< 26 October | 28 October > |
---|
The result was delete. Courcelles 23:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Disputed prod. A music genre supposedly created in 2010 by the band The Premiership. Article created by User:Thepremiership. No sources cited. None found in search. A neologism that combines WP:MADEUP and self promotion. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Jackass 3D. -- PhantomSteve/ talk| contribs\ 06:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Cannot independently verify that this film will actually be produced; violates WP:CRYSTAL. (Contested PROD.) - Realkyhick ( Talk to me) 23:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Either move or redirect but the move has been confirmed and it might be released to theaters due to the box office success of jackss 3D. to the mods and admins not everything requires a sledgehammer to fix -- F4280 ( talk) 05:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC) reply
I vote merge then. Portillo ( talk) 10:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 23:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
BLP(?), extremely questionable notability, no RS that I can find. T. Canens ( talk) 21:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 23:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
This appears to be a non-notable product. Magog the Ogre ( talk) 21:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 23:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Essentially meaningless, given that this is a routine procedure; do we have a list for appendectomies and tonsil removal? JNW ( talk) 21:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 23:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Unsourced Since creation, No results in Google TalkToMe c intelati 21:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 23:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Just an ordinary church, really, and as such non-notable. St Anselm ( talk) 21:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 23:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Subject is quoted in news sources and receives some passing mention, but I see no significant coverage about the subject. Apparently fails WP:PROF -- Nuujinn ( talk) 21:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 00:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
This is a classic has-been, also-ran, wanna-be politician. His position on the Port Authority is not so significant that he's notable per WP:POLITICIAN. According to the New York State Elections website, Blakeman came in third in his most recent primary last month. In fact, as may be seen on page 7 of that pdf, he came in dead last in 58 counties, only coming in second in four counties out of 62. He failed to win even a single county, and he got less than 25 % of the vote. In 1998, he got more votes, as may be seen here, but was defeated by greater than a two-to-one margin for an obscure post. He never got on the ballot for Mayor of New York City. Just getting nominated or running for office is not sufiicient for notability. He's now run three times for three different offices, each time getting crushed. If he had done anything else that ranked for WP:GNG, I do not see anything. Several Google searches fail to find any reference other than the "also ran" or "third party" candidacy notice for the record. There is some evidence that persons with a conflict of interest have edited the article. In effect, this article acts as a resume page. He is on the ballot on November 2nd on a very minor line. We are not a free webhost for failed politicians. Delete. Bearian ( talk) 20:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
City councillors and other major municipal officers are not automatically notable, although precedent has tended to favour keeping members of the main citywide government of internationally famous metropolitan areas such as Toronto, Chicago, Tokyo or London. Note, however, that this does not necessarily include borough councillors.
The result was redirect to Street Fighter II. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
No independent sources exist with enough direct coverage to WP:verify notability. Looking through the article history, editors previously agreed to turn this into a redirect, but the article was re-expanded without any real discussion or consensus. Most importantly, it was re-expanded despite the lack of sources that would comply with WP:V and the WP:GNG. Deletion is more appropriate than redirecting since this is an unlikely search term. Shooterwalker ( talk) 19:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Peter Karlsen ( talk) 01:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Prod declined with rationale of "Seems notable enough to me, there are very few in the state, one in the whole county, been around for more than 60 years, and has been mentioned in the news (local and otherwise.)" Longevity and "only one left" are not qualifications for notability if there are no sources — I've not been able to find any of the news mentions the editor said exist. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Otters want attention) 19:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Keep, for the same reason as Ravenswing, several news stories about the theatre. Michael1115 ( talk) 20:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. -- Cirt ( talk) 00:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Original essay discussing benefits and challenges of a very narrow topic. Dac04 ( talk) 18:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 23:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
No evidence of notability. Mostly self-referenced, advert in tone, with little or nothing turned up on Google. Article started numerous times by same account, with history of speedy deletes. Don't see that there's much here still. JNW ( talk) 18:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete: A10 as a duplication of Future Past. The majority of the content was a direct copy, with scant additions that were unsourced and therefore not viable for merging. -- Kinu t/ c 20:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Duplicates Future Past and adds detail about the re-release of the album - I suggest the "Deluxe Edition" additions should be added to the extant article Future Past and this one deleted. -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 18:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep, nomination withdrawn, no one else wanted to delete this. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 00:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Never establishes notability, reads like an advertisment for a Firefox add-on. Doc Strange Mailbox Logbook 18:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Keep, due to coverage by Schneier, arstechnica, and threatpost. Schneier writes for reliable sources such as magazine on security issues and is a recognized expert. Arstechnica is generally pretty reliable, I think, and Kaspersky Labs is also reliable on computer related security issues. See also Info Security article and this Network World article. Agree that article needs work but afd is not cleanup. -- Nuujinn ( talk) 16:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. -- Cirt ( talk) 00:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a database of Jeopardy! contestants. Game show tournament is not notable to warrant a separate article, and college tournament structure and info is already included in List of Jeopardy! tournaments and events#College Championship.
Entire list of contestants is completely unsourced and other <ref> tags are from Jeopardy! fansite not affiliated with production of the program. The official site and specific tournament section do not even list as much intricate detail about participants as here, merely showing first names. Likely unable to find any acceptable source detialing the participants in the tournaments due to lack of subject notability.
Sottolacqua ( talk) 18:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was AfD stopped, reverted to a WP:PROD for each affected page.
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion, not even from the nominator. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Art wart1234 ( talk • contribs) 2010/10/26 05:23:24
The result was delete. Courcelles 23:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Minor Transformers character, extremely unlikely reliable sources exist to verify notability. Divebomb ( talk) 17:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 23:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
A weapon which doesn't assert why its notable or have sources Dwanyewest ( talk) 02:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 23:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
A poor one line article with no source which should've been deleted years ago. Dwanyewest ( talk) 02:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete. I did a search for sources, and the only one I came up with is actually blocked by our spam filter. Oh dear. It does provide coverage, albeit in an indirect way, but isn't sufficient, on its own, to show that the team passes WP:ORG or WP:N, both of which require multiple sources. Ironholds ( talk) 21:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 23:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
A non notable martial art without any third person sources to support it. Dwanyewest ( talk) 02:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 23:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
A non notable martial arts organisation without any third person sources to support it. Dwanyewest ( talk) 02:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 23:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Looks like an amateur organization, which fails WP:NSPORT notability requirements. -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 18:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 23:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Unreferenced BLP with notability concerns. Attempts to find sources returned many articles written by Sam Amico, but I couldn't find any about Sam Amico. Reach Out to the Truth 17:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was Non-admin Housekeeping - accidentally raised and subsequently withdrawn -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 17:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Possible hoax - can find no GHits on such a politician or anything on him running for president -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 17:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 23:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Article about a non-notable footballer who has only played for the reserve team of a Slovak football club and doesn't satisfy any of the notability guidelines. Jogurney ( talk) 17:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Keep per criteria number 2 as the nomination was "unquestionably vandalism or disruption and nobody unrelated recommends deleting it". I contacted MickMacNee to ask him to elaborate on his deletion rationale and got this response.. (non-admin closure). Dylanfromthenorth ( talk) 08:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Article contains the wikilink British Isles. Therefore, it should not exist. MickMacNee ( talk) 17:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 23:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE having not played at a higher level than the National Conference. J Mo 101 ( talk) 16:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Unreferenced neoligism, and based on the history of the article and a search, I'm not sure it exists beyond this article. Sigma 7 ( talk) 16:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. -- Cirt ( talk) 00:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
This list consists almost entirely of non- notable people. The few notable people that it does contain can be mentioned at Dharmaraja College#Old Rajans (the "notable alumni" section of the main article). WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 15:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
According to User:WhisperToMe, who corrected me on a slip up I did, apparently only school DISTRICTS are notable, single schools are not. - Vaarsivius ( Talk to me.) 15:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Courcelles 23:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The subject does not seem to meet the notability guidelines for academics. Additionally, this article has no incoming links from the article namespace. — Bkell ( talk) 15:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 23:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable promotional recording. Canniba loki 15:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. -- PhantomSteve/ talk| contribs\ 06:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
No particular evidence that this person is notable, so far as I can tell. See also [22] ╟─ Treasury Tag► secretariat─╢ 13:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep. Invalide deletion rationale, no delete !votes standing. ( non-admin closure) Pgallert ( talk) 07:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Doesn't meet Wikipedia standards. Very little information about him. Who was his family? What did he die of? Where did he die? Rusted AutoParts ( talk) 10:36 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Rusted AutoParts ( talk) 12:24 27 October 2010 (UTC)
The result was delete as an unsourced BLP per WP:BLP. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
He sounds notable, but I couldn't find a single independent ref from a reliable source to back up any of his claims. Seems to be mainly a reputation builder for his journalism institutes. Is there anything that others can find, perhaps offline, that confirms that he can pass the WP:GNG? The-Pope ( talk) 13:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 13:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
This seems like it belongs on an intranet somewhere, not on Wikipedia. Written like an essay and uses weasel words and seems to be filled with WP:OR. Not an encyclopedic entry. — Timneu22 · talk 12:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 00:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
This article was deleted as an uncontested prod. I've restored it per a request at WP:REFUND. The original prod rationale was "No evidence of notability". I'm neutral at the moment. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 12:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 23:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Non- notable film from a non-notable director documenting the lives of non-notable artists. Google searches turn up some mentions of the book that was produced from the script and stills from this film, and some mentions of the film on the websites of the artists who participated, but nothing else. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 12:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 13:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete No evidence of notability. No sources, after being tagged for five months. JamesBWatson ( talk) 11:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep The use, by User:Polaron, of U.S. Census Bureau data to source the article removed valid concerns about the original sourcing to a self-published document. Mandsford 20:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 13:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
No real claim to notability. Only release is a limited (to 100 copies) cd release. Lacks coverage from independent reliable sources. Nothing satisfying wp:music. Article written by band member. duffbeerforme ( talk) 10:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. -- Cirt ( talk) 00:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
An entirely unreferenced article that fails to establish that this is in fact a notable music contest. 4meter4 ( talk) 10:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 13:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Apparent memorial of non-notable biochemist. No indication of significance. Revision history reveals that he is the grandfather of Ankit Singh Gehlot, who is apparently the main contributor ( User:Dashing boy31). Catfish Jim and the soapdish ( talk) 10:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 13:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable per WP:COMPANY created by interested party. Attempt was made to delete via WP:PROD, but an IP who may be an interested party deleted template, so sending here for discussion. VictorianMutant( Talk) 09:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete, A7. This is a non-admin, housekeeping closure, article has already been deleted by an admin.-- hkr Laozi speak 12:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Apparent vanity article about a non-notable person. References are unreliable, best one being a press-release about a planned blog. Catfish Jim and the soapdish ( talk) 09:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep, nomination withdrawn Mandsford 23:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete per
WP:NOTDIR. List which has potentially tens of thousands of entries, even if only notable books are included.
Category:Fantasy novels is much better suited for this job. See
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of books by title: 0-9 (2nd nomination) for a related AFD.
Note I am also submitting the subpages
Yoenit ( talk) 08:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Withdrawing nomination, Some very good points where raised in the keep arguments, which have convinced me the article should be kept. Can the next person through please close this? Yoenit ( talk) 22:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Delete A7 Alexf (talk) 10:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Seems to be a non-notable YouTuber and aspiring fashionista. All of the refs are self-published, Twitter, or YouTube - bar one which doesn't actually mention him. I can find no GHits for his name or for "revenjjeans", other than self-published, blogs, Tweets, etc -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 08:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted (A7) by Nyttend. Non-admin closure. Deor ( talk) 14:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable per WP:BAND, unreferenced, no trace of the band can be found online, no mention of the band on Lookout! Records website, no evidence for assertions of gold and platinum status or thousands of record sales, evident WP:Conflict of interest by creator, probable WP:HOAX. Prod contested by anonymous editor with an IP address in Meerut. Top Jim ( talk) 08:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. -- Cirt ( talk) 00:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Not notable, only 1 contributer and said contributer is called Diamondsunderfire which leads me to believe it is a promotion account. Has been put up for speedy deletion before, but said contributer deleted notice. Said contributer is reported. - Vaarsivius ( Talk to me.) 06:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 07:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Studio album with no evidence of notability; one sentence and a track listing. Albacore ( talk) 20:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 13:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Article has been around since 8 Feb 2006 & still has failed to established notability. The two references are to blogs. 「 ɠu¹ɖяy」 ¤ • ¢ 04:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Pittsboro,_North_Carolina#Media_outlets. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 13:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Tiny weekly newspaper. Page consists of a single sentence, "Chatham Journal is a weekly newspaper based in Pittsboro, North Carolina covering Chatham County." My speedy was denied. Abductive ( reasoning) 03:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep (withdrawn by nominator) (non admin closure) Sven Manguard Talk 00:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC) reply
No evidence of notability. Sven Manguard Talk 02:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Withdrawn You learn something new every day. Today it was h-ratings, and that citation number at the bottom of the scholar search. I never would have guessed that the man was important at all from reading the article though. Someone needs to rescue that mess. Sven Manguard Talk 04:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Pyramid (game show). / ƒETCH COMMS / 00:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Way, way, way, way too much WP:IINFO. We don't need a total breakdown of every single thing that happened on the show. Many parts, such as the many pilots, are inherently unverifiable, and other things like "it brought some CBS affiliates back into the fold who had been preempting the first hour of network daytime programming for syndicated talk shows such as Donahue for the past several years." or "where the traditional broadcast and cable outlets fought for smaller slices of an audience pie than was the case in the game's network heyday." are useless fluff that can never be sourced.
I cut down the article by removing a ton of coatrack about the set history, onscreen graphics and theme song, none of which have anything to do with history. What's left is nothing but fanwank that can't possibly be sourced. Pyramid (game show) already covers the relevant parts of the show's history in sufficient detail. Note also that the article has been tagged as "fan's point of view" for one year and "needs more references" since 2008. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Otters want attention) 02:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 13:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:PROF; highest cited paper 53, single digit h-index. Senior Lecturer, Head of an eight professor "Research Department". Abductive ( reasoning) 01:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 00:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Student club at a (in spite of the name) high school. Abductive ( reasoning) 01:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 13:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable religious group — goethean ॐ 01:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The keep rationales are both unconvincing and articles need to have significant coverage in reliable sources, so yes, the extent to which the sources discuss the subject is important. / ƒETCH COMMS / 00:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. Article is about a software suite, but does not list any reliable sources. I can't find any sources beyond press releases and self-published material. TN X Man 11:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC) reply
absence of references and proper citations have been addressed. There are citations in a proper format now.
The discussion has shifted towards reliability of sources. According to the WP:RS Wikipedia guideline the article “should be based on reliable, published sources”. Questionable sources are described as having “poor reputation” or “self-published”. The sources of references on this article are from books published by O'Reilly Media, Springer Science+Business Media, SAMS Publishing. Neither of them can be described as of poor reputation or self-published. All of them are well known, independent international publishers. (Please refer to the corresponding Wikipedia articles dedicated to these publishers ). So what is the ground for saying the referenced books are “non-notable”? On contrary they are notable because published by notable agencies. On my opinion the article should stay because it complies with the Wikipedia policies in full. -- 71.172.113.130 ( talk) 23:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
In this particular case the sources speak about Aqua Data Studio in the same way they speak about other database tools. Check some of them : SQLPro SQL Client, TOAD (software), DatabaseSpy, DbForge Studio for MySQL, Database Deployment Manager, DatabaseSpy . All of them and many other are similar Wikipedia articles about very similar data base tools. Shall we delete all of them or shall we follow the Wikipedia policy and keep those articles in compliance? We cannot judge the way or extent the _sources_ speaks about subjects. We can only judge the way _the article_ speaks about the subject. And the article must be based on reliable sources, that directly support the facts stated in this article. It this case the sources say that the subject of this article is a database tool with this specific set of functions, no more, no less. And the article says the same thing. There is no contradiction with the sources and this and only this fact is required by the policy. -- 71.172.113.130 ( talk) 16:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Trion City School District. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Non notable middle school. Delete, Merge and Redirect to school district as per standard procedure Kudpung ( talk) 15:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was Incubate. Moved to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Female Servants in 18th Century England. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Article attempts to research statistics on the number of female servants in England. If necessary, any info should be added to other articles, but if we have separate articles on the statistics of every subgroup, we'll soon have Number of servants named George in England in 1812 and Number of servants that were both read haired and left-handed in 1900-1950 Travelbird ( talk) 11:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Socialist Party of America. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 13:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
This unreferenced article is entirely based on the party's own statements. There appears to be no independent evidence that it even exists, let alone that it is notable. It is written from the subjective view of a member, largely quoting party documents, for which apparently OTRS permission has been granted. Despite being tagged for weeks for neutrality, original research, inappropriate tone and several other issues, no attempt has been made to improve this article.
As it stands, it is simply an advertisement for this dubiously notable alleged party; it has no place in its current form in Wikipedia. RolandR ( talk) 09:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The arguments for deletion seem to outweigh and refute the arguments for retention here. – MuZemike 00:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:BAND coverage consists of social networks, youtube, or cd/music selling/user reviews CTJF83 chat 04:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. --
Cirt (
talk)
01:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
Non-notable defunct Canadian magazine. No references at all. Contested PROD, removed by User:The De-PROD Meister during his October 11 reign of terror. - Realkyhick ( Talk to me) 17:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Neologism. Initial Google returns are Urban Dictionary and mentions in Salon, but nothing substantial enough to warrant anything more than a dictionary definition with somewhat sketchy sources. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 01:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Al-Qaeda Organization in the Islamic Maghreb. It is clear that the individual this article is about is not notable enough; I'm not sure how much there is to merge, but redirecting seems sensible enough. / ƒETCH COMMS / 00:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The subject is clearly a case of WP:ONEEVENT, sad though it is. This article is a result of a few news articles, and there is no article on any kidnapping or larger event of which this content could be a part. As WP is no a memorial and WP is not the news, this article should be deleted -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 00:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
This bank has very little coverage in the media. It makes a claim of being the largest private bank in Iraq. However, if one looks at the ref, it says, "According to ... the chief executive director, it is the biggest private bank in the country with about 2,000 customers." Now, I have searched the phrase "largest private bank in Iraq" and found many making this claim: Commercial Bank of Iraq, Rafidain Bank, and Al-Warka’ Bank. So this page should be deleted for lack of WP:Reliable Sources. Deprodded. Abductive ( reasoning) 04:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. PhilKnight ( talk) 21:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Appears to be a non-notable album that does not meet the criteria at WP:MUSIC; the reference to allmusic asserts that "the album, released in 2000, didn't do as well as many had expected, moving only about 40,000 units" and is therefore not more notable than other albums. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 06:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete: Can't find any coverage for this album. Mattg82 ( talk) 23:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Keep: Then why does it have info here then (in fact, this has been placed on the aticle. Special Cases Spit out your comments 14:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC) reply
I have found info here:
[69]
and
[70]
and
[71]
and
(in German)
Special
Cases
Spit out your comments
14:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
reply
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The only information that I could find about this particular album are from unhelpful lyrics databases such as metrolyrics. Delete as failing WP:MUSIC. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 06:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 00:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
UNRELEASED. Poorly sourced. Should be merged into artist article and deleted asap. Fixer23 ( talk) 08:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. -- Cirt ( talk) 07:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Per the same reasons as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rileah Vanderbilt, after performing an extensive Google search I found less relevant results (Dana Michele Boyd popped up after the first 5 pages) and failed to find any reliable sources. — Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 9:24pm • 10:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 07:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC) reply
There is virtually nothing of note on this article. Fixer23 ( talk) 03:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Berri Txarrak. -- PhantomSteve/ talk| contribs\ 03:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
fails WP:NALBUMS. gnews coverage merely verifies its existence. [72]. LibStar ( talk) 13:08, 17 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus, default to delete. . The subject's notability is marginal, and the "keep" side has not made a convincing argument that he is clearly notable. The BLP problems push it over the edge, especially the idea that it lasted so long. The Wordsmith Communicate 03:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC) reply
While the subject may be barely notable, the article history shows that we have not able to keep the article compliant with WP:BLP. Absent some means of ensuring compliance, deletion is the only sensible option. Kevin ( talk) 04:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- PhantomSteve/ talk| contribs\ 03:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Essentially unsourced WP:BLP tagged as failing WP:BIO since 2008. I don't see coverage that would meet WP:BIO. I'm not sure whether any of his various accomplishments qualify. Sandstein 10:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. -- PhantomSteve/ talk| contribs\ 03:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
This is a neologism and OR. There are zero references on google scholar: [73] (7540 references for simply Minangkabau). There is some useful content to be merged with Minangkabau people, but the article's basic thesis, that the Minangkabau diaspora (only 3 Google scholar hits, fewer than for say Batak diaspora) is somehow more significant or inherently noteworthy than any other (insert Indonesian ethnic group) diaspora simply isn't established by any of the sources in the article. Sumbuddi ( talk) 12:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. -- PhantomSteve/ talk| contribs\ 03:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD. Article is largely speculation and fails WP:BALL Catfish Jim and the soapdish ( talk) 15:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 07:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Does not seem like a valid term; WP:OR and no sources.. Possible WP:DICT problem. — Timneu22 · talk 17:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC) reply
KRA's are related to KPI's, so this page should maybe be merged with Performance_indicator page, as suggested for KPI's? Xtal42 ( talk) 23:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete. Contested PROD but non-notable per WP:BK -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 21:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 07:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC) reply
No reliable sources listed or on Google. Deadlink websites and nothing comes up that is valid on Google. Whenaxis ( talk) 21:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Rock Dust Light Star. -- PhantomSteve/ talk| contribs\ 03:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Unreleased song fails WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS. Claiming that it's going to chart or that it's going to pass NSONGS is WP:CRYSTAL. SnottyWong express 22:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. -- PhantomSteve/ talk| contribs\ 03:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
I'm not entirely sure if this program is notable in and of itself, or whether the article is just a puff piece for a non-notable program. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry ( talk) 22:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. -- PhantomSteve/ talk| contribs\ 03:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete. Non-notable per WP:BK. -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 22:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. -- PhantomSteve/ talk| contribs\ 03:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete. Non-notable per WP:BK. -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 23:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. -- Cirt ( talk) 07:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete. non-notable per WP:BK. -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 23:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Fairfax, Minnesota. -- PhantomSteve/ talk| contribs\ 03:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:GNG, WP:CORP, WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:PROMOTION. Article has multiple issues. It unreferenced and shows no significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. It is a very promotional article. Lastly the articles creator is the owner, editor and publisher of The Eagle Extra, Kevin Michael Schafer, who has a clear WP:CONFLICT. -- ARTEST4ECHO ( talk| contribs) 17:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
< 26 October | 28 October > |
---|
The result was delete. Courcelles 23:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Disputed prod. A music genre supposedly created in 2010 by the band The Premiership. Article created by User:Thepremiership. No sources cited. None found in search. A neologism that combines WP:MADEUP and self promotion. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Jackass 3D. -- PhantomSteve/ talk| contribs\ 06:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Cannot independently verify that this film will actually be produced; violates WP:CRYSTAL. (Contested PROD.) - Realkyhick ( Talk to me) 23:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Either move or redirect but the move has been confirmed and it might be released to theaters due to the box office success of jackss 3D. to the mods and admins not everything requires a sledgehammer to fix -- F4280 ( talk) 05:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC) reply
I vote merge then. Portillo ( talk) 10:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 23:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
BLP(?), extremely questionable notability, no RS that I can find. T. Canens ( talk) 21:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 23:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
This appears to be a non-notable product. Magog the Ogre ( talk) 21:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 23:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Essentially meaningless, given that this is a routine procedure; do we have a list for appendectomies and tonsil removal? JNW ( talk) 21:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 23:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Unsourced Since creation, No results in Google TalkToMe c intelati 21:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 23:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Just an ordinary church, really, and as such non-notable. St Anselm ( talk) 21:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 23:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Subject is quoted in news sources and receives some passing mention, but I see no significant coverage about the subject. Apparently fails WP:PROF -- Nuujinn ( talk) 21:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 00:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
This is a classic has-been, also-ran, wanna-be politician. His position on the Port Authority is not so significant that he's notable per WP:POLITICIAN. According to the New York State Elections website, Blakeman came in third in his most recent primary last month. In fact, as may be seen on page 7 of that pdf, he came in dead last in 58 counties, only coming in second in four counties out of 62. He failed to win even a single county, and he got less than 25 % of the vote. In 1998, he got more votes, as may be seen here, but was defeated by greater than a two-to-one margin for an obscure post. He never got on the ballot for Mayor of New York City. Just getting nominated or running for office is not sufiicient for notability. He's now run three times for three different offices, each time getting crushed. If he had done anything else that ranked for WP:GNG, I do not see anything. Several Google searches fail to find any reference other than the "also ran" or "third party" candidacy notice for the record. There is some evidence that persons with a conflict of interest have edited the article. In effect, this article acts as a resume page. He is on the ballot on November 2nd on a very minor line. We are not a free webhost for failed politicians. Delete. Bearian ( talk) 20:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
City councillors and other major municipal officers are not automatically notable, although precedent has tended to favour keeping members of the main citywide government of internationally famous metropolitan areas such as Toronto, Chicago, Tokyo or London. Note, however, that this does not necessarily include borough councillors.
The result was redirect to Street Fighter II. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
No independent sources exist with enough direct coverage to WP:verify notability. Looking through the article history, editors previously agreed to turn this into a redirect, but the article was re-expanded without any real discussion or consensus. Most importantly, it was re-expanded despite the lack of sources that would comply with WP:V and the WP:GNG. Deletion is more appropriate than redirecting since this is an unlikely search term. Shooterwalker ( talk) 19:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Peter Karlsen ( talk) 01:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Prod declined with rationale of "Seems notable enough to me, there are very few in the state, one in the whole county, been around for more than 60 years, and has been mentioned in the news (local and otherwise.)" Longevity and "only one left" are not qualifications for notability if there are no sources — I've not been able to find any of the news mentions the editor said exist. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Otters want attention) 19:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Keep, for the same reason as Ravenswing, several news stories about the theatre. Michael1115 ( talk) 20:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. -- Cirt ( talk) 00:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Original essay discussing benefits and challenges of a very narrow topic. Dac04 ( talk) 18:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 23:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
No evidence of notability. Mostly self-referenced, advert in tone, with little or nothing turned up on Google. Article started numerous times by same account, with history of speedy deletes. Don't see that there's much here still. JNW ( talk) 18:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete: A10 as a duplication of Future Past. The majority of the content was a direct copy, with scant additions that were unsourced and therefore not viable for merging. -- Kinu t/ c 20:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Duplicates Future Past and adds detail about the re-release of the album - I suggest the "Deluxe Edition" additions should be added to the extant article Future Past and this one deleted. -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 18:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep, nomination withdrawn, no one else wanted to delete this. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 00:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Never establishes notability, reads like an advertisment for a Firefox add-on. Doc Strange Mailbox Logbook 18:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Keep, due to coverage by Schneier, arstechnica, and threatpost. Schneier writes for reliable sources such as magazine on security issues and is a recognized expert. Arstechnica is generally pretty reliable, I think, and Kaspersky Labs is also reliable on computer related security issues. See also Info Security article and this Network World article. Agree that article needs work but afd is not cleanup. -- Nuujinn ( talk) 16:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. -- Cirt ( talk) 00:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a database of Jeopardy! contestants. Game show tournament is not notable to warrant a separate article, and college tournament structure and info is already included in List of Jeopardy! tournaments and events#College Championship.
Entire list of contestants is completely unsourced and other <ref> tags are from Jeopardy! fansite not affiliated with production of the program. The official site and specific tournament section do not even list as much intricate detail about participants as here, merely showing first names. Likely unable to find any acceptable source detialing the participants in the tournaments due to lack of subject notability.
Sottolacqua ( talk) 18:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was AfD stopped, reverted to a WP:PROD for each affected page.
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion, not even from the nominator. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Art wart1234 ( talk • contribs) 2010/10/26 05:23:24
The result was delete. Courcelles 23:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Minor Transformers character, extremely unlikely reliable sources exist to verify notability. Divebomb ( talk) 17:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 23:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
A weapon which doesn't assert why its notable or have sources Dwanyewest ( talk) 02:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 23:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
A poor one line article with no source which should've been deleted years ago. Dwanyewest ( talk) 02:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete. I did a search for sources, and the only one I came up with is actually blocked by our spam filter. Oh dear. It does provide coverage, albeit in an indirect way, but isn't sufficient, on its own, to show that the team passes WP:ORG or WP:N, both of which require multiple sources. Ironholds ( talk) 21:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 23:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
A non notable martial art without any third person sources to support it. Dwanyewest ( talk) 02:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 23:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
A non notable martial arts organisation without any third person sources to support it. Dwanyewest ( talk) 02:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 23:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Looks like an amateur organization, which fails WP:NSPORT notability requirements. -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 18:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 23:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Unreferenced BLP with notability concerns. Attempts to find sources returned many articles written by Sam Amico, but I couldn't find any about Sam Amico. Reach Out to the Truth 17:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was Non-admin Housekeeping - accidentally raised and subsequently withdrawn -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 17:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Possible hoax - can find no GHits on such a politician or anything on him running for president -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 17:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 23:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Article about a non-notable footballer who has only played for the reserve team of a Slovak football club and doesn't satisfy any of the notability guidelines. Jogurney ( talk) 17:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Keep per criteria number 2 as the nomination was "unquestionably vandalism or disruption and nobody unrelated recommends deleting it". I contacted MickMacNee to ask him to elaborate on his deletion rationale and got this response.. (non-admin closure). Dylanfromthenorth ( talk) 08:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Article contains the wikilink British Isles. Therefore, it should not exist. MickMacNee ( talk) 17:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 23:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE having not played at a higher level than the National Conference. J Mo 101 ( talk) 16:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Unreferenced neoligism, and based on the history of the article and a search, I'm not sure it exists beyond this article. Sigma 7 ( talk) 16:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. -- Cirt ( talk) 00:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
This list consists almost entirely of non- notable people. The few notable people that it does contain can be mentioned at Dharmaraja College#Old Rajans (the "notable alumni" section of the main article). WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 15:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
According to User:WhisperToMe, who corrected me on a slip up I did, apparently only school DISTRICTS are notable, single schools are not. - Vaarsivius ( Talk to me.) 15:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Courcelles 23:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The subject does not seem to meet the notability guidelines for academics. Additionally, this article has no incoming links from the article namespace. — Bkell ( talk) 15:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 23:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable promotional recording. Canniba loki 15:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. -- PhantomSteve/ talk| contribs\ 06:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
No particular evidence that this person is notable, so far as I can tell. See also [22] ╟─ Treasury Tag► secretariat─╢ 13:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep. Invalide deletion rationale, no delete !votes standing. ( non-admin closure) Pgallert ( talk) 07:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Doesn't meet Wikipedia standards. Very little information about him. Who was his family? What did he die of? Where did he die? Rusted AutoParts ( talk) 10:36 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Rusted AutoParts ( talk) 12:24 27 October 2010 (UTC)
The result was delete as an unsourced BLP per WP:BLP. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
He sounds notable, but I couldn't find a single independent ref from a reliable source to back up any of his claims. Seems to be mainly a reputation builder for his journalism institutes. Is there anything that others can find, perhaps offline, that confirms that he can pass the WP:GNG? The-Pope ( talk) 13:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 13:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
This seems like it belongs on an intranet somewhere, not on Wikipedia. Written like an essay and uses weasel words and seems to be filled with WP:OR. Not an encyclopedic entry. — Timneu22 · talk 12:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 00:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
This article was deleted as an uncontested prod. I've restored it per a request at WP:REFUND. The original prod rationale was "No evidence of notability". I'm neutral at the moment. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 12:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 23:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Non- notable film from a non-notable director documenting the lives of non-notable artists. Google searches turn up some mentions of the book that was produced from the script and stills from this film, and some mentions of the film on the websites of the artists who participated, but nothing else. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 12:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 13:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete No evidence of notability. No sources, after being tagged for five months. JamesBWatson ( talk) 11:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep The use, by User:Polaron, of U.S. Census Bureau data to source the article removed valid concerns about the original sourcing to a self-published document. Mandsford 20:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 13:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
No real claim to notability. Only release is a limited (to 100 copies) cd release. Lacks coverage from independent reliable sources. Nothing satisfying wp:music. Article written by band member. duffbeerforme ( talk) 10:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. -- Cirt ( talk) 00:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
An entirely unreferenced article that fails to establish that this is in fact a notable music contest. 4meter4 ( talk) 10:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 13:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Apparent memorial of non-notable biochemist. No indication of significance. Revision history reveals that he is the grandfather of Ankit Singh Gehlot, who is apparently the main contributor ( User:Dashing boy31). Catfish Jim and the soapdish ( talk) 10:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 13:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable per WP:COMPANY created by interested party. Attempt was made to delete via WP:PROD, but an IP who may be an interested party deleted template, so sending here for discussion. VictorianMutant( Talk) 09:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete, A7. This is a non-admin, housekeeping closure, article has already been deleted by an admin.-- hkr Laozi speak 12:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Apparent vanity article about a non-notable person. References are unreliable, best one being a press-release about a planned blog. Catfish Jim and the soapdish ( talk) 09:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep, nomination withdrawn Mandsford 23:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete per
WP:NOTDIR. List which has potentially tens of thousands of entries, even if only notable books are included.
Category:Fantasy novels is much better suited for this job. See
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of books by title: 0-9 (2nd nomination) for a related AFD.
Note I am also submitting the subpages
Yoenit ( talk) 08:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Withdrawing nomination, Some very good points where raised in the keep arguments, which have convinced me the article should be kept. Can the next person through please close this? Yoenit ( talk) 22:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Delete A7 Alexf (talk) 10:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Seems to be a non-notable YouTuber and aspiring fashionista. All of the refs are self-published, Twitter, or YouTube - bar one which doesn't actually mention him. I can find no GHits for his name or for "revenjjeans", other than self-published, blogs, Tweets, etc -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 08:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted (A7) by Nyttend. Non-admin closure. Deor ( talk) 14:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable per WP:BAND, unreferenced, no trace of the band can be found online, no mention of the band on Lookout! Records website, no evidence for assertions of gold and platinum status or thousands of record sales, evident WP:Conflict of interest by creator, probable WP:HOAX. Prod contested by anonymous editor with an IP address in Meerut. Top Jim ( talk) 08:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. -- Cirt ( talk) 00:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Not notable, only 1 contributer and said contributer is called Diamondsunderfire which leads me to believe it is a promotion account. Has been put up for speedy deletion before, but said contributer deleted notice. Said contributer is reported. - Vaarsivius ( Talk to me.) 06:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 07:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Studio album with no evidence of notability; one sentence and a track listing. Albacore ( talk) 20:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 13:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Article has been around since 8 Feb 2006 & still has failed to established notability. The two references are to blogs. 「 ɠu¹ɖяy」 ¤ • ¢ 04:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Pittsboro,_North_Carolina#Media_outlets. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 13:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Tiny weekly newspaper. Page consists of a single sentence, "Chatham Journal is a weekly newspaper based in Pittsboro, North Carolina covering Chatham County." My speedy was denied. Abductive ( reasoning) 03:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep (withdrawn by nominator) (non admin closure) Sven Manguard Talk 00:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC) reply
No evidence of notability. Sven Manguard Talk 02:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Withdrawn You learn something new every day. Today it was h-ratings, and that citation number at the bottom of the scholar search. I never would have guessed that the man was important at all from reading the article though. Someone needs to rescue that mess. Sven Manguard Talk 04:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Pyramid (game show). / ƒETCH COMMS / 00:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Way, way, way, way too much WP:IINFO. We don't need a total breakdown of every single thing that happened on the show. Many parts, such as the many pilots, are inherently unverifiable, and other things like "it brought some CBS affiliates back into the fold who had been preempting the first hour of network daytime programming for syndicated talk shows such as Donahue for the past several years." or "where the traditional broadcast and cable outlets fought for smaller slices of an audience pie than was the case in the game's network heyday." are useless fluff that can never be sourced.
I cut down the article by removing a ton of coatrack about the set history, onscreen graphics and theme song, none of which have anything to do with history. What's left is nothing but fanwank that can't possibly be sourced. Pyramid (game show) already covers the relevant parts of the show's history in sufficient detail. Note also that the article has been tagged as "fan's point of view" for one year and "needs more references" since 2008. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Otters want attention) 02:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 13:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:PROF; highest cited paper 53, single digit h-index. Senior Lecturer, Head of an eight professor "Research Department". Abductive ( reasoning) 01:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 00:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Student club at a (in spite of the name) high school. Abductive ( reasoning) 01:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 13:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable religious group — goethean ॐ 01:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The keep rationales are both unconvincing and articles need to have significant coverage in reliable sources, so yes, the extent to which the sources discuss the subject is important. / ƒETCH COMMS / 00:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. Article is about a software suite, but does not list any reliable sources. I can't find any sources beyond press releases and self-published material. TN X Man 11:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC) reply
absence of references and proper citations have been addressed. There are citations in a proper format now.
The discussion has shifted towards reliability of sources. According to the WP:RS Wikipedia guideline the article “should be based on reliable, published sources”. Questionable sources are described as having “poor reputation” or “self-published”. The sources of references on this article are from books published by O'Reilly Media, Springer Science+Business Media, SAMS Publishing. Neither of them can be described as of poor reputation or self-published. All of them are well known, independent international publishers. (Please refer to the corresponding Wikipedia articles dedicated to these publishers ). So what is the ground for saying the referenced books are “non-notable”? On contrary they are notable because published by notable agencies. On my opinion the article should stay because it complies with the Wikipedia policies in full. -- 71.172.113.130 ( talk) 23:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
In this particular case the sources speak about Aqua Data Studio in the same way they speak about other database tools. Check some of them : SQLPro SQL Client, TOAD (software), DatabaseSpy, DbForge Studio for MySQL, Database Deployment Manager, DatabaseSpy . All of them and many other are similar Wikipedia articles about very similar data base tools. Shall we delete all of them or shall we follow the Wikipedia policy and keep those articles in compliance? We cannot judge the way or extent the _sources_ speaks about subjects. We can only judge the way _the article_ speaks about the subject. And the article must be based on reliable sources, that directly support the facts stated in this article. It this case the sources say that the subject of this article is a database tool with this specific set of functions, no more, no less. And the article says the same thing. There is no contradiction with the sources and this and only this fact is required by the policy. -- 71.172.113.130 ( talk) 16:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Trion City School District. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Non notable middle school. Delete, Merge and Redirect to school district as per standard procedure Kudpung ( talk) 15:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was Incubate. Moved to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Female Servants in 18th Century England. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Article attempts to research statistics on the number of female servants in England. If necessary, any info should be added to other articles, but if we have separate articles on the statistics of every subgroup, we'll soon have Number of servants named George in England in 1812 and Number of servants that were both read haired and left-handed in 1900-1950 Travelbird ( talk) 11:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Socialist Party of America. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 13:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
This unreferenced article is entirely based on the party's own statements. There appears to be no independent evidence that it even exists, let alone that it is notable. It is written from the subjective view of a member, largely quoting party documents, for which apparently OTRS permission has been granted. Despite being tagged for weeks for neutrality, original research, inappropriate tone and several other issues, no attempt has been made to improve this article.
As it stands, it is simply an advertisement for this dubiously notable alleged party; it has no place in its current form in Wikipedia. RolandR ( talk) 09:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The arguments for deletion seem to outweigh and refute the arguments for retention here. – MuZemike 00:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:BAND coverage consists of social networks, youtube, or cd/music selling/user reviews CTJF83 chat 04:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. --
Cirt (
talk)
01:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
Non-notable defunct Canadian magazine. No references at all. Contested PROD, removed by User:The De-PROD Meister during his October 11 reign of terror. - Realkyhick ( Talk to me) 17:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Neologism. Initial Google returns are Urban Dictionary and mentions in Salon, but nothing substantial enough to warrant anything more than a dictionary definition with somewhat sketchy sources. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 01:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Al-Qaeda Organization in the Islamic Maghreb. It is clear that the individual this article is about is not notable enough; I'm not sure how much there is to merge, but redirecting seems sensible enough. / ƒETCH COMMS / 00:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The subject is clearly a case of WP:ONEEVENT, sad though it is. This article is a result of a few news articles, and there is no article on any kidnapping or larger event of which this content could be a part. As WP is no a memorial and WP is not the news, this article should be deleted -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 00:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
This bank has very little coverage in the media. It makes a claim of being the largest private bank in Iraq. However, if one looks at the ref, it says, "According to ... the chief executive director, it is the biggest private bank in the country with about 2,000 customers." Now, I have searched the phrase "largest private bank in Iraq" and found many making this claim: Commercial Bank of Iraq, Rafidain Bank, and Al-Warka’ Bank. So this page should be deleted for lack of WP:Reliable Sources. Deprodded. Abductive ( reasoning) 04:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. PhilKnight ( talk) 21:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Appears to be a non-notable album that does not meet the criteria at WP:MUSIC; the reference to allmusic asserts that "the album, released in 2000, didn't do as well as many had expected, moving only about 40,000 units" and is therefore not more notable than other albums. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 06:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete: Can't find any coverage for this album. Mattg82 ( talk) 23:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Keep: Then why does it have info here then (in fact, this has been placed on the aticle. Special Cases Spit out your comments 14:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC) reply
I have found info here:
[69]
and
[70]
and
[71]
and
(in German)
Special
Cases
Spit out your comments
14:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
reply
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The only information that I could find about this particular album are from unhelpful lyrics databases such as metrolyrics. Delete as failing WP:MUSIC. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 06:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 00:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
UNRELEASED. Poorly sourced. Should be merged into artist article and deleted asap. Fixer23 ( talk) 08:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. -- Cirt ( talk) 07:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Per the same reasons as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rileah Vanderbilt, after performing an extensive Google search I found less relevant results (Dana Michele Boyd popped up after the first 5 pages) and failed to find any reliable sources. — Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 9:24pm • 10:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 07:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC) reply
There is virtually nothing of note on this article. Fixer23 ( talk) 03:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Berri Txarrak. -- PhantomSteve/ talk| contribs\ 03:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
fails WP:NALBUMS. gnews coverage merely verifies its existence. [72]. LibStar ( talk) 13:08, 17 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus, default to delete. . The subject's notability is marginal, and the "keep" side has not made a convincing argument that he is clearly notable. The BLP problems push it over the edge, especially the idea that it lasted so long. The Wordsmith Communicate 03:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC) reply
While the subject may be barely notable, the article history shows that we have not able to keep the article compliant with WP:BLP. Absent some means of ensuring compliance, deletion is the only sensible option. Kevin ( talk) 04:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- PhantomSteve/ talk| contribs\ 03:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Essentially unsourced WP:BLP tagged as failing WP:BIO since 2008. I don't see coverage that would meet WP:BIO. I'm not sure whether any of his various accomplishments qualify. Sandstein 10:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. -- PhantomSteve/ talk| contribs\ 03:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
This is a neologism and OR. There are zero references on google scholar: [73] (7540 references for simply Minangkabau). There is some useful content to be merged with Minangkabau people, but the article's basic thesis, that the Minangkabau diaspora (only 3 Google scholar hits, fewer than for say Batak diaspora) is somehow more significant or inherently noteworthy than any other (insert Indonesian ethnic group) diaspora simply isn't established by any of the sources in the article. Sumbuddi ( talk) 12:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. -- PhantomSteve/ talk| contribs\ 03:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD. Article is largely speculation and fails WP:BALL Catfish Jim and the soapdish ( talk) 15:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 07:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Does not seem like a valid term; WP:OR and no sources.. Possible WP:DICT problem. — Timneu22 · talk 17:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC) reply
KRA's are related to KPI's, so this page should maybe be merged with Performance_indicator page, as suggested for KPI's? Xtal42 ( talk) 23:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete. Contested PROD but non-notable per WP:BK -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 21:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 07:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC) reply
No reliable sources listed or on Google. Deadlink websites and nothing comes up that is valid on Google. Whenaxis ( talk) 21:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Rock Dust Light Star. -- PhantomSteve/ talk| contribs\ 03:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Unreleased song fails WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS. Claiming that it's going to chart or that it's going to pass NSONGS is WP:CRYSTAL. SnottyWong express 22:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. -- PhantomSteve/ talk| contribs\ 03:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
I'm not entirely sure if this program is notable in and of itself, or whether the article is just a puff piece for a non-notable program. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry ( talk) 22:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. -- PhantomSteve/ talk| contribs\ 03:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete. Non-notable per WP:BK. -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 22:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. -- PhantomSteve/ talk| contribs\ 03:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete. Non-notable per WP:BK. -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 23:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. -- Cirt ( talk) 07:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete. non-notable per WP:BK. -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 23:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Fairfax, Minnesota. -- PhantomSteve/ talk| contribs\ 03:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:GNG, WP:CORP, WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:PROMOTION. Article has multiple issues. It unreferenced and shows no significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. It is a very promotional article. Lastly the articles creator is the owner, editor and publisher of The Eagle Extra, Kevin Michael Schafer, who has a clear WP:CONFLICT. -- ARTEST4ECHO ( talk| contribs) 17:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply