![]() |
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 04:21, 25 December 2011 (UTC) reply
I found nothing that would make this software pass WP:N. SL93 ( talk) 23:55, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Consensus ist that this is does not merit an article, per WP:NOTNEWS. Sandstein 08:23, 25 December 2011 (UTC) reply
WP:NOT NEWs. Local events, no evidence for connection between them, no reason to think historic impact; all transit systems has disruptions from day to day, but keeping a log of them is not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. DGG ( talk ) 23:44, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 08:58, 25 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Mayor of small town, with no prior political office. Only notability was changing party registration to vote for Barack Obama in the 2008 Pennsylvania primary election, which was widely repeated throughout the blogosphere as some sort of remarkable event. Other mentions are passing mentions in the local newspaper about routine duties as mayor. FWIW, I did a fair deal of editing on this article to fix all of the omissions and inaccuracies, but I still do not think the subject meets notability guidelines; he clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN, and IMO he doesn't meet the basic criteria either, as there is almost nothing beyond the party change, and even that is of questionable notability. Horologium (talk) 20:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Kurykh ( talk) 08:58, 25 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Appears to fail WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Found only one substantial source in a local paper. CharlieEchoTango ( contact) 18:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Kurykh ( talk) 08:59, 25 December 2011 (UTC) reply
No appropriate refs (1 ref provided identified as an attack site by my Browser). No notability or assertion of notability. No evidence of any hits. Fails WP:BAND Velella Velella Talk 22:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 08:59, 25 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Article is for a local TV show hosted by a local lawyer who gives advice. I see no third party review and therefore article does not meet WP:N because it fails WP:V. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Clear consensus to delete but has potential to be a well written BLP in future should wish to take the time and energy. Seddon talk| WikimediaUK 04:35, 24 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Buddhist Lopon ( acharya) and scholar. The subject has requested deletion because of the insertion of improperly sourced negative information by an IP. When the subject removed the material, their change was repeatedly reverted. Judging by the lack of references and the page view stats from before the insertion of the defamatory material, this is a BLP Wikipedia can live without. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 21:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was REDIRECT to InterCity West Coast. Nobody in favour of keeping these as standalone articles. Very little content that could potentially be merged but if anyone wishes to do so the details can be retrieved from page history. Michig ( talk) 18:18, 25 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Non Notable Company formed for the purpose of bidding for a franchise which it failed to win. Only passing mentions in sources and only temporary coverage not permanent notability. Stuart.Jamieson ( talk) 21:32, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following related pages because they are also shell companies formed as part of the bidding process with only trivial mentions in sources:
Stuart.Jamieson ( talk) 21:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Merge or redirect all to InterCity West Coast, which directly deals with the award of this franchise. Not much you can say other their bid existing, but they are all plausible search terms. Chris Neville-Smith ( talk) 09:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Delete Notability is not temporary. There is nothing worth merging and now that the usefulness of these entities is past they will be unlikely search terms as far as our general readership are concerned. Anyone with a specialist interest in finance and franchises will be looking to other specialist sources and they will get more from a google search anyway.-- Charles ( talk) 14:06, 18 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Editors may wish to discuss proposals for renaming. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 09:57, 24 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a dictionary The Last Angry Man ( talk) 21:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to The Slim Shady LP. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 10:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSONG. I propose this redirect to The Slim Shady LP. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 10:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-notable film, fails Wikipedia:Notability (films) The Mark of the Beast ( talk) 19:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 09:00, 25 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Apparently a postdoctoral researcher, with no significant publications in major journals ; nothing visible in Google Scholar DGG ( talk ) 18:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Limkokwing University of Creative Technology. Kurykh ( talk) 09:00, 25 December 2011 (UTC) reply
While the university that this is a member of may well be notable, this studio/ training center lacks indicia of notability such as substantial coverage in independent RSs. The vast majority of the article is unreferenced. Epeefleche ( talk) 18:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Drmies ( talk) 03:44, 26 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Person does not notable. Page has been deleted many times in Turkish Wikipedia. Esc2003 ( talk) 17:36, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was KEEP. No arguments in favour of deletion other than the nominator's. Consensus is to keep. Michig ( talk) 20:25, 24 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-notable arboretum at a university. Not recognized for any unique plantlife or conservation measures or anything really. Just having some trees. GrapedApe ( talk) 16:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 05:15, 24 December 2011 (UTC) reply
I found no significant coverage for this film. Google News and Google Books turned up nothing. Fails WP:NF. SL93 ( talk) 15:11, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Bring You Home. ( non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 22:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Non notable song. Directly per the article "The song failed to chart on the UK Singles Chart, and also failed to achieve any success in Ireland." Gaijin42 ( talk) 16:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC) reply
But the song charted in Ireland, so it is notable. MusicCollector17 ( talk) 18:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.162.193 ( talk) reply
From the policy : Notability aside (which is borderline in this case), a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album
Gaijin42 (
talk) 18:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
reply
Have added a review of the single as part of the critical reception section and have wrote a description of the music video. Have also added verification for it's Irish chart position and updated the tracklisting. User86 08:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC) reply
And what did i just say above? Does anybody on this page actually read?
User86 15:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete.
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (
talk) 05:18, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Addendum: The result was Keep. From the closing administrator's talk page (verbatim):
reply
(Non-administrator addendum correction). Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:39, 24 December 2011 (UTC) reply"Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephanie Payne, what is your rationale for deletion of the article? In the AfD, you simply wrote "The result was delete." without providing any analysis of the !votes and arguments presented in the AfD discussion. Clarification of your rationale for this AfD result would be most helpful. Please respond at the discussion page for the AfD page here: Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Stephanie Payne. Thank you for your consideration. Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:02, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for pointing this out. It was a genuine error (perhaps I inadvertantly clicked on the wrong button). The result was of of course a clear keep, and I will restore the the article. Thanks again. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 06:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC)"
Person is not notable Nicholas Perkins ( T• C) 08:25, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Merge Weightism related content to Weightism and redirect. Stuartyeates ( talk) 04:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Egon VIII of Fürstenberg-Heiligenberg#Marriage_and_descendants. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 05:21, 24 December 2011 (UTC) reply
No indication of importance in the article or on the internet. Notability is not inherited, so her family or husband don't make her notable. Merging with husband an option? Night of the Big Wind talk 14:47, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was A7 as about an MMORPG guild that had no assertion of notability. Jclemens ( talk) 07:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Generally will qualify under A1.When Google Translate shows the text in English,the result is clearly understood.It fails to identify the subject's topic. That's me! Have doubt? Track me! 14:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Speedy delete -it's not in English (so, G1), and it has no context (so, A1). Failing that, the article has no sources and does not contain anything encyclopedic; it seems to be a posting about a game. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 16:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn, no other arguments for deletion. Fences& Windows 20:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The strict conditional is nothing more than the ordinary conditional statement used in philosophy, logic, and mathematics. Both conditional statements and strict conditionals are the same: they are both, by definition, statements for which the conlcusion is true every time the hypothesis is true. Having this extra, separate article for the strict conditional is therefore just redundant. There is already an article all about conditional statements. This page on strict conditionals should be deleted for the sake of simplification. Hanlon1755 ( talk) 13:35, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 04:24, 25 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Cannot find much more info on this journal than that mentioned in the sole EL, which is outdated (cf: http://www.wildstrom.com/susan/permission_slip.htm). The link given on the last page to the website of the publisher in Singapore is dead, cannot find another link for this publisher. It is even difficult to find out what the journal really is about, some websites list it as a research journal, others say its a "recreational math" magazine. In the absence of verifiable information from reliable sources, I don't think this can be kept. Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:V, and WP:NJournals. Guillaume2303 ( talk) 13:19, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 04:24, 25 December 2011 (UTC) reply
With greatest respect, Dr Ahmed Malik would appear to fail WP:ACADEMIC Shirt58 ( talk) 12:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 04:39, 25 December 2011 (UTC) reply
I cannot find the requisite substantive RS coverage of this PR company. Tagged for notability for well over 2 years. Authored by an SPA. Epeefleche ( talk) 07:34, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was Deleted under G11 by myself. Guerillero | My Talk 04:14, 20 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The website is down for the most part: the article itself mostly talks about why is online dating so big and it feels like a business proposal more than anything else. There is no importance to this site that was given out. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Beeblebrox ( talk) 02:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Unnotable actress. Unreferenced biography of a living person. bender235 ( talk) 10:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was DELETE. Michig ( talk) 14:17, 24 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Appears to be non-notable, given the paucity of coverage. Tagged as such for over three years. Zero refs. Created by an SPA. Epeefleche ( talk) 06:55, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was DELETE. Michig ( talk) 14:11, 24 December 2011 (UTC) reply
A complete absence of reliable sources, and a total failure of Google Books to produce sources, makes me think that we are dealing with a non-notable topic whose content comes from tradition, lore, and original research. Drmies ( talk) 04:55, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Tone 17:13, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply
No attempt to establish notability, cursory internet search reveals credits only, nothing else. Parrot of Doom 16:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was DELETE. No arguments in favour of keeping this, and consensus is that there is no evidence of notability. Michig ( talk) 14:06, 24 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Appears non-notable; a stark absence of gnews hits and gbooks hits. Tagged as non-notable for 1 year. Epeefleche ( talk) 03:05, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wifione Message 18:00, 24 December 2011 (UTC) reply
While I can find articles from this online magazine, I cannot find RS non-trivial coverage about it such as would confer notability upon it. Created by an SPA. Tagged for absence of notability for well over two years. Epeefleche ( talk) 03:01, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 05:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC) reply
spam with no real claim to notability. lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. nothing satisfying WP:N. prod reconstruction. duffbeerforme ( talk) 02:31, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 05:29, 24 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Previously PROD deleted, but recently undeleted via REFUND. Same reason as in the PROD. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The-Pope ( talk) 02:28, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply
![]() |
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 04:21, 25 December 2011 (UTC) reply
I found nothing that would make this software pass WP:N. SL93 ( talk) 23:55, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Consensus ist that this is does not merit an article, per WP:NOTNEWS. Sandstein 08:23, 25 December 2011 (UTC) reply
WP:NOT NEWs. Local events, no evidence for connection between them, no reason to think historic impact; all transit systems has disruptions from day to day, but keeping a log of them is not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. DGG ( talk ) 23:44, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 08:58, 25 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Mayor of small town, with no prior political office. Only notability was changing party registration to vote for Barack Obama in the 2008 Pennsylvania primary election, which was widely repeated throughout the blogosphere as some sort of remarkable event. Other mentions are passing mentions in the local newspaper about routine duties as mayor. FWIW, I did a fair deal of editing on this article to fix all of the omissions and inaccuracies, but I still do not think the subject meets notability guidelines; he clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN, and IMO he doesn't meet the basic criteria either, as there is almost nothing beyond the party change, and even that is of questionable notability. Horologium (talk) 20:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Kurykh ( talk) 08:58, 25 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Appears to fail WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Found only one substantial source in a local paper. CharlieEchoTango ( contact) 18:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Kurykh ( talk) 08:59, 25 December 2011 (UTC) reply
No appropriate refs (1 ref provided identified as an attack site by my Browser). No notability or assertion of notability. No evidence of any hits. Fails WP:BAND Velella Velella Talk 22:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 08:59, 25 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Article is for a local TV show hosted by a local lawyer who gives advice. I see no third party review and therefore article does not meet WP:N because it fails WP:V. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Clear consensus to delete but has potential to be a well written BLP in future should wish to take the time and energy. Seddon talk| WikimediaUK 04:35, 24 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Buddhist Lopon ( acharya) and scholar. The subject has requested deletion because of the insertion of improperly sourced negative information by an IP. When the subject removed the material, their change was repeatedly reverted. Judging by the lack of references and the page view stats from before the insertion of the defamatory material, this is a BLP Wikipedia can live without. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 21:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was REDIRECT to InterCity West Coast. Nobody in favour of keeping these as standalone articles. Very little content that could potentially be merged but if anyone wishes to do so the details can be retrieved from page history. Michig ( talk) 18:18, 25 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Non Notable Company formed for the purpose of bidding for a franchise which it failed to win. Only passing mentions in sources and only temporary coverage not permanent notability. Stuart.Jamieson ( talk) 21:32, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following related pages because they are also shell companies formed as part of the bidding process with only trivial mentions in sources:
Stuart.Jamieson ( talk) 21:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Merge or redirect all to InterCity West Coast, which directly deals with the award of this franchise. Not much you can say other their bid existing, but they are all plausible search terms. Chris Neville-Smith ( talk) 09:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Delete Notability is not temporary. There is nothing worth merging and now that the usefulness of these entities is past they will be unlikely search terms as far as our general readership are concerned. Anyone with a specialist interest in finance and franchises will be looking to other specialist sources and they will get more from a google search anyway.-- Charles ( talk) 14:06, 18 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Editors may wish to discuss proposals for renaming. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 09:57, 24 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a dictionary The Last Angry Man ( talk) 21:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to The Slim Shady LP. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 10:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSONG. I propose this redirect to The Slim Shady LP. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 10:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-notable film, fails Wikipedia:Notability (films) The Mark of the Beast ( talk) 19:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 09:00, 25 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Apparently a postdoctoral researcher, with no significant publications in major journals ; nothing visible in Google Scholar DGG ( talk ) 18:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Limkokwing University of Creative Technology. Kurykh ( talk) 09:00, 25 December 2011 (UTC) reply
While the university that this is a member of may well be notable, this studio/ training center lacks indicia of notability such as substantial coverage in independent RSs. The vast majority of the article is unreferenced. Epeefleche ( talk) 18:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Drmies ( talk) 03:44, 26 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Person does not notable. Page has been deleted many times in Turkish Wikipedia. Esc2003 ( talk) 17:36, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was KEEP. No arguments in favour of deletion other than the nominator's. Consensus is to keep. Michig ( talk) 20:25, 24 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-notable arboretum at a university. Not recognized for any unique plantlife or conservation measures or anything really. Just having some trees. GrapedApe ( talk) 16:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 05:15, 24 December 2011 (UTC) reply
I found no significant coverage for this film. Google News and Google Books turned up nothing. Fails WP:NF. SL93 ( talk) 15:11, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Bring You Home. ( non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 22:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Non notable song. Directly per the article "The song failed to chart on the UK Singles Chart, and also failed to achieve any success in Ireland." Gaijin42 ( talk) 16:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC) reply
But the song charted in Ireland, so it is notable. MusicCollector17 ( talk) 18:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.162.193 ( talk) reply
From the policy : Notability aside (which is borderline in this case), a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album
Gaijin42 (
talk) 18:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
reply
Have added a review of the single as part of the critical reception section and have wrote a description of the music video. Have also added verification for it's Irish chart position and updated the tracklisting. User86 08:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC) reply
And what did i just say above? Does anybody on this page actually read?
User86 15:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete.
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (
talk) 05:18, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Addendum: The result was Keep. From the closing administrator's talk page (verbatim):
reply
(Non-administrator addendum correction). Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:39, 24 December 2011 (UTC) reply"Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephanie Payne, what is your rationale for deletion of the article? In the AfD, you simply wrote "The result was delete." without providing any analysis of the !votes and arguments presented in the AfD discussion. Clarification of your rationale for this AfD result would be most helpful. Please respond at the discussion page for the AfD page here: Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Stephanie Payne. Thank you for your consideration. Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:02, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for pointing this out. It was a genuine error (perhaps I inadvertantly clicked on the wrong button). The result was of of course a clear keep, and I will restore the the article. Thanks again. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 06:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC)"
Person is not notable Nicholas Perkins ( T• C) 08:25, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Merge Weightism related content to Weightism and redirect. Stuartyeates ( talk) 04:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Egon VIII of Fürstenberg-Heiligenberg#Marriage_and_descendants. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 05:21, 24 December 2011 (UTC) reply
No indication of importance in the article or on the internet. Notability is not inherited, so her family or husband don't make her notable. Merging with husband an option? Night of the Big Wind talk 14:47, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was A7 as about an MMORPG guild that had no assertion of notability. Jclemens ( talk) 07:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Generally will qualify under A1.When Google Translate shows the text in English,the result is clearly understood.It fails to identify the subject's topic. That's me! Have doubt? Track me! 14:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Speedy delete -it's not in English (so, G1), and it has no context (so, A1). Failing that, the article has no sources and does not contain anything encyclopedic; it seems to be a posting about a game. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 16:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn, no other arguments for deletion. Fences& Windows 20:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The strict conditional is nothing more than the ordinary conditional statement used in philosophy, logic, and mathematics. Both conditional statements and strict conditionals are the same: they are both, by definition, statements for which the conlcusion is true every time the hypothesis is true. Having this extra, separate article for the strict conditional is therefore just redundant. There is already an article all about conditional statements. This page on strict conditionals should be deleted for the sake of simplification. Hanlon1755 ( talk) 13:35, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 04:24, 25 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Cannot find much more info on this journal than that mentioned in the sole EL, which is outdated (cf: http://www.wildstrom.com/susan/permission_slip.htm). The link given on the last page to the website of the publisher in Singapore is dead, cannot find another link for this publisher. It is even difficult to find out what the journal really is about, some websites list it as a research journal, others say its a "recreational math" magazine. In the absence of verifiable information from reliable sources, I don't think this can be kept. Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:V, and WP:NJournals. Guillaume2303 ( talk) 13:19, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 04:24, 25 December 2011 (UTC) reply
With greatest respect, Dr Ahmed Malik would appear to fail WP:ACADEMIC Shirt58 ( talk) 12:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 04:39, 25 December 2011 (UTC) reply
I cannot find the requisite substantive RS coverage of this PR company. Tagged for notability for well over 2 years. Authored by an SPA. Epeefleche ( talk) 07:34, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was Deleted under G11 by myself. Guerillero | My Talk 04:14, 20 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The website is down for the most part: the article itself mostly talks about why is online dating so big and it feels like a business proposal more than anything else. There is no importance to this site that was given out. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Beeblebrox ( talk) 02:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Unnotable actress. Unreferenced biography of a living person. bender235 ( talk) 10:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was DELETE. Michig ( talk) 14:17, 24 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Appears to be non-notable, given the paucity of coverage. Tagged as such for over three years. Zero refs. Created by an SPA. Epeefleche ( talk) 06:55, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was DELETE. Michig ( talk) 14:11, 24 December 2011 (UTC) reply
A complete absence of reliable sources, and a total failure of Google Books to produce sources, makes me think that we are dealing with a non-notable topic whose content comes from tradition, lore, and original research. Drmies ( talk) 04:55, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Tone 17:13, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply
No attempt to establish notability, cursory internet search reveals credits only, nothing else. Parrot of Doom 16:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was DELETE. No arguments in favour of keeping this, and consensus is that there is no evidence of notability. Michig ( talk) 14:06, 24 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Appears non-notable; a stark absence of gnews hits and gbooks hits. Tagged as non-notable for 1 year. Epeefleche ( talk) 03:05, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wifione Message 18:00, 24 December 2011 (UTC) reply
While I can find articles from this online magazine, I cannot find RS non-trivial coverage about it such as would confer notability upon it. Created by an SPA. Tagged for absence of notability for well over two years. Epeefleche ( talk) 03:01, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 05:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC) reply
spam with no real claim to notability. lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. nothing satisfying WP:N. prod reconstruction. duffbeerforme ( talk) 02:31, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 05:29, 24 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Previously PROD deleted, but recently undeleted via REFUND. Same reason as in the PROD. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The-Pope ( talk) 02:28, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply