The result was Speedy Deleted under criteria A1 - Lack of Context. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC) reply
This article is short and badly written. It is supposed to be about a bike, the Discover150 which appears to exist. I don't really understand the information the article contains. No source cited. Maimai 009 16:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was Snow delete Mandsford 23:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC) reply
This is either a hoax or original research, as there are no sources whatsoever verifying the existence of this community. It's not listed in the GNIS, it's not included in WisDOT's map of Washington County, it's not in the Dictionary of Wisconsin History, and a Google search of the topic turns up nothing but Wikipedia mirrors. TheCatalyst31 Reaction• Creation 00:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Not notable. DThomsen8 ( talk) 23:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Kyrene School District. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC) reply
I turned it into a redirect (it doesn't meet the GNG), but this was reverted by User:Shakinglord. There's nothing much here that's in the Kyrene School District article. Raymie ( t • c) 22:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Maidenhead#Educational_Institutions. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Primary schools are not considered automatically notable (per WP:OUTCOMES) and there is nothing to indicate that this article will be able to address the criteria of WP:ORG using reliable sources in the near future and there are no matches in GNews or GBooks to indicate any suitable prospective sources. PROD removed after 24 hours without explanation so raising for wider discussion. Fæ ( talk) 22:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Acather96 ( talk) 19:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC) reply
article fails to establish notability - article fails WP:GNG & WP:RS. Amsaim ( talk) 16:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Damn this is a funny video, shame we can't keep it :( Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC) reply
A case for notability is hinted at but no sources are provided to back it up. I searched for mention of this video in The Atlantic and The Today Programme and didn't find it. As far as I can tell, this subject lacks substantial coverage in reliable sources, which is required to establish notability. The only other claim to notability is that some "catch phrases" from the video are popular, which unfortunately is subjective and based only on the editor's personal experience. rʨanaɢ ( talk) 21:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC) rʨanaɢ ( talk) 21:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Stifle ( talk) 21:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC) reply
WP:NOTDICT CTJF83 21:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Does not meet notability guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuschrew ( talk • contribs)
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Football club formed a few weeks ago according to the linked website, no evidence of having played a match or joined a league, no coverage whatosever in sources AFAICS, might even be a hoax -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 21:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete per consensus and per CSD G12. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC) reply
An aeronautical college with no evidence of notabilty, search results indicate organisation exists but no secondary sources of note MilborneOne ( talk) 21:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Big Dom 20:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The whole existence of this article constitutes a point of view WP:NPOV.
The key information on this page is already covered on Monopoly (game) and in History of Monopoly a single extra sentence in the Monopoly (game)#Variants could cover this article.
The game is not distinct enough from monopoly to be considered as anything other than a variant, The game board is almost identical to monopoly the board layout box design. Earlier games such as Go for broke involved reversing the monopoly objective.
The game has mention in RS because of the news event which is already covered on the monopoly pages. The opening statement that the game was "invented in response to monopoly" is uncitable from RS. The image of the game poses an issue as it the cover art rights belong to a different entity as Anti-Monopoly is a trademark owned by Hasbro
The RS come from the story of the Lawsuit and are only indirectly about the game. Tetron76 ( talk) 17:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
(Oops! Apologies for deleting your vote Mandsford -- didn't mean to. Thanks Arxiloxos for catching that and restoring it! Gabiteodoru ( talk) 02:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD. Concern was "Given that there isn't even an article about the 2026 FIFA World Cup, let alone 2030, it seems a bit daft to have an article about a rumoured 2030 bid." by Jmorrison230582. The PROD was removed with no reason given. Argyle 4 Life talk 19:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was WP:G1 by User:Jimfbleak. ( non-admin closure) CTJF83 21:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Unsourced, implausible story, looks like a hoax. January ( talk) 19:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 05:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC) reply
I do not believe this article meets the notability threshold for Wikipedia, for academics. There are two references showing the papers the object himself has written, which seems to imply if allowed, anyone who has written an essay at a higher education or research institute could have a valid article. The award that the object has won is not notable itself. Eugene-elgato ( talk) 19:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
1)To Eugene-elgato : Wikipedia asks that the subject be notable only, not important. If people are discusssing someone, then it makes sense to offer further information from reliable sources, presented from a neutral standpoint, or offering a balance of opinions where diverse views exist. Without the physical limitations of a printed format, Wikipedia can be a bit more liberal in determining the importance of its content. Regarding references, I have edited it and added two more references to correctly direct towards the published work. 2)To David Eppstein : Opinion about WSEAS is personal and I believe a personal opinion is not enough for the article to face deletion. I hope this is not taken into discussion. Also, academic qualifications were inserted with the consent of previous administrator (Selket). It shall be edited. The research shall have a significant impact in its (current) time, but then, I think it possess no threat to the article as it is not necessary that the current research should be a huge world demonstration. Note that till now, this research is THE only research yet produced globally. I would like to know more viewpoints regarding this.
Thank you. Jimcham17 ( talk) 12:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC) reply
1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. 2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
Thank you. 86.50.66.38 ( talk) 18:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was WP:A9 by User: Boing! said Zebedee. ( non-admin closure) CTJF83 21:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Self-recorded and self-released album, according to the artist's own article (which is tagged for CSD:A7). PROD contested by author -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 19:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy Article deleted. 04:29, 14 March 2011 User:Metropolitan90 deleted " Line of succession today" ( WP:G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page) ( non-admin closure) Off2riorob ( talk) 10:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The main problem with this article is that no reliable sources support the detailed information here about living people. See WP:BLP and WP:V and WP:RS. Additionally, because the Ottoman thrown has been abolished, there is a problem with notability. See WP:N. On top of all that, the people listed here are not public figures, and listing them here could actually harm them because they are being listed as successors to positions of power that now belong to an entirely different government. Incidentally, this material was previously located in a different article, and that other article was the subject of a BLPN discussion here. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 17:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. consensus to keep - merge and redirect discussion can continue on the talkpage ( non-admin closure) Off2riorob ( talk) 00:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Doesn't appear to be notable - all GNews and GBooks hits are trivial, and often are actually things like "Darwish is founder of Former Muslims United" rather than actual coverage of the organizations. (Darwish seems to be notable, but notability is not inherited.) No significant coverage in reliable sources. Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 05:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Strong Keep - Very notable, decent press. It is a new organization and seems to be growing.--
Antwerpen Synagoge (
talk) 00:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
reply
Keep Notable. I have added references from the NY Times, Huffington Post, NY Post, Fox, CBN, and others. -- Vaerju ( talk) 23:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Very doubtful notability, resting only on the article in the Gleane; the Time reference merely mentions Philadelphia. Superintendents of schools in large systems are notable, but not usually their assistants. I earlier refrained from speedy deletion to give the article a chance, but the editor has made it into a very highly promotional article for the district. DGG ( talk ) 17:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Big Dom 20:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:WEB and WP:V: non-notable browser game with no references based on reliable, third-party published sources. I've looked using the WikiProject Video games guide to sources as a starting point and found nothing, only primary sources and unreliable advertisement/linkfarm/press release sites. The WPVG custom Google search returned exactly two hits, a trivial 2-sentence mention in a blog and a site that (somehow) doesn't even contain the words "Molehill Empire". Wyatt Riot ( talk) 15:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Ok, with some research I've found the following: 1, 2. Further the German version was mentioned in the printed version of the Computer Bild Spiele (which I don't have a copy of, but you can find some notes to it using google 3) and it had TV ads on several big German TV stations (eg. Pro7 and the German version of Mtv) Commercial: 1 - Hoo man ( talk) 15:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Acather96 ( talk) 19:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC) reply
I deleted this earlier as promotional, but it has been re-created. I am in doubt whether an article can be written about the lake itself, which is only 200 acres, but if so the present article should be deleted and a new one started. DGG ( talk ) 17:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Big Dom 20:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Online advertising/marketing company which does not meet WP:NCORP. The article has been speedily deleted a couple of times (as Buysellads and BuySellAds) over the last month as an A7; I believe that the current article (which does not have the same creator as the previous versions) is essentially identical to the deleted articles, but as it claims marginal notability it might not be considered to be eligible for speedy deletion.
There are several references but nothing that constitutes substantial coverage in a reliable source, much less multiple reliable sources. The tone is promotional, which could be fixed, but the lack of notability is harder to get around. bonadea contributions talk 17:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Firstly Thank you for letting me know that there are changes to be made in order to improve the article. I request you to kindly guide me on the references as to references from which kind site do make the article notable as there is being a problem which the references already mentioned.Also wanted to know which tag i had to include in order to request other senior users to help me on the notability of this page.In the meanwhile i too will see if i can find better references. Thank you Venomarv ( talk) 02:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Point taken. will remove that section from the page. Anything else that sounds self promotional will also be removed from the page.Please do guide. Thank you again. Venomarv ( talk) 09:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Thanks for the heads up. I deleted that part and edited very careful the rest of the page in order to avoid any kind of confusion.Have removed all the self promotional artifacts to improve the neutrality of the article.Please do provide me with a feedback whether there is anything else to be done. Thank you. Venomarv ( talk) 09:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Have added linkages from other wiki articles to counter the status of orphan article even though it is not a criteria for deletion according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Orphan . Also have added two new links to improve the notability. Further feedback will be appreciated. Thank you Venomarv ( talk) 19:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC) reply
This has been previously deleted twice as promotional, & it barely escapes deletion as no indication of notability. I think the actual situation is more close to "insufficient notability," and perhaps deleting it here might be more definitive. DGG ( talk ) 16:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep as a disambiguation page; User:Cnilep has taken care of doing that. Mandsford 13:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC) reply
No significant secondary source coverage established in article, and no apparent significant mention in any other sources. Seems to fail WP:GNG.
The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#A9 JohnCD ( talk) 22:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-notable song. No secondary source coverage established. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 16:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Seemingly has plenty of sources until you realise that most of them are to his website or that of his company. Other mentions are incidental, not of the depth of coverage we require for this subject to meet WP:BIO Dylanfromthenorth ( talk) 16:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was DELETE. postdlf ( talk) 03:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Greetings all! Although this article has been with us since 2005, I had great difficulty finding sources that would verify that this is indeed a recognized 'day'. Your thoughts? Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 15:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC) reply
This just seems like a fancy advertisment for one particular online course at a university in Australia, so it's not a notable university degree as the title (mis)leads the reader to believe. Asav ( talk) 14:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G5 ( Pricer1980). Redirect created. Prolog ( talk) 20:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Too soon for an article: per WP:NFF: "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles" and according to IMDb this is "Expected to shoot this summer." Contested PROD. JohnCD ( talk) 14:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Acather96 ( talk) 19:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-notable religious figure. Creation of the article is merely yet another example of User:TheMandarin's flagrant violation of WP:Advocacy. — goethean ॐ 13:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
She is quoted by a major newspaper which considers her an authority on this subject. Dream Focus 04:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC) reply
no indication of WP:Notability in tts own right. The majority of the article has been copied from Eddie Mabo with the exception of the unsourced first sentence. The Eddie Mabo article has had a cited reference to Mabo day added and this article was redirected to that article but the original creator has objected to that. noq ( talk) 13:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC) reply
notability and primary source tagged for two years, doesn't meet notability Kintetsubuffalo ( talk) 12:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Consensus is to delete as out of project scope. Closing as "merge" would not be helpful given that the page has had a "mergeto" tag since 2007 and no merger has occurred. But the page can be userfied onm request for merge or transwiki if somebody really, actually wants to do that. Sandstein 06:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Hy there, I'm hereby proposing the article Armed Forces of the Federated Suns for deletion. I guess that this is the 3rd deletion proposal (I might be mistaken however). The first proposal seems to have ended in a "merge and then delete" result but this was not carried out. I personally made a speedy delete proposal (at the time I had not noticed the first proposal) but another user believes that "merge and turn into a redirect" is a better solution.
The subject itself is IMHO simply not notable enough to warrant an article for itself. It's a rather too detailed description of a fictional military of a fictional nation in a fictional universe. In the end we have to ask ourselves: is the subject interesting/worthy to require an article? IMHO it simply isn't but notice that this is only my personal opinion upon this matter. Another thing: if the verdict of this discussion is yet another merge then by all means: MAKE SURE that the work gets done this time. I'm not going to do it. I don't know how to do it in the 1st place (make a merge and preserving the history) and I honestly believe that the information of this article is way too specialized (not worthy enough). Thanks for your attention. Flamarande ( talk) 12:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Fredsimpson does not make an argument in terms of Wikipedia guidelines, and there is otherwise a (narrow) consensus that sourcing is insufficient for notability. Sandstein 06:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC) reply
This article has been recreated several times (as Fillyacup Prop - different capitalization), with completely different contents, by two(?) editors, and has been deleted each time - and I've had a protest at my Talk page. This time I'd like to get a bit more input so there will be a firm community decision. As far as I can see, "fillyacup" is just a username of someone at that Siccness forum (which itself does not seem notable), and I can't find any evidence of a notable "fictional character", so at best I think its non-notable person. -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 12:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Player that fails WP:V due to a lack of sources indicating whether he has actually played for Al-Wahda. Searched arabic name as well as other spellings of his latin name (eg. Tareq Kharbotli) J Mo 101 ( talk) 11:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was NO CONSENSUS. postdlf ( talk) 14:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Messy duplicate of List of autonomous areas by country Sandman888 ( talk) 11:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was DELETE. postdlf ( talk) 14:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Football coach who has only ever been assistant manager or youth team manager / coach. References provided are all passing mentions in sports coverage of a general nature, with the exception of the Gateshead one which is from his own club and akin to a player profile. Did play football but only at youth level, failing WP:NFOOTY. ClubOranje T 09:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was MERGE and REDIRECT. postdlf ( talk) 14:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC) reply
I believe this article violates WP:BKD. Compare searches of 'syme 1984' with winston, julia, o'brien, etc. Syme is way behind them. He's only appeared three times (at lunch, when he vapourised, and O'Brien's mention) in the novel and is not a major character. The analysis in the article, the only thing which can prove its subject's notability, is unreferenced and may be a borderline case of WP:POV. Kayau Voting IS evil 09:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete ( A7) by Jimfbleak. Non-admin closure -- Pgallert ( talk) 18:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Per original CSD nominator meets Speedy delete A7 and G11. I removed the blatant advertising but there isn't even a claim for notability.
Speedy delete tag removed by IP editor, who may or may not be the same user that created page, but presuming good faith I'm just starting this AFD Monty845 ( talk) 08:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. There is no consensus about whether the society is notable enough. If one discounts some "keep" arguments that do not make reference to our applicable criteria, one might see a "delete" consensus, but I'm applying "when in doubt, don't delete" in this case. Sandstein 06:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Following suggestions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Encyclopedia of the Medieval Chronicle, I'm nominating this article separately. Article was written by Doric Loon ( talk · contribs), the president/leading member of the "Medieval Chronicle Society" (see discussion on other AfD and at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Encyclopedia_of_the_Medieval_Chronicle). Seems to be promotional, and can't find any evidence of notability, even taking into account our current low threshold. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 13:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Even if there's no consensus to ignore the rules in this case, I'm still opposed to deletion on the grounds that none of the nominator's remarks require it. A conflict of interest, or promotional content, aren't reasons to delete. They're reasons to rewrite. A lack of notability isn't a reason to delete either. It's a reason to redirect (in this case, to the List of historical societies).— S Marshall T/ C 11:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Factor (programming language). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Prod was contested with no reason given. No outside reliable and verifiable sources given to establish notability. Yaksar (let's chat) 21:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Oppose deletion. While the page indeed contains no outside sources, the related pages on Factor (programming language) and jEdit seem to contain few of them. GreyHood Talk 22:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC) reply
1. Brant Gurganus (24 March 2004).
"MTAC: more than a calculator". Retrieved 13 March 2011. The project was originally created by Slava Pestov of jEdit fame.
–
SourceForge, a free webhosting service, is not a reliable source because of the lack of editorial oversight.
2. Scott Beatty (8 February 2005).
"Use jEdit to edit your PHP". sitepoint.com. Retrieved 13 March 2011. The core developer of jEdit is Slava Pestov.
– sitepoint.com
receives, and pays for, user-generated content. It is similar to
Examiner.com, which is blacklisted on Wikipedia. I note that the author, Scott Beatty, has
written only one article on sitepoint.com and that the subject, Slava Pestov, is mentioned but once—in the "Acknowledgements" section: "The core developer of jEdit is Slava Pestov."
3. "jEdit. Download jEdit for free at sourceforge.net". Retrieved 13 March 2011. – a download link from SourceForge that fails to mention the subject does not establish notability.
4.
"Voir Factor. Factor - Factor: an extensible interactive language". Retrieved 13 March 2011. ...emigrated to New Zealand at the age of 7.
– oujda-portail.net, a video-hosting website, is dubiously reliable.
5. Slava Pestov. "Slava Pestov's corner of the web". Retrieved 13 March 2011. – the subject's personal website does not establish notability.
6.
"ComplexCalc version 1.0.1". Retrieved 13 March 2011. I haven't touched this since 1997, when I was 12 years old...
– the subject's personal website does not establish notability.
A Google News Archive search returns no reliable sources. This is the same with a Google Scholar search and a Google Books search.
The subject fails Wikipedia:Notability (people). Because none of the sources used in the article are remotely reliable, this article fails Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and cannot be merged to Factor (programming language). Cunard ( talk) 08:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was KEEP. postdlf ( talk) 14:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Article dePRODded by creator. PROD concern was "Article is basically unreferenced (only "reference" is to an article published by the subject". Web of Science lists only 25 articles, cited 327 times in total with an h-index of 10. GS gives an h-index of 6 (searching for "Peter Szatmari and geology" - there is another researcher in a different field of the same name). Szatmari is first or last author on only a few of these articles. The external links go to an interview in his employer's magazine (therefore not independent), a poster abstract, and another primary article. No other independent sources available. Does not meet WP:PROF." As the only change to the article since it was PRODded was the removal of the PROD tag, the concern still stands. Hence: delete. Crusio ( talk) 03:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC) reply
A non notable martial arts with insufficient reliable sources to support its nobility. Dwanyewest ( talk) 03:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. The issue of redirecting, merging, moving or what have you can be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Another mediocre article with substandard sources to support its notability which shouldn't exist. Dwanyewest ( talk) 02:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Gayatri Chetna Center was nominated for speedy deletion and subsequently deleted. It was re-created the next day with essentially the same content. Another put an 'under construction' tag on the article and gave the creator an opportunity to provide adequate references from secondary sources but none have been given and it remains deficient in notability per WP:GNG. Warfieldian ( talk) 01:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Big Dom 20:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC) reply
No evidence of notability separate from the TV show. Claim of "infamy" not substantiated by reliable sources. WP:BEFORE (i.e. the snide suggestion from the de-prodder, as if I hadn't actually looked in Google Scholar and Google Books) fails to demonstrate significant third-party coverage. -- EEMIV ( talk) 01:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Article about a sub-genre of hip hop music. Fails OR. Strikerforce ( talk) 00:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Unsourced biography of a living person. Likely autobiography by Raghuvicky ( talk · contribs). I don't see notability per WP:POLITICIAN. bender235 ( talk) 15:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was soft delete due to insufficient participation; undeletion is to be on request as though this were a PROD. Stifle ( talk) 21:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Very thinly sourced BLP that does not demonstrate why this performer is notable. Hasteur ( talk) 02:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Fails music notability guidelines Big Dom 20:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Fails notability guidelines at WP:NM. Article is about a concert that was aired on TV, but not released on any video format. Many concerts are aired on TV and there is nothing particularly notable about this one. This concert could be briefly mentioned in Zoo TV: Live from Sydney (a concert video from the same tour) or Zoo TV Tour (the tour itself). – Dream out loud ( talk) 06:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was DELETE. postdlf ( talk) 03:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC) reply
This is a directory entry for a private university in Marbella. I tried to verify the contents but there are very few Google hits and virtually al of them are simply churnalism, reprinting of press releases from the company itself. The creator has no other contributions to Wikipedia. The place has only been open a year, which probably explains the absence of any proper analytical sources about it. There's no evidence of accreditation but accreditation in Spain is unbelievably lax anyway. Guy ( Help!) 11:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was KEEP. postdlf ( talk) 03:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC) reply
No indication of meeting notability guidelines at WP:COMPANY. Has had a directory listing added as an external link since prod added. Prod disputed. Google searches show very few hits and nothing to establish notability noq ( talk) 13:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Church of God International (USA). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Merge with parent denomination or delete. Not notable enough to stand alone.— C45207 | Talk 14:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Articles Seventh Day Christians - Norway and The Intercontinental Church of God could receive a 'redirect' status as both articles have now been placed in the Church of God International (USA) article. User: JoVam 10.03.2011 —Preceding undated comment added 12:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC). reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Acather96 ( talk) 19:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:NALBUMS; barely more than an unsourced stub, the trivial amount of content in here could be merged into the parent article ( Exhorder) with barely a ripple. I think a straight delete is in order; failing that, a merge and delete (an unlikely search term to say the least), and failing that, a merge and redirect. - Simon Dodd { U· T· C· WP:LAW } 18:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 14:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC) reply
PROD removed, without comment, by what seems to be the author's IP. The article is just a list with no context or encyclopaedic content. It reads like a dump of a cv/resume. Notability and verifiability are in question as the list is mostly referenced to other Wikipedia articles where the author's assumed IP has added mention of the subject himself. The non-Wikipedia references are enough to verify that the subject is a Dutch football coach but not much more than that. Googling reveals not much. The subject is apparently available for work ( [42]). The only detailed coverage of his career ( [43] comes from his agency but it does at least agree with much of what is on the list. It does not seem to add up to notability to me even if he does have extensive coaching experience. He gets just three Google News hits. DanielRigal ( talk) 19:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Tupac Shakur. Actually, the consensus is to merge, but since it is unclear whether there is any BLP-sourced material that could be merged, I'm implementing a redirect now to let editors merge any appropriate and sourced content from the history. Sandstein 07:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Living person, only claim to notability is that he is somebody else's father. No sourcing except for unreliable websites associated with his son. Barely-sourced problematic BLP statements. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:45, 6 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was DELETE. postdlf ( talk) 03:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:PORNBIO, no indication the subject can satisfy the GNG or any other specialized guideline. No nontrivial GNews or GBooks hits. Claimed awards, supposedly representing website polls, are given by product suppliers to their own performers, fail the "well-known"/"significant" standard, and therefore do not demonstrate notability. PROD removed by IP sock of indef-blocked user. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 22:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Delete - As per nomination.--
Antwerpen Synagoge (
talk) 19:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. Unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Fails WP:BIO. ttonyb ( talk) 22:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. I'm sorry about this realman. I usually like to see at least 2 editors concur with the nominator but this is a poorly sourced biography of a living person and the nominator's rationale is sound. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Claim of notability is questionable, IMDB lists him deep in the credits, hardly a "star"ing role as article claims. References provided to canada.com mention are about the film and mention him only in passing. The male model website does not appear to be a reliable source. Other references provide only very brief information about the film and do not demonstrate notability of this person. RadioFan ( talk) 22:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC) reply
I am objecting this proposed deletion. No matter his name lists him deep in the IMDB credits but I have seen the movie myself and actually he is the second lead star in the movie opposite Kit Koon after the lead pair Gulshan Grover and Sian Sladen. He was a lead actor in many TV series in Mumbai. I have already contributing some information to this article. This article should not be deleted --- User:Realman007 16:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC) reply
I don't think that this article should be deleted, he is a known person, I remember when he won Mr North India contest when I was in India. - - Paramjit from UK, 9th March, 2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.172.104.199 ( talk) 17:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Deleted under criteria A1 - Lack of Context. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC) reply
This article is short and badly written. It is supposed to be about a bike, the Discover150 which appears to exist. I don't really understand the information the article contains. No source cited. Maimai 009 16:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was Snow delete Mandsford 23:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC) reply
This is either a hoax or original research, as there are no sources whatsoever verifying the existence of this community. It's not listed in the GNIS, it's not included in WisDOT's map of Washington County, it's not in the Dictionary of Wisconsin History, and a Google search of the topic turns up nothing but Wikipedia mirrors. TheCatalyst31 Reaction• Creation 00:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Not notable. DThomsen8 ( talk) 23:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Kyrene School District. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC) reply
I turned it into a redirect (it doesn't meet the GNG), but this was reverted by User:Shakinglord. There's nothing much here that's in the Kyrene School District article. Raymie ( t • c) 22:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Maidenhead#Educational_Institutions. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Primary schools are not considered automatically notable (per WP:OUTCOMES) and there is nothing to indicate that this article will be able to address the criteria of WP:ORG using reliable sources in the near future and there are no matches in GNews or GBooks to indicate any suitable prospective sources. PROD removed after 24 hours without explanation so raising for wider discussion. Fæ ( talk) 22:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Acather96 ( talk) 19:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC) reply
article fails to establish notability - article fails WP:GNG & WP:RS. Amsaim ( talk) 16:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Damn this is a funny video, shame we can't keep it :( Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC) reply
A case for notability is hinted at but no sources are provided to back it up. I searched for mention of this video in The Atlantic and The Today Programme and didn't find it. As far as I can tell, this subject lacks substantial coverage in reliable sources, which is required to establish notability. The only other claim to notability is that some "catch phrases" from the video are popular, which unfortunately is subjective and based only on the editor's personal experience. rʨanaɢ ( talk) 21:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC) rʨanaɢ ( talk) 21:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Stifle ( talk) 21:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC) reply
WP:NOTDICT CTJF83 21:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Does not meet notability guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuschrew ( talk • contribs)
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Football club formed a few weeks ago according to the linked website, no evidence of having played a match or joined a league, no coverage whatosever in sources AFAICS, might even be a hoax -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 21:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete per consensus and per CSD G12. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC) reply
An aeronautical college with no evidence of notabilty, search results indicate organisation exists but no secondary sources of note MilborneOne ( talk) 21:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Big Dom 20:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The whole existence of this article constitutes a point of view WP:NPOV.
The key information on this page is already covered on Monopoly (game) and in History of Monopoly a single extra sentence in the Monopoly (game)#Variants could cover this article.
The game is not distinct enough from monopoly to be considered as anything other than a variant, The game board is almost identical to monopoly the board layout box design. Earlier games such as Go for broke involved reversing the monopoly objective.
The game has mention in RS because of the news event which is already covered on the monopoly pages. The opening statement that the game was "invented in response to monopoly" is uncitable from RS. The image of the game poses an issue as it the cover art rights belong to a different entity as Anti-Monopoly is a trademark owned by Hasbro
The RS come from the story of the Lawsuit and are only indirectly about the game. Tetron76 ( talk) 17:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
(Oops! Apologies for deleting your vote Mandsford -- didn't mean to. Thanks Arxiloxos for catching that and restoring it! Gabiteodoru ( talk) 02:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD. Concern was "Given that there isn't even an article about the 2026 FIFA World Cup, let alone 2030, it seems a bit daft to have an article about a rumoured 2030 bid." by Jmorrison230582. The PROD was removed with no reason given. Argyle 4 Life talk 19:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was WP:G1 by User:Jimfbleak. ( non-admin closure) CTJF83 21:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Unsourced, implausible story, looks like a hoax. January ( talk) 19:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 05:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC) reply
I do not believe this article meets the notability threshold for Wikipedia, for academics. There are two references showing the papers the object himself has written, which seems to imply if allowed, anyone who has written an essay at a higher education or research institute could have a valid article. The award that the object has won is not notable itself. Eugene-elgato ( talk) 19:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
1)To Eugene-elgato : Wikipedia asks that the subject be notable only, not important. If people are discusssing someone, then it makes sense to offer further information from reliable sources, presented from a neutral standpoint, or offering a balance of opinions where diverse views exist. Without the physical limitations of a printed format, Wikipedia can be a bit more liberal in determining the importance of its content. Regarding references, I have edited it and added two more references to correctly direct towards the published work. 2)To David Eppstein : Opinion about WSEAS is personal and I believe a personal opinion is not enough for the article to face deletion. I hope this is not taken into discussion. Also, academic qualifications were inserted with the consent of previous administrator (Selket). It shall be edited. The research shall have a significant impact in its (current) time, but then, I think it possess no threat to the article as it is not necessary that the current research should be a huge world demonstration. Note that till now, this research is THE only research yet produced globally. I would like to know more viewpoints regarding this.
Thank you. Jimcham17 ( talk) 12:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC) reply
1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. 2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
Thank you. 86.50.66.38 ( talk) 18:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was WP:A9 by User: Boing! said Zebedee. ( non-admin closure) CTJF83 21:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Self-recorded and self-released album, according to the artist's own article (which is tagged for CSD:A7). PROD contested by author -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 19:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy Article deleted. 04:29, 14 March 2011 User:Metropolitan90 deleted " Line of succession today" ( WP:G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page) ( non-admin closure) Off2riorob ( talk) 10:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The main problem with this article is that no reliable sources support the detailed information here about living people. See WP:BLP and WP:V and WP:RS. Additionally, because the Ottoman thrown has been abolished, there is a problem with notability. See WP:N. On top of all that, the people listed here are not public figures, and listing them here could actually harm them because they are being listed as successors to positions of power that now belong to an entirely different government. Incidentally, this material was previously located in a different article, and that other article was the subject of a BLPN discussion here. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 17:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. consensus to keep - merge and redirect discussion can continue on the talkpage ( non-admin closure) Off2riorob ( talk) 00:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Doesn't appear to be notable - all GNews and GBooks hits are trivial, and often are actually things like "Darwish is founder of Former Muslims United" rather than actual coverage of the organizations. (Darwish seems to be notable, but notability is not inherited.) No significant coverage in reliable sources. Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 05:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Strong Keep - Very notable, decent press. It is a new organization and seems to be growing.--
Antwerpen Synagoge (
talk) 00:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
reply
Keep Notable. I have added references from the NY Times, Huffington Post, NY Post, Fox, CBN, and others. -- Vaerju ( talk) 23:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Very doubtful notability, resting only on the article in the Gleane; the Time reference merely mentions Philadelphia. Superintendents of schools in large systems are notable, but not usually their assistants. I earlier refrained from speedy deletion to give the article a chance, but the editor has made it into a very highly promotional article for the district. DGG ( talk ) 17:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Big Dom 20:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:WEB and WP:V: non-notable browser game with no references based on reliable, third-party published sources. I've looked using the WikiProject Video games guide to sources as a starting point and found nothing, only primary sources and unreliable advertisement/linkfarm/press release sites. The WPVG custom Google search returned exactly two hits, a trivial 2-sentence mention in a blog and a site that (somehow) doesn't even contain the words "Molehill Empire". Wyatt Riot ( talk) 15:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Ok, with some research I've found the following: 1, 2. Further the German version was mentioned in the printed version of the Computer Bild Spiele (which I don't have a copy of, but you can find some notes to it using google 3) and it had TV ads on several big German TV stations (eg. Pro7 and the German version of Mtv) Commercial: 1 - Hoo man ( talk) 15:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Acather96 ( talk) 19:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC) reply
I deleted this earlier as promotional, but it has been re-created. I am in doubt whether an article can be written about the lake itself, which is only 200 acres, but if so the present article should be deleted and a new one started. DGG ( talk ) 17:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Big Dom 20:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Online advertising/marketing company which does not meet WP:NCORP. The article has been speedily deleted a couple of times (as Buysellads and BuySellAds) over the last month as an A7; I believe that the current article (which does not have the same creator as the previous versions) is essentially identical to the deleted articles, but as it claims marginal notability it might not be considered to be eligible for speedy deletion.
There are several references but nothing that constitutes substantial coverage in a reliable source, much less multiple reliable sources. The tone is promotional, which could be fixed, but the lack of notability is harder to get around. bonadea contributions talk 17:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Firstly Thank you for letting me know that there are changes to be made in order to improve the article. I request you to kindly guide me on the references as to references from which kind site do make the article notable as there is being a problem which the references already mentioned.Also wanted to know which tag i had to include in order to request other senior users to help me on the notability of this page.In the meanwhile i too will see if i can find better references. Thank you Venomarv ( talk) 02:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Point taken. will remove that section from the page. Anything else that sounds self promotional will also be removed from the page.Please do guide. Thank you again. Venomarv ( talk) 09:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Thanks for the heads up. I deleted that part and edited very careful the rest of the page in order to avoid any kind of confusion.Have removed all the self promotional artifacts to improve the neutrality of the article.Please do provide me with a feedback whether there is anything else to be done. Thank you. Venomarv ( talk) 09:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Have added linkages from other wiki articles to counter the status of orphan article even though it is not a criteria for deletion according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Orphan . Also have added two new links to improve the notability. Further feedback will be appreciated. Thank you Venomarv ( talk) 19:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC) reply
This has been previously deleted twice as promotional, & it barely escapes deletion as no indication of notability. I think the actual situation is more close to "insufficient notability," and perhaps deleting it here might be more definitive. DGG ( talk ) 16:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep as a disambiguation page; User:Cnilep has taken care of doing that. Mandsford 13:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC) reply
No significant secondary source coverage established in article, and no apparent significant mention in any other sources. Seems to fail WP:GNG.
The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#A9 JohnCD ( talk) 22:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-notable song. No secondary source coverage established. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 16:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Seemingly has plenty of sources until you realise that most of them are to his website or that of his company. Other mentions are incidental, not of the depth of coverage we require for this subject to meet WP:BIO Dylanfromthenorth ( talk) 16:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was DELETE. postdlf ( talk) 03:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Greetings all! Although this article has been with us since 2005, I had great difficulty finding sources that would verify that this is indeed a recognized 'day'. Your thoughts? Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 15:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC) reply
This just seems like a fancy advertisment for one particular online course at a university in Australia, so it's not a notable university degree as the title (mis)leads the reader to believe. Asav ( talk) 14:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G5 ( Pricer1980). Redirect created. Prolog ( talk) 20:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Too soon for an article: per WP:NFF: "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles" and according to IMDb this is "Expected to shoot this summer." Contested PROD. JohnCD ( talk) 14:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Acather96 ( talk) 19:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-notable religious figure. Creation of the article is merely yet another example of User:TheMandarin's flagrant violation of WP:Advocacy. — goethean ॐ 13:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
She is quoted by a major newspaper which considers her an authority on this subject. Dream Focus 04:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC) reply
no indication of WP:Notability in tts own right. The majority of the article has been copied from Eddie Mabo with the exception of the unsourced first sentence. The Eddie Mabo article has had a cited reference to Mabo day added and this article was redirected to that article but the original creator has objected to that. noq ( talk) 13:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC) reply
notability and primary source tagged for two years, doesn't meet notability Kintetsubuffalo ( talk) 12:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Consensus is to delete as out of project scope. Closing as "merge" would not be helpful given that the page has had a "mergeto" tag since 2007 and no merger has occurred. But the page can be userfied onm request for merge or transwiki if somebody really, actually wants to do that. Sandstein 06:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Hy there, I'm hereby proposing the article Armed Forces of the Federated Suns for deletion. I guess that this is the 3rd deletion proposal (I might be mistaken however). The first proposal seems to have ended in a "merge and then delete" result but this was not carried out. I personally made a speedy delete proposal (at the time I had not noticed the first proposal) but another user believes that "merge and turn into a redirect" is a better solution.
The subject itself is IMHO simply not notable enough to warrant an article for itself. It's a rather too detailed description of a fictional military of a fictional nation in a fictional universe. In the end we have to ask ourselves: is the subject interesting/worthy to require an article? IMHO it simply isn't but notice that this is only my personal opinion upon this matter. Another thing: if the verdict of this discussion is yet another merge then by all means: MAKE SURE that the work gets done this time. I'm not going to do it. I don't know how to do it in the 1st place (make a merge and preserving the history) and I honestly believe that the information of this article is way too specialized (not worthy enough). Thanks for your attention. Flamarande ( talk) 12:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Fredsimpson does not make an argument in terms of Wikipedia guidelines, and there is otherwise a (narrow) consensus that sourcing is insufficient for notability. Sandstein 06:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC) reply
This article has been recreated several times (as Fillyacup Prop - different capitalization), with completely different contents, by two(?) editors, and has been deleted each time - and I've had a protest at my Talk page. This time I'd like to get a bit more input so there will be a firm community decision. As far as I can see, "fillyacup" is just a username of someone at that Siccness forum (which itself does not seem notable), and I can't find any evidence of a notable "fictional character", so at best I think its non-notable person. -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 12:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Player that fails WP:V due to a lack of sources indicating whether he has actually played for Al-Wahda. Searched arabic name as well as other spellings of his latin name (eg. Tareq Kharbotli) J Mo 101 ( talk) 11:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was NO CONSENSUS. postdlf ( talk) 14:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Messy duplicate of List of autonomous areas by country Sandman888 ( talk) 11:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was DELETE. postdlf ( talk) 14:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Football coach who has only ever been assistant manager or youth team manager / coach. References provided are all passing mentions in sports coverage of a general nature, with the exception of the Gateshead one which is from his own club and akin to a player profile. Did play football but only at youth level, failing WP:NFOOTY. ClubOranje T 09:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was MERGE and REDIRECT. postdlf ( talk) 14:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC) reply
I believe this article violates WP:BKD. Compare searches of 'syme 1984' with winston, julia, o'brien, etc. Syme is way behind them. He's only appeared three times (at lunch, when he vapourised, and O'Brien's mention) in the novel and is not a major character. The analysis in the article, the only thing which can prove its subject's notability, is unreferenced and may be a borderline case of WP:POV. Kayau Voting IS evil 09:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete ( A7) by Jimfbleak. Non-admin closure -- Pgallert ( talk) 18:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Per original CSD nominator meets Speedy delete A7 and G11. I removed the blatant advertising but there isn't even a claim for notability.
Speedy delete tag removed by IP editor, who may or may not be the same user that created page, but presuming good faith I'm just starting this AFD Monty845 ( talk) 08:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. There is no consensus about whether the society is notable enough. If one discounts some "keep" arguments that do not make reference to our applicable criteria, one might see a "delete" consensus, but I'm applying "when in doubt, don't delete" in this case. Sandstein 06:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Following suggestions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Encyclopedia of the Medieval Chronicle, I'm nominating this article separately. Article was written by Doric Loon ( talk · contribs), the president/leading member of the "Medieval Chronicle Society" (see discussion on other AfD and at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Encyclopedia_of_the_Medieval_Chronicle). Seems to be promotional, and can't find any evidence of notability, even taking into account our current low threshold. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 13:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Even if there's no consensus to ignore the rules in this case, I'm still opposed to deletion on the grounds that none of the nominator's remarks require it. A conflict of interest, or promotional content, aren't reasons to delete. They're reasons to rewrite. A lack of notability isn't a reason to delete either. It's a reason to redirect (in this case, to the List of historical societies).— S Marshall T/ C 11:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Factor (programming language). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Prod was contested with no reason given. No outside reliable and verifiable sources given to establish notability. Yaksar (let's chat) 21:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Oppose deletion. While the page indeed contains no outside sources, the related pages on Factor (programming language) and jEdit seem to contain few of them. GreyHood Talk 22:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC) reply
1. Brant Gurganus (24 March 2004).
"MTAC: more than a calculator". Retrieved 13 March 2011. The project was originally created by Slava Pestov of jEdit fame.
–
SourceForge, a free webhosting service, is not a reliable source because of the lack of editorial oversight.
2. Scott Beatty (8 February 2005).
"Use jEdit to edit your PHP". sitepoint.com. Retrieved 13 March 2011. The core developer of jEdit is Slava Pestov.
– sitepoint.com
receives, and pays for, user-generated content. It is similar to
Examiner.com, which is blacklisted on Wikipedia. I note that the author, Scott Beatty, has
written only one article on sitepoint.com and that the subject, Slava Pestov, is mentioned but once—in the "Acknowledgements" section: "The core developer of jEdit is Slava Pestov."
3. "jEdit. Download jEdit for free at sourceforge.net". Retrieved 13 March 2011. – a download link from SourceForge that fails to mention the subject does not establish notability.
4.
"Voir Factor. Factor - Factor: an extensible interactive language". Retrieved 13 March 2011. ...emigrated to New Zealand at the age of 7.
– oujda-portail.net, a video-hosting website, is dubiously reliable.
5. Slava Pestov. "Slava Pestov's corner of the web". Retrieved 13 March 2011. – the subject's personal website does not establish notability.
6.
"ComplexCalc version 1.0.1". Retrieved 13 March 2011. I haven't touched this since 1997, when I was 12 years old...
– the subject's personal website does not establish notability.
A Google News Archive search returns no reliable sources. This is the same with a Google Scholar search and a Google Books search.
The subject fails Wikipedia:Notability (people). Because none of the sources used in the article are remotely reliable, this article fails Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and cannot be merged to Factor (programming language). Cunard ( talk) 08:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was KEEP. postdlf ( talk) 14:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Article dePRODded by creator. PROD concern was "Article is basically unreferenced (only "reference" is to an article published by the subject". Web of Science lists only 25 articles, cited 327 times in total with an h-index of 10. GS gives an h-index of 6 (searching for "Peter Szatmari and geology" - there is another researcher in a different field of the same name). Szatmari is first or last author on only a few of these articles. The external links go to an interview in his employer's magazine (therefore not independent), a poster abstract, and another primary article. No other independent sources available. Does not meet WP:PROF." As the only change to the article since it was PRODded was the removal of the PROD tag, the concern still stands. Hence: delete. Crusio ( talk) 03:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC) reply
A non notable martial arts with insufficient reliable sources to support its nobility. Dwanyewest ( talk) 03:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. The issue of redirecting, merging, moving or what have you can be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Another mediocre article with substandard sources to support its notability which shouldn't exist. Dwanyewest ( talk) 02:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Gayatri Chetna Center was nominated for speedy deletion and subsequently deleted. It was re-created the next day with essentially the same content. Another put an 'under construction' tag on the article and gave the creator an opportunity to provide adequate references from secondary sources but none have been given and it remains deficient in notability per WP:GNG. Warfieldian ( talk) 01:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Big Dom 20:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC) reply
No evidence of notability separate from the TV show. Claim of "infamy" not substantiated by reliable sources. WP:BEFORE (i.e. the snide suggestion from the de-prodder, as if I hadn't actually looked in Google Scholar and Google Books) fails to demonstrate significant third-party coverage. -- EEMIV ( talk) 01:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Article about a sub-genre of hip hop music. Fails OR. Strikerforce ( talk) 00:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Unsourced biography of a living person. Likely autobiography by Raghuvicky ( talk · contribs). I don't see notability per WP:POLITICIAN. bender235 ( talk) 15:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was soft delete due to insufficient participation; undeletion is to be on request as though this were a PROD. Stifle ( talk) 21:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Very thinly sourced BLP that does not demonstrate why this performer is notable. Hasteur ( talk) 02:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Fails music notability guidelines Big Dom 20:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Fails notability guidelines at WP:NM. Article is about a concert that was aired on TV, but not released on any video format. Many concerts are aired on TV and there is nothing particularly notable about this one. This concert could be briefly mentioned in Zoo TV: Live from Sydney (a concert video from the same tour) or Zoo TV Tour (the tour itself). – Dream out loud ( talk) 06:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was DELETE. postdlf ( talk) 03:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC) reply
This is a directory entry for a private university in Marbella. I tried to verify the contents but there are very few Google hits and virtually al of them are simply churnalism, reprinting of press releases from the company itself. The creator has no other contributions to Wikipedia. The place has only been open a year, which probably explains the absence of any proper analytical sources about it. There's no evidence of accreditation but accreditation in Spain is unbelievably lax anyway. Guy ( Help!) 11:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was KEEP. postdlf ( talk) 03:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC) reply
No indication of meeting notability guidelines at WP:COMPANY. Has had a directory listing added as an external link since prod added. Prod disputed. Google searches show very few hits and nothing to establish notability noq ( talk) 13:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Church of God International (USA). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Merge with parent denomination or delete. Not notable enough to stand alone.— C45207 | Talk 14:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Articles Seventh Day Christians - Norway and The Intercontinental Church of God could receive a 'redirect' status as both articles have now been placed in the Church of God International (USA) article. User: JoVam 10.03.2011 —Preceding undated comment added 12:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC). reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Acather96 ( talk) 19:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:NALBUMS; barely more than an unsourced stub, the trivial amount of content in here could be merged into the parent article ( Exhorder) with barely a ripple. I think a straight delete is in order; failing that, a merge and delete (an unlikely search term to say the least), and failing that, a merge and redirect. - Simon Dodd { U· T· C· WP:LAW } 18:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 14:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC) reply
PROD removed, without comment, by what seems to be the author's IP. The article is just a list with no context or encyclopaedic content. It reads like a dump of a cv/resume. Notability and verifiability are in question as the list is mostly referenced to other Wikipedia articles where the author's assumed IP has added mention of the subject himself. The non-Wikipedia references are enough to verify that the subject is a Dutch football coach but not much more than that. Googling reveals not much. The subject is apparently available for work ( [42]). The only detailed coverage of his career ( [43] comes from his agency but it does at least agree with much of what is on the list. It does not seem to add up to notability to me even if he does have extensive coaching experience. He gets just three Google News hits. DanielRigal ( talk) 19:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Tupac Shakur. Actually, the consensus is to merge, but since it is unclear whether there is any BLP-sourced material that could be merged, I'm implementing a redirect now to let editors merge any appropriate and sourced content from the history. Sandstein 07:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Living person, only claim to notability is that he is somebody else's father. No sourcing except for unreliable websites associated with his son. Barely-sourced problematic BLP statements. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:45, 6 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was DELETE. postdlf ( talk) 03:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:PORNBIO, no indication the subject can satisfy the GNG or any other specialized guideline. No nontrivial GNews or GBooks hits. Claimed awards, supposedly representing website polls, are given by product suppliers to their own performers, fail the "well-known"/"significant" standard, and therefore do not demonstrate notability. PROD removed by IP sock of indef-blocked user. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 22:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Delete - As per nomination.--
Antwerpen Synagoge (
talk) 19:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. Unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Fails WP:BIO. ttonyb ( talk) 22:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. I'm sorry about this realman. I usually like to see at least 2 editors concur with the nominator but this is a poorly sourced biography of a living person and the nominator's rationale is sound. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Claim of notability is questionable, IMDB lists him deep in the credits, hardly a "star"ing role as article claims. References provided to canada.com mention are about the film and mention him only in passing. The male model website does not appear to be a reliable source. Other references provide only very brief information about the film and do not demonstrate notability of this person. RadioFan ( talk) 22:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC) reply
I am objecting this proposed deletion. No matter his name lists him deep in the IMDB credits but I have seen the movie myself and actually he is the second lead star in the movie opposite Kit Koon after the lead pair Gulshan Grover and Sian Sladen. He was a lead actor in many TV series in Mumbai. I have already contributing some information to this article. This article should not be deleted --- User:Realman007 16:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC) reply
I don't think that this article should be deleted, he is a known person, I remember when he won Mr North India contest when I was in India. - - Paramjit from UK, 9th March, 2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.172.104.199 ( talk) 17:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC) reply