![]() |
The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7: the author blanked the page with edit summary "I apologize for not understanding the rules before posting here. I wish you all a great day." (non-admin closure) — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk) 19:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC) reply
No objective evidence of notability, and more or less spam. The product is made by RJV Creations; unsurprisingly, the article is by single-purpose account User:Rjvcreations. - Biruitorul Talk 23:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply
1. The project/product in itself is notable; it is a new and innovative PHP framework; the article is objective and no advertising "elevator-pitch" lines were inserted at any point. 2. The product is made by RJV Creations Corp; the article is written by an user with the same name; would it have been less of an issue if 10 people with different accounts would have been paid to write and improve this article? Is the name of the author relevant to sustain claims of SPAM? I think not. 3. Wikipedia is no place for advertising. The product itself is the first result in Google Search for the keyword "octoms". I (we) have no intention of using this forum to attract visibility/users/attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjvcreations ( talk • contribs) 09:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Not a snowball's chance that this thing made up in school one day will be kept. The Bushranger One ping only 09:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Fails notability guidelines tremendously. I think the topic itself, a rebranding of A-ok only used in one college, is inherently unsuitable for an encyclopedia article, and probably doesn't warrant a redirect. No hits on Google Books, Google News, or Google News archives (I used the search term "Bridge bomb" "Newbridge College"). Although I don't think this meets any of the CSD criteria, I'd recommend closing this one early per WP:IAR and WP:SNOW. Chris the Paleontologist ( talk • contribs) 22:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 22:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Seems to fail
the general notability guideline; a fictional book mentioned in only one short story. I would have redirected it to the short story's article, but the story doesn't seem to have one. (The same author has since created a page on the story). The article seems to be an example of
fancruft and a large portion of it was
lifted straight from the short story in which the book is mentioned (the author has since removed that part). A
Google Books search for "Lives of the Wandering" "a short break" brings up nothing, as do
Google News and
Google News archives searches. The judging by the author's username (
Sambrooks123456), he has a
conflict of interest as the author of the short story (Sam Brooks) in which this book is mentioned. In conclusion, I don't think there's a sufficient case to have an encyclopedia article on this topic.
I have also nominated
A Short Break (Story) (by the same author with the same conflict of interest) for deletion. My fruitless attempts to find sources:
[1],
[2].
[3] actually results in a hit, but it's an irrelevant false positive.
Chris the Paleontologist (
talk •
contribs)
21:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
reply
The result was speedy delete. Hoax Jac16888 Talk 21:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply
I cannot find any sources that verify the content of the article. Google searches for Dover "Consuela Martinez", "Dover House of Screams", "Dover House of Terror", or Dover "Bob Flanagan" haunted don't result in anything relevant. The address itself is not mentioned as having any supernatural properties. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 20:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 22:34, 8 April 2012 (UTC) reply
WP:NOTNEWS. Absolutely no long term affect. ...William 19:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 22:35, 8 April 2012 (UTC) reply
no indication of notability. Disputed prod - only primary sources given. Google searches not finding anything significant. noq ( talk) 19:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 22:36, 8 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Non-notable product from non-notable company; no reliable sources given. No significant coverage found - Google search on "Templars of Kayne" shows only 15 unique results. MikeWazowski ( talk) 19:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 22:36, 8 April 2012 (UTC) reply
1. no assertion of notability Widefox ( talk) 18:36, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following (subject to the condition that improvement or deletion of an offending section, if practical, is preferable to deletion of an entire page):
→This article is about an advertisement but is not advertising
The result was delete - the subject has, thus far, only played youth football. Highly likely to become notable at some point but the consensus is that, as of now, he fails notability guidelines. TerriersFan ( talk) 18:03, 8 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he has played internationally for Indonesia. However, this is false. He has only ever played at the youth level, which is explicitly excluded by WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 17:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 22:38, 8 April 2012 (UTC) reply
This article was recreated two hours after having been deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 16:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Unity Party of America and delete history per CSD G4. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 22:42, 8 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Non-notable politician. Recreation of a deleted page which went through AFD. Never held an "international, national or sub-national office." Only three news sources in the article can be found, and Bill is the subject of only one of those, the other two have him as a passing mention. The article where he is the subject is a local news report on his local election campaign, doesn't satisfy significant press coverage. The rest of the available sources are primary sources not reliable sources Coffeepusher ( talk) 15:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply
The thing is, notability has already been established. This article has been on Wikipedia for years. A past campaign is still a campaign, and a mention in the Denver Post outside a political context certainly says something.
If news websites don't properly maintain their archives, that's irrelevant to the fact that the subject remains notable. Once notable, always notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Houston1969 ( talk • contribs) 01:31, 2 April 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sandstein 08:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC) reply
I fail to see how this small company is notable. Few mentions online on a low visibility and reliablity websites don't seem to cut it. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 15:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 22:45, 8 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Deleted through AfD in February 2010. Since that time the subject has played matches for Ashford Town and Boussu Dour, athlough these teams do not compete in fully professional leagues, meaning he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Article also fails WP:GNG. Mattythewhite ( talk) 15:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Delete G3' (hoax) by user:Catfish Jim and the soapdish. Non-admin closure. -- Dennis The Tiger ( Rawr and stuff) 19:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not for original research. bonadea contributions talk 14:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply
please kindly correct the mistake that i have made, and please do not delet my page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Princeneil ( talk • contribs) 14:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. UtherSRG, I agree with you 100% and I would love to punch this "delete" as I believe that the first indication that a subject may be notable is if a neutral editor writes an article on it. Notable subjects shouldn't have to "rent" an editor to get an article Unfortunately, there's currently no consensus for this view. Even with this and even after disregarding the 2 SPAs, the consensus is to keep. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:03, 8 April 2012 (UTC) reply
While plausibly notable at first, a bit of digging hits issues: he doesn't appear to have acted on his own, but as part of a large group of people for all the notable events the article connects him to. Beyond that, the sources are just terrible. And, finally, the article was created by sockmaster, group account, and likely paid editor, Expewikiwriter (that's an AN thread, forgive me if it gets archived during the AfD). I strongly suspect all claims of notability are highly, highly inflated, and that the person in question is, at best minimally notable. However, the main issue is Wikipedia:CSD#G11 - this is advertising, which would require a fundamental rewrite to turn it into a workable article, and by keeping it, we encourage paid editing. 86.** IP ( talk) 12:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to 551st_Electronic_Systems_Wing. There is a 50/50 split on whether to delete or merge, so a redirect seems indicated; if there is anything worthwhile to be merged, that can still occur Black Kite ( talk) 10:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Very sad but not notable per WP:AIRCRASH Military crashes are very common. ...William 11:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to 551st_Electronic_Systems_Wing. Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1965 EC-121H Warning Star crash Black Kite ( talk) 10:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Very sad but not notable per WP:AIRCRASH Military crashes are very common. ...William 11:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to 551st_Electronic_Systems_Wing. Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1965 EC-121H Warning Star crash Black Kite ( talk) 10:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Very sad but not notable per WP:AIRCRASH Military crashes are very common. ...William 11:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Black Kite ( talk) 10:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC) reply
This page is an advertisement for an event that has an annual attendance of only 100 people (as admitted on their own web page), yet attempts to compare itself to Burning Man, which has an attendance of 50,000. The links are all to the group's own web site and one "free press release" site. A Google search for "X-Day" produces links to the group's own site, this Wikipedia page, Malcolm X, and a Japanese manga. Any club can produce an attendance of 100 people on any "event" night, and we don't have Wikipedia pages for every single nightclub out there. This article does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TeamEquestria ( talk • contribs) 11:03, 1 April 2012
What this article needs is more citations of the many times X-Day has been mentioned in the media over the years, in order to prove its notability. However, it is difficult to do an Internet search to find these citations; for instance, most newspapers only started posting their articles online a few years ago, and it is hard to figure out the right Internet search terms to find legitimate sources that actually relate to this topic while bypassing everything that is unrelated or not a reliable source, especially given the 317 million Google search results for X-Day. But I am certain that plenty of reliable independent sources to prove notability DO exist; they are simply hard to find on the Internet because of all the unrelated information that comes up when you do an Internet search. I would recommend not only that this article be kept, but that everyone debating here, both pro-and-anti-deletion, thoroughly search the Internet for reliable, independent sources about X-Day, and add any that they can find to this article.
Furthermore, I do not think that X-Day ought to be considered as merely an "event" and judged by the notability guideline for events, as it is far more than an event to those involved in the Church of the SubGenius. As a historical example, the crucifixion of Jesus Christ is considered a very important event in the religion of Christianity, but it is far more than just a mere event, and is central to the theology of that religion. Even though there are not any reliable historical records of Jesus being crucified from any independent sources at the time, outside of the Bible, Jesus's crucifixion is still considered very notable. While the Church of the SubGenius is a much smaller religion, X-Day has just as great a theological importance to followers of the Church of the SubGenius, even though most of them do not attend the annual celebrations in person. Every ordained SubGenius minister is promised eternal salvation on X-Day, regardless of whether or not they show up to the annual celebrations, and most SubGenii are too busy with other things in their lives, too short on money, or too afraid of what might happen to them if they show up to attend in person. X-Day also has quite a similarity theologically to the Christian Rapture, involving the faithful being all saved at once, and everyone else being Left Behind. And the Rapture is not mentioned in the Bible even once, yet it is notable, as a theological concept, even though there are no records of the Rapture ever taking place as an event. If the Rapture were judged by the notability guideline for events, it would not be notable, since it has not even happened and there are no records of it happening. But the Rapture is notable theologically, and meets the general notability guideline, which is why there is a Wikipedia page on it. Therefore, since it is not just an event but also a matter of religious theology, the notability guideline used in this dispute should be the general notability guideline, not the notability guideline for events. Using a different notability guideline for this than the one used on the Rapture would be treating different religions differently and violate the neutral point of view policy.
In conclusion, none of the criteria at Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion are met. The only possible criterion which could be applied to this article is "Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed", yet nobody has done a thorough attempt to find reliable sources, only very brief attempts that didn't even go past the first page of Google search results. -- Yetisyny ( talk) 08:47, 7 April 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:05, 8 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:GNG, also seems to be advertising. ♪ anonim.one ♪ 10:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was kept, early closure. This is a well-referenced article for a distinctly named populated place, one even assigned a unique ZIP code (48729). The only advocates for any other outcome, including the nominator, have been involved in, and blocked for, sockpuppetry. Non-admin action; technically this is a snow close, but if that makes anyone nervous, call it a criterion #1 (nominator advocated merger, which is not a deletion outcome) or #2 (nomination obviously not in good faith) speedy keep instead. Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 20:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Reason KaseyVincent ( talk) 09:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC) I Relive that the information on the page is too minimal to require a entire article. I think in should be merged with Novesta Township. The page as of right now, has been attacked too much and the information is trivial at best. reply
collapsing duplicates and socks verified by checkuser
|
---|
|
collapsing duplicates and socks verified by checkuser
|
---|
|
The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G7 JohnCD ( talk) 10:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Page has been moved, delete the old entry. Robert B Colton ( talk) 08:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Black Kite ( talk) 10:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Overtly promotional. Not much indication of notability. Cloudbound ( talk) 22:01, 24 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Don't worry Prakashpanwar, lots of admins have had "their" articles (but see WP:OWN) deleted at AFD. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:15, 8 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Non-notable academic, deleted before by AFD, CSD-G4 declined presumably as not a close enough paraphrase of original article. Subject does not meet any of the criteria listed in Wikipedia:Notability (academics) or, indeed, WP:GNG. Recommend WP:SALT Catfish Jim and the soapdish 06:36, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Delete it if its as per the Wikipedia policies to delete it. What I know about notability is that notability of researcher is through his published works and as per my knowledge, Journals etc normally do not cite references of a research paper by a non-notable person. If these are the Wikipedia policies, delete it immediately. And if you are considering to do a discussion, firstly cite all the sources which were added by me and other people, as I fetched them with a lot of hard work. Prakashpanwar ( talk) 17:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply
OK. If thats so, show me some references of you being published in any journal, not specifically the Science journals. Publication in the journal is not so easy, friend. I have my researcher friend, who did his Ph.D now, but still has only 1 research paper published. Tell me where your article is cited. Prakashpanwar ( talk) 04:17, 7 April 2012 (UTC) reply
I have received an email from the biochemist's son, who has sent me with his father's biodata by email. He was also the elected member of Biochemical society and did good research. I can send it to anyone if they provide me with the email. His son is an officer with the Indian Administration, see DANICS. Prakashpanwar ( talk) 23:52, 6 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Well, The thing why I am stressed on this article subject is that it has a negative remark when applying for the Administratorship that your one article has been deleted. I saw this line in the biochemist's bio "I am an elected member of the above society since 1954". What I think notability is that when an article has been cited by different renowned journals, books,etc. Its not a layman thing. This is what I believe. Provide me with an email address to which I will send this scanned piece which I got from the biochemist's son. Prakashpanwar ( talk) 04:13, 7 April 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC) reply
This stub is basically a mirror of the Wp:id stub http://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambir,_Gambir,_Jakarta_Pusat - it has no evident WP:N, WP:RS or WP:CITE to justify a stub. The higher level article about Gambir should contain the information. Satu Suro 06:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC) reply
This stub is basically a mirror of the Wp:id stub http://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kebon_Kelapa,_Gambir,_Jakarta_Pusat - it has no evident WP:N, WP:RS or WP:CITE to justify a stub. The higher level article about Gambir should contain the information. Satu Suro 06:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC) reply
This stub is basically a mirror of the Wp:id stub http://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petojo_Selatan,_Gambir,_Jakarta_Pusat - it has no evident WP:N, WP:RS or WP:CITE to justify a stub. The higher level article about Gambir should contain the information. Satu Suro 06:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:20, 8 April 2012 (UTC) reply
This stub is basically a mirror of the Wp:id stub http://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duri Pulo,_Gambir,_Jakarta_Pusat - it has no evident WP:N, WP:RS or WP:CITE to justify a stub. The higher level article about Gambir should contain the information. Satu Suro 06:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC) reply
This stub is basically a mirror of the Wp:id stub http://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cideng,_Gambir,_Jakarta_Pusat - it has no evident WP:N, WP:RS or WP:CITE to justify a stub. The higher level article about Gambir should contain the information. Satu Suro 06:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC) reply
This stub is basically a mirror of the Wp:id stub http://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petojo_Utara,_Gambir,_Jakarta_Pusat - it has no evident WP:N, WP:RS or WP:CITE to justify a stub. The higher level article about Gambir should contain the information. Satu Suro 06:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. WP:SNOW. joe decker talk to me 01:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Non notable Fasttimes68 ( talk) 06:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1954. Redirecting per WP:NSUPER. Consider this a keep close. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC) reply
No sources found. Non notable Fasttimes68 ( talk) 05:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1968. Clear redirect case per precedent and consensus. The Bushranger One ping only 09:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Non notable. No sources found Fasttimes68 ( talk) 05:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1968. Redirected per precedent (should this be added to WP:OUTCOMES)? The Bushranger One ping only 09:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC) reply
No sources, non notable Fasttimes68 ( talk) 05:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1968. Clear consensus for redirect per standard procedure/past AfD results and all votes, snow closure. The Bushranger One ping only 09:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC) reply
No sources found, non notable Fasttimes68 ( talk) 05:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1968. Snow redirect. Merging can be done from history (with proper attribution). To address Milowent's comment: redirecting is a valid outcome of AfD. While boldly doing it is always (and oft should be) an option, accusing somebody of a "useless nomination" doesn't further the collaborative goals of the project. The Bushranger One ping only 09:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Can't find any sources, non notable Fasttimes68 ( talk) 05:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1987. Snow redirect; merging, if desired, can be done from history (with attribution of course). The Bushranger One ping only 09:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Zero sources found in google archives. Minor parts in media and very few of them. Fasttimes68 ( talk) 05:26, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was Deleted. Nikkimaria ( talk) 14:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Pattabhirami Reddy Tikkavarapu already exists. So I believe this should be deleted. Shriram ( talk) 04:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Where to redirect is an editorial decision. Sandstein 08:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC) reply
The minimal content of this article doesn't match its title. I'd say that a redlink is better so some future editor can actually write something about LGBT non-violence groups D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Delete or redirect to LGBT social movements where LGBT rights organization should probably also redirect. There is very little in the way of content and I think that these particular groups are better covered in the larger context of LGBT social movements or the Peace movement rather than in a separate article for the time being. Eluchil404 ( talk) 11:22, 8 April 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Eluchil404 ( talk) 11:14, 8 April 2012 (UTC) reply
This article fails Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Association football because it is about a footballer who has not yet played in a fully-pro league and senior international competition. 1988 AFC Asian Cup Japan squad was selection of the university student. Hisanori Shirasawa has not yet played for the senior national team. Japan Football ( talk) 02:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. The consensus below is that his appearances in the 1988 AFC Asian Cup are sufficient to establish notability. Eluchil404 ( talk) 11:11, 8 April 2012 (UTC) reply
This article fails Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Association football because it is about a footballer who has not yet played in a fully-pro league and senior international competition. 1988 AFC Asian Cup Japan squad was selection of the university student. Yusuke Minoguchi has not yet played for the senior national team. Japan Football ( talk) 02:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete - the consensus is that this person fails to meet notability guidelines. TerriersFan ( talk) 17:32, 8 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Appears to fail WP:BIO due to lack of "published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." A Google Books search for "Eleanor Scheff" turns up nothing, as do Google News and Google News archives searches. The article creator also has a conflict of interest as the grandson of the subject; see this link. Chris the Paleontologist ( talk • contribs) 02:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. The consensus below is clear. However, should he later get playing time in an MLS match or other fully pro league the article can be recreated with sources chowing that. Eluchil404 ( talk) 11:08, 8 April 2012 (UTC) reply
PROD contested by User:TonyTheTiger with the explanation "If this guy played in the MLS, he gets a page". However, the subject has not appeared in any MLS matches (or in any fully professional league) and so the article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Mattythewhite ( talk) 02:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sandstein 08:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Non-notable political party. This local party has only ever received a tiny handful of votes, and has never had any elected candidates or come close to electing any. I can't find any coverage of it in reliable sources beyond the trivial. Robofish ( talk) 00:49, 25 March 2012 (UTC) reply
A few comments for information: National scope missing maybe, but has contested national elections, albeit not from every seat in the nation but from a group of close constituencies. As for reliable sources, try the party's registration and annual returns as the Electoral Commission (which is as reliable as it gets!) and the Notice of Election etc issued by the Returning Officers for the elections - again, as reliable as it gets. Emeraude ( talk) 14:28, 25 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The consensus is that this organisation fails to meet notability standards. TerriersFan ( talk) 17:08, 8 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Advertisement. Does not establish notability and has no 3rd party sources. Conflict of interest author contested prod. OSborn arf contribs. 00:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Eluchil404 ( talk) 11:03, 8 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Non-notable Japanese film. It hurts... Six Sided Pun Vows ( talk | contribs | former account) 01:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Black Kite ( talk) 10:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC) reply
This person is not notable; he (she) was newsworthy for a few months for falsely confessing to killing JonBenét Ramsey. That falls way short of notability standards per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:ONEEVENT. RunningOnBrains( talk) 02:14, 25 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sandstein 08:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Shows no evidence of notability in reliable sources. Article was created by a single-purpose account and lists only the organization's website, minor links to its content, and mirror hostings of the organization's press release as its sources. Khazar2 ( talk) 05:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:45, 7 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Unremarkable porn performer. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 11:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Black Kite ( talk) 10:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Fails to meet notability criteria, no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Mentioned in passing in the Irish Times is the most noteworthy coverage. Tagged since 2009 without significant improvement. Sjö ( talk) 14:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC) reply
well that is enough for me, go be creative not destructive Vjiced ( talk) 14:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Black Kite ( talk) 10:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Cannot establish notability as per WP:MUSICBIO - meets none of the parameters listed. WP:SIGCOV - There is no significant coverage of this artist. Cannot add any reliable reference. All Google search results list one event or music download sites --Wikishagnik (talk) 00:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC) Wikishagnik ( talk) 16:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Weak Keep This is becoming a question of whether the Marathi show itself is "a major music competition" - if so, as winner, Abhijeet Kosambi qualifies under WP:MUSIC 9. If not, then as mentioned above it becomes a question of whether individual Sa Re Ga Ma Pa contestants on the Hindi show are notable purely on the basis of having participated in that show (as that's the only thing verified by decent sources). Even though it was more than 4 years ago and the subject hasn't done anything of note since, I'd go with a weak keep. Most participants from that 2007 show seem to have articles, and to deny notability on this basis feels like a double standard as regards American Idol and the like. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ talk 10:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. v/r - T P 00:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:GNG and I believe this fails W:NFOOTY as well. -- Arsenalkid700 ( talk) 19:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Eluchil404 ( talk) 11:00, 8 April 2012 (UTC) reply
PROD removed (procedurally?). Concern was: Appears to fail WP:AUTHOR; article created almost entirely by Expewikiwriter (since banned for apparent promotional editing); page was previously deleted at AfD. Stuartyeates ( talk) 01:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. The consensus below is that this article is an unsalvageably unencyclopedic essay that should be deleted. Sourced information on the topic can be added to The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two, but the consensus is that nothing in the article currently meets the criteria for merging. Eluchil404 ( talk) 10:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Unencyclopedic, reads like an essay. Partially duplicates The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two; any new content might be incorporated there. — teb728 t c 01:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply
![]() |
The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7: the author blanked the page with edit summary "I apologize for not understanding the rules before posting here. I wish you all a great day." (non-admin closure) — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk) 19:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC) reply
No objective evidence of notability, and more or less spam. The product is made by RJV Creations; unsurprisingly, the article is by single-purpose account User:Rjvcreations. - Biruitorul Talk 23:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply
1. The project/product in itself is notable; it is a new and innovative PHP framework; the article is objective and no advertising "elevator-pitch" lines were inserted at any point. 2. The product is made by RJV Creations Corp; the article is written by an user with the same name; would it have been less of an issue if 10 people with different accounts would have been paid to write and improve this article? Is the name of the author relevant to sustain claims of SPAM? I think not. 3. Wikipedia is no place for advertising. The product itself is the first result in Google Search for the keyword "octoms". I (we) have no intention of using this forum to attract visibility/users/attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjvcreations ( talk • contribs) 09:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Not a snowball's chance that this thing made up in school one day will be kept. The Bushranger One ping only 09:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Fails notability guidelines tremendously. I think the topic itself, a rebranding of A-ok only used in one college, is inherently unsuitable for an encyclopedia article, and probably doesn't warrant a redirect. No hits on Google Books, Google News, or Google News archives (I used the search term "Bridge bomb" "Newbridge College"). Although I don't think this meets any of the CSD criteria, I'd recommend closing this one early per WP:IAR and WP:SNOW. Chris the Paleontologist ( talk • contribs) 22:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 22:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Seems to fail
the general notability guideline; a fictional book mentioned in only one short story. I would have redirected it to the short story's article, but the story doesn't seem to have one. (The same author has since created a page on the story). The article seems to be an example of
fancruft and a large portion of it was
lifted straight from the short story in which the book is mentioned (the author has since removed that part). A
Google Books search for "Lives of the Wandering" "a short break" brings up nothing, as do
Google News and
Google News archives searches. The judging by the author's username (
Sambrooks123456), he has a
conflict of interest as the author of the short story (Sam Brooks) in which this book is mentioned. In conclusion, I don't think there's a sufficient case to have an encyclopedia article on this topic.
I have also nominated
A Short Break (Story) (by the same author with the same conflict of interest) for deletion. My fruitless attempts to find sources:
[1],
[2].
[3] actually results in a hit, but it's an irrelevant false positive.
Chris the Paleontologist (
talk •
contribs)
21:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
reply
The result was speedy delete. Hoax Jac16888 Talk 21:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply
I cannot find any sources that verify the content of the article. Google searches for Dover "Consuela Martinez", "Dover House of Screams", "Dover House of Terror", or Dover "Bob Flanagan" haunted don't result in anything relevant. The address itself is not mentioned as having any supernatural properties. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 20:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 22:34, 8 April 2012 (UTC) reply
WP:NOTNEWS. Absolutely no long term affect. ...William 19:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 22:35, 8 April 2012 (UTC) reply
no indication of notability. Disputed prod - only primary sources given. Google searches not finding anything significant. noq ( talk) 19:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 22:36, 8 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Non-notable product from non-notable company; no reliable sources given. No significant coverage found - Google search on "Templars of Kayne" shows only 15 unique results. MikeWazowski ( talk) 19:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 22:36, 8 April 2012 (UTC) reply
1. no assertion of notability Widefox ( talk) 18:36, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following (subject to the condition that improvement or deletion of an offending section, if practical, is preferable to deletion of an entire page):
→This article is about an advertisement but is not advertising
The result was delete - the subject has, thus far, only played youth football. Highly likely to become notable at some point but the consensus is that, as of now, he fails notability guidelines. TerriersFan ( talk) 18:03, 8 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he has played internationally for Indonesia. However, this is false. He has only ever played at the youth level, which is explicitly excluded by WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 17:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 22:38, 8 April 2012 (UTC) reply
This article was recreated two hours after having been deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 16:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Unity Party of America and delete history per CSD G4. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 22:42, 8 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Non-notable politician. Recreation of a deleted page which went through AFD. Never held an "international, national or sub-national office." Only three news sources in the article can be found, and Bill is the subject of only one of those, the other two have him as a passing mention. The article where he is the subject is a local news report on his local election campaign, doesn't satisfy significant press coverage. The rest of the available sources are primary sources not reliable sources Coffeepusher ( talk) 15:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply
The thing is, notability has already been established. This article has been on Wikipedia for years. A past campaign is still a campaign, and a mention in the Denver Post outside a political context certainly says something.
If news websites don't properly maintain their archives, that's irrelevant to the fact that the subject remains notable. Once notable, always notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Houston1969 ( talk • contribs) 01:31, 2 April 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sandstein 08:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC) reply
I fail to see how this small company is notable. Few mentions online on a low visibility and reliablity websites don't seem to cut it. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 15:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 22:45, 8 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Deleted through AfD in February 2010. Since that time the subject has played matches for Ashford Town and Boussu Dour, athlough these teams do not compete in fully professional leagues, meaning he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Article also fails WP:GNG. Mattythewhite ( talk) 15:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Delete G3' (hoax) by user:Catfish Jim and the soapdish. Non-admin closure. -- Dennis The Tiger ( Rawr and stuff) 19:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not for original research. bonadea contributions talk 14:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply
please kindly correct the mistake that i have made, and please do not delet my page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Princeneil ( talk • contribs) 14:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. UtherSRG, I agree with you 100% and I would love to punch this "delete" as I believe that the first indication that a subject may be notable is if a neutral editor writes an article on it. Notable subjects shouldn't have to "rent" an editor to get an article Unfortunately, there's currently no consensus for this view. Even with this and even after disregarding the 2 SPAs, the consensus is to keep. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:03, 8 April 2012 (UTC) reply
While plausibly notable at first, a bit of digging hits issues: he doesn't appear to have acted on his own, but as part of a large group of people for all the notable events the article connects him to. Beyond that, the sources are just terrible. And, finally, the article was created by sockmaster, group account, and likely paid editor, Expewikiwriter (that's an AN thread, forgive me if it gets archived during the AfD). I strongly suspect all claims of notability are highly, highly inflated, and that the person in question is, at best minimally notable. However, the main issue is Wikipedia:CSD#G11 - this is advertising, which would require a fundamental rewrite to turn it into a workable article, and by keeping it, we encourage paid editing. 86.** IP ( talk) 12:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to 551st_Electronic_Systems_Wing. There is a 50/50 split on whether to delete or merge, so a redirect seems indicated; if there is anything worthwhile to be merged, that can still occur Black Kite ( talk) 10:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Very sad but not notable per WP:AIRCRASH Military crashes are very common. ...William 11:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to 551st_Electronic_Systems_Wing. Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1965 EC-121H Warning Star crash Black Kite ( talk) 10:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Very sad but not notable per WP:AIRCRASH Military crashes are very common. ...William 11:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to 551st_Electronic_Systems_Wing. Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1965 EC-121H Warning Star crash Black Kite ( talk) 10:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Very sad but not notable per WP:AIRCRASH Military crashes are very common. ...William 11:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Black Kite ( talk) 10:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC) reply
This page is an advertisement for an event that has an annual attendance of only 100 people (as admitted on their own web page), yet attempts to compare itself to Burning Man, which has an attendance of 50,000. The links are all to the group's own web site and one "free press release" site. A Google search for "X-Day" produces links to the group's own site, this Wikipedia page, Malcolm X, and a Japanese manga. Any club can produce an attendance of 100 people on any "event" night, and we don't have Wikipedia pages for every single nightclub out there. This article does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TeamEquestria ( talk • contribs) 11:03, 1 April 2012
What this article needs is more citations of the many times X-Day has been mentioned in the media over the years, in order to prove its notability. However, it is difficult to do an Internet search to find these citations; for instance, most newspapers only started posting their articles online a few years ago, and it is hard to figure out the right Internet search terms to find legitimate sources that actually relate to this topic while bypassing everything that is unrelated or not a reliable source, especially given the 317 million Google search results for X-Day. But I am certain that plenty of reliable independent sources to prove notability DO exist; they are simply hard to find on the Internet because of all the unrelated information that comes up when you do an Internet search. I would recommend not only that this article be kept, but that everyone debating here, both pro-and-anti-deletion, thoroughly search the Internet for reliable, independent sources about X-Day, and add any that they can find to this article.
Furthermore, I do not think that X-Day ought to be considered as merely an "event" and judged by the notability guideline for events, as it is far more than an event to those involved in the Church of the SubGenius. As a historical example, the crucifixion of Jesus Christ is considered a very important event in the religion of Christianity, but it is far more than just a mere event, and is central to the theology of that religion. Even though there are not any reliable historical records of Jesus being crucified from any independent sources at the time, outside of the Bible, Jesus's crucifixion is still considered very notable. While the Church of the SubGenius is a much smaller religion, X-Day has just as great a theological importance to followers of the Church of the SubGenius, even though most of them do not attend the annual celebrations in person. Every ordained SubGenius minister is promised eternal salvation on X-Day, regardless of whether or not they show up to the annual celebrations, and most SubGenii are too busy with other things in their lives, too short on money, or too afraid of what might happen to them if they show up to attend in person. X-Day also has quite a similarity theologically to the Christian Rapture, involving the faithful being all saved at once, and everyone else being Left Behind. And the Rapture is not mentioned in the Bible even once, yet it is notable, as a theological concept, even though there are no records of the Rapture ever taking place as an event. If the Rapture were judged by the notability guideline for events, it would not be notable, since it has not even happened and there are no records of it happening. But the Rapture is notable theologically, and meets the general notability guideline, which is why there is a Wikipedia page on it. Therefore, since it is not just an event but also a matter of religious theology, the notability guideline used in this dispute should be the general notability guideline, not the notability guideline for events. Using a different notability guideline for this than the one used on the Rapture would be treating different religions differently and violate the neutral point of view policy.
In conclusion, none of the criteria at Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion are met. The only possible criterion which could be applied to this article is "Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed", yet nobody has done a thorough attempt to find reliable sources, only very brief attempts that didn't even go past the first page of Google search results. -- Yetisyny ( talk) 08:47, 7 April 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:05, 8 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:GNG, also seems to be advertising. ♪ anonim.one ♪ 10:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was kept, early closure. This is a well-referenced article for a distinctly named populated place, one even assigned a unique ZIP code (48729). The only advocates for any other outcome, including the nominator, have been involved in, and blocked for, sockpuppetry. Non-admin action; technically this is a snow close, but if that makes anyone nervous, call it a criterion #1 (nominator advocated merger, which is not a deletion outcome) or #2 (nomination obviously not in good faith) speedy keep instead. Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 20:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Reason KaseyVincent ( talk) 09:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC) I Relive that the information on the page is too minimal to require a entire article. I think in should be merged with Novesta Township. The page as of right now, has been attacked too much and the information is trivial at best. reply
collapsing duplicates and socks verified by checkuser
|
---|
|
collapsing duplicates and socks verified by checkuser
|
---|
|
The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G7 JohnCD ( talk) 10:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Page has been moved, delete the old entry. Robert B Colton ( talk) 08:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Black Kite ( talk) 10:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Overtly promotional. Not much indication of notability. Cloudbound ( talk) 22:01, 24 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Don't worry Prakashpanwar, lots of admins have had "their" articles (but see WP:OWN) deleted at AFD. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:15, 8 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Non-notable academic, deleted before by AFD, CSD-G4 declined presumably as not a close enough paraphrase of original article. Subject does not meet any of the criteria listed in Wikipedia:Notability (academics) or, indeed, WP:GNG. Recommend WP:SALT Catfish Jim and the soapdish 06:36, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Delete it if its as per the Wikipedia policies to delete it. What I know about notability is that notability of researcher is through his published works and as per my knowledge, Journals etc normally do not cite references of a research paper by a non-notable person. If these are the Wikipedia policies, delete it immediately. And if you are considering to do a discussion, firstly cite all the sources which were added by me and other people, as I fetched them with a lot of hard work. Prakashpanwar ( talk) 17:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply
OK. If thats so, show me some references of you being published in any journal, not specifically the Science journals. Publication in the journal is not so easy, friend. I have my researcher friend, who did his Ph.D now, but still has only 1 research paper published. Tell me where your article is cited. Prakashpanwar ( talk) 04:17, 7 April 2012 (UTC) reply
I have received an email from the biochemist's son, who has sent me with his father's biodata by email. He was also the elected member of Biochemical society and did good research. I can send it to anyone if they provide me with the email. His son is an officer with the Indian Administration, see DANICS. Prakashpanwar ( talk) 23:52, 6 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Well, The thing why I am stressed on this article subject is that it has a negative remark when applying for the Administratorship that your one article has been deleted. I saw this line in the biochemist's bio "I am an elected member of the above society since 1954". What I think notability is that when an article has been cited by different renowned journals, books,etc. Its not a layman thing. This is what I believe. Provide me with an email address to which I will send this scanned piece which I got from the biochemist's son. Prakashpanwar ( talk) 04:13, 7 April 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC) reply
This stub is basically a mirror of the Wp:id stub http://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambir,_Gambir,_Jakarta_Pusat - it has no evident WP:N, WP:RS or WP:CITE to justify a stub. The higher level article about Gambir should contain the information. Satu Suro 06:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC) reply
This stub is basically a mirror of the Wp:id stub http://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kebon_Kelapa,_Gambir,_Jakarta_Pusat - it has no evident WP:N, WP:RS or WP:CITE to justify a stub. The higher level article about Gambir should contain the information. Satu Suro 06:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC) reply
This stub is basically a mirror of the Wp:id stub http://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petojo_Selatan,_Gambir,_Jakarta_Pusat - it has no evident WP:N, WP:RS or WP:CITE to justify a stub. The higher level article about Gambir should contain the information. Satu Suro 06:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:20, 8 April 2012 (UTC) reply
This stub is basically a mirror of the Wp:id stub http://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duri Pulo,_Gambir,_Jakarta_Pusat - it has no evident WP:N, WP:RS or WP:CITE to justify a stub. The higher level article about Gambir should contain the information. Satu Suro 06:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC) reply
This stub is basically a mirror of the Wp:id stub http://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cideng,_Gambir,_Jakarta_Pusat - it has no evident WP:N, WP:RS or WP:CITE to justify a stub. The higher level article about Gambir should contain the information. Satu Suro 06:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC) reply
This stub is basically a mirror of the Wp:id stub http://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petojo_Utara,_Gambir,_Jakarta_Pusat - it has no evident WP:N, WP:RS or WP:CITE to justify a stub. The higher level article about Gambir should contain the information. Satu Suro 06:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. WP:SNOW. joe decker talk to me 01:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Non notable Fasttimes68 ( talk) 06:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1954. Redirecting per WP:NSUPER. Consider this a keep close. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC) reply
No sources found. Non notable Fasttimes68 ( talk) 05:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1968. Clear redirect case per precedent and consensus. The Bushranger One ping only 09:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Non notable. No sources found Fasttimes68 ( talk) 05:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1968. Redirected per precedent (should this be added to WP:OUTCOMES)? The Bushranger One ping only 09:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC) reply
No sources, non notable Fasttimes68 ( talk) 05:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1968. Clear consensus for redirect per standard procedure/past AfD results and all votes, snow closure. The Bushranger One ping only 09:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC) reply
No sources found, non notable Fasttimes68 ( talk) 05:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1968. Snow redirect. Merging can be done from history (with proper attribution). To address Milowent's comment: redirecting is a valid outcome of AfD. While boldly doing it is always (and oft should be) an option, accusing somebody of a "useless nomination" doesn't further the collaborative goals of the project. The Bushranger One ping only 09:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Can't find any sources, non notable Fasttimes68 ( talk) 05:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1987. Snow redirect; merging, if desired, can be done from history (with attribution of course). The Bushranger One ping only 09:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Zero sources found in google archives. Minor parts in media and very few of them. Fasttimes68 ( talk) 05:26, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was Deleted. Nikkimaria ( talk) 14:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Pattabhirami Reddy Tikkavarapu already exists. So I believe this should be deleted. Shriram ( talk) 04:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Where to redirect is an editorial decision. Sandstein 08:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC) reply
The minimal content of this article doesn't match its title. I'd say that a redlink is better so some future editor can actually write something about LGBT non-violence groups D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Delete or redirect to LGBT social movements where LGBT rights organization should probably also redirect. There is very little in the way of content and I think that these particular groups are better covered in the larger context of LGBT social movements or the Peace movement rather than in a separate article for the time being. Eluchil404 ( talk) 11:22, 8 April 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Eluchil404 ( talk) 11:14, 8 April 2012 (UTC) reply
This article fails Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Association football because it is about a footballer who has not yet played in a fully-pro league and senior international competition. 1988 AFC Asian Cup Japan squad was selection of the university student. Hisanori Shirasawa has not yet played for the senior national team. Japan Football ( talk) 02:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. The consensus below is that his appearances in the 1988 AFC Asian Cup are sufficient to establish notability. Eluchil404 ( talk) 11:11, 8 April 2012 (UTC) reply
This article fails Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Association football because it is about a footballer who has not yet played in a fully-pro league and senior international competition. 1988 AFC Asian Cup Japan squad was selection of the university student. Yusuke Minoguchi has not yet played for the senior national team. Japan Football ( talk) 02:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete - the consensus is that this person fails to meet notability guidelines. TerriersFan ( talk) 17:32, 8 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Appears to fail WP:BIO due to lack of "published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." A Google Books search for "Eleanor Scheff" turns up nothing, as do Google News and Google News archives searches. The article creator also has a conflict of interest as the grandson of the subject; see this link. Chris the Paleontologist ( talk • contribs) 02:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. The consensus below is clear. However, should he later get playing time in an MLS match or other fully pro league the article can be recreated with sources chowing that. Eluchil404 ( talk) 11:08, 8 April 2012 (UTC) reply
PROD contested by User:TonyTheTiger with the explanation "If this guy played in the MLS, he gets a page". However, the subject has not appeared in any MLS matches (or in any fully professional league) and so the article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Mattythewhite ( talk) 02:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sandstein 08:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Non-notable political party. This local party has only ever received a tiny handful of votes, and has never had any elected candidates or come close to electing any. I can't find any coverage of it in reliable sources beyond the trivial. Robofish ( talk) 00:49, 25 March 2012 (UTC) reply
A few comments for information: National scope missing maybe, but has contested national elections, albeit not from every seat in the nation but from a group of close constituencies. As for reliable sources, try the party's registration and annual returns as the Electoral Commission (which is as reliable as it gets!) and the Notice of Election etc issued by the Returning Officers for the elections - again, as reliable as it gets. Emeraude ( talk) 14:28, 25 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The consensus is that this organisation fails to meet notability standards. TerriersFan ( talk) 17:08, 8 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Advertisement. Does not establish notability and has no 3rd party sources. Conflict of interest author contested prod. OSborn arf contribs. 00:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Eluchil404 ( talk) 11:03, 8 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Non-notable Japanese film. It hurts... Six Sided Pun Vows ( talk | contribs | former account) 01:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Black Kite ( talk) 10:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC) reply
This person is not notable; he (she) was newsworthy for a few months for falsely confessing to killing JonBenét Ramsey. That falls way short of notability standards per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:ONEEVENT. RunningOnBrains( talk) 02:14, 25 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sandstein 08:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Shows no evidence of notability in reliable sources. Article was created by a single-purpose account and lists only the organization's website, minor links to its content, and mirror hostings of the organization's press release as its sources. Khazar2 ( talk) 05:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:45, 7 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Unremarkable porn performer. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 11:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Black Kite ( talk) 10:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Fails to meet notability criteria, no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Mentioned in passing in the Irish Times is the most noteworthy coverage. Tagged since 2009 without significant improvement. Sjö ( talk) 14:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC) reply
well that is enough for me, go be creative not destructive Vjiced ( talk) 14:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Black Kite ( talk) 10:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Cannot establish notability as per WP:MUSICBIO - meets none of the parameters listed. WP:SIGCOV - There is no significant coverage of this artist. Cannot add any reliable reference. All Google search results list one event or music download sites --Wikishagnik (talk) 00:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC) Wikishagnik ( talk) 16:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Weak Keep This is becoming a question of whether the Marathi show itself is "a major music competition" - if so, as winner, Abhijeet Kosambi qualifies under WP:MUSIC 9. If not, then as mentioned above it becomes a question of whether individual Sa Re Ga Ma Pa contestants on the Hindi show are notable purely on the basis of having participated in that show (as that's the only thing verified by decent sources). Even though it was more than 4 years ago and the subject hasn't done anything of note since, I'd go with a weak keep. Most participants from that 2007 show seem to have articles, and to deny notability on this basis feels like a double standard as regards American Idol and the like. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ talk 10:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. v/r - T P 00:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:GNG and I believe this fails W:NFOOTY as well. -- Arsenalkid700 ( talk) 19:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Eluchil404 ( talk) 11:00, 8 April 2012 (UTC) reply
PROD removed (procedurally?). Concern was: Appears to fail WP:AUTHOR; article created almost entirely by Expewikiwriter (since banned for apparent promotional editing); page was previously deleted at AfD. Stuartyeates ( talk) 01:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. The consensus below is that this article is an unsalvageably unencyclopedic essay that should be deleted. Sourced information on the topic can be added to The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two, but the consensus is that nothing in the article currently meets the criteria for merging. Eluchil404 ( talk) 10:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Unencyclopedic, reads like an essay. Partially duplicates The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two; any new content might be incorporated there. — teb728 t c 01:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply