inventions nothing.Just a book that too is not available in all big stores.Totally non notable subject.Her article in wiki is just promoting her book and herself in Google search.Nothing else.-- Poet009 ( talk) 18:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 10:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Speedy declined. PROD removed. WP:NOT (dictionary). Probably neologism formed in 2010. If there's anything notable, should be merged to elsewhere. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 02:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Article doesn't contain any meaningful content and is unlikely to do so in the future -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 07:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete per consensus and as an unsourced BLP per WP:BLP. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC) reply
fails WP:BIO . simply being a city manager is not enough. he gets gnews hits but more for statements he's said representing the city, not actual coverage about him as a person like education, career achievements etc. LibStar ( talk) 06:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Close as discussion should be held at redirects for discussion Dylanfromthenorth ( talk) 07:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Avoid confusion with other similarly named people. 暗無天日 contact me (聯絡) 06:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Close as discussion should be held at redirects for discussion Dylanfromthenorth ( talk) 07:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Avoid confusion with other similarly named people. 暗無天日 contact me (聯絡) 06:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Close as discussion should be held at redirects for discussion Dylanfromthenorth ( talk) 07:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Avoid confusion with other similarly named people. 暗無天日 contact me (聯絡) 06:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Close as discussion should be held at redirects for discussion Dylanfromthenorth ( talk) 07:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Avoid confusion with other similarly named people. 暗無天日 contact me (聯絡) 06:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Close as discussion should be held at redirects for discussion Dylanfromthenorth ( talk) 07:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Avoid confusion with other people also named "Zhang Zhaozhong". 暗無天日 contact me (聯絡) 06:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Close as discussion should be held at redirects for discussion Dylanfromthenorth ( talk) 07:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Avoid confusion with other people also named "Luo Bing". 暗無天日 contact me (聯絡) 06:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 02:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC) reply
WP:OR. Anything meaningful can be covered in Languages of Singapore. I'm suggesting deletion rather than redirection as this is an obscure title and there's only one inbound link. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 06:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Close as discussion should be held at redirects for discussion Dylanfromthenorth ( talk) 07:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Not a useful redirect. "A Bi" can refer to anyone with a "Bi" in his/her name. 暗無天日 contact me (聯絡) 06:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Close as discussion should be held at redirects for discussion Dylanfromthenorth ( talk) 07:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Not a useful redirect. Duan Zhengming is a real historical person. Even though he appears in a work of fiction, redirecting the page to the characters list will make readers think that he is also a fictional character. 暗無天日 contact me (聯絡) 06:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Close as discussion should be held at redirects for discussion Dylanfromthenorth ( talk) 07:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Not a useful redirect. Gao Shengtai is a real historical person. Even though he appears in a work of fiction, redirecting the page to the characters list will make readers think that he is also a fictional character. 暗無天日 contact me (聯絡) 06:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Close as discussion should be held at redirects for discussion Dylanfromthenorth ( talk) 06:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Not a useful redirect. "A Zi" can refer to anyone with a "Zi" in his/her name. 暗無天日 contact me (聯絡) 06:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Close as discussion should be held at redirects for discussion Dylanfromthenorth ( talk) 06:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Not a useful redirect. "A Zhu" can refer to anyone with a "Zhu" in his/her name. 暗無天日 contact me (聯絡) 06:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Close as discussion should be held at redirects for discussion Dylanfromthenorth ( talk) 06:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
As per A Ke. 暗無天日 contact me (聯絡) 06:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Close as discussion should be held at redirects for discussion Dylanfromthenorth ( talk) 06:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
As per A'Qi. 暗無天日 contact me (聯絡) 06:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Close as discussion should be held at redirects for discussion Dylanfromthenorth ( talk) 06:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Not a useful redirect. A'Qi can refer to any person who has a "Qi" in his/her name. 暗無天日 contact me (聯絡) 06:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Close as discussion should be held at redirects for discussion Dylanfromthenorth ( talk) 06:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
This redirect is misleading. Feng Xifan is a real historical person. Even if he appears in a work of fiction, this page should not redirect to the list of characters, because readers will get the wrong idea that he is a fictional character. 暗無天日 contact me (聯絡) 06:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Close as discussion should be held at redirects for discussion Dylanfromthenorth ( talk) 06:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
This redirect isn't very useful, as Cheng Kun can be a common Chinese name. It doesn't necessarily have to be a Wuxia novel character's name. 暗無天日 contact me (聯絡) 06:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 09:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC) reply
This group is not notable. They have one album. The only sources given are the myspace group for the group. Wlmg ( talk) 14:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 02:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb ( talk) 04:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
bpamac ( talk) 12:58, 18 October 2010 (EST) — bpamac ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Bpamac ( talk) 22:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 10:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable event organized by a non-notable group. Google could not find anything on this group aside from a primary source (press release). It appears that the creator may have a conflict of interest with the topic; see the conflict of interest noticeboard (section BONN) for more details. Netalarm talk 04:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. -- Cirt ( talk) 02:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Article is an uncited list of full time current faculty at Columbia. I can't find secondary sources to support the position of University Professor at Columbia anymore notable than any other job elsewhere. The prod remover said it passed WP:PROF, but since the article isn't about professors but a position which professor hold, I don't see how that guideline is relevant. TM 04:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge into Insecticons. Jafeluv ( talk) 15:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC) reply
No evidence of major coverage on CNN and CBS news, MSNBC, etc. Tedescoboy22 ( talk) 04:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge into Insecticons. Jafeluv ( talk) 15:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC) reply
No reliable coverage on CNN, CBS news, etc. Tedescoboy22 ( talk) 02:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Most Transformers articles are so badly sourced people can't tell the difference. Thats what happens when fancruft is left to run wild.
— Dwanyewest, the reply to a comment of mine on the Transformers Wikiproject talk page
- NotARealWord ( talk) 15:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 02:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC) reply
As far as I can tell, non-notable company. Magog the Ogre ( talk) 02:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Although there are several links for various topics covered in the article to which the subject may be related to, there are no reliable sources that cover "Melissa Mermaid." Thus the article does not satisfy WP:BIO. Oore ( talk) 02:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 10:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable candidate that fails WP:BIO. The article's references are not sufficient to establish notability and a search didn't reveal more than passing mentions of Cantor's refusal to debate him. Gobonobo T C 02:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
THIS IS GARBAGE. ERIC CANTOR IS JUST HAVING HIS OPPONENTS' PROFILES TAKEN DOWN. JUST ANOTHER DIRTY TRICK FROM ERIC CANTOR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richmonder ( talk • contribs) 01:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC) — Richmonder ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 02:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Classic WP:ISNOT, Transwiki what can be to wikiquote but delete this as it is not encyclopedic The Resident Anthropologist ( talk) 01:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
It couldn't be said better. Even the National Review takes issue with the names Olbermann is calling. Its a note-worthy subject. I think this much material will make the main article too long, so I strongly suggest we keep this article instead of merge. Trackinfo ( talk) 04:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 10:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Completely unreferenced. No links, and apparently no Ghits to "The Big Movement" which it is assumed to be based on. Is 'said' to be in pre-production.Too many unknowns:
Although this is about a TV(?) series, I suggest that either WP:TOOSOON or WP:CRYSTALL, or both, applies here]] Kudpung ( talk) 01:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ok, this one gets the hat trick. Delete per consensus, delete as an unsourced BLP per WP:BLP, delete per CSD A7 as IoS is not asserted. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC) reply
An article about a non-notable high school athlete. Does not meet the requirements of WP:ATHLETE. Regent of the Seatopians ( talk) 01:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 10:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC) reply
fails WP:BAND. despite the claims in the article, nothing in gnews [47]. LibStar ( talk) 00:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was SPEEDY DELETE Alexf (talk) 18:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC) reply
1. Individual is not notable per Wikipedia:Notability (people). Google seaerch turned up nothing, nor did an IMDB search. The only resource listed it the person's website. 2. The editor who created the page is "ActorMedic", which leads me to believe that this is the same person and created their own Wiki page. Neonblak talk - 01:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. There is a consensus here that the sources provided by Cirt are sufficient to establish notability. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Essentially the subject of the article received passing mentions in the press in the summer of 2005 for her appearances with Katie Holmes and Tom Cruise. The coverage was more or less celebrity gossip stories which mention her briefly with no significant coverage about Rodriguez. At the time, Cruise and Holmes were being discussed widely in the media. Otherwise Rodriguez's name appears occasionally in press release type statements as a spokesperson for the Church of Scientology. Again, there is no real coverage of her in these news articles beyond mentioning her name in passing. I was ready to speedy delete the article because I don't really see a claim for notability. But I noticed that it had prior Afd. So here we are.... FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 00:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC) reply
I proposed deletion of this back in March, and the prod was removed with the article is virtually unsourced; but the entity is most certainly notable. I do understand the logic, but sadly, it was not improved. It has a single source, and I am unable to find others - of course, it is possible/likely that there are sources in another language, and per Wikipedia:Systemic bias, it would be great if others could add such. However, as it stands, I do not feel we can accurately present information on the company, without references to show notability, per WP:GNG, WP:V, WP:ONESOURCE. I also note that it is a holding company, and according to the only source we have, it is intended to incorporate others in the future - so there is an element of WP:CRYSTAL here, too. NOTE: This is a relisting, the same as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rosgeologiya. That was closed 'No consensus', but should almost certainly have been closed 'delete' and the closing admin agrees here, but we felt relisting made sense due to age of that, and the changes in AFD rules. Chzz ► 17:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 09:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Unreferenced, promotional article for a non-notable piece of software. Few reliable sources cover the significance of this software. I've already deleted one section of the article which was confirmed as a copyvio. Fails WP:NSOFT and WP:GNG. SnottyWong converse 23:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 09:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC) reply
I can't find any reliable sources. John Vandenberg ( chat) 03:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Stifle ( talk) 10:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
the notability of this organization is questionable, if not nonexistent. this directory of locations definetly doesn't need its own article. see also the organizations other two articles which have been nominated for deletion as well. WookieInHeat ( talk) 04:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 09:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC) reply
nominating this article to bring attention to it. only the times online ref meets WP:RS, and it could be considered a rather vague if not completely trivial mention at that (most of content refed isn't supported by it). believe article should either be merged as per template on the page or deleted altogether. WookieInHeat ( talk) 04:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus - several good arguments by respected editors go every which way, and I don't see any consensus developing soon. Bearian ( talk) 22:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Indiscriminate list that would run to thousands or tens of thousands of entries.
Rich
Farmbrough,
09:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC).
reply
09:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Delete these scientists, inventors, and scholars don't really have anything in common other than being African; I don't see the point of listing them together in the same article— Chris! c/ t 23:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC) reply
I can't see significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject for this artist. Hirst and Banksy have verifiably shown interest in his artwork, but this in itself does not confer notability. The article has references; however,
I admit I am a Street art and Stuckist fan. Please prove me wrong here. -- Shirt58 ( talk) 13:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. I think the consensus is that we do not usually keep article on local organizations like this; the references are not substantialisting DGG ( talk ) 00:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC) reply
fails WP:ORG. absolutely nothing in gnews [68]. 3 of the sources provided are its own website and thus are not third party. LibStar ( talk) 13:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable local company; minimal coverage in local paper's business section does not satisfy WP:CORP. Orange Mike | Talk 13:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 09:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Another apparently non-notable subject deprodded by User:The De-PROD Meister - I see no notability here, so bringing to AFD. Michig ( talk) 17:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC) reply
A article with no third-party references to assert notability. Wizard191 ( talk) 20:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. A quick search returns no third party sources. Spiesr ( talk) 20:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Keep, sufficient sources in german to support notability. -- Nuujinn ( talk) 13:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC) reply
< 17 October | 19 October > |
---|
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 02:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable Canadian news anchor. Article has one source to her employers, and no good sources could be found. Christopher Connor ( talk) 23:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance to support claims. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb ( talk) 23:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. I reviewed the article, the arguments and the previous AFD discussions. There has been no significant improvement to the article since the February 2009 AFD. There is simply nothing here to support notability. Suggestions to merge or redirect offer no substantive reason to do so as the prior existence as a state road is unproven. JodyB talk 15:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable county highway in Florida. References show that the highway exists, but don't explain how/why highway is important. – Fredddie ™ 22:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
See also:
Delete Not notable. Goethe State Forest is (barely) notable, but not the nearby road. Some roads are more than asphalt. This one isn't. Sven Manguard Talk 02:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 21:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable band that fails WP:BAND. Aspects ( talk) 22:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Beeblebrox ( talk) 21:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Not notable. And probably WP:CB too :p Chzz ► 22:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Good rescue ( non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 21:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete: Poorly Written and provides no sources. Merge or Delete. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 22:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Peter Karlsen ( talk) 02:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Violates WP:NOT#INFO, just a list of non-notable bus routes. Delete Secret account 22:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable per WP:MUSICBIO, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Speedy deletion contested by WP:SPA. Top Jim ( talk) 22:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Non notable pageant contestant. Catfish Jim and the soapdish ( talk) 21:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD. Fails WP:ORG, also fairly spammy. Catfish Jim and the soapdish ( talk) 21:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge to List of Home and Away characters. -- Mike Cline ( talk) 18:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Article fundamentally fails the WP:GNG due to a lack of third-party sources that cover the subject in direct detail. Those sources are required to WP:verify notability. The only sources here are tangentially related, more suitable for the article about Jon Sivewright. The only sourced parts of this article are redundant to that one (which has at least WP:POTENTIAL to meet Wikipedia guidelines, unlike this one). Shooterwalker ( talk) 21:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, this article has no citations. JJ98 ( Talk) 21:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Canley ( talk) 05:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Recreation of previously deleted article on non notable local councillor. Per WP:POLITICIAN simply being a member of a local council is not sufficient to establish notability. A search for third party refs covering Tynan in detail fail to show up anything, so with a lack of coverage in 3rd party sources, he also fails WP:GNG Valenciano ( talk) 21:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Peter Karlsen ( talk) 02:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC) reply
It looks like people have genuinely tried to improve this article, but it just fundamentally lacks the potential to meet our most basic guidelines. The only sources I see are a few WP:GAMEGUIDEs which are insufficient to WP:verify notability. The other sources don't even mention the location, going completely off topic about a game that was released too early. Needless to say, the location does not meet the WP:GNG and should be deleted due to a lack of third-party sources. Shooterwalker ( talk) 21:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable band. Fails WP:MUS and WP:GNG. Sole reference is a review from a student newspaper. Catfish Jim and the soapdish ( talk) 20:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Musician with no independent notability. Fails WP:MUS and WP:GNG. Also unreferenced BLP. Catfish Jim and the soapdish ( talk) 20:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 02:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable software. No good sources in article and couldn't find any. Prod contested with "Remove delete: is notable, has sources". Christopher Connor ( talk) 19:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 02:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC) reply
New York community organisation. No good sources in article, and couldn't find any. Christopher Connor ( talk) 19:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 02:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable music producer. Article was created by subject. Sources in article are poor and couldn't find any better. Christopher Connor ( talk) 19:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Non notable academy player per WP:ATHLETE Mo ainm ~Talk 19:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Non notable academy player per WP:ATHLETE Mo ainm ~Talk 19:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Before even getting to the issue of sourcing, let me just ask everyone to ask themselves if they actually believe that the "Supernatant fraction obtained from an organ (usually liver) homogenate by centrifuging at 9000 g for 20 minutes in a suitable medium; this fraction contains cytosol and microsomes." sounds like something a general audience needs to be concerned about. A WP:PROD was declined without comment other than "removing tag." A "further reading" link to an book was added but clearly that was not actually used to construct the article as the actual article text was not changed when it was added. This article is a definition of an obscure term used in toxicology that is of no use to the average Wikipedia user. Or if you prefer: violates WP:NOTDIC and does not meet WP:N. Beeblebrox ( talk) 18:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 02:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC) reply
A fancy way of saying that a clock can be wrong. Article was WP:PRODed, Prod was removed with the assertion that "a stub is better than nothing." Although refs have been added, the article has not been expanded one iota on the basis of those new refs. To a lay person this an essentially useless article as it tells us nothing of substance. There is no evidence that this is a notable engineering concept. Wikipedia is not the glossary for an engineering textbook, or if you prefer, WP:NOTDIC. The sources are puffery and were clearly not actually used as the article is still a word-for-word copy of a government document. In short: What this is is explained in tech-speak and why it is important is not explained at all. Beeblebrox ( talk) 18:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 02:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC) reply
This nomination includes articles on his two books:
The biographical information in the article is completely unsourced; and the testimonials are sourced to his own web site. Statements in the article about "international acclamation," "huge fan club," and other puffery asserting notability are not supported by the citations given. ~ Ningauble ( talk) 17:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Glossary_of_anime_and_manga#B. ( non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 21:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable genre. Insufficient mention in reliable sources. Kenilworth Terrace ( talk) 17:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep, withdrawn. — David Eppstein ( talk) 19:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The author of all the substantive content on this page is apparently Muhammad Sahimi, based on the username (Sahimi54) and the fact that this user hasn't edited any other pages. I note that whilst Dr. Sahimi does meet one of the notability criteria for academics (he holds a named chair at a university), nevertheless on account of the self-promotional nature of this article (note the unnecessary and comprehensive list of his academic papers and newspaper articles) and also because of the absence of contributions from third parties, I think this article should be deleted on account of the autobiographical conflict of interest. Literatim ( talk) 17:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 02:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Purely WP:POV article as is. I'm skeptical as to whether any article which focuses on the list's cultural impact could be written, as I doubt whether this has the cultural relevance and garnered the response that some other lists have (such as the Rolling Stone (magazine) lists The 500 Greatest Albums of All Time and The 500 Greatest Songs of All Time). The group which put together this list -- the Mexican Cinema Club -- don't have an article yet, and while that doesn't necessarily mean they aren't notable, it should be noted. After some googling I've not managed to find much relevant content to support its inclusion - only some links which don't really meet WP:RS (such as [3]). I do concede that the language barrier may be impeding me here, though. Nonetheless, I think the contents fails WP:NOTOPINION, and the list fails WP:GNG.
What's more, this currently copies the list, and there are copyright concerns associated with that, too. Similar concerns were outlined with the RS lists, and the arguments can be read here. AllynJ ( talk | contribs) 16:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 02:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC) reply
prod removed by IP. No reliable sources to establish a depth of coverage per WP:ORG or WP:GNG. tedder ( talk) 15:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to List of Jeopardy! tournaments and events. Stifle ( talk) 10:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable game show tournament. Game shows often have special tournaments/episodes and while payouts are higher than normal or special contestants appear, they are not notable events.
Sottolacqua ( talk) 15:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete per WP:CSD#G11 - advertising. Pedro : Chat 20:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Non- notable company. A local Houston-based ad agency that has gained some local recognition, but nothing beyond the Houston region. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 15:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy deletion under WP:CSD A7 - Vianello ( Talk) 21:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Borderline speedy deletion, possible hoax. Even if he does exist there are no reliable sources so the article fails WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:GNG. Pax:Vobiscum ( talk) 15:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 10:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete No evidence of notability. Of the "sources" cited, one is the Pervade Productions website, and none of the others so much as mentions Pervade Productions. JamesBWatson ( talk) 14:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Washington & Jefferson Presidents. T. Canens ( talk) 11:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable club hockey organization, limited if any third-party coverage. Articles on similar teams regularly deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgia Tech Ice Hockey and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgia Ice Dogs men's ice hockey. Grsz 11 13:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
To expand on an earlier quote. Another "A local source is a source of information that is marketed to a limited geographical audience. These include, but are not limited to, newspapers, community papers, magazines, and journals representing a local city, town, or region, local television and radio stations (and their associated websites), and websites providing media to an area.". The papers you point to are all of those things. (emphasis mine) - DJSasso ( talk) 20:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Nom withdrew deletion, and several sources added. ( non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 21:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC) reply
article was originally sourced almost entirely by links to the band's myspace account, after i removed those and asked for proper sources the article author provided links to a website selling the band's albums. most refs in the article are directly associated with the band, the handful that aren't don't appear to indicate notability beyond local coverage as per WP:BAND. in addition, the article is written from the POV of someone with first person knowledge of the subject. very little in the way of factual statements, the majority of the information is WP:OR with refs provided as an afterthought. posting this AfD for other users consideration to gauge response before i render a "delete" or "keep". WookieInHeat ( talk) 13:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete due to lack of reliable sources to verify the existence and notability of this subject. -- RL0919 ( talk) 11:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Article purports to be about a Cryptolect from Tatar; but there are no sources (only link is dead), and I can't find any, anywhere. I'm concerned that this is actually a very subtle attack page. Furthermore, ru.wiki doesn't have an article under any of these names, which makes me even more suspicious. My feeling is that it if this is legitimate, it needs sources, and since it's been around for 3 years without them, it's time for it to go. Qwyrxian ( talk) 12:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect.With a WP:TROUT to the nominator. If you want to propose a merge do so at the article's talk page, this is for deletion discussions. Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Primary schools are not de facto notable, and only under exceptional circumstances of high importance are they accorded stand-alone articles. Our standard procedure is to merge and redirect to the school district or localiry. Kudpung ( talk) 12:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 10:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The list represents an unnecessary content fork for content which is already presented in a sufficient way at 2010–11 Indonesia Super League#Top Scorer, and also violates WP:NOT#STATS. Consensus for articles under the scope of the WikiProject on association football is to include the best ten scorers of a season, plus those players with an equal amount of goals as the tenth-best scorer if there are not too many of them, into the respective season article of the competition. Soccer-holic I hear voices in my head... 11:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following related page because of the same concerns, plus this list is highly unlikely to meet WP:N and also violates WP:RECENT:
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 10:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Appears to fail the WP:GNG guidelines as an non-notable market-specific use of the term and a lack of authoritative sources to demonstrate that Insurance has an accepted appreciably different usage of the generic term business intelligence. Apart from the usage promoted by Insfocus Systems Ltd (insfocus.com) for their software, there seems little independent evidence published in the literature (searching Google Books and Google Scholar) to support an encyclopaedic article. The article appears to be an unjustifiable content fork of Business intelligence. Fæ ( talk) 11:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Hi,
Companies operating in insurance business intelligence only:
Other firms discussing insurance specific BI:
Other sources:
Hi,
Then why do this terms exists ? Banking_business_intelligence —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanantaiber ( talk • contribs) 13:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was No Consensus. -- Mike Cline ( talk) 18:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable university debating society. Article is unreferenced and reads like a fan site. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry ( talk) 22:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete:-The subject of the article is Non notable without awards or significant inventions.She has just written a book that has been reviewed in some newspapers but that in no way establish the notability and significance of the subject as well as the article.When nominated first it was deleted and it is likely that the subject kept on screaming to keep it and previously deletd page can't be put up like this.see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nabila_Jamshed Also the weeks link do not work.External links have a blog.Also book has not been published by any significant publisher.It just small new house with few books.Mere media coverages can't establish notability.The coverages must speak about the notability which this article is lacking.Just a way of self promotion.I suggest strong delete of the article.Moreover the subject has written just one book that is no bestseller or award winning book.Just this is a case of self promotion.-- Poet009 ( talk) 21:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC) reply
1>In the footnotes the link of the Week is a dead link. 2>The Indian Express link just mentions that Girl has released a novel.The coverage includes many others.The coverage does not show why the subject is notable. 3>The NDTV Coverage just shows that she has released a novel upon terrorism.Nothing significantly told about the subject. 4>The Hindu link gives a book review with some minor details. So just one media coverage(Hindu) is there which gives a review of the book and a bit about her.Just one media coverage cannot make a subject notable.Jamshed is likely to be a self promoter editing her bio from anonymous IP addresses.Taking a look at wikipedia's policies a bio can't stand as a wiki article basing on a book which is neither a roaring best seller nor has been a subject of wide review.No awards, no inventions nothing.Just a book that too is not available in all big stores.Totally non notable subject.Her article in wiki is just promoting her book and herself in Google search.Nothing else.-- Poet009 ( talk) 18:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 10:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Speedy declined. PROD removed. WP:NOT (dictionary). Probably neologism formed in 2010. If there's anything notable, should be merged to elsewhere. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 02:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Article doesn't contain any meaningful content and is unlikely to do so in the future -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 07:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete per consensus and as an unsourced BLP per WP:BLP. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC) reply
fails WP:BIO . simply being a city manager is not enough. he gets gnews hits but more for statements he's said representing the city, not actual coverage about him as a person like education, career achievements etc. LibStar ( talk) 06:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Close as discussion should be held at redirects for discussion Dylanfromthenorth ( talk) 07:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Avoid confusion with other similarly named people. 暗無天日 contact me (聯絡) 06:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Close as discussion should be held at redirects for discussion Dylanfromthenorth ( talk) 07:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Avoid confusion with other similarly named people. 暗無天日 contact me (聯絡) 06:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Close as discussion should be held at redirects for discussion Dylanfromthenorth ( talk) 07:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Avoid confusion with other similarly named people. 暗無天日 contact me (聯絡) 06:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Close as discussion should be held at redirects for discussion Dylanfromthenorth ( talk) 07:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Avoid confusion with other similarly named people. 暗無天日 contact me (聯絡) 06:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Close as discussion should be held at redirects for discussion Dylanfromthenorth ( talk) 07:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Avoid confusion with other people also named "Zhang Zhaozhong". 暗無天日 contact me (聯絡) 06:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Close as discussion should be held at redirects for discussion Dylanfromthenorth ( talk) 07:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Avoid confusion with other people also named "Luo Bing". 暗無天日 contact me (聯絡) 06:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 02:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC) reply
WP:OR. Anything meaningful can be covered in Languages of Singapore. I'm suggesting deletion rather than redirection as this is an obscure title and there's only one inbound link. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 06:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Close as discussion should be held at redirects for discussion Dylanfromthenorth ( talk) 07:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Not a useful redirect. "A Bi" can refer to anyone with a "Bi" in his/her name. 暗無天日 contact me (聯絡) 06:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Close as discussion should be held at redirects for discussion Dylanfromthenorth ( talk) 07:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Not a useful redirect. Duan Zhengming is a real historical person. Even though he appears in a work of fiction, redirecting the page to the characters list will make readers think that he is also a fictional character. 暗無天日 contact me (聯絡) 06:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Close as discussion should be held at redirects for discussion Dylanfromthenorth ( talk) 07:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Not a useful redirect. Gao Shengtai is a real historical person. Even though he appears in a work of fiction, redirecting the page to the characters list will make readers think that he is also a fictional character. 暗無天日 contact me (聯絡) 06:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Close as discussion should be held at redirects for discussion Dylanfromthenorth ( talk) 06:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Not a useful redirect. "A Zi" can refer to anyone with a "Zi" in his/her name. 暗無天日 contact me (聯絡) 06:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Close as discussion should be held at redirects for discussion Dylanfromthenorth ( talk) 06:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Not a useful redirect. "A Zhu" can refer to anyone with a "Zhu" in his/her name. 暗無天日 contact me (聯絡) 06:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Close as discussion should be held at redirects for discussion Dylanfromthenorth ( talk) 06:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
As per A Ke. 暗無天日 contact me (聯絡) 06:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Close as discussion should be held at redirects for discussion Dylanfromthenorth ( talk) 06:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
As per A'Qi. 暗無天日 contact me (聯絡) 06:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Close as discussion should be held at redirects for discussion Dylanfromthenorth ( talk) 06:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Not a useful redirect. A'Qi can refer to any person who has a "Qi" in his/her name. 暗無天日 contact me (聯絡) 06:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Close as discussion should be held at redirects for discussion Dylanfromthenorth ( talk) 06:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
This redirect is misleading. Feng Xifan is a real historical person. Even if he appears in a work of fiction, this page should not redirect to the list of characters, because readers will get the wrong idea that he is a fictional character. 暗無天日 contact me (聯絡) 06:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Close as discussion should be held at redirects for discussion Dylanfromthenorth ( talk) 06:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
This redirect isn't very useful, as Cheng Kun can be a common Chinese name. It doesn't necessarily have to be a Wuxia novel character's name. 暗無天日 contact me (聯絡) 06:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 09:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC) reply
This group is not notable. They have one album. The only sources given are the myspace group for the group. Wlmg ( talk) 14:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 02:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb ( talk) 04:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
bpamac ( talk) 12:58, 18 October 2010 (EST) — bpamac ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Bpamac ( talk) 22:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 10:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable event organized by a non-notable group. Google could not find anything on this group aside from a primary source (press release). It appears that the creator may have a conflict of interest with the topic; see the conflict of interest noticeboard (section BONN) for more details. Netalarm talk 04:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. -- Cirt ( talk) 02:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Article is an uncited list of full time current faculty at Columbia. I can't find secondary sources to support the position of University Professor at Columbia anymore notable than any other job elsewhere. The prod remover said it passed WP:PROF, but since the article isn't about professors but a position which professor hold, I don't see how that guideline is relevant. TM 04:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge into Insecticons. Jafeluv ( talk) 15:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC) reply
No evidence of major coverage on CNN and CBS news, MSNBC, etc. Tedescoboy22 ( talk) 04:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge into Insecticons. Jafeluv ( talk) 15:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC) reply
No reliable coverage on CNN, CBS news, etc. Tedescoboy22 ( talk) 02:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Most Transformers articles are so badly sourced people can't tell the difference. Thats what happens when fancruft is left to run wild.
— Dwanyewest, the reply to a comment of mine on the Transformers Wikiproject talk page
- NotARealWord ( talk) 15:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 02:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC) reply
As far as I can tell, non-notable company. Magog the Ogre ( talk) 02:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Although there are several links for various topics covered in the article to which the subject may be related to, there are no reliable sources that cover "Melissa Mermaid." Thus the article does not satisfy WP:BIO. Oore ( talk) 02:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 10:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable candidate that fails WP:BIO. The article's references are not sufficient to establish notability and a search didn't reveal more than passing mentions of Cantor's refusal to debate him. Gobonobo T C 02:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
THIS IS GARBAGE. ERIC CANTOR IS JUST HAVING HIS OPPONENTS' PROFILES TAKEN DOWN. JUST ANOTHER DIRTY TRICK FROM ERIC CANTOR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richmonder ( talk • contribs) 01:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC) — Richmonder ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 02:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Classic WP:ISNOT, Transwiki what can be to wikiquote but delete this as it is not encyclopedic The Resident Anthropologist ( talk) 01:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
It couldn't be said better. Even the National Review takes issue with the names Olbermann is calling. Its a note-worthy subject. I think this much material will make the main article too long, so I strongly suggest we keep this article instead of merge. Trackinfo ( talk) 04:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 10:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Completely unreferenced. No links, and apparently no Ghits to "The Big Movement" which it is assumed to be based on. Is 'said' to be in pre-production.Too many unknowns:
Although this is about a TV(?) series, I suggest that either WP:TOOSOON or WP:CRYSTALL, or both, applies here]] Kudpung ( talk) 01:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ok, this one gets the hat trick. Delete per consensus, delete as an unsourced BLP per WP:BLP, delete per CSD A7 as IoS is not asserted. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC) reply
An article about a non-notable high school athlete. Does not meet the requirements of WP:ATHLETE. Regent of the Seatopians ( talk) 01:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 10:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC) reply
fails WP:BAND. despite the claims in the article, nothing in gnews [47]. LibStar ( talk) 00:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was SPEEDY DELETE Alexf (talk) 18:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC) reply
1. Individual is not notable per Wikipedia:Notability (people). Google seaerch turned up nothing, nor did an IMDB search. The only resource listed it the person's website. 2. The editor who created the page is "ActorMedic", which leads me to believe that this is the same person and created their own Wiki page. Neonblak talk - 01:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. There is a consensus here that the sources provided by Cirt are sufficient to establish notability. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Essentially the subject of the article received passing mentions in the press in the summer of 2005 for her appearances with Katie Holmes and Tom Cruise. The coverage was more or less celebrity gossip stories which mention her briefly with no significant coverage about Rodriguez. At the time, Cruise and Holmes were being discussed widely in the media. Otherwise Rodriguez's name appears occasionally in press release type statements as a spokesperson for the Church of Scientology. Again, there is no real coverage of her in these news articles beyond mentioning her name in passing. I was ready to speedy delete the article because I don't really see a claim for notability. But I noticed that it had prior Afd. So here we are.... FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 00:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC) reply
I proposed deletion of this back in March, and the prod was removed with the article is virtually unsourced; but the entity is most certainly notable. I do understand the logic, but sadly, it was not improved. It has a single source, and I am unable to find others - of course, it is possible/likely that there are sources in another language, and per Wikipedia:Systemic bias, it would be great if others could add such. However, as it stands, I do not feel we can accurately present information on the company, without references to show notability, per WP:GNG, WP:V, WP:ONESOURCE. I also note that it is a holding company, and according to the only source we have, it is intended to incorporate others in the future - so there is an element of WP:CRYSTAL here, too. NOTE: This is a relisting, the same as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rosgeologiya. That was closed 'No consensus', but should almost certainly have been closed 'delete' and the closing admin agrees here, but we felt relisting made sense due to age of that, and the changes in AFD rules. Chzz ► 17:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 09:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Unreferenced, promotional article for a non-notable piece of software. Few reliable sources cover the significance of this software. I've already deleted one section of the article which was confirmed as a copyvio. Fails WP:NSOFT and WP:GNG. SnottyWong converse 23:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 09:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC) reply
I can't find any reliable sources. John Vandenberg ( chat) 03:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Stifle ( talk) 10:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
the notability of this organization is questionable, if not nonexistent. this directory of locations definetly doesn't need its own article. see also the organizations other two articles which have been nominated for deletion as well. WookieInHeat ( talk) 04:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 09:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC) reply
nominating this article to bring attention to it. only the times online ref meets WP:RS, and it could be considered a rather vague if not completely trivial mention at that (most of content refed isn't supported by it). believe article should either be merged as per template on the page or deleted altogether. WookieInHeat ( talk) 04:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus - several good arguments by respected editors go every which way, and I don't see any consensus developing soon. Bearian ( talk) 22:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Indiscriminate list that would run to thousands or tens of thousands of entries.
Rich
Farmbrough,
09:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC).
reply
09:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Delete these scientists, inventors, and scholars don't really have anything in common other than being African; I don't see the point of listing them together in the same article— Chris! c/ t 23:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC) reply
I can't see significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject for this artist. Hirst and Banksy have verifiably shown interest in his artwork, but this in itself does not confer notability. The article has references; however,
I admit I am a Street art and Stuckist fan. Please prove me wrong here. -- Shirt58 ( talk) 13:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. I think the consensus is that we do not usually keep article on local organizations like this; the references are not substantialisting DGG ( talk ) 00:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC) reply
fails WP:ORG. absolutely nothing in gnews [68]. 3 of the sources provided are its own website and thus are not third party. LibStar ( talk) 13:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable local company; minimal coverage in local paper's business section does not satisfy WP:CORP. Orange Mike | Talk 13:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 09:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Another apparently non-notable subject deprodded by User:The De-PROD Meister - I see no notability here, so bringing to AFD. Michig ( talk) 17:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC) reply
A article with no third-party references to assert notability. Wizard191 ( talk) 20:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. A quick search returns no third party sources. Spiesr ( talk) 20:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Keep, sufficient sources in german to support notability. -- Nuujinn ( talk) 13:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC) reply