< 30 August | 1 September > |
---|
The result was delete. Courcelles 00:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Nothing in the article indicates what makes this person notable. There are no reliable sources for a BLP. I first submitted a prod blp tag, which was removed by the article's originator, so I decided to go with a db-bio tag, which was removed by a brand new editor with no other edits, who claims this person is important in his country. That's possible, but there's nothing here which says what makes him important. The Mark of the Beast ( talk) 23:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to E-Verify. ( non-admin closure) BusterD ( talk) 23:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Article lacks reliable third party sources and appears to fail the notability guidelines for companies. Alpha Quadrant talk 23:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 00:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Article lacks reliable third party sources and it appears to fail the Organization notability guidelines. Alpha Quadrant talk 23:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Overwhelming consensus here that the subject does not meet our notability guidelines. 28bytes ( talk) 21:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Does not meet criteria of WP:AUTHOR. Google search does not bring up significant coverage in reliable sources, only catalogue entries and booksellers. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 23:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Stockholm syndrome. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:10, 9 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Procedural nomination. Per this DRV, the last AfD for this article is too old to comfortably be considered consensus on the issue. As seen here, the previous deletion rationale may no longer apply, though the article has not been updated to reflect this. lifebaka ++ 23:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:10, 9 September 2011 (UTC) reply
A non-notable football coach for barely notable European leagues. Does not appear to pass WP:GNG. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The Articles´ claim of Notability is CLEARLY SUPPORTED BY VIABLE REFERENCES FROM THE COUNTRIES of Said Accomplishments. ALSO Sir. Your comment regarding Greg Sholars is False... He is an EIGHT TIME NCAA DIV. I ALL-AMERICAN Sprinter for TCU, He is Also a 4 Time NCAA Div. I National Champion and a member of TCU´s Hall of Fame. This is CLEARLY STATED in the No. 10 Reference, as are All other Facts in the Article Supported by Viable References — Preceding unsigned comment added by EuroNews ( talk • contribs) 01:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC) reply
*"DO NOT DELETE"
http://www.hunderttausend.de/artikel/dec78102-9487-4707-a028-62c2d38d8095.htm
http://www.volksfreund.de/nachrichten/sport/sportmix/regional/Sportmix-Regional-Neuer-Coach-f-252-r-die-Stampers;art165758,2383611
http://www.football-aktuell.de/cgi-bin/news.pl?artikel=12487673505014&rubrik=50
http://www.football-aktuell.de/cgi-bin/news.pl?artikel=12471161955014&rubrik=501416
These references where found in less than 5 minutes on Google.com They are Not Personal pages (incidentally Mr. Mike Sholars Facebook page is Private, so the above statement is False). Needless to say, because his career has been entirely in Europe, Any Search engine ending DOT COM shall be somewhat Bias... attempt using :DE , :DK, :NO , :LU or .SE — Preceding unsigned comment added by EuroNews ( talk • contribs) 01:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC) reply
*DO NOT DELETE User CB162. Although I do not have a personal relationship with the Sholars family, I Do Know Dr. Angela Sholars King, who is Michael (Mike) and Gregory (Greg) Sholars Sister. I have followed both of their careers since they where in High School in Texas. Football is a pretty big sport down there, especially when a player runs the 100 meteres in 10.3 seconds or less. This is why I am involved, because I know 100% that this article is supported by Viable References. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
EuroNews (
talk •
contribs)
02:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
reply
The Article Has Not Been Deleted... PLEASE REFRAME From Deleting ANY Portions, thus allowing a Fair Assesment ( User:EuroNews) —Preceding undated comment added 02:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC). reply
The result was keep. Borderline between keep and no consensus here, it would be nice if more sources were added so we can avoid having this discussion again in four months. Courcelles 00:09, 9 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Standard missing persons case with no notability. Dmol ( talk) 21:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was Withdrawn by nominator, non-admin closure. ArcAngel (talk) ) 16:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC) reply
No sources, unencyclopedic tone and overall not a terribly notable group. It's funny that about 8 months ago, I was firmly on the opposite side of this article's previous discussion for deletion. But the point is the "Corre" section of
Wade Barrett's article aptly sums up every notable thing the group did. There's really nothing else to add and trying to do so is just beating a dead horse.
☆ Antoshi ☆
T |
C
21:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
reply
Withdrawn I feel the issues raised by the AfD were aptly handled and I'm satisfied with the result of the article. I therefore would like to withdraw my AfD.
*Delete Without references, I could question the very existence of The Corre, let alone notability. Reference it, (heavily), and I will happily reverse my position.
Anna Frodesiak (
talk) 08:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC) Withdrawn.
Anna Frodesiak (
talk)
11:48, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
reply
Plip!
Is Drew notable enough? RDN1F ( talk) 21:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Just FYI, userfication is only a valid option if the creator or some other user specifically requests it be placed in their userspace. Would be happy to fulfill any such request that should come my way. Beeblebrox ( talk) 19:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Prod denied. The film has not received any notable secondary coverage or reviews. It is WP:TOOSOON for this film to have a stand-alone article and it seems there is no viable redirect options as no notable individual was involved in the film. BOVINEBOY 2008 20:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) BusterD ( talk) 23:23, 7 September 2011 (UTC) reply
not WP:NOTABLE organization Geek2003 ( talk) 20:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 00:10, 9 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Doesn't meet notability criteria per WP:POLITICAN or WP:NOTNEWS Arbor8 ( talk) 20:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 00:10, 9 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Notability is not shown in the article since April 2009. See also User talk:Gregorymargovsky (presumably self promotion, two earlier versions were deleted by speedy deletion; the present version was re-created by another user which is not interested however in any other articles.) ActUpRussia ( talk) 20:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Beeblebrox ( talk) 19:12, 8 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Contested WP:PROD. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources WP:RS to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Googling turns up nothing useful. Article appears to be autobiographical WP:AUTO WP:SPA WP:COI. Wikipedia is not for WP:PROMOTION. Msnicki ( talk) 20:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Avaya. Deleted first, and redirected. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Beeblebrox ( talk) 15:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC) reply
He has been shortlisted for (but never won) a couple of awards that look moderately important. But "Mark Samuels" "white hands" gets 0 hits in Google News. It seems nothing of substance has been written about him by independent sources, so it will be impossible for us to write a satisfactory biography. Fails WP:GNG. Calliopejen1 ( talk) 19:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:12, 9 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep per improvements during the AfD. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Commentary – As an IT consumer of Wikipedia information however, not a contributor, IMHO diminishing content is detrimental to Wikipedia’s core principles (hardware and volunteerism are cheap and abundant) however mentoring is epidemically deficient. Intensifying coverage through article expansion and enhanced citations are critical to acceptance in academia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.255.193.127 ( talk) 20:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Beeblebrox ( talk) 16:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to B._P._Paquette#Filmmaking. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:12, 9 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Unreleased independent film of questionable notability. No IMDB page, Google search shows only 91 unique results - mostly primary sources and social media. Fails WP:NFF. MikeWazowski ( talk) 19:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. If there's an article to be written that doesn't have these issues, then that's fine. This one doesn't. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC) reply
This is an interesting case - I'm not sure if she's notable or not, but it raises some serious BLP issues so I want to bring it here. This is an Indian model who was found years after her alleged fame, living on the streets and addicted to drugs. I can't find any indication that she was really well known at all before this incident, or even particularly successful - there are zero news articles in google news prior that mention her name. It seems like the press only started caring about her later, because her story was dramatic, and then possibly attributed to her success that she never really had. So basically there's relatively little that can go in her biography beyond a few negative facts about her being addicted to drugs and homeless. There was a very successful movie Fashion made a few years back that very closely mirrors her story, and is pretty much (to an outside observer) obviously about her life, but the director has (for whatever reason) denied that this is true. So a redirect might not be appropriate. This article has been deleted once before as an unsourced attack page, and once as a copyvio (that's why I'm the only contributor in this history, and I'm nominating it for deletion - the copyvio was getting restored by an IP, so I just deleted it and left the prior stub.) Calliopejen1 ( talk) 18:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Beeblebrox ( talk) 16:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Is this really needed? — Croisés Majestic ( sur nous mars) 00:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-notable new journal, article creation highly premature. No independent sources, not included in any selective major databases. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Crusio ( talk) 18:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Beeblebrox ( talk) 16:18, 8 September 2011 (UTC) reply
A weather producer and part-time on-air meteorologist at WTTG in Washington DC. Only notable moment came when he was covered in sea foam (ie. sewage) while doing an on-air broadcast of Hurricane Irene that made national news. This is a case of one event. Prod was contested. Bgwhite ( talk) 17:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The crux of the dispute here seems to boil down to whether or not Church on the Rock is a major religious movement and whether Kennedy is the equivalent of a bishop. Consensus seems to be leaning in the direction that he is not. While Church on the Rock certainly appears to represent a lot of folks, it self-describes as non-denominational, therefore it would seem that comparisons to the Catholic or other major Christian sects power structures are invalid. As an aside I would add that the numerous accusations of bad faith present here have no place in this debate and were not considered when making this close. Beeblebrox ( talk) 19:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Article was originally nominated for speedy deletion as it did not contain any non-inherited notability claims. The article creator made an argument on the talk page for notability, so I agreed to remove the speedy and start an AfD. Unfortunately my research has not turned up significant reliable source coverage to establish notability for the article subject. The bulk of the citations on the current article are primary sources linked directly to organizations the subject is involved in, and do not establish notability. Other notability claims include, "He is friends with David Yonggi Cho" and "He is the father of Texas philanthropist and politician Lance Kennedy and a descendant of Republic of Texas politician John J. Kennedy." and "He sits on the board of governors of the S. Daniel Abraham Center of Strategic Dialogue" and that he performed a wedding for Chuck Norris. All of these claims are inherited notability claims (giving the benefit of the doubt that the subjects he is affiliated with are even notable - which is not entirely clear in some cases). I am unable to find significant reliable source coverage to establish the notability of these claims, with the one exception of perhaps being mentioned in Norris' autobiography (but I have not pulled the paper version to verify). Even if that is verified, it still is a rather weak claim of notability unless reported in a reliable secondary source. ConcernedVancouverite ( talk) 17:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Weak keep - Some level of notability has been established by the sources provided, but I am undecided as to notaable Kennedy is. I would argue that the article is kept because the sources do seem to giv at least some level of notability. My persona decision could be swayed either way - I'd want to listen to further opinions and see whether any additional sources can be found.
ItsZippy (
talk)
21:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
reply
Change to delete - The references do not do enough to me to suggest notability. For notability, Lawrence Kennedy needs to be the primary focus of the source. The ones given mention him in passing - the primary focus is an organisation or another person. If there exists a source which is primarily about Kennedy, then I would vote to keep it. As there is not, it seems he is not notable enough. ItsZippy ( talk) 16:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Let me look at each source individually. The first source is just a list of churches. Kennedy is mentioned in passing, as the pastor of a church - the source does not attribute additional any notability to him. The second source is the North Church website. This is affiliated with Kennedy, so cannot be used to attribute notability. The third source, the Church on the Rocks website, is again affiliated with Kennedy, so cannot allocate notability. The fourth source I have no access to; however, unless it is about Kennedy, it will not give him notability. The fifth source is a link to a site which does not work. The sixth source is, again, affiliated with Kennedy. The seventh source is an article about the Clothe A Child organisation and the involvement of a man called John Hammond. Kennedy's name is mentioned once to establish context - it does not give notability to Kennedy. The eighth source is a local news report about Cloth a Child. Firstly, as a local news report, it is not very deep coverage, so would struggle to meet notability guidelines. In any case, the article is about Clothe A Child, not about Kennedy - Kennedy's name is there, again, just to provide context. The ninth source, again, is affiliated with Kennedy so cannot provide notability. The tenth source, as before, is about Clothe A Child and just mentions Kennedy to provide context. The eleventh source is exactly the same as the eighth, just on a different website. The twelfth source is the strongest provided, but still only mentions Kennedy in passing. The article is not about Kennedy, it is about the event. Kennedy is briefly mentioned on a few occasions because he has a role in it. The notability, if any, if the event's. I cannot access the thirteenth source; see what I put for the fourth. The fourteenth and fifteenth sources are about Chuck Norris. Kennedy is mentioned because he took the wedding of Chuck Norris. If we had articles on ever pastor, priest and vicar who took the weddings of notable people, we'd have thousands of articles about people who's only claim to fame is that. This does not, therefore, constitute notability.
I hope that helps. Feel free to disagree with any of the analysis I've given but, if you do, please reason with me and explain why. I've given you detailed reasoning behind my rejection of each source, so I would like to see the same thought behind any attempts to refute my arguments. If I've made any errors, please let me know. Thanks. ItsZippy( talk • Contributions) 13:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Beeblebrox ( talk) 16:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC) reply
No indication of notability to pass WP:ORG. Being the longest-established something may be enough to be a "credible claim of significance" hence I have not nominated this for a speedy, but I don't think there's anything salvageable here. Delete. Strange Passerby ( talk • cont) 15:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:34, 7 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD. Reason for PROD was "Non-notable amateur club per WP:GNG and WP:FOOTYN". The article creator contested the PROD with the reason "It is a noted amateur club that plays in Italian Serie D Category. There is no reason to delete this page."
I couldn't find anything about the team that would justify notability per WP:GNG, and fails WP:FOOTYN, because they never played for a national cup.
For the exact same reason, i nominated this article as well:
-- Kosm1fent Won't you talk to me? 14:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Disposal of human corpses. Courcelles 00:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-encyclopaedic and unreferenced ThePaintedOne ( talk) 13:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC) reply
A non-notable term. Apparently the creators of the Jargon File (the initial source for this article) consider "one-line fix" to be a sarcastic joke. In real life, however, many bug fixes are just one line - just like some are two lines, etc. I don't see any evidence, other than the Jargon File itself, that this term ever took on a life of its own, beyond its literal meaning. Yaron K. ( talk) 12:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 00:12, 9 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD: still no reliable sources to establish notability per WP:GNG, still promotional, author hasn't improved it since contesting the PROD. — Tom Morris ( talk) 11:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 00:12, 9 September 2011 (UTC) reply
No sources to establish notability of this football anthem: the inclusion of the full lyrics is potentially a massive copyvio. — Tom Morris ( talk) 11:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 00:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC) reply
A legitimate and welcome new template, but no need for it to be an article. We already have List of FIFA World Cup finals. If retained, needs to be moved to normal English designation (Worldcup is not one word; winners are not referred to as "Champions in...") Kevin McE ( talk) 09:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 00:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-notable 'executive coach', article written by the subject, promotional. — Tom Morris ( talk) 08:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect. If there is anything worth merging it can be pulled from the page history. Beeblebrox ( talk) 16:30, 8 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Delete or Merge (as nominator) into Samuel Mudd per Notability and already exists in another article. Only reference I can find refer to his death and/or his fight to clear his g pap's name. Information already exists in the Samuel Mudd article making this unneeded. Pudge MclameO ( talk) 08:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply
delete — there seems to be nothing notable about this fellow that's not tied into his crusade re: grandpa, and that is already covered better in the
Samuel Mudd article than it is here, thus obviating need to merge. it's possible that the case he filed, mudd v. white, deserves an article, but this isn't it, and won't become it. —
alf.laylah.wa.laylah (
talk)
22:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
reply
The result was redirect to Dale Brown#Patrick McLanahan Series. With redirects being generally seen as cheap, and aiding in navigation and searching of the wiki, and from the comment below, this seems like the appropriate course of action. ( non-admin closure) Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 02:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC) reply
This purely fiction article lack source. It does not even have one. I say nothing of its failure to comply with notability requirements. Fleet Command ( talk) 07:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Beeblebrox ( talk) 15:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC) reply
This article:
Fleet Command ( talk) 07:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete by Fastily ( talk · contribs) as G3, blatant hoax. ( non-admin closure) Quasi human | Talk 21:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Hoax, no such place. Grahame ( talk) 06:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 00:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-notable software. No independent references. Survived AfD in July 2005, but no improvements since. Stuartyeates ( talk) 06:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Discussion indicates that high schools are commonly kept, so long as they are verifiable. While this page still fails WP:DIVERSE, the subject has sources and can be reasonably expected to find more. ( non-admin closure) BusterD ( talk) 23:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Not notable no real references in the articles and it has been marked as such for years. CapMan07008 ( talk) 21:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. No clear consensus for deletion. Strong arguments against deletion. ( non-admin closure) BusterD ( talk) 23:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Article fails to meet notability guidelines WP:NCOLLATH NThomas ( talk) 05:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:59, 7 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Article fails to meet notability guidelines WP:NCOLLATH and WP:BASEBALL/N. NThomas ( talk) 04:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Discussion and/or more nominations of the other related articles is probably in order. Beeblebrox ( talk) 16:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The article contains "content that, while apparently intended to mean something, is so confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it", per WP:Patent nonsense. Bulldog73 talk da contribs go rando 04:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 20:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC) reply
This band's article's only claim of significance comes in the form of "immediate success in 1981 as a live act in the New York area," which is a statement that can't really be judged at face value, especially with no sources to back that claim up. Furthermore, the band "could not get a record deal," and I can't find any third-party coverage of the group. Logan Talk Contributions 03:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC) reply
I am unable to find significant coverage for this software. Fails WP:N. Joe Chill ( talk) 01:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Beeblebrox ( talk) 16:26, 8 September 2011 (UTC) reply
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Sounds like a nice show. However, if I understand it correctly, this was a 3-minute piece in 2010 and a 50-minute piece in 2011, performed only at the Orlando International Fringe Theater Festival--which isn't the biggest venue around. The reviews are exclusively from the local press: three short paragraphs on this blog, a few more paragraphs on this blog. What's in here is invisible to me. This isn't even a complete blurb. This is the most noteworthy of the bunch--and, might I add, makes it sound like a show I would enjoy too. But, unfortunately, I don't see how this meets our notability guidelines. Sorry. Drmies ( talk) 01:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Article has been tagged with cleanup tags for several years with no work done on it; no citations or references or indications of noteability. The vast majority of the article is simply copy-paste from speeches. Jtrainor ( talk) 14:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Looks like an editorless article in bad shape, but a search indicated that ability to establish wp:notability is near-certain. Needs editors/rescue, not deletion. North8000 ( talk) 01:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:03, 7 September 2011 (UTC) reply
nn chat network with 300 users. Numerous refs, but this is a ref bomb, not a real notable subject.
This article attempts to hitch a ride on events around irc-unity and the Fizzer worm. The problem is zero of the secondary sources are about AbleNET. One or two of the blog posts make a passing mention but those are not WP:RS for documentation or notability. Once you strip the article of things that do not mention AbleNET (the subject of the article), you are left with a handful of sentences that are referenced by primary sources and non-useful blogs and forum posts.
This survived AfD several years ago, before WP:N and WP:RS were really enforced and WP:ILIKEIT was seeming valid. This article doesn't meet our standards, now, if it ever did. SchmuckyTheCat ( talk) 14:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Big Nate. causa sui ( talk) 16:30, 8 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. Book with no assertion of notability. The only reference used is a primary source. Delete. Blanchardb - Me• MyEars• MyMouth- timed 15:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Courcelles 09:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC) reply
I'm helping out an IP here [49]. "This Article has been nominated for deletion for the following reasons: WP:FAILN and WP:SPIP" Thank you - I'm the IP. 2.97.116.154 ( talk) 16:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to MammaPrint. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-notable company, no significant coverage in reliable sources. No indication of meeting WP:ORG. The article was previously speedily deleted as a blatant advertisement; the current version is, for all I can tell, a recreation. Huon ( talk) 18:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Joseph Simmons. Courcelles 20:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Dubious notability. Sources are not independent or significant. Ei1sos ( talk) 18:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. I'm sorry Bopalula but the consensus here is that this Microbrewery doesn't pass our general notability guidelines. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC) reply
I am unable to find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill ( talk) 21:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Significant coverage? How about a simple google search for "old laxey brewing company"? This gets over 2,300 results, that seems to be fairly significant. I'm sure nobody wants a link to a google search, but it seems that they may be the only way to please some people.
I live in the Isle of Man, I went to the pub that this brewery is part of just over a week ago, it's still there it exists. I first attempted to created this article as the list of breweries in the Isle of Man on Wikipedia was incomplete. My first attempt failed as certain people without relevant knowledge disliked the links provided, so I created it as a stub as this seems to be how many thousand of articles that I can't verify as true seem to get on here. Now can someone explain to me how something with 2,300 results on google does not have "significant coverage"? Bopalula ( talk) 14:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Also, lack of "significant coverage" is not listed as a reason for deletion in the deletion policy. (Yes I know it has a generic catch all statement).
Bopalula ( talk) 14:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 20:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Not notable, just a bundle of unrelated names of news programs. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Otters want attention) 22:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Completely non-notable individual - he barely even gets trivial coverage in independent reliable sources, let alone significant coverage. Fails WP:BIO and WP:ACADEMIC. I'd normally suggest a redirect to NARTH, but that would prevent us from making the actually notable Benjamin Kaufman (the Medal of Honor guy) the primary topic. (And here's a pre-emptive wish of good luck to anyone who intends to slog through all the GNews and GBooks hits for "Benjamin Kaufman" and "Ben Kaufman," as I did.) – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 22:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. causa sui ( talk) 16:16, 8 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The subject of the article is not notable, in my mind. The closest he comes to meeting our notability standards for music biographies ( WP:MUSICBIO) is point 10: Has performed music for a work of media that is notable. He composed the soundtrack for Minecraft. However, the caveat of point 10 is that if they are not notable beyond that, we should merge them to the work's article. There is no coverage of him outside of minor write ups about the soundtrack to the game. Almost all the sources are self-published and non-reliable. This should be deleted with any relevant information merged to the game's page with no prejudice to recreation if notability can be established later on down the road. either way ( talk) 23:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete G12, non-admin closure. Safiel ( talk) 01:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia:Autobiography with no WP:RS to support WP:BIO or WP:GNG … WP:CSD#G12 (copy&paste of subject's own website) and WP:PROD deleted by author/subject without comment — The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome ( talk) 00:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply
< 30 August | 1 September > |
---|
The result was delete. Courcelles 00:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Nothing in the article indicates what makes this person notable. There are no reliable sources for a BLP. I first submitted a prod blp tag, which was removed by the article's originator, so I decided to go with a db-bio tag, which was removed by a brand new editor with no other edits, who claims this person is important in his country. That's possible, but there's nothing here which says what makes him important. The Mark of the Beast ( talk) 23:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to E-Verify. ( non-admin closure) BusterD ( talk) 23:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Article lacks reliable third party sources and appears to fail the notability guidelines for companies. Alpha Quadrant talk 23:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 00:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Article lacks reliable third party sources and it appears to fail the Organization notability guidelines. Alpha Quadrant talk 23:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Overwhelming consensus here that the subject does not meet our notability guidelines. 28bytes ( talk) 21:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Does not meet criteria of WP:AUTHOR. Google search does not bring up significant coverage in reliable sources, only catalogue entries and booksellers. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 23:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Stockholm syndrome. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:10, 9 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Procedural nomination. Per this DRV, the last AfD for this article is too old to comfortably be considered consensus on the issue. As seen here, the previous deletion rationale may no longer apply, though the article has not been updated to reflect this. lifebaka ++ 23:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:10, 9 September 2011 (UTC) reply
A non-notable football coach for barely notable European leagues. Does not appear to pass WP:GNG. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The Articles´ claim of Notability is CLEARLY SUPPORTED BY VIABLE REFERENCES FROM THE COUNTRIES of Said Accomplishments. ALSO Sir. Your comment regarding Greg Sholars is False... He is an EIGHT TIME NCAA DIV. I ALL-AMERICAN Sprinter for TCU, He is Also a 4 Time NCAA Div. I National Champion and a member of TCU´s Hall of Fame. This is CLEARLY STATED in the No. 10 Reference, as are All other Facts in the Article Supported by Viable References — Preceding unsigned comment added by EuroNews ( talk • contribs) 01:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC) reply
*"DO NOT DELETE"
http://www.hunderttausend.de/artikel/dec78102-9487-4707-a028-62c2d38d8095.htm
http://www.volksfreund.de/nachrichten/sport/sportmix/regional/Sportmix-Regional-Neuer-Coach-f-252-r-die-Stampers;art165758,2383611
http://www.football-aktuell.de/cgi-bin/news.pl?artikel=12487673505014&rubrik=50
http://www.football-aktuell.de/cgi-bin/news.pl?artikel=12471161955014&rubrik=501416
These references where found in less than 5 minutes on Google.com They are Not Personal pages (incidentally Mr. Mike Sholars Facebook page is Private, so the above statement is False). Needless to say, because his career has been entirely in Europe, Any Search engine ending DOT COM shall be somewhat Bias... attempt using :DE , :DK, :NO , :LU or .SE — Preceding unsigned comment added by EuroNews ( talk • contribs) 01:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC) reply
*DO NOT DELETE User CB162. Although I do not have a personal relationship with the Sholars family, I Do Know Dr. Angela Sholars King, who is Michael (Mike) and Gregory (Greg) Sholars Sister. I have followed both of their careers since they where in High School in Texas. Football is a pretty big sport down there, especially when a player runs the 100 meteres in 10.3 seconds or less. This is why I am involved, because I know 100% that this article is supported by Viable References. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
EuroNews (
talk •
contribs)
02:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
reply
The Article Has Not Been Deleted... PLEASE REFRAME From Deleting ANY Portions, thus allowing a Fair Assesment ( User:EuroNews) —Preceding undated comment added 02:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC). reply
The result was keep. Borderline between keep and no consensus here, it would be nice if more sources were added so we can avoid having this discussion again in four months. Courcelles 00:09, 9 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Standard missing persons case with no notability. Dmol ( talk) 21:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was Withdrawn by nominator, non-admin closure. ArcAngel (talk) ) 16:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC) reply
No sources, unencyclopedic tone and overall not a terribly notable group. It's funny that about 8 months ago, I was firmly on the opposite side of this article's previous discussion for deletion. But the point is the "Corre" section of
Wade Barrett's article aptly sums up every notable thing the group did. There's really nothing else to add and trying to do so is just beating a dead horse.
☆ Antoshi ☆
T |
C
21:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
reply
Withdrawn I feel the issues raised by the AfD were aptly handled and I'm satisfied with the result of the article. I therefore would like to withdraw my AfD.
*Delete Without references, I could question the very existence of The Corre, let alone notability. Reference it, (heavily), and I will happily reverse my position.
Anna Frodesiak (
talk) 08:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC) Withdrawn.
Anna Frodesiak (
talk)
11:48, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
reply
Plip!
Is Drew notable enough? RDN1F ( talk) 21:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Just FYI, userfication is only a valid option if the creator or some other user specifically requests it be placed in their userspace. Would be happy to fulfill any such request that should come my way. Beeblebrox ( talk) 19:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Prod denied. The film has not received any notable secondary coverage or reviews. It is WP:TOOSOON for this film to have a stand-alone article and it seems there is no viable redirect options as no notable individual was involved in the film. BOVINEBOY 2008 20:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) BusterD ( talk) 23:23, 7 September 2011 (UTC) reply
not WP:NOTABLE organization Geek2003 ( talk) 20:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 00:10, 9 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Doesn't meet notability criteria per WP:POLITICAN or WP:NOTNEWS Arbor8 ( talk) 20:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 00:10, 9 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Notability is not shown in the article since April 2009. See also User talk:Gregorymargovsky (presumably self promotion, two earlier versions were deleted by speedy deletion; the present version was re-created by another user which is not interested however in any other articles.) ActUpRussia ( talk) 20:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Beeblebrox ( talk) 19:12, 8 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Contested WP:PROD. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources WP:RS to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Googling turns up nothing useful. Article appears to be autobiographical WP:AUTO WP:SPA WP:COI. Wikipedia is not for WP:PROMOTION. Msnicki ( talk) 20:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Avaya. Deleted first, and redirected. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Beeblebrox ( talk) 15:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC) reply
He has been shortlisted for (but never won) a couple of awards that look moderately important. But "Mark Samuels" "white hands" gets 0 hits in Google News. It seems nothing of substance has been written about him by independent sources, so it will be impossible for us to write a satisfactory biography. Fails WP:GNG. Calliopejen1 ( talk) 19:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:12, 9 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep per improvements during the AfD. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Commentary – As an IT consumer of Wikipedia information however, not a contributor, IMHO diminishing content is detrimental to Wikipedia’s core principles (hardware and volunteerism are cheap and abundant) however mentoring is epidemically deficient. Intensifying coverage through article expansion and enhanced citations are critical to acceptance in academia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.255.193.127 ( talk) 20:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Beeblebrox ( talk) 16:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to B._P._Paquette#Filmmaking. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:12, 9 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Unreleased independent film of questionable notability. No IMDB page, Google search shows only 91 unique results - mostly primary sources and social media. Fails WP:NFF. MikeWazowski ( talk) 19:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. If there's an article to be written that doesn't have these issues, then that's fine. This one doesn't. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC) reply
This is an interesting case - I'm not sure if she's notable or not, but it raises some serious BLP issues so I want to bring it here. This is an Indian model who was found years after her alleged fame, living on the streets and addicted to drugs. I can't find any indication that she was really well known at all before this incident, or even particularly successful - there are zero news articles in google news prior that mention her name. It seems like the press only started caring about her later, because her story was dramatic, and then possibly attributed to her success that she never really had. So basically there's relatively little that can go in her biography beyond a few negative facts about her being addicted to drugs and homeless. There was a very successful movie Fashion made a few years back that very closely mirrors her story, and is pretty much (to an outside observer) obviously about her life, but the director has (for whatever reason) denied that this is true. So a redirect might not be appropriate. This article has been deleted once before as an unsourced attack page, and once as a copyvio (that's why I'm the only contributor in this history, and I'm nominating it for deletion - the copyvio was getting restored by an IP, so I just deleted it and left the prior stub.) Calliopejen1 ( talk) 18:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Beeblebrox ( talk) 16:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Is this really needed? — Croisés Majestic ( sur nous mars) 00:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-notable new journal, article creation highly premature. No independent sources, not included in any selective major databases. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Crusio ( talk) 18:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Beeblebrox ( talk) 16:18, 8 September 2011 (UTC) reply
A weather producer and part-time on-air meteorologist at WTTG in Washington DC. Only notable moment came when he was covered in sea foam (ie. sewage) while doing an on-air broadcast of Hurricane Irene that made national news. This is a case of one event. Prod was contested. Bgwhite ( talk) 17:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The crux of the dispute here seems to boil down to whether or not Church on the Rock is a major religious movement and whether Kennedy is the equivalent of a bishop. Consensus seems to be leaning in the direction that he is not. While Church on the Rock certainly appears to represent a lot of folks, it self-describes as non-denominational, therefore it would seem that comparisons to the Catholic or other major Christian sects power structures are invalid. As an aside I would add that the numerous accusations of bad faith present here have no place in this debate and were not considered when making this close. Beeblebrox ( talk) 19:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Article was originally nominated for speedy deletion as it did not contain any non-inherited notability claims. The article creator made an argument on the talk page for notability, so I agreed to remove the speedy and start an AfD. Unfortunately my research has not turned up significant reliable source coverage to establish notability for the article subject. The bulk of the citations on the current article are primary sources linked directly to organizations the subject is involved in, and do not establish notability. Other notability claims include, "He is friends with David Yonggi Cho" and "He is the father of Texas philanthropist and politician Lance Kennedy and a descendant of Republic of Texas politician John J. Kennedy." and "He sits on the board of governors of the S. Daniel Abraham Center of Strategic Dialogue" and that he performed a wedding for Chuck Norris. All of these claims are inherited notability claims (giving the benefit of the doubt that the subjects he is affiliated with are even notable - which is not entirely clear in some cases). I am unable to find significant reliable source coverage to establish the notability of these claims, with the one exception of perhaps being mentioned in Norris' autobiography (but I have not pulled the paper version to verify). Even if that is verified, it still is a rather weak claim of notability unless reported in a reliable secondary source. ConcernedVancouverite ( talk) 17:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Weak keep - Some level of notability has been established by the sources provided, but I am undecided as to notaable Kennedy is. I would argue that the article is kept because the sources do seem to giv at least some level of notability. My persona decision could be swayed either way - I'd want to listen to further opinions and see whether any additional sources can be found.
ItsZippy (
talk)
21:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
reply
Change to delete - The references do not do enough to me to suggest notability. For notability, Lawrence Kennedy needs to be the primary focus of the source. The ones given mention him in passing - the primary focus is an organisation or another person. If there exists a source which is primarily about Kennedy, then I would vote to keep it. As there is not, it seems he is not notable enough. ItsZippy ( talk) 16:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Let me look at each source individually. The first source is just a list of churches. Kennedy is mentioned in passing, as the pastor of a church - the source does not attribute additional any notability to him. The second source is the North Church website. This is affiliated with Kennedy, so cannot be used to attribute notability. The third source, the Church on the Rocks website, is again affiliated with Kennedy, so cannot allocate notability. The fourth source I have no access to; however, unless it is about Kennedy, it will not give him notability. The fifth source is a link to a site which does not work. The sixth source is, again, affiliated with Kennedy. The seventh source is an article about the Clothe A Child organisation and the involvement of a man called John Hammond. Kennedy's name is mentioned once to establish context - it does not give notability to Kennedy. The eighth source is a local news report about Cloth a Child. Firstly, as a local news report, it is not very deep coverage, so would struggle to meet notability guidelines. In any case, the article is about Clothe A Child, not about Kennedy - Kennedy's name is there, again, just to provide context. The ninth source, again, is affiliated with Kennedy so cannot provide notability. The tenth source, as before, is about Clothe A Child and just mentions Kennedy to provide context. The eleventh source is exactly the same as the eighth, just on a different website. The twelfth source is the strongest provided, but still only mentions Kennedy in passing. The article is not about Kennedy, it is about the event. Kennedy is briefly mentioned on a few occasions because he has a role in it. The notability, if any, if the event's. I cannot access the thirteenth source; see what I put for the fourth. The fourteenth and fifteenth sources are about Chuck Norris. Kennedy is mentioned because he took the wedding of Chuck Norris. If we had articles on ever pastor, priest and vicar who took the weddings of notable people, we'd have thousands of articles about people who's only claim to fame is that. This does not, therefore, constitute notability.
I hope that helps. Feel free to disagree with any of the analysis I've given but, if you do, please reason with me and explain why. I've given you detailed reasoning behind my rejection of each source, so I would like to see the same thought behind any attempts to refute my arguments. If I've made any errors, please let me know. Thanks. ItsZippy( talk • Contributions) 13:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Beeblebrox ( talk) 16:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC) reply
No indication of notability to pass WP:ORG. Being the longest-established something may be enough to be a "credible claim of significance" hence I have not nominated this for a speedy, but I don't think there's anything salvageable here. Delete. Strange Passerby ( talk • cont) 15:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:34, 7 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD. Reason for PROD was "Non-notable amateur club per WP:GNG and WP:FOOTYN". The article creator contested the PROD with the reason "It is a noted amateur club that plays in Italian Serie D Category. There is no reason to delete this page."
I couldn't find anything about the team that would justify notability per WP:GNG, and fails WP:FOOTYN, because they never played for a national cup.
For the exact same reason, i nominated this article as well:
-- Kosm1fent Won't you talk to me? 14:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Disposal of human corpses. Courcelles 00:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-encyclopaedic and unreferenced ThePaintedOne ( talk) 13:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC) reply
A non-notable term. Apparently the creators of the Jargon File (the initial source for this article) consider "one-line fix" to be a sarcastic joke. In real life, however, many bug fixes are just one line - just like some are two lines, etc. I don't see any evidence, other than the Jargon File itself, that this term ever took on a life of its own, beyond its literal meaning. Yaron K. ( talk) 12:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 00:12, 9 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD: still no reliable sources to establish notability per WP:GNG, still promotional, author hasn't improved it since contesting the PROD. — Tom Morris ( talk) 11:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 00:12, 9 September 2011 (UTC) reply
No sources to establish notability of this football anthem: the inclusion of the full lyrics is potentially a massive copyvio. — Tom Morris ( talk) 11:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 00:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC) reply
A legitimate and welcome new template, but no need for it to be an article. We already have List of FIFA World Cup finals. If retained, needs to be moved to normal English designation (Worldcup is not one word; winners are not referred to as "Champions in...") Kevin McE ( talk) 09:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 00:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-notable 'executive coach', article written by the subject, promotional. — Tom Morris ( talk) 08:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect. If there is anything worth merging it can be pulled from the page history. Beeblebrox ( talk) 16:30, 8 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Delete or Merge (as nominator) into Samuel Mudd per Notability and already exists in another article. Only reference I can find refer to his death and/or his fight to clear his g pap's name. Information already exists in the Samuel Mudd article making this unneeded. Pudge MclameO ( talk) 08:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply
delete — there seems to be nothing notable about this fellow that's not tied into his crusade re: grandpa, and that is already covered better in the
Samuel Mudd article than it is here, thus obviating need to merge. it's possible that the case he filed, mudd v. white, deserves an article, but this isn't it, and won't become it. —
alf.laylah.wa.laylah (
talk)
22:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
reply
The result was redirect to Dale Brown#Patrick McLanahan Series. With redirects being generally seen as cheap, and aiding in navigation and searching of the wiki, and from the comment below, this seems like the appropriate course of action. ( non-admin closure) Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 02:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC) reply
This purely fiction article lack source. It does not even have one. I say nothing of its failure to comply with notability requirements. Fleet Command ( talk) 07:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Beeblebrox ( talk) 15:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC) reply
This article:
Fleet Command ( talk) 07:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete by Fastily ( talk · contribs) as G3, blatant hoax. ( non-admin closure) Quasi human | Talk 21:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Hoax, no such place. Grahame ( talk) 06:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 00:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-notable software. No independent references. Survived AfD in July 2005, but no improvements since. Stuartyeates ( talk) 06:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Discussion indicates that high schools are commonly kept, so long as they are verifiable. While this page still fails WP:DIVERSE, the subject has sources and can be reasonably expected to find more. ( non-admin closure) BusterD ( talk) 23:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Not notable no real references in the articles and it has been marked as such for years. CapMan07008 ( talk) 21:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. No clear consensus for deletion. Strong arguments against deletion. ( non-admin closure) BusterD ( talk) 23:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Article fails to meet notability guidelines WP:NCOLLATH NThomas ( talk) 05:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:59, 7 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Article fails to meet notability guidelines WP:NCOLLATH and WP:BASEBALL/N. NThomas ( talk) 04:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Discussion and/or more nominations of the other related articles is probably in order. Beeblebrox ( talk) 16:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The article contains "content that, while apparently intended to mean something, is so confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it", per WP:Patent nonsense. Bulldog73 talk da contribs go rando 04:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 20:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC) reply
This band's article's only claim of significance comes in the form of "immediate success in 1981 as a live act in the New York area," which is a statement that can't really be judged at face value, especially with no sources to back that claim up. Furthermore, the band "could not get a record deal," and I can't find any third-party coverage of the group. Logan Talk Contributions 03:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC) reply
I am unable to find significant coverage for this software. Fails WP:N. Joe Chill ( talk) 01:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Beeblebrox ( talk) 16:26, 8 September 2011 (UTC) reply
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Sounds like a nice show. However, if I understand it correctly, this was a 3-minute piece in 2010 and a 50-minute piece in 2011, performed only at the Orlando International Fringe Theater Festival--which isn't the biggest venue around. The reviews are exclusively from the local press: three short paragraphs on this blog, a few more paragraphs on this blog. What's in here is invisible to me. This isn't even a complete blurb. This is the most noteworthy of the bunch--and, might I add, makes it sound like a show I would enjoy too. But, unfortunately, I don't see how this meets our notability guidelines. Sorry. Drmies ( talk) 01:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Article has been tagged with cleanup tags for several years with no work done on it; no citations or references or indications of noteability. The vast majority of the article is simply copy-paste from speeches. Jtrainor ( talk) 14:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Looks like an editorless article in bad shape, but a search indicated that ability to establish wp:notability is near-certain. Needs editors/rescue, not deletion. North8000 ( talk) 01:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:03, 7 September 2011 (UTC) reply
nn chat network with 300 users. Numerous refs, but this is a ref bomb, not a real notable subject.
This article attempts to hitch a ride on events around irc-unity and the Fizzer worm. The problem is zero of the secondary sources are about AbleNET. One or two of the blog posts make a passing mention but those are not WP:RS for documentation or notability. Once you strip the article of things that do not mention AbleNET (the subject of the article), you are left with a handful of sentences that are referenced by primary sources and non-useful blogs and forum posts.
This survived AfD several years ago, before WP:N and WP:RS were really enforced and WP:ILIKEIT was seeming valid. This article doesn't meet our standards, now, if it ever did. SchmuckyTheCat ( talk) 14:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Big Nate. causa sui ( talk) 16:30, 8 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. Book with no assertion of notability. The only reference used is a primary source. Delete. Blanchardb - Me• MyEars• MyMouth- timed 15:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Courcelles 09:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC) reply
I'm helping out an IP here [49]. "This Article has been nominated for deletion for the following reasons: WP:FAILN and WP:SPIP" Thank you - I'm the IP. 2.97.116.154 ( talk) 16:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to MammaPrint. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-notable company, no significant coverage in reliable sources. No indication of meeting WP:ORG. The article was previously speedily deleted as a blatant advertisement; the current version is, for all I can tell, a recreation. Huon ( talk) 18:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Joseph Simmons. Courcelles 20:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Dubious notability. Sources are not independent or significant. Ei1sos ( talk) 18:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. I'm sorry Bopalula but the consensus here is that this Microbrewery doesn't pass our general notability guidelines. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC) reply
I am unable to find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill ( talk) 21:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Significant coverage? How about a simple google search for "old laxey brewing company"? This gets over 2,300 results, that seems to be fairly significant. I'm sure nobody wants a link to a google search, but it seems that they may be the only way to please some people.
I live in the Isle of Man, I went to the pub that this brewery is part of just over a week ago, it's still there it exists. I first attempted to created this article as the list of breweries in the Isle of Man on Wikipedia was incomplete. My first attempt failed as certain people without relevant knowledge disliked the links provided, so I created it as a stub as this seems to be how many thousand of articles that I can't verify as true seem to get on here. Now can someone explain to me how something with 2,300 results on google does not have "significant coverage"? Bopalula ( talk) 14:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Also, lack of "significant coverage" is not listed as a reason for deletion in the deletion policy. (Yes I know it has a generic catch all statement).
Bopalula ( talk) 14:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 20:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Not notable, just a bundle of unrelated names of news programs. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Otters want attention) 22:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Completely non-notable individual - he barely even gets trivial coverage in independent reliable sources, let alone significant coverage. Fails WP:BIO and WP:ACADEMIC. I'd normally suggest a redirect to NARTH, but that would prevent us from making the actually notable Benjamin Kaufman (the Medal of Honor guy) the primary topic. (And here's a pre-emptive wish of good luck to anyone who intends to slog through all the GNews and GBooks hits for "Benjamin Kaufman" and "Ben Kaufman," as I did.) – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 22:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. causa sui ( talk) 16:16, 8 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The subject of the article is not notable, in my mind. The closest he comes to meeting our notability standards for music biographies ( WP:MUSICBIO) is point 10: Has performed music for a work of media that is notable. He composed the soundtrack for Minecraft. However, the caveat of point 10 is that if they are not notable beyond that, we should merge them to the work's article. There is no coverage of him outside of minor write ups about the soundtrack to the game. Almost all the sources are self-published and non-reliable. This should be deleted with any relevant information merged to the game's page with no prejudice to recreation if notability can be established later on down the road. either way ( talk) 23:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete G12, non-admin closure. Safiel ( talk) 01:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia:Autobiography with no WP:RS to support WP:BIO or WP:GNG … WP:CSD#G12 (copy&paste of subject's own website) and WP:PROD deleted by author/subject without comment — The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome ( talk) 00:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply