![]() |
The result was delete. v/r - T P 17:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The tagged banner at the top complete's the summary of what is wrong with the page. You can clearly see the user has tried to put an infobox but failed to clearly define the infobox correctly. In my opinion I do not think the user intends to add much more to the article or even clean it up to meet Wikipedia's requirements. Adamdaley ( talk) 23:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was MERGE to Dev Anand. TigerShark ( talk) 11:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply
fails to meet notability criteria. Disputed prod noq ( talk) 16:20, 4 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to The Metro School. v/r - T P 17:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Notability questionable, might be called Mosaic now. - Roy Boy 20:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Will WP:USERFY if requested. Beeblebrox ( talk) 08:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The page is unsourced and doesn't appear to be in production so it fails WP:NFF Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. v/r - T P 17:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:ORG. I suggest userfication the page. Mythpage88 ( talk) 19:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to DIKW. v/r - T P 17:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Tagged as unreferenced since 2009, and as original research since 2007. Searches reveal mostly mirrors to this article or unrelated topics. Ideas presented in this article appear to be entirely OR. George100 ( talk) 19:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. v/r - T P 20:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Two solo artists making one record together does not establish a duo Orland ( talk) 19:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. v/r - T P 16:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Not notable at all. All sources are linked to formspring or articles about his brother. Alpha Editor ( talk) 19:05, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Delete According to the article, the only thing he has ever done was get a $400 fine for using steroids - less than you might get for an unpaid parking fine. He was not involved in his brother's death (who is only known for dying in slightly unusual circumstances anyway), but one article on his brother commented that Said had been convicted of using steroids - maybe to suggest that his brother's death may have been connected to steroid use - with a quote taken from Facebook by Said about how he missed him (most of the links in the article about his brother's death don't even mention Said). This means that the first hit on Google for Said is now this article about how he had a small fine for steroid use. I don't understand why Wikipedia expects major criminals to be "renowned international or national figures" before they are allowed an article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CRIMINAL#CRIM but it can have one on someone almost unknown who was fined $400 for steroids. -- 120.151.202.171 ( talk) 02:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Keep: Article demonstrates notability via sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.84.38 ( talk) 03:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Favonian ( talk) 10:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD. Concern was No evidence of appearance in a fully professional league, per this, so fails WP:NFOOTBALL; also fails WP:GNG. PROD was contested on the grounds that he had played in Ligue 2. However, his LFP profil puts his lifetime appearances in the top two divisions in France at zero. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 18:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. At the very least, deletion is out. Whether or not a merge should occur is a editorial matter outside of AfD and can continue to be discussed locally on the appropriate talk pages. – MuZemike 00:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC) reply
In theory, of course, one can have an article on conspiracy theories. However, what one can't have is a long, BLP-violating (specific people are named as part of the conspiracy theory, without attempt at balance) article that actively promotes a conspiracy theory.
The group of articles this is a part of is already extremely bloated, containing literally hundreds of articles. Much of this content is already available at Global warming controversy and Climate change denial, but told from a neutral view there, and from a promotional view here. As such, this is largely a WP:POVFORK, though one which may contain a small amount of content worth trying to save, however, it would need a fundamental reframing and reworking, and an elimination of the WP:BLP issues.
As well, the article does not deal with a single conspiracy theory, but simply serves to rehash a number of isolated attacks made against global warming.
As I said, there may be a small amount of salvageable content, but this article gives a number of non-notable one-off conspiracy theories WP:undue weight. Some of these may be notable enough to include as part of Climate change denial, and, to handle this, I'd suggest making the article into a fully protected redirect, instead of outright immediate deletion, in order to allow an attempt to salvage material by merger into a more appropriate place.
As such, allow me to begin with voting Delete and merge any salvageable content to Climate change denial. 86.** IP ( talk) 18:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply
As a quick note: Unfortunately, due to the absolutely abyssmal editing environment of the entire set of Global warming articles, I do not believe it possible to do a merge without going through AfD; a number of editors are willing to engage in obstructionist behaviour, even with an AfD and DRV-mandated merge, it would be impossible to move forwards without a mandate. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Climate_change_alarmism. While my view is slightly more nuanced than a simple delete, given the experience at that article, this seems the best process.
"CLOSE and refer to merge process as supplmented by any needed dipsute resolution processes Reason, 86's original proposal is a merge, and 86 admits this is packaged as an AFD to short-circuit the collaborative techniques for merging-by-consensus, e.g. WP:MERGE and WP:DISPUTE. That was [ 86s own statement, but I will go further to characterize the statement as soundly a lot like contempt for his fellow editors. On option, I suppose, is to just let the AFD run given all the editor input. However, in my view, this is an important teachable moment about wiki consensus and respect for each other in a collaborative environment. Allowing the misguided AFD to result in a decision would be to reward the contempt that led us here instead of to merge & dispute resolution, and to invite a repeat AFD. Please do not let AFD be co-opted in this manner. People need to be compelled to use the WP:DISPUTE procedures. What follows was my vote before I clearly understood that the AFD packaging was designed to get a holy mandate and just skip over the usual merge-with-dispute-resolution process everyone else is expected to use. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 15:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC) reply
{od} I agree the climate articles could be improved. In particular, the excellent content in the article titled "global warming controversy" is only a small slice of full scope suggested by that title. IMO, many of the problems being debated here could be at least partially cleared up by retitling the current content of that article, and then reusing that title (global warming controversy) as some sort of navigation or disambig page for the many other topics that could be called "global warming controversy". For example, see this way. I am not pursuing it at present so if anyone else wants to bring it back from the archives, please do. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 03:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Comment The first few notes following were moved here from the top. I had placed the first after the proposers 'as a quick note' but that was within a 'hide' which has been removed. I've moved my reply here to try and stop the edit warring. Dmcq ( talk)
Note to closer: Remember that the arguments need to be judged on merit, and that conspiracy theories, gross personal attacks, and the like, do not count as arguments to keep. 86.** IP ( talk) 15:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Note to closer: Let's not have another debacle like occurred at the Climate change alarmism AfD (see DRV), where the closer misinterpreted a near even split of opinion as consensus, and then declared a minority view ("merge") to be the consensus. We have a nearly identical situation here. As of 15:24 today I see the tally as:
That's 7 "keep", 4 "merge", 3 "delete" (and/or merge); "keep" has a plurality. Or if the nearly even split is "no consensus", fine. (Note that the WP:Deletion guidelines for administrators does say: "When in doubt, don't delete"; emphasis in the original). ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 20:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Note to 86**: you should also note that alleging "conspiracy theories [a "cabal"], gross personal attacks [harassment, etc.], and the like" do not count as counter-arguments. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 20:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Note to the various cabals' May I also point it was 86.** IP who started off the cabal business as far as I was concerned by accusing me of being part of a cabal in an AN/I they raised against me:
NOTE - Just so everyone knows, this is also being "discussed" at ANI. Unfortunately, since this link has a problem in some browsers, you may need to search the ANI page for Global_warming_conspiracy_theory to find the discussion. Q Science ( talk) 07:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC) reply
POINT OF ORDER When anyone says "Delete and MERGE-TO", does that require a MERGE-FROM tag on the destination article? The proposing editor of this AFD (86.**IP) recently did another regarding Climate change alarmism. In both, 86 asked to delete one article and merge "any salvageable content" to another article. HOWEVER, 86 does not tag the destination articles. In the Climate change alarmism AFD the destination article he proposed was one that I watch, Global warming controversy. However, since 86 did not tag it, I had no idea there was a discussion I wanted to participate in happening at AFD until it was over. I suppose there might be something in the histories that had the potential to clue me in if I had noticed and interpreted correctly, but that is not the point. The point is that there is a procedure for tagging MERGE-FROM and MERGE-TO articles so no one is left in the dark like I was. Ordinarily I would just help out by placing the forgotten tag on the destination article, but in this instance, 86s words and deeds suggest an intent to do many more of these AFDs in the future. For that reason, if ALL articles mentioned in the proposal need to be tagged to ensure all interested editors have fair warning, I think it might help to leave that up to the proposing editor, and to NOT CLOSE this discussion until that happens and any clock or whatever is used to decide on closing has been re-set to zero. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 09:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC) reply
POINT OF ORDER - SUPPLEMENTAL Who knew? If I read it correctly, AFD is the improper venu for the current proposal because the proposing editor wishes to merge "any salvagable content" to another article, and WP:AFDHOWTO says "Use Wikipedia:Proposed mergers for discussion of mergers." And of course, Wikipedia:Proposed mergers discusses the issue of tagging all the articles that are involved. So now I think the closing admin should consider closing without comment on the merits and referring instead to the merge process as set forth at wiki/Help:Merging, and after "any salvagable content" has been merged over, presumably what is left will be crap and therefore ripe for a simple delete proposal at AFD. IMO, such a process would be a far superior means of collaborative consensus editing. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 12:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC) reply
>
The result was Delete per WP:CSD#G7 - page creator added {{ delete}} (G11 would have equally applied). SmartSE ( talk) 16:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC) reply
This is a recreation of a previous AfD'ed article, though sufficiently different to warrant a new discussion. However, I don't think there are the independent reliable sources available yet that give significant coverage, and show Torres meets our criteria for inclusion Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 18:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Materialscientist ( talk) 04:31, 18 December 2011 (UTC) reply
film fails WP:FILM in preproduction. Gaijin42 ( talk) 17:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Deleted as G4 Recreation by Smartse. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 18:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC) reply
fails WP:FILM due to being pre-production. As warned in the policy, things are subject to change. Hugh Jackman dropped out in 2009. Who knows if this film is even going to be made. Even IMDB won't list the cast list Gaijin42 ( talk) 17:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy deleted by GraemeL ( talk · contribs). Sir Sputnik ( talk) 20:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Unreferenced per WP:BLP. Non-notable per WP:NFOOTBALL: not yet played in a professional match. Proposed deletion contested by creator without comment. Filing Flunky ( talk) 17:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. v/r - T P 16:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Cancelled station. Artem Karimov ( talk) 17:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to List of schools in Central Bedfordshire. v/r - T P 16:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-notable primary school Bleaney ( talk) 16:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply
NOTE for closer. If this is closed as 'redirect' please remember to include the {{R from school}} template on the redirect. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 03:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. v/r - T P 16:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Prod was contested by an IP twice. Original Prod rationale, "Entirely non-notable album featuring several non-notable artists and some notable artists who may or may not have authorized the inclusion of their songs on this." GB fan 16:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply
In addition, all conflicts of interest must be disclosed. And I just read that content is not published if it is promotional in nature. Read Here Appears to fit both reliable source policies or WP:NEWSBLOG policy. 109.186.19.205 ( talk) 13:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was KEEP per WP:BAND (6). JFHJr ( ㊟) 20:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC) Non-admin closure reply
Fails WP:BAND. The article has had a lot of recent turmoil because of disruptive editing by the article subject, who has now been indeffed. A bit hard to search for secondary sources as the name is common. Mostly, though, all I find is that he played for bands but is not notable for his own sake. Could be redirected, but not clear to which of the two bands. Bbb23 ( talk) 16:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. v/r - T P 16:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-notable footballer, the "professional" appearances argued by the author are with the NPSL which is not listed under Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. Remember that WP:NFOOTY points out that they must take part in a "fully professional league". Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Beeblebrox ( talk) 08:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply
I found zero sources for this which might be because of the common name. Appears to fail WP:N. SL93 ( talk) 16:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. v/r - T P 16:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply
SCSI Express is a proposed computing standard that has not even been created, let alone established any kind of notability for being a novel (or even useful) technology. "It exists," is not a valid reason for keeping something on Wikipedia. See also WP:CRYSTAL. Lithorien ( talk) 15:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. v/r - T P 16:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:MUSIC. They don't have multiple releases on notable labels, no independent third-party coverage in reliable sources (just a bunch of webzines and blogs), no notable festival appearances or tours. Just another Myspace band. Blackmetalbaz ( talk) 15:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. v/r - T P 16:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:MUSIC. Non-notable bootleg recording, no coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Blackmetalbaz ( talk) 14:05, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. v/r - T P 16:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply
No assertion of notability per WP:COMPANY; no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Filing Flunky ( talk) 13:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Trixie Belden. v/r - T P 16:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Essay → Σ τ c. 00:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was DELETE. TigerShark ( talk) 11:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply
I found zero significant coverage for this software. SL93 ( talk) 02:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. v/r - T P 16:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply
noinderpendent notability shown for this album. lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. nothing satisfying WP:NALBUM. prod refund duffbeerforme ( talk) 06:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. v/r - T P 16:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Well written article, but I feel it would be more appropriate for a Pokemon themed wiki rather than Wikipedia itself. It is an item in a video game, therefore it should not get its own article TJD2 ( talk) 06:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was DELETE. TigerShark ( talk) 12:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:GNG, WP:NFILMS and violates WP:CRYSTAL. The reference provided does not discuss the subject in question. Till I Go Home ( talk) 08:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. v/r - T P 16:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply
I came across this article as part of the Bell Pottinger COI Investigations. Although I note that this company has received industry awards, I am skeptical that this counts towards notability as defined in WP:ORG. There are some mentions of the company in Google News and Google Books, but they are all in passing, so I do not think the company has the depth of coverage necessary for a Wikipedia article. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 11:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Rlendog ( talk) 16:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:NEO Madcoverboy ( talk) 15:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was KEEP. TigerShark ( talk) 12:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply
This article fails to establish its notability by introducing significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. All sources of this article are either from the subject itself (www.moddb.com), its parent company (DesuraNET Pty Ltd) or in one case a subsidiary website. Fleet Command ( talk) 09:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was REDIRECT to Salman_Khan#Filmography. TigerShark ( talk) 12:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Wp:NFF. No sources confirming that principle photography has commenced. At the moment, Sohail Khan seems to be working on another film, with a different cast. For the process, I require more opinions. Please state them below. X.One SOS 08:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was Withdrawn. Per the reliable sources found by Goodvac and Michig. It is now quite clear that the subject meets the notability guidelines. ( non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 22:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 06:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply
This appears to be the beginning of a discussion of the band's history.The Hoodoo Rhythm Devils play basic, no-frills rock'n'roll better than any Bay Area band since Creedence. Sparked by the R&B-tough vocals of guitarist-keyboardist Joe Crane and ...
The result was DELETE. TigerShark ( talk) 11:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply
promotional article for non-notable author. The one book she co-edited is in only 5 libraries a/c WorldCat. Several other career segments, none notable individual or collectively. DGG ( talk ) 06:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was SPEEDY DELETE as recreation (csd-G4). - Nabla ( talk) 14:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Recreation of recently-deleted page. Sottolacqua ( talk) 06:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep as withdrawn , rationale for deletion no longer applies.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Indiscriminate database dump. Again. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. v/r - T P 16:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-notable short film film lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance, Included references do not appear to be significant enough to support notability. Appears to fail WP:NOTFILM. reddogsix ( talk) 03:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. v/r - T P 16:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Local Christian minister without evidence of notability via either WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Main claim to fame seems to be his authorship of several books and other publications, all of which appear to be issued by a publishing house of which he is the principal (these are essentially self-published). Sources in article are essentially press releases from one of his churches or from his affiliated publishing house. Article has been tagged for notability for 7 months. Orlady ( talk) 03:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The "keep" !vote does not forward arguments that address notability or deletion guidelines. Rlendog ( talk) 16:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-Notable Fan-Made Web Series created by a non-notable production company. I cannot find any reliable sources that discuss this series. Furthermore, there are no proper references in the article. StarScream1007 ►Talk 03:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to List of Occupy movement protest locations in the United States. v/r - T P 16:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Only locally notable... Mythpage88 ( talk) 09:17, 3 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. v/r - T P 16:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply
This article is not notability. Because of this reason this article has been deleted many times on Turkish Wikipedia. My English is not good. I hope you see the point.-- Reality006 ( talk) 03:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to List of My Little Pony characters#Pegasus Ponies. Clear consensus has developed DGG ( talk ) 02:36, 18 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Nominating myself for deletion because I don't really have a lot of sources to justify myself having a independent article. Flutter shy !xmcuvg2MH 02:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. v/r - T P 16:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD, Promotional resume on person of little or no notability. Fails WP:GNG and/or WP:BIO. Mt king (edits) 02:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Thank you for your comment. As a relatively new editor, I may not be fully-versed on notability but have to disagree with you on the exaggeration of the claim to be one of the first female Rhodes. A quick scan of the web (e.g., http://www.rhodes-caribbean.com/) will tell you that until 1977 no women were admitted as Rhodes scholars, and that was the year she graduated from Yale and got the Rhodes. -- Pukkativa 04:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Rlendog ( talk) 15:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply
I found nothing that shows that this passes WP:N. SL93 ( talk) 01:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 01:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply
contested prod, for a non-notale person. Artcile lists 3 sources, two of which failed verification. The soruce for these two sources is the third source, which is a one-line mention of the subject's name in a long list or other people JungerMan Chips Ahoy! ( talk) 01:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply
*Strong Keep The article is now well sourced, and after trying to do some research of my own, I can tell you that there are many Tariq Mahmoods in the world. With a person that clearly meets notability standards, it is vital that Wikipedia have an article on someone that is so difficult to research any other way. I have removed the only questionable BLP statement I saw, which was that he was alleged to have ties to
al-Qaeda.
ΣΑΠΦ (Sapph)
Talk
23:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
reply
:::In that case it should be left out as per
WP:ALLEGED and
WP:BLP. Highly problematic to start an BLP based on that. More below.
Jrwikieditor (
talk)
02:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
reply
:::I agree with the raised
WP:1E concerns. He as a person is not notable. The alleged torture and mistreatment is.
Jrwikieditor (
talk)
13:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. v/r - T P 16:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The subject is a private financier. Just one among many such concerns in India. It has absolutely no notability. It is not notable for any particular achievements, for being large, for the amount of money invested, for any speciality of its services, or anything. All the references used are regular reports on companies in financial/business newspapers. That does not establish notability assuch. Austria156 ( talk) 22:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC) reply
114.143.76.2 ( talk) 17:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. — Tom Morris ( talk) 11:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC) reply
He is not a notable news reporter nor has been seen on TV or heard from in over five years. The article contains very little and outdated information about him and the two links are dead now. A Google search does not result in a lot of reliable, recent pages about him
The result was no consensus. ( edit conflict) Going by vote count, this AFD doesn't have a consensus. However, I am tempted to lean delete per the strong rationales of the delete !voters. However, there is too much bad drama surrounding the nominator to close this as delete. Any delete close would immediately end up at WP:DRV. So I am closing as no consensus with no prejudice to renomination. v/r - T P 16:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Her only notable involvement in politics was as a student, she withdrew candidacy before being "in" politics; she was working as a lawyer for politicians (as a public servant); she was the "initial" CHOGM director (evidently moved on); and is just a "group manager" at FMG, and not directorship. Twigfan ( talk) 00:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. v/r - T P 16:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply
One more of the many substubs by this editor, having his signature: it is a copy paste from one of the the first links that comes up on Google, writen as "<author> says in <reference> that <sentence-including-subject>". WP is not a copy paste mirror of Google searches, our readers, and our editors deserve better than this. And better nothing, and a chance to start afresh, than this. Nabla ( talk) 00:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply
This was Picasso's first monumental concrete sculpture. For years, Picasso had imagined working on such a large scale. When Norwegian artist Carl Nesjar introduced him to an innovative concrete engraving technique known as Betograve, Picasso immediately grasped its potential for his own work. Betograve involves first pouring concrete into a form tightly packed with gravel, and, once set, precisely sand-blasting the surface of the concrete to expose the gravel beneath it. For this sculpture, Picasso chose the folded sheet metal Head of a Woman, on view inside, from which Nesjar could realize the full-scale work. This sculpture inaugurated a working relationship between Picasso and Nesjar that produced twenty-four works and lasted for the rest of Picasso's life.
Taken from [30].-- Coin945 ( talk) 02:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. v/r - T P 16:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply
While sourcing seems to be ok for the subject, I don't think she passes WP:NOTABLE simply by virtue of having been CEO of bankrate.com. She hasn't won any major awards as far as I can see and the article reads more like a corporate resume. Until today, it was far more POV but it has been cleaned up quite a bit, which is what made it popup on my watch list. The top google search is her linkedin profile, and then a forbes user profile. To me this looks like a marketing ploy. Noformation Talk 02:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC) reply
December 2011 (UTC)
The result was delete. v/r - T P 16:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-notable band. Does not satisfy any of the 12 "Criteria for musicians and ensembles" in Wikipedia:Notability (music). There's no evidence of the band being the "subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works." The television program is not sufficient, in my mind (especially since I cannot find any confirmation that the band was the subject and not just merely referenced). GrapedApe ( talk) 13:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. v/r - T P 16:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Contested speedy, no reliable third-party sources except trivial mentions. Paolo Napolitano 14:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC) reply
*keep It is though to be objective when you create an article for an artist or request for deletion. It must be also though to debate 3rd-party sources in foreign languages. Here you are: #1 & #2 are
Garantibank's magazine, #3
TUREB, newspapers #5
Şalom 

Sabah.--
Tacci2023 (
talk)
16:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. No prejudice against fresh start. v/r - T P 16:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply
If the copyvio tag is correct, and I believe that it is, than that means that this entire article is tainted, since the copyvio came over in the very first edit, and has been a part of all subsequent edits. This needs to be deleted and started over with fresh prose and a fresh page history. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Consensus is that there are no adequate sources yet DGG ( talk ) 01:26, 18 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Does not meet Notability guidelines ThomasLB ( talk) 17:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. – MuZemike 05:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The article contains no references to "apparent weight" and reads like an attempted physics lesson (see WP:NOTTEXTBOOK) Gerardw ( talk) 20:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sandstein 21:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply
All this does is provide links to other existing lists (most of which are featured lists) then proceeds to just duplicate them without any of the sources, creating a redundant content fork. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars ( talk) 06:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC) reply
![]() |
The result was delete. v/r - T P 17:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The tagged banner at the top complete's the summary of what is wrong with the page. You can clearly see the user has tried to put an infobox but failed to clearly define the infobox correctly. In my opinion I do not think the user intends to add much more to the article or even clean it up to meet Wikipedia's requirements. Adamdaley ( talk) 23:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was MERGE to Dev Anand. TigerShark ( talk) 11:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply
fails to meet notability criteria. Disputed prod noq ( talk) 16:20, 4 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to The Metro School. v/r - T P 17:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Notability questionable, might be called Mosaic now. - Roy Boy 20:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Will WP:USERFY if requested. Beeblebrox ( talk) 08:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The page is unsourced and doesn't appear to be in production so it fails WP:NFF Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. v/r - T P 17:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:ORG. I suggest userfication the page. Mythpage88 ( talk) 19:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to DIKW. v/r - T P 17:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Tagged as unreferenced since 2009, and as original research since 2007. Searches reveal mostly mirrors to this article or unrelated topics. Ideas presented in this article appear to be entirely OR. George100 ( talk) 19:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. v/r - T P 20:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Two solo artists making one record together does not establish a duo Orland ( talk) 19:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. v/r - T P 16:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Not notable at all. All sources are linked to formspring or articles about his brother. Alpha Editor ( talk) 19:05, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Delete According to the article, the only thing he has ever done was get a $400 fine for using steroids - less than you might get for an unpaid parking fine. He was not involved in his brother's death (who is only known for dying in slightly unusual circumstances anyway), but one article on his brother commented that Said had been convicted of using steroids - maybe to suggest that his brother's death may have been connected to steroid use - with a quote taken from Facebook by Said about how he missed him (most of the links in the article about his brother's death don't even mention Said). This means that the first hit on Google for Said is now this article about how he had a small fine for steroid use. I don't understand why Wikipedia expects major criminals to be "renowned international or national figures" before they are allowed an article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CRIMINAL#CRIM but it can have one on someone almost unknown who was fined $400 for steroids. -- 120.151.202.171 ( talk) 02:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Keep: Article demonstrates notability via sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.84.38 ( talk) 03:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Favonian ( talk) 10:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD. Concern was No evidence of appearance in a fully professional league, per this, so fails WP:NFOOTBALL; also fails WP:GNG. PROD was contested on the grounds that he had played in Ligue 2. However, his LFP profil puts his lifetime appearances in the top two divisions in France at zero. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 18:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. At the very least, deletion is out. Whether or not a merge should occur is a editorial matter outside of AfD and can continue to be discussed locally on the appropriate talk pages. – MuZemike 00:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC) reply
In theory, of course, one can have an article on conspiracy theories. However, what one can't have is a long, BLP-violating (specific people are named as part of the conspiracy theory, without attempt at balance) article that actively promotes a conspiracy theory.
The group of articles this is a part of is already extremely bloated, containing literally hundreds of articles. Much of this content is already available at Global warming controversy and Climate change denial, but told from a neutral view there, and from a promotional view here. As such, this is largely a WP:POVFORK, though one which may contain a small amount of content worth trying to save, however, it would need a fundamental reframing and reworking, and an elimination of the WP:BLP issues.
As well, the article does not deal with a single conspiracy theory, but simply serves to rehash a number of isolated attacks made against global warming.
As I said, there may be a small amount of salvageable content, but this article gives a number of non-notable one-off conspiracy theories WP:undue weight. Some of these may be notable enough to include as part of Climate change denial, and, to handle this, I'd suggest making the article into a fully protected redirect, instead of outright immediate deletion, in order to allow an attempt to salvage material by merger into a more appropriate place.
As such, allow me to begin with voting Delete and merge any salvageable content to Climate change denial. 86.** IP ( talk) 18:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply
As a quick note: Unfortunately, due to the absolutely abyssmal editing environment of the entire set of Global warming articles, I do not believe it possible to do a merge without going through AfD; a number of editors are willing to engage in obstructionist behaviour, even with an AfD and DRV-mandated merge, it would be impossible to move forwards without a mandate. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Climate_change_alarmism. While my view is slightly more nuanced than a simple delete, given the experience at that article, this seems the best process.
"CLOSE and refer to merge process as supplmented by any needed dipsute resolution processes Reason, 86's original proposal is a merge, and 86 admits this is packaged as an AFD to short-circuit the collaborative techniques for merging-by-consensus, e.g. WP:MERGE and WP:DISPUTE. That was [ 86s own statement, but I will go further to characterize the statement as soundly a lot like contempt for his fellow editors. On option, I suppose, is to just let the AFD run given all the editor input. However, in my view, this is an important teachable moment about wiki consensus and respect for each other in a collaborative environment. Allowing the misguided AFD to result in a decision would be to reward the contempt that led us here instead of to merge & dispute resolution, and to invite a repeat AFD. Please do not let AFD be co-opted in this manner. People need to be compelled to use the WP:DISPUTE procedures. What follows was my vote before I clearly understood that the AFD packaging was designed to get a holy mandate and just skip over the usual merge-with-dispute-resolution process everyone else is expected to use. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 15:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC) reply
{od} I agree the climate articles could be improved. In particular, the excellent content in the article titled "global warming controversy" is only a small slice of full scope suggested by that title. IMO, many of the problems being debated here could be at least partially cleared up by retitling the current content of that article, and then reusing that title (global warming controversy) as some sort of navigation or disambig page for the many other topics that could be called "global warming controversy". For example, see this way. I am not pursuing it at present so if anyone else wants to bring it back from the archives, please do. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 03:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Comment The first few notes following were moved here from the top. I had placed the first after the proposers 'as a quick note' but that was within a 'hide' which has been removed. I've moved my reply here to try and stop the edit warring. Dmcq ( talk)
Note to closer: Remember that the arguments need to be judged on merit, and that conspiracy theories, gross personal attacks, and the like, do not count as arguments to keep. 86.** IP ( talk) 15:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Note to closer: Let's not have another debacle like occurred at the Climate change alarmism AfD (see DRV), where the closer misinterpreted a near even split of opinion as consensus, and then declared a minority view ("merge") to be the consensus. We have a nearly identical situation here. As of 15:24 today I see the tally as:
That's 7 "keep", 4 "merge", 3 "delete" (and/or merge); "keep" has a plurality. Or if the nearly even split is "no consensus", fine. (Note that the WP:Deletion guidelines for administrators does say: "When in doubt, don't delete"; emphasis in the original). ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 20:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Note to 86**: you should also note that alleging "conspiracy theories [a "cabal"], gross personal attacks [harassment, etc.], and the like" do not count as counter-arguments. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 20:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Note to the various cabals' May I also point it was 86.** IP who started off the cabal business as far as I was concerned by accusing me of being part of a cabal in an AN/I they raised against me:
NOTE - Just so everyone knows, this is also being "discussed" at ANI. Unfortunately, since this link has a problem in some browsers, you may need to search the ANI page for Global_warming_conspiracy_theory to find the discussion. Q Science ( talk) 07:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC) reply
POINT OF ORDER When anyone says "Delete and MERGE-TO", does that require a MERGE-FROM tag on the destination article? The proposing editor of this AFD (86.**IP) recently did another regarding Climate change alarmism. In both, 86 asked to delete one article and merge "any salvageable content" to another article. HOWEVER, 86 does not tag the destination articles. In the Climate change alarmism AFD the destination article he proposed was one that I watch, Global warming controversy. However, since 86 did not tag it, I had no idea there was a discussion I wanted to participate in happening at AFD until it was over. I suppose there might be something in the histories that had the potential to clue me in if I had noticed and interpreted correctly, but that is not the point. The point is that there is a procedure for tagging MERGE-FROM and MERGE-TO articles so no one is left in the dark like I was. Ordinarily I would just help out by placing the forgotten tag on the destination article, but in this instance, 86s words and deeds suggest an intent to do many more of these AFDs in the future. For that reason, if ALL articles mentioned in the proposal need to be tagged to ensure all interested editors have fair warning, I think it might help to leave that up to the proposing editor, and to NOT CLOSE this discussion until that happens and any clock or whatever is used to decide on closing has been re-set to zero. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 09:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC) reply
POINT OF ORDER - SUPPLEMENTAL Who knew? If I read it correctly, AFD is the improper venu for the current proposal because the proposing editor wishes to merge "any salvagable content" to another article, and WP:AFDHOWTO says "Use Wikipedia:Proposed mergers for discussion of mergers." And of course, Wikipedia:Proposed mergers discusses the issue of tagging all the articles that are involved. So now I think the closing admin should consider closing without comment on the merits and referring instead to the merge process as set forth at wiki/Help:Merging, and after "any salvagable content" has been merged over, presumably what is left will be crap and therefore ripe for a simple delete proposal at AFD. IMO, such a process would be a far superior means of collaborative consensus editing. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 12:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC) reply
>
The result was Delete per WP:CSD#G7 - page creator added {{ delete}} (G11 would have equally applied). SmartSE ( talk) 16:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC) reply
This is a recreation of a previous AfD'ed article, though sufficiently different to warrant a new discussion. However, I don't think there are the independent reliable sources available yet that give significant coverage, and show Torres meets our criteria for inclusion Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 18:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Materialscientist ( talk) 04:31, 18 December 2011 (UTC) reply
film fails WP:FILM in preproduction. Gaijin42 ( talk) 17:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Deleted as G4 Recreation by Smartse. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 18:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC) reply
fails WP:FILM due to being pre-production. As warned in the policy, things are subject to change. Hugh Jackman dropped out in 2009. Who knows if this film is even going to be made. Even IMDB won't list the cast list Gaijin42 ( talk) 17:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy deleted by GraemeL ( talk · contribs). Sir Sputnik ( talk) 20:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Unreferenced per WP:BLP. Non-notable per WP:NFOOTBALL: not yet played in a professional match. Proposed deletion contested by creator without comment. Filing Flunky ( talk) 17:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. v/r - T P 16:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Cancelled station. Artem Karimov ( talk) 17:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to List of schools in Central Bedfordshire. v/r - T P 16:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-notable primary school Bleaney ( talk) 16:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply
NOTE for closer. If this is closed as 'redirect' please remember to include the {{R from school}} template on the redirect. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 03:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. v/r - T P 16:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Prod was contested by an IP twice. Original Prod rationale, "Entirely non-notable album featuring several non-notable artists and some notable artists who may or may not have authorized the inclusion of their songs on this." GB fan 16:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply
In addition, all conflicts of interest must be disclosed. And I just read that content is not published if it is promotional in nature. Read Here Appears to fit both reliable source policies or WP:NEWSBLOG policy. 109.186.19.205 ( talk) 13:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was KEEP per WP:BAND (6). JFHJr ( ㊟) 20:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC) Non-admin closure reply
Fails WP:BAND. The article has had a lot of recent turmoil because of disruptive editing by the article subject, who has now been indeffed. A bit hard to search for secondary sources as the name is common. Mostly, though, all I find is that he played for bands but is not notable for his own sake. Could be redirected, but not clear to which of the two bands. Bbb23 ( talk) 16:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. v/r - T P 16:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-notable footballer, the "professional" appearances argued by the author are with the NPSL which is not listed under Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. Remember that WP:NFOOTY points out that they must take part in a "fully professional league". Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Beeblebrox ( talk) 08:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply
I found zero sources for this which might be because of the common name. Appears to fail WP:N. SL93 ( talk) 16:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. v/r - T P 16:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply
SCSI Express is a proposed computing standard that has not even been created, let alone established any kind of notability for being a novel (or even useful) technology. "It exists," is not a valid reason for keeping something on Wikipedia. See also WP:CRYSTAL. Lithorien ( talk) 15:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. v/r - T P 16:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:MUSIC. They don't have multiple releases on notable labels, no independent third-party coverage in reliable sources (just a bunch of webzines and blogs), no notable festival appearances or tours. Just another Myspace band. Blackmetalbaz ( talk) 15:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. v/r - T P 16:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:MUSIC. Non-notable bootleg recording, no coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Blackmetalbaz ( talk) 14:05, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. v/r - T P 16:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply
No assertion of notability per WP:COMPANY; no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Filing Flunky ( talk) 13:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Trixie Belden. v/r - T P 16:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Essay → Σ τ c. 00:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was DELETE. TigerShark ( talk) 11:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply
I found zero significant coverage for this software. SL93 ( talk) 02:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. v/r - T P 16:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply
noinderpendent notability shown for this album. lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. nothing satisfying WP:NALBUM. prod refund duffbeerforme ( talk) 06:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. v/r - T P 16:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Well written article, but I feel it would be more appropriate for a Pokemon themed wiki rather than Wikipedia itself. It is an item in a video game, therefore it should not get its own article TJD2 ( talk) 06:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was DELETE. TigerShark ( talk) 12:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:GNG, WP:NFILMS and violates WP:CRYSTAL. The reference provided does not discuss the subject in question. Till I Go Home ( talk) 08:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. v/r - T P 16:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply
I came across this article as part of the Bell Pottinger COI Investigations. Although I note that this company has received industry awards, I am skeptical that this counts towards notability as defined in WP:ORG. There are some mentions of the company in Google News and Google Books, but they are all in passing, so I do not think the company has the depth of coverage necessary for a Wikipedia article. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 11:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Rlendog ( talk) 16:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:NEO Madcoverboy ( talk) 15:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was KEEP. TigerShark ( talk) 12:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply
This article fails to establish its notability by introducing significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. All sources of this article are either from the subject itself (www.moddb.com), its parent company (DesuraNET Pty Ltd) or in one case a subsidiary website. Fleet Command ( talk) 09:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was REDIRECT to Salman_Khan#Filmography. TigerShark ( talk) 12:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Wp:NFF. No sources confirming that principle photography has commenced. At the moment, Sohail Khan seems to be working on another film, with a different cast. For the process, I require more opinions. Please state them below. X.One SOS 08:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was Withdrawn. Per the reliable sources found by Goodvac and Michig. It is now quite clear that the subject meets the notability guidelines. ( non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 22:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 06:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply
This appears to be the beginning of a discussion of the band's history.The Hoodoo Rhythm Devils play basic, no-frills rock'n'roll better than any Bay Area band since Creedence. Sparked by the R&B-tough vocals of guitarist-keyboardist Joe Crane and ...
The result was DELETE. TigerShark ( talk) 11:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply
promotional article for non-notable author. The one book she co-edited is in only 5 libraries a/c WorldCat. Several other career segments, none notable individual or collectively. DGG ( talk ) 06:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was SPEEDY DELETE as recreation (csd-G4). - Nabla ( talk) 14:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Recreation of recently-deleted page. Sottolacqua ( talk) 06:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep as withdrawn , rationale for deletion no longer applies.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Indiscriminate database dump. Again. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. v/r - T P 16:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-notable short film film lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance, Included references do not appear to be significant enough to support notability. Appears to fail WP:NOTFILM. reddogsix ( talk) 03:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. v/r - T P 16:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Local Christian minister without evidence of notability via either WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Main claim to fame seems to be his authorship of several books and other publications, all of which appear to be issued by a publishing house of which he is the principal (these are essentially self-published). Sources in article are essentially press releases from one of his churches or from his affiliated publishing house. Article has been tagged for notability for 7 months. Orlady ( talk) 03:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The "keep" !vote does not forward arguments that address notability or deletion guidelines. Rlendog ( talk) 16:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-Notable Fan-Made Web Series created by a non-notable production company. I cannot find any reliable sources that discuss this series. Furthermore, there are no proper references in the article. StarScream1007 ►Talk 03:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to List of Occupy movement protest locations in the United States. v/r - T P 16:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Only locally notable... Mythpage88 ( talk) 09:17, 3 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. v/r - T P 16:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply
This article is not notability. Because of this reason this article has been deleted many times on Turkish Wikipedia. My English is not good. I hope you see the point.-- Reality006 ( talk) 03:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to List of My Little Pony characters#Pegasus Ponies. Clear consensus has developed DGG ( talk ) 02:36, 18 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Nominating myself for deletion because I don't really have a lot of sources to justify myself having a independent article. Flutter shy !xmcuvg2MH 02:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. v/r - T P 16:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD, Promotional resume on person of little or no notability. Fails WP:GNG and/or WP:BIO. Mt king (edits) 02:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Thank you for your comment. As a relatively new editor, I may not be fully-versed on notability but have to disagree with you on the exaggeration of the claim to be one of the first female Rhodes. A quick scan of the web (e.g., http://www.rhodes-caribbean.com/) will tell you that until 1977 no women were admitted as Rhodes scholars, and that was the year she graduated from Yale and got the Rhodes. -- Pukkativa 04:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Rlendog ( talk) 15:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply
I found nothing that shows that this passes WP:N. SL93 ( talk) 01:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 01:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply
contested prod, for a non-notale person. Artcile lists 3 sources, two of which failed verification. The soruce for these two sources is the third source, which is a one-line mention of the subject's name in a long list or other people JungerMan Chips Ahoy! ( talk) 01:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply
*Strong Keep The article is now well sourced, and after trying to do some research of my own, I can tell you that there are many Tariq Mahmoods in the world. With a person that clearly meets notability standards, it is vital that Wikipedia have an article on someone that is so difficult to research any other way. I have removed the only questionable BLP statement I saw, which was that he was alleged to have ties to
al-Qaeda.
ΣΑΠΦ (Sapph)
Talk
23:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
reply
:::In that case it should be left out as per
WP:ALLEGED and
WP:BLP. Highly problematic to start an BLP based on that. More below.
Jrwikieditor (
talk)
02:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
reply
:::I agree with the raised
WP:1E concerns. He as a person is not notable. The alleged torture and mistreatment is.
Jrwikieditor (
talk)
13:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. v/r - T P 16:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The subject is a private financier. Just one among many such concerns in India. It has absolutely no notability. It is not notable for any particular achievements, for being large, for the amount of money invested, for any speciality of its services, or anything. All the references used are regular reports on companies in financial/business newspapers. That does not establish notability assuch. Austria156 ( talk) 22:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC) reply
114.143.76.2 ( talk) 17:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. — Tom Morris ( talk) 11:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC) reply
He is not a notable news reporter nor has been seen on TV or heard from in over five years. The article contains very little and outdated information about him and the two links are dead now. A Google search does not result in a lot of reliable, recent pages about him
The result was no consensus. ( edit conflict) Going by vote count, this AFD doesn't have a consensus. However, I am tempted to lean delete per the strong rationales of the delete !voters. However, there is too much bad drama surrounding the nominator to close this as delete. Any delete close would immediately end up at WP:DRV. So I am closing as no consensus with no prejudice to renomination. v/r - T P 16:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Her only notable involvement in politics was as a student, she withdrew candidacy before being "in" politics; she was working as a lawyer for politicians (as a public servant); she was the "initial" CHOGM director (evidently moved on); and is just a "group manager" at FMG, and not directorship. Twigfan ( talk) 00:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. v/r - T P 16:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply
One more of the many substubs by this editor, having his signature: it is a copy paste from one of the the first links that comes up on Google, writen as "<author> says in <reference> that <sentence-including-subject>". WP is not a copy paste mirror of Google searches, our readers, and our editors deserve better than this. And better nothing, and a chance to start afresh, than this. Nabla ( talk) 00:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply
This was Picasso's first monumental concrete sculpture. For years, Picasso had imagined working on such a large scale. When Norwegian artist Carl Nesjar introduced him to an innovative concrete engraving technique known as Betograve, Picasso immediately grasped its potential for his own work. Betograve involves first pouring concrete into a form tightly packed with gravel, and, once set, precisely sand-blasting the surface of the concrete to expose the gravel beneath it. For this sculpture, Picasso chose the folded sheet metal Head of a Woman, on view inside, from which Nesjar could realize the full-scale work. This sculpture inaugurated a working relationship between Picasso and Nesjar that produced twenty-four works and lasted for the rest of Picasso's life.
Taken from [30].-- Coin945 ( talk) 02:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. v/r - T P 16:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply
While sourcing seems to be ok for the subject, I don't think she passes WP:NOTABLE simply by virtue of having been CEO of bankrate.com. She hasn't won any major awards as far as I can see and the article reads more like a corporate resume. Until today, it was far more POV but it has been cleaned up quite a bit, which is what made it popup on my watch list. The top google search is her linkedin profile, and then a forbes user profile. To me this looks like a marketing ploy. Noformation Talk 02:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC) reply
December 2011 (UTC)
The result was delete. v/r - T P 16:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-notable band. Does not satisfy any of the 12 "Criteria for musicians and ensembles" in Wikipedia:Notability (music). There's no evidence of the band being the "subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works." The television program is not sufficient, in my mind (especially since I cannot find any confirmation that the band was the subject and not just merely referenced). GrapedApe ( talk) 13:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. v/r - T P 16:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Contested speedy, no reliable third-party sources except trivial mentions. Paolo Napolitano 14:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC) reply
*keep It is though to be objective when you create an article for an artist or request for deletion. It must be also though to debate 3rd-party sources in foreign languages. Here you are: #1 & #2 are
Garantibank's magazine, #3
TUREB, newspapers #5
Şalom 

Sabah.--
Tacci2023 (
talk)
16:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. No prejudice against fresh start. v/r - T P 16:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply
If the copyvio tag is correct, and I believe that it is, than that means that this entire article is tainted, since the copyvio came over in the very first edit, and has been a part of all subsequent edits. This needs to be deleted and started over with fresh prose and a fresh page history. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Consensus is that there are no adequate sources yet DGG ( talk ) 01:26, 18 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Does not meet Notability guidelines ThomasLB ( talk) 17:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. – MuZemike 05:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The article contains no references to "apparent weight" and reads like an attempted physics lesson (see WP:NOTTEXTBOOK) Gerardw ( talk) 20:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sandstein 21:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply
All this does is provide links to other existing lists (most of which are featured lists) then proceeds to just duplicate them without any of the sources, creating a redundant content fork. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars ( talk) 06:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC) reply