![]() |
The result was redirect to Indie game. MBisanz talk 03:05, 21 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Cannot find any WP:verifiable sources supporting that the term "amateur adventure games" is notable. Any notable games could be included in Adventure games 1292simon ( talk) 23:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) — Theo polisme 21:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:Notability. Altairisfar ( talk) 23:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:05, 21 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Puff piece: reads like a Vanity Fair profile or something, and the only substantial claim to fame - that he's "one of the richest living italian [ sic] artists" - appears to be entirely false. (Or, if it's true, the bar's pretty damn low.) Delete as cruft failing WP:CREATIVE. — Francophonie&Androphilie( Je vous invite à me parler) 23:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Amended. See below. — Francophonie&Androphilie( Je vous invite à me parler) 00:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted as A1. NAC. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 13:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Unreferenced article about an unreleased film, fails WP:NFF notability guideline. No references found in Google News and Books. - Mr X 23:12, 13 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Apparently non-notable musician, fails WP:NMUSIC. Does not appear to have released any albums on well known labels or meet any other point in the notability guidelines. Pol430 talk to me 22:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC) reply
*Keeper All above ignore notable contribution as; Producer, Rob Keyloch
here (Unless we choose to ignore album credits as published works!) FreeLance 12:15, 14 December 2012
The result was Speedy Keep per WP:WITHDRAWN. The not notable delete !vote did not seem reasonable to with hold a speedy keep. ( non-admin closure) Mkdw talk 09:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Seems to be a poorly sourced CV for a United Nations official. I can see online he is mentioned briefly in several news articles about UN activity, but nothing substantial to pass WP:GNG. Sionk ( talk) 23:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Keep. Location's substantial improvements to the article demonstrate notability over many years. PWilkinson ( talk) 13:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC) reply
BLP article about a non-notable person. No Google news stories, and the only a few trivial mentions in Google books. The only references provided in the article are press releases or equivalent. - Mr X 21:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted pursuant to CSD A7. Non-admin closure. Safiel ( talk) 01:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC) reply
WP:SPAM article created by a suspected WP:COI editor to promote a company, fails WP:CORP. Article was nominated for WP:CSD as spam, but an IP editor removed the CSD tag in his or her first and only edit to an article. - Ahunt ( talk) 20:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Recreated article previously deleted via proposed deletion; slightly-amended original rationale follows. The tone of the article is highly promotional and contains peacock terms. No indication of notability, and only cites subject's own website and official bios. Creator's account seems to exist for the single purpose of discussing the subject of this article (see contribs, deletion log of identical article created by same user). Does not appear to meet WP:CREATIVE notability criteria. Kinu t/ c 20:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to RT (TV network)#Programming. The nominator's position that there the subject does not meet WP:GNG has not been rebutted, nor have sufficient independent RS been added to call the claim into question. I'll leave a redirect behind to the TV network, however, as that way people can at least find the show's name Qwyrxian ( talk) 03:49, 22 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The A7 speedy deletion tag was removed with the claim that the rt.com source is a reliable source and therefore A7 does not apply. In actuality the rt.com site is the network's own site, meaning that the material on that webpage was placed there by her employer. This does not make her notable. Citation #8 and 9 are YouTube videos; the video at citation #11 does not mention her by name, and citation #10 is not about her at all. The stuff in the "Trivia" section is for the most part self-sourced to her own organisation's website MediaRoots.org. I think the article as it presently stands does not establish that the subject is notable enough for a Wikipedia article, and have opened this AFD to get some opinions from people who are more experienced in this area. Thanks. Dianna ( talk) 19:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC) reply
'the video at citation #11 does not mention her by name,'
The title is: 'WeAreChange confronts Rand Paul about how he tried to get Abby Martin of RT America and Mediaroots.org fired and stripped of her press credentials for asking him tough questions in the Capitol building.'
It features her confronting Paul and being interviewed about it.
I could offer a full-length version of the interview if it'd help: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UKXpzdFQ_I
'citation #10 is not about her at all.' It's (obviously) there to support the claim of Mitt Romney being an interventionist; which helps to explain the story.
Beingsshepherd ( talk) 01:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)Beingsshepherd reply
Ok, I think I can satisfy that: Infowars Nightly News: Thursday (6-7-12) – Abby Martin – planet.infowars.com/uncategorized/infowars-nightly-news-thursday-6-7-12-abby-martin infowars.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used @ 1:02:54 & RT’s Abby Martin : Israel’s War on Truth By Debbie Menon on 11/23/2012 [3] ~ 'Sabbah Report is a certified ‘Google News’ source for news and Op-Ed' http://sabbah.biz/mt/about/ It continues to mystify me, as to why this RT presenter's page IS acceptable: Marina_Dzhashi
Beingsshepherd ( talk) 02:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)Beingsshepherd reply
Dianna, this may sound impudent; but I disagree.
Before spending the time writing a Wiki article; I gauged what was seemingly acceptable, by looking at other pages. Perhaps my first 2 attempts failed to honour the letter of Wiki law; but I genuinely believed, both: that there would be no problem with a page dedicated to someone who hosts a half-hour television programme, internationally, several times a day, 5 days a week; and that my transgressions could be deemed beginner's mistakes - easily amended.
Presumably, the other RT presenter's articles passed through the same screening process, and were deemed legitimate?
If that's so; then I feel mislead and have had my time wasted.
Maybe you're all a bit jumpy over Wiki's recent 'Brett Straub' Leveson_Inquiry embarrassment. Beingsshepherd ( talk) 01:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)Beingsshepherd reply
I have done some clean-up on the article and gone over the citations individually to see what we've got.
That leaves is with Citation #12 (Sabbah Report); #14 WeAreChange.org (Luke Rudowski's website); #16 - website of a book for which she did artwork. I commented out one citation, which is an interview of Martin on a show called Infowars Nightly News, which confirms she is in the media but does not back up any of the other content in the article. WP:SPIP calls for in-depth coverage by independent reliable sources; in other words, someone (other than the subject of the article and her employer) needs to find her notable enough to have written up detailed coverage of her life and career. There's no such coverage in this case. This means that it's almost impossible to get a neutrally-worded article; there simply isn't any neutral independent coverage on which to draw. Therefore it's still my opinion that the article should be deleted as the subject is not notable enough, as Wikipedia defines it, for an article at this time. -- Dianna ( talk) 16:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Not notable as scientist Divega ( talk) 09:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC) reply
This person is not notable. This is a promotional public relations piece, written by a publicist. The article discusses a series of decidedly minor achievements by Solo, none of which are notable, and the article is poorly sourced. For example, giving "weekend workshops" in the music industry is not notable. Being an "alumni of the Shaker Heights Hall of Fame" is not notable. There is even a reference to "uncredited" co-writing contributions to a minor hit song by a music group called Shiny Toy Guns, which is, by definition, totally unsourced. These activities do not meet the notability criteria stated in WP:MUSICBIO or WP:COMPOSER. If anything, Solo has allegedly associated himself with a few moderately famous people, like Macy Gray, but, other than working with them occasionally, he has not achieved much success for things that he himself has done. WP:INHERITED. Much of the article is impossible to verify ("Solo has done work for many artists...."), and some of the article is incorrect and misleading. For example, the Macy Gray single "Sweet Baby" did not "top the Billboard charts;" rather, it reached Number 24 on the "Hot Adult Top 40 Chart" which is not anything close to the "Hot 100" chart that is normally referred to as the main U.S. Billboard singles chart. Indeed, the reference to the chart on the page for Sweet Baby (song) is not verified either. As another example, the long quote under "Developing Macy Gray" is simply a quote -- not sourced -- from Solo himself. It is clear that this is simply Solo inserting "quotes" that he wrote himself, into his own article. There is no evidence at all that he "developed" Macy Gray. Zacaparum ( talk) 03:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge. (already done) ( non-admin closure) — Theo polisme 21:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Not a real or notable subject. Creator stated that this was created to fix a red link. Possible remedy: merge with Waybuloo. BO | Talk 18:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Mediran ( t • c) 04:52, 20 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Seems to be paraphrased from [4] but I'm not quite confident enough to go for WP:G12 wintonian talk 18:27, 13 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Consensus was article subject lacked notability j⚛e decker talk 18:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Dont really think this is notable enough for an article. Surely it could be merged into the 'Internet Meme' article? Mikeo34 ( talk) 18:23, 13 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. I am taking the unusual step of deleting this myself despite the fact that I commented here. The reasons are that there is obviously a WP:SNOW level of support for deletion, and I have just blocked the creator of this article, who is apparently also the writer, director, star, only person who even onows it exists in the first place, etc... so it is highly unlikely there are any improvements forthcoming that would change the situation. Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD, not-yet-existent, no indication of notability, and no indication that it's anything other than an amateur video production, presumably for YouTube. Acroterion (talk) 18:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Go Phightins ! 22:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Only sources are LDS-related, and since he is an official of that church, they can't be classified as reliable, independent sources; sorry p b p 17:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) — Theo polisme 21:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Doesn't appear to have any reliable, independent (i.e. not tied in with the LDS church of which he is an official) sources. Therefore, delete. PROD declined by article creator p b p 17:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was Nom withdrawn. Thanks to some excellent source finding, I've w/drawn the nom and will redirect the film's page to the main article for Dunlap. Tokyogirl79 ( talk) 21:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC) reply
I came across this while looking at currently PRODed articles. A quick look at the article shows a lack of sources and a search brought up nothing that would show that this actor/director/writer is ultimately notable. I couldn't find anything but one sole source [5] that is both independent and reliable, although Tulsa People might not necessarily be considered a RS. I'm also listing his film Greyscale for deletion. While it does exist and has some notable persons involved with it, neither of those things give notability in and of themselves. Neither the film nor its creator seem to meet any of the notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 ( talk) 16:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy deleted (G12) by Jimfbleak. (non-admin closure) Lugia2453 ( talk) 19:26, 13 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Contested prod, no explanation. Painter with questionable notability. Nothing on GNews. Blanchardb - Me• MyEars• MyMouth- timed 16:45, 13 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:10, 21 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Seem phishing website, hong kong official bureau is called Securities and Futures Commission. Asiaworldcity ( talk) 16:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to List of Japanese supercentenarians. ( non-admin closure) — Theo polisme 21:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Aside from being a WP:BLP1E case (the "one event" is being old, not a specific birthday), this article fails WP:N's requirement of non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent third-party sources. Searching, all I see is trivial mentions on lists and forums, nothing of any substance. This report on the oldest people has a paragraph on her, but even most of that is about the place she lives, not about the person. Take out all the trivia and there's nothing here. Canadian Paul 16:10, 13 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Notability j⚛e decker talk 18:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Article tagged for lack of notability since April 2011. Doesn't indicate the significance of the subject and is written like advertisement. Delete per WP:WEB. Forgot to put name ( talk) 15:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Non-notable rabbi and author and blogger. [Removed comment felt as attacking by at least one editor below. הסרפד ( Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo]] הסרפד ( Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 15:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Delete per WP:N and WP:V. Claims of notable achievements and awards could not be verified, and the things that can be verified do not amount to notability. This person was recently AfD'd and the result was keep; I myself !voted keep, based on what appeared to be coverage in a reliable source, The Hindu, primarily this article. But since that discussion was closed, there has been extensive discussion at the article's talk page, which revealed the coverage to be credulous repetition of outlandish and unlikely claims. This person appears to be hero-worshipped and mythologized in India, primarily on social media sites. But the huge claims about him (a $5 million "Man of the Millennium" award from an unspecified American organization, a nonexistent award from the UN, President Clinton seeking him out when he visited India, etc.) could not be confirmed by any independent source. The unverified claims have been deleted from the article, and the verified information that remains - he exists, he founded a non-notable charity, he received an award from his local Rotary organization - does not meet the criterion of notability. MelanieN ( talk) 15:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily closed, protected against vandalism, and vandals blocked. Reaper Eternal ( talk) 15:19, 13 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Totally negative article. Users have removed the speedy delete template. Skamecrazy123 ( talk) 15:13, 13 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Notability j⚛e decker talk 18:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete under WP:CSD#G7 by Anthony Bradbury ( talk · contribs). Non-admin closure of deleted article. § FreeRangeFrog croak 17:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Unremarkable individual. The only reliable source non peer reviewed (Yoga Journal) references a product release. If we accept this bio, we can basically accept any yoga instructor who has a bio on the web. BO | Talk 14:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. (Criterion G4) JamesBWatson ( talk) 13:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Not notable per WP:AIRCRASH. Military flights meet different criteria. Nobody famous on board, no WP:PERSISTENCE
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) — Theo polisme 21:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC) reply
WP:Dicdef. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#A7. You cannot avoid speedy deletion by continually removing the tags. JohnCD ( talk) 16:55, 13 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Non notable...fails wp:gng should have been speedy deleted but coi editor/sock? has repeatedly removed the tag. Theroadislong ( talk) 14:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC) reply
I respect your involvement towards improving Wikipedia, but my life has vastly been affected by his Anti-smoking campaign. There are many articles completely non-notable, you can put them for deletion. This one is notable as many local people are affected by his workings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saridon ( talk • contribs) 15:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Notability j⚛e decker talk 18:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Highly promotional; 92,000 GHits, and I couldn't find any significant mainstream coverage. It's vaguely possible that a complete re-write could save this article, but otherwise I don't see how it could meet WP:V or WP:CREATIVE. — Francophonie&Androphilie( Je vous invite à me parler) 11:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. I hate to do this given that there definitely seems to be consensus to do something...but there is no clear consensus on what big step should be taken. It's clear that there are likely too many articles here, but it's unclear which ones should be kept. The key question that needs to be answered is whether or not there is a legitimate topic collecting the various cases together, and, if there is, whether these specific cases "stand alone" or are better covered in an even the even wider BBC controversies article. I don't think this kind of question can be answered in an AfD. I recommend starting an RfC on one of the article's talk pages and adding a notifcation to all of the related pages, and seeing if you can get consensus that way. Qwyrxian ( talk) 04:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The article duplicates material already contained in other articles, notably Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal, Criticism of the BBC#Sexual abuse of children, BBC controversies#October 2012: Jimmy Savile abuse scandal, and to a lesser extent North Wales child abuse scandal. The article was originally created in good faith by a new user, User:Jstevewiki, and was promoted through the WP:AfC process, being moved into mainspace here by User:Ritchie333. No attempt was made to contact the editors of overlapping articles through article talk pages. As well as highlighting a flaw in the AfC system, the existence of this article is unnecessary because it duplicates existing information. I've edited it - removing unreliable or poor sources, correcting grammar and factual accuracy, etc. - but I still fail to see the reason for this article existing given that several other articles cover the same topics. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 12:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC) reply
We cannot expect the closing ADMIN to undertake all this editing. Can we accept this (or somethign similar)? If so, Can we have a volunteer to undertake the editing to the new organisation, once this proposal is accepted. The AFD will probably need to stay open until this is implemented. When it is, it may be that one or more article will be redundant. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete as hoax vandalism. There were even more clear markers in the edit history than caught below. Uncle G ( talk) 10:42, 13 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Unbelievable mess of an article, quite possibly a hoax since it doesn't appear to be covered anywhere except on this page. Sources in article (they both link to the same page) mention neither the theory nor its creators. There are also bits and bobs from all over the place thrown in - the infobox is for military equipment, there's a random cast list at the bottom of the page, naming someone who isnt mentioned anywhere else, and the References section is - well, go and see for yourself. Totally unsuited for inclusion on Wikipedia. Yunshui 雲 水 10:09, 13 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. -- BDD ( talk) 20:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC) ( non-admin closure) reply
The article has only one reference (a dead link) and makes many claims about the subject that are unsupported - one statement even claims that an individual involved with the political party was accused of murder. The person may still be living and this is totally in contradiction to Wikipedia's policy on living persons. This page lacks any reputable source (in fact, it lacks any reference at all) and should be deleted. If anyone disputes this, feel free to post your argument on this page. Minigoody101 ( talk) 09:36, 13 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC) reply
No evidence of such name or independence+unification movement. ELEKHH T 09:11, 13 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. KEEP as a combination of WP:IAR and WP:SNOW: the nominated article no longer exists, the copyvio properly Kerrrzappped. The new article may be renominated, of course, but I doubt that it will. Drmies ( talk) 17:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The article is directly copied from wiki.answers.com Wakowako ( talk) 08:57, 13 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC) reply
This seems to have been some good faith educational experiment, but the text is completely lacking focus, not being about the topic, but general aspects of ecology or some particular aspects of Malaysian Borneo only. I see nothing useful in there worth keeping, so is better to delete to enable a fresh start. ELEKHH T 08:43, 13 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC) reply
This article was created in April 2012 without any sources. There has been no substantive work done on it since. The language is unclear ("pollution" and "trash" are interchanged and undefined, "gets" and "gains" are interchanged and undefined). The science appears to be poor, e.g. no allowance is made for total volume of flow. The article is an orphan, and the article remains completely unsourced. Frappyjohn ( talk) 07:05, 13 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Per lack of assertions as to the notability of the underlying even to overcome a claim of WP:CRYSTAL. MBisanz talk 03:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Crystal - anticipated event in Feb 2013, not currently notable No unique names 03:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Time for a new tactic. Argueing to keep this page is pointless because MtKing and Hasteur won't listen to reason. It's time for a new tactic. Contact the Real wikipedia staff at donate@wikimedia.org and let them know that you won't be donating 1 cent to wikipedia until all UFC pages are rightfully restored. Spread the word. 119.225.96.189 ( talk) 03:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)htww — 119.225.96.189 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Keep As per reasons stated above in favour of the same outcome. Nothing more than the same users using the same failed reasons as to why UFC events are not notable. Would suggest that those users who disagree with these pages to be more productive than add a tag for deletion or vote to delete, such as help those who built up the page/s to beef it up to the point in which questioning notability will not exist. Very strong sources on this subject, and one could compare this sort of event to that of a WWE event, such Royal Rumble (2013), which was originally created on January 30, 2012, which is around a year before it happens, and was largely billed as The Rock's return match for the WWE title against CM Punk, which is unlikely to happen now due to the injury the champion recently suffered. Does this affect that events notability too? Does that mean that that event, just over a month away as well, should have a deletion tag on it because it clearly fails WP:CRYSTAL due to the high profile nature the event has received prior to the injury so plans are now scuffled for the event? Once you come to an answer for that then you have an answer for any events the UFC holds also. Pound4Pound ( talk) 22:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Keep....but stub. I don't know exactly if this runs afoul of WP:INVOLVED, but it's clear from this discussion that there is consensus (from those who understand Wikipedia's policies) that the current article is overly promotional. There also appears to be consensus that the underlying subject is notable enough to pass WP:ORG/ WP:GNG. As such, I'm closing this diiscussion as keep, but then I am going to go to the article and stub it. I will keep the two sources provided here that DGG specifically points to as being helpful; other editors are then welcome to re-add reliably sourced info that is neutral in tone. Qwyrxian ( talk) 04:13, 22 December 2012 (UTC) reply
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
This is a single class at a single school, and i would normally have no hesitation in deleting it as A7. But there seems to be sources about it, indicating it has been cited as an especially interesting example. I would tend to regard the article as rather promotional, but not to the extent of qualifying as G11. At least some of it is copied from their website, but possibly not totally, so if it is notable, that part can be rewritten. I originally tagged it as G12, but on reflection, I can not show it is entirely copyvio. I leave it to the community to decide what to do with it. DGG ( talk ) 06:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC) reply
A second argument is that the articles cited above are ‘press releases’. However it's also claimed that the mentions are in passing. These two claims seem to be at odds with each other. A press release would hardly have passing claims. ‘Passing’ mentions is what you would expect from independent articles written on the subject of entrepreneurship and entrepreneurs in Canada and the various programmes in the country, including The Next 36, that are trying to effect change, for the better, on that subject. Best efforts were made to pull all information about the The Next 36 from the articles cited. Only in few small circumstances where information was missing was it pulled from the official website. I would not argue with removing the content in the article that is pulled from the official website if that would help with the decision to keep the article. Example, the lower bound on the investment dollars the ventures received was pulled from their website. The upper bound was cited from the appropriate article.
Not a single press release from The Next 36 was cited. For reference, a list of press releases can be found here: http://www.newswire.ca/en/search?Ntt=The+Next+36
Furthermore, under notable the fifth criterion is presumed. Given that The Next 36 passes the first four tests of notability, at the very least The Next 36 should be included somewhere given its notability. However, while it is affiliated with the Canadian Universities mentioned in the articles cited, it is independent of all of them, so inclusion in one of their university entries would not be appropriate.
Concerning being an SPA. I’ve learned a lot in the last week interacting with fellow editors and administrators in the community and appreciate your patience.
Other misc points: I believe Anulmn is talking about his venture, which was incubated in The Next 36, not as an employee or founder of the The Next 36. Lasso615 ( talk) 15:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC) reply
As was mentioned before none of the sources are press releases, they are from national papers including Canada's Globe & Mail, Vancouver Sun, National Post, Financial Post and The Toronto Star. Most of the articles sourced are solely on the program, and not mentions of it. The founding patrons of the program are prominent figures in Canadian business and can be linked through other wikipedia pages. This was my first article I have submitted on Wikipedia, and I plan on submitting more, however I felt this was an ideal topic to start on as I am an alumni of the program and felt that since I am independent of the organization I am a viable source.
I too am learning, and have replaced any of the copy that I took directly from the website, or news articles. I would appreciate any advice to changing the article to keep it up. I would argue that the claim WP:GNG about notability was not researched as the community had already approved the article for its notability as it meets:
"Significant coverage" 13 Sources from National Sources.
"Reliable" - Published works in Print and Video. Media available in French and English. Secondary sources noted.
"Sources" - Multiple Sources and Authors from National News Sources.
"Independent of the subject" - Author Independent of the organization.
"Presumed" - No stand alone articles, National News Sources, Canadian University Partnerships.
Thanks for the help so far! Please give feedback!! Samjura ( talk) 05:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC) reply
What do we have here that is even worth considering as being substantially about the program: Financial Post Aug 15, and Nov 7. I consider them both PR. There's nothing else that is substantial. DGG ( talk ) 11:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Samjura ( talk) 14:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:CORP. No external refs at all. Refs that are provided demonstrate only that it exists and organizes conferences. Highly POV style which fails WP:ARTSPAM. Not notable Velella Velella Talk 11:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Adrienne Clarkson. MBisanz talk 03:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Non-notable radio presenter. Elongated shorty ( talk) 02:23, 13 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Go Phightins ! 22:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Notoriety - This page was discussed as a merge with Chip Coffey many months ago. Nothing came of that discussion. I have waited many months to see if this page would be expanded. It has not. I do not propose it merging with the Chip Coffey page as that would mean we were left with one page, with two paragraphs. The only citation on this page is one to its A&E webpage. Sgerbic ( talk) 01:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 03:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Notoriety - Only one reference to Baba in a secondary source, that mention is highly questionable, other "notes" on the page do not reference him directly except to the story that the mud-man was hundreds of years old and other fictional stories. I cleaned up most of the problems a few weeks ago (including the category for his birth in the year 900) and have been waiting to see if anyone found anything of relevance to prove his noteworthiness, this has not happened. Sgerbic ( talk) 01:57, 13 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. The arguments have it: keep. The [23] version that the delete voters looked at is utterly different from the ones subsequent keep voters saw. "Delete per nom" loses a bit of its value after the nom withdraws; "not urban dictionary" is undercut by the rigorous sourcing presented in this discussion--the article merely awaits implementation of Uncle G's research (hint!). Ryan, I trust there won't be a discussion next month, but I'll accept your lean. Drmies ( talk) 17:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following related page, which is merely a redirect left over from the move, and depending on the outcome of this discussion could be tagged {{
Db-xfd}}:
Wikipedia is not a dictionary; we already have
wikt:jump to conclusions; inbound links appear to be inconsequential. --
Trevj (
talk)
15:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
reply
Coin945, you had the right idea. You even had the right title. You just had utterly poor sources. Here are some of the many better ones, which should show you where else to look for more. Go! ☺
Zad
68
16:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
replyReferences
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The article defines a Greek word. It should be deleted per WP:NOTDICT. - Mr X 01:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Term just a minor meme/phrase that isn't notable. The article is mostly just quotes from the sources, and doesn't appear to meet the notability guidelines. Encyclopedic content could be moved to Indie rock or Independent music, though I'm not sure anything is actually noteworthy. NYSM talk page 00:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Mediran ( t • c) 05:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC) reply
This article seems to be a prima facie violation of WP:DIRECTORY. Programming evolves, and I fail to see how this article has any encyclopaedic value whether as a historical record or as a list of current programmes being broadcast. Ohconfucius ping / poke 02:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. This is discussion is way overdue ( non-admin closure) JayJay What did I do? 00:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Classical case of WP:BLP1E. Just living for a long time does not make someone notable. Also fails WP:GNG. Randykitty ( talk) 12:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC) reply
With the death of Mamie Rearden, Elsie Thompson is now the oldest living person in the United States. If that's not notable, I don't know what is. I am keeping my previous Keep vote for this article. Futurist110 ( talk) 20:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Non-notable artist. Also, the content is almost irretrievable and it is embarrassingly bad. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 05:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 03:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Non-notable musician who fails WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:NMUSIC, as well as WP:42, WP:GNG, etc. Qworty ( talk) 11:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The Steve 21:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Roll with It (Oasis song). ( non-admin closure) Mediran ( t • c) 00:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Non-notable B-side to an Oasis single that has not appeared on any other release by the band. Special K( KoЯn flakes) 19:08, 6 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Regular Show (season 1). j⚛e decker talk 19:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC) reply
A contested prod. Non-notable episode of a TV show. No significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. Rotten regard 22:21, 6 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Regular Show (season 1). While there is a consensus that the article is not notable, no direct or indirect argument was made to the suggestion of a redirect. j⚛e decker talk 19:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC) reply
A contested prod. Non-notable episode of a TV show. No significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. Rotten regard 22:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC) reply
![]() |
The result was redirect to Indie game. MBisanz talk 03:05, 21 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Cannot find any WP:verifiable sources supporting that the term "amateur adventure games" is notable. Any notable games could be included in Adventure games 1292simon ( talk) 23:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) — Theo polisme 21:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:Notability. Altairisfar ( talk) 23:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:05, 21 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Puff piece: reads like a Vanity Fair profile or something, and the only substantial claim to fame - that he's "one of the richest living italian [ sic] artists" - appears to be entirely false. (Or, if it's true, the bar's pretty damn low.) Delete as cruft failing WP:CREATIVE. — Francophonie&Androphilie( Je vous invite à me parler) 23:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Amended. See below. — Francophonie&Androphilie( Je vous invite à me parler) 00:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted as A1. NAC. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 13:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Unreferenced article about an unreleased film, fails WP:NFF notability guideline. No references found in Google News and Books. - Mr X 23:12, 13 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Apparently non-notable musician, fails WP:NMUSIC. Does not appear to have released any albums on well known labels or meet any other point in the notability guidelines. Pol430 talk to me 22:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC) reply
*Keeper All above ignore notable contribution as; Producer, Rob Keyloch
here (Unless we choose to ignore album credits as published works!) FreeLance 12:15, 14 December 2012
The result was Speedy Keep per WP:WITHDRAWN. The not notable delete !vote did not seem reasonable to with hold a speedy keep. ( non-admin closure) Mkdw talk 09:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Seems to be a poorly sourced CV for a United Nations official. I can see online he is mentioned briefly in several news articles about UN activity, but nothing substantial to pass WP:GNG. Sionk ( talk) 23:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Keep. Location's substantial improvements to the article demonstrate notability over many years. PWilkinson ( talk) 13:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC) reply
BLP article about a non-notable person. No Google news stories, and the only a few trivial mentions in Google books. The only references provided in the article are press releases or equivalent. - Mr X 21:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted pursuant to CSD A7. Non-admin closure. Safiel ( talk) 01:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC) reply
WP:SPAM article created by a suspected WP:COI editor to promote a company, fails WP:CORP. Article was nominated for WP:CSD as spam, but an IP editor removed the CSD tag in his or her first and only edit to an article. - Ahunt ( talk) 20:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Recreated article previously deleted via proposed deletion; slightly-amended original rationale follows. The tone of the article is highly promotional and contains peacock terms. No indication of notability, and only cites subject's own website and official bios. Creator's account seems to exist for the single purpose of discussing the subject of this article (see contribs, deletion log of identical article created by same user). Does not appear to meet WP:CREATIVE notability criteria. Kinu t/ c 20:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to RT (TV network)#Programming. The nominator's position that there the subject does not meet WP:GNG has not been rebutted, nor have sufficient independent RS been added to call the claim into question. I'll leave a redirect behind to the TV network, however, as that way people can at least find the show's name Qwyrxian ( talk) 03:49, 22 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The A7 speedy deletion tag was removed with the claim that the rt.com source is a reliable source and therefore A7 does not apply. In actuality the rt.com site is the network's own site, meaning that the material on that webpage was placed there by her employer. This does not make her notable. Citation #8 and 9 are YouTube videos; the video at citation #11 does not mention her by name, and citation #10 is not about her at all. The stuff in the "Trivia" section is for the most part self-sourced to her own organisation's website MediaRoots.org. I think the article as it presently stands does not establish that the subject is notable enough for a Wikipedia article, and have opened this AFD to get some opinions from people who are more experienced in this area. Thanks. Dianna ( talk) 19:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC) reply
'the video at citation #11 does not mention her by name,'
The title is: 'WeAreChange confronts Rand Paul about how he tried to get Abby Martin of RT America and Mediaroots.org fired and stripped of her press credentials for asking him tough questions in the Capitol building.'
It features her confronting Paul and being interviewed about it.
I could offer a full-length version of the interview if it'd help: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UKXpzdFQ_I
'citation #10 is not about her at all.' It's (obviously) there to support the claim of Mitt Romney being an interventionist; which helps to explain the story.
Beingsshepherd ( talk) 01:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)Beingsshepherd reply
Ok, I think I can satisfy that: Infowars Nightly News: Thursday (6-7-12) – Abby Martin – planet.infowars.com/uncategorized/infowars-nightly-news-thursday-6-7-12-abby-martin infowars.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used @ 1:02:54 & RT’s Abby Martin : Israel’s War on Truth By Debbie Menon on 11/23/2012 [3] ~ 'Sabbah Report is a certified ‘Google News’ source for news and Op-Ed' http://sabbah.biz/mt/about/ It continues to mystify me, as to why this RT presenter's page IS acceptable: Marina_Dzhashi
Beingsshepherd ( talk) 02:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)Beingsshepherd reply
Dianna, this may sound impudent; but I disagree.
Before spending the time writing a Wiki article; I gauged what was seemingly acceptable, by looking at other pages. Perhaps my first 2 attempts failed to honour the letter of Wiki law; but I genuinely believed, both: that there would be no problem with a page dedicated to someone who hosts a half-hour television programme, internationally, several times a day, 5 days a week; and that my transgressions could be deemed beginner's mistakes - easily amended.
Presumably, the other RT presenter's articles passed through the same screening process, and were deemed legitimate?
If that's so; then I feel mislead and have had my time wasted.
Maybe you're all a bit jumpy over Wiki's recent 'Brett Straub' Leveson_Inquiry embarrassment. Beingsshepherd ( talk) 01:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)Beingsshepherd reply
I have done some clean-up on the article and gone over the citations individually to see what we've got.
That leaves is with Citation #12 (Sabbah Report); #14 WeAreChange.org (Luke Rudowski's website); #16 - website of a book for which she did artwork. I commented out one citation, which is an interview of Martin on a show called Infowars Nightly News, which confirms she is in the media but does not back up any of the other content in the article. WP:SPIP calls for in-depth coverage by independent reliable sources; in other words, someone (other than the subject of the article and her employer) needs to find her notable enough to have written up detailed coverage of her life and career. There's no such coverage in this case. This means that it's almost impossible to get a neutrally-worded article; there simply isn't any neutral independent coverage on which to draw. Therefore it's still my opinion that the article should be deleted as the subject is not notable enough, as Wikipedia defines it, for an article at this time. -- Dianna ( talk) 16:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Not notable as scientist Divega ( talk) 09:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC) reply
This person is not notable. This is a promotional public relations piece, written by a publicist. The article discusses a series of decidedly minor achievements by Solo, none of which are notable, and the article is poorly sourced. For example, giving "weekend workshops" in the music industry is not notable. Being an "alumni of the Shaker Heights Hall of Fame" is not notable. There is even a reference to "uncredited" co-writing contributions to a minor hit song by a music group called Shiny Toy Guns, which is, by definition, totally unsourced. These activities do not meet the notability criteria stated in WP:MUSICBIO or WP:COMPOSER. If anything, Solo has allegedly associated himself with a few moderately famous people, like Macy Gray, but, other than working with them occasionally, he has not achieved much success for things that he himself has done. WP:INHERITED. Much of the article is impossible to verify ("Solo has done work for many artists...."), and some of the article is incorrect and misleading. For example, the Macy Gray single "Sweet Baby" did not "top the Billboard charts;" rather, it reached Number 24 on the "Hot Adult Top 40 Chart" which is not anything close to the "Hot 100" chart that is normally referred to as the main U.S. Billboard singles chart. Indeed, the reference to the chart on the page for Sweet Baby (song) is not verified either. As another example, the long quote under "Developing Macy Gray" is simply a quote -- not sourced -- from Solo himself. It is clear that this is simply Solo inserting "quotes" that he wrote himself, into his own article. There is no evidence at all that he "developed" Macy Gray. Zacaparum ( talk) 03:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge. (already done) ( non-admin closure) — Theo polisme 21:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Not a real or notable subject. Creator stated that this was created to fix a red link. Possible remedy: merge with Waybuloo. BO | Talk 18:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Mediran ( t • c) 04:52, 20 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Seems to be paraphrased from [4] but I'm not quite confident enough to go for WP:G12 wintonian talk 18:27, 13 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Consensus was article subject lacked notability j⚛e decker talk 18:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Dont really think this is notable enough for an article. Surely it could be merged into the 'Internet Meme' article? Mikeo34 ( talk) 18:23, 13 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. I am taking the unusual step of deleting this myself despite the fact that I commented here. The reasons are that there is obviously a WP:SNOW level of support for deletion, and I have just blocked the creator of this article, who is apparently also the writer, director, star, only person who even onows it exists in the first place, etc... so it is highly unlikely there are any improvements forthcoming that would change the situation. Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD, not-yet-existent, no indication of notability, and no indication that it's anything other than an amateur video production, presumably for YouTube. Acroterion (talk) 18:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Go Phightins ! 22:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Only sources are LDS-related, and since he is an official of that church, they can't be classified as reliable, independent sources; sorry p b p 17:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) — Theo polisme 21:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Doesn't appear to have any reliable, independent (i.e. not tied in with the LDS church of which he is an official) sources. Therefore, delete. PROD declined by article creator p b p 17:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was Nom withdrawn. Thanks to some excellent source finding, I've w/drawn the nom and will redirect the film's page to the main article for Dunlap. Tokyogirl79 ( talk) 21:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC) reply
I came across this while looking at currently PRODed articles. A quick look at the article shows a lack of sources and a search brought up nothing that would show that this actor/director/writer is ultimately notable. I couldn't find anything but one sole source [5] that is both independent and reliable, although Tulsa People might not necessarily be considered a RS. I'm also listing his film Greyscale for deletion. While it does exist and has some notable persons involved with it, neither of those things give notability in and of themselves. Neither the film nor its creator seem to meet any of the notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 ( talk) 16:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy deleted (G12) by Jimfbleak. (non-admin closure) Lugia2453 ( talk) 19:26, 13 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Contested prod, no explanation. Painter with questionable notability. Nothing on GNews. Blanchardb - Me• MyEars• MyMouth- timed 16:45, 13 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:10, 21 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Seem phishing website, hong kong official bureau is called Securities and Futures Commission. Asiaworldcity ( talk) 16:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to List of Japanese supercentenarians. ( non-admin closure) — Theo polisme 21:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Aside from being a WP:BLP1E case (the "one event" is being old, not a specific birthday), this article fails WP:N's requirement of non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent third-party sources. Searching, all I see is trivial mentions on lists and forums, nothing of any substance. This report on the oldest people has a paragraph on her, but even most of that is about the place she lives, not about the person. Take out all the trivia and there's nothing here. Canadian Paul 16:10, 13 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Notability j⚛e decker talk 18:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Article tagged for lack of notability since April 2011. Doesn't indicate the significance of the subject and is written like advertisement. Delete per WP:WEB. Forgot to put name ( talk) 15:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Non-notable rabbi and author and blogger. [Removed comment felt as attacking by at least one editor below. הסרפד ( Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo]] הסרפד ( Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 15:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Delete per WP:N and WP:V. Claims of notable achievements and awards could not be verified, and the things that can be verified do not amount to notability. This person was recently AfD'd and the result was keep; I myself !voted keep, based on what appeared to be coverage in a reliable source, The Hindu, primarily this article. But since that discussion was closed, there has been extensive discussion at the article's talk page, which revealed the coverage to be credulous repetition of outlandish and unlikely claims. This person appears to be hero-worshipped and mythologized in India, primarily on social media sites. But the huge claims about him (a $5 million "Man of the Millennium" award from an unspecified American organization, a nonexistent award from the UN, President Clinton seeking him out when he visited India, etc.) could not be confirmed by any independent source. The unverified claims have been deleted from the article, and the verified information that remains - he exists, he founded a non-notable charity, he received an award from his local Rotary organization - does not meet the criterion of notability. MelanieN ( talk) 15:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily closed, protected against vandalism, and vandals blocked. Reaper Eternal ( talk) 15:19, 13 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Totally negative article. Users have removed the speedy delete template. Skamecrazy123 ( talk) 15:13, 13 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Notability j⚛e decker talk 18:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete under WP:CSD#G7 by Anthony Bradbury ( talk · contribs). Non-admin closure of deleted article. § FreeRangeFrog croak 17:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Unremarkable individual. The only reliable source non peer reviewed (Yoga Journal) references a product release. If we accept this bio, we can basically accept any yoga instructor who has a bio on the web. BO | Talk 14:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. (Criterion G4) JamesBWatson ( talk) 13:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Not notable per WP:AIRCRASH. Military flights meet different criteria. Nobody famous on board, no WP:PERSISTENCE
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) — Theo polisme 21:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC) reply
WP:Dicdef. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#A7. You cannot avoid speedy deletion by continually removing the tags. JohnCD ( talk) 16:55, 13 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Non notable...fails wp:gng should have been speedy deleted but coi editor/sock? has repeatedly removed the tag. Theroadislong ( talk) 14:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC) reply
I respect your involvement towards improving Wikipedia, but my life has vastly been affected by his Anti-smoking campaign. There are many articles completely non-notable, you can put them for deletion. This one is notable as many local people are affected by his workings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saridon ( talk • contribs) 15:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Notability j⚛e decker talk 18:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Highly promotional; 92,000 GHits, and I couldn't find any significant mainstream coverage. It's vaguely possible that a complete re-write could save this article, but otherwise I don't see how it could meet WP:V or WP:CREATIVE. — Francophonie&Androphilie( Je vous invite à me parler) 11:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. I hate to do this given that there definitely seems to be consensus to do something...but there is no clear consensus on what big step should be taken. It's clear that there are likely too many articles here, but it's unclear which ones should be kept. The key question that needs to be answered is whether or not there is a legitimate topic collecting the various cases together, and, if there is, whether these specific cases "stand alone" or are better covered in an even the even wider BBC controversies article. I don't think this kind of question can be answered in an AfD. I recommend starting an RfC on one of the article's talk pages and adding a notifcation to all of the related pages, and seeing if you can get consensus that way. Qwyrxian ( talk) 04:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The article duplicates material already contained in other articles, notably Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal, Criticism of the BBC#Sexual abuse of children, BBC controversies#October 2012: Jimmy Savile abuse scandal, and to a lesser extent North Wales child abuse scandal. The article was originally created in good faith by a new user, User:Jstevewiki, and was promoted through the WP:AfC process, being moved into mainspace here by User:Ritchie333. No attempt was made to contact the editors of overlapping articles through article talk pages. As well as highlighting a flaw in the AfC system, the existence of this article is unnecessary because it duplicates existing information. I've edited it - removing unreliable or poor sources, correcting grammar and factual accuracy, etc. - but I still fail to see the reason for this article existing given that several other articles cover the same topics. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 12:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC) reply
We cannot expect the closing ADMIN to undertake all this editing. Can we accept this (or somethign similar)? If so, Can we have a volunteer to undertake the editing to the new organisation, once this proposal is accepted. The AFD will probably need to stay open until this is implemented. When it is, it may be that one or more article will be redundant. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete as hoax vandalism. There were even more clear markers in the edit history than caught below. Uncle G ( talk) 10:42, 13 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Unbelievable mess of an article, quite possibly a hoax since it doesn't appear to be covered anywhere except on this page. Sources in article (they both link to the same page) mention neither the theory nor its creators. There are also bits and bobs from all over the place thrown in - the infobox is for military equipment, there's a random cast list at the bottom of the page, naming someone who isnt mentioned anywhere else, and the References section is - well, go and see for yourself. Totally unsuited for inclusion on Wikipedia. Yunshui 雲 水 10:09, 13 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. -- BDD ( talk) 20:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC) ( non-admin closure) reply
The article has only one reference (a dead link) and makes many claims about the subject that are unsupported - one statement even claims that an individual involved with the political party was accused of murder. The person may still be living and this is totally in contradiction to Wikipedia's policy on living persons. This page lacks any reputable source (in fact, it lacks any reference at all) and should be deleted. If anyone disputes this, feel free to post your argument on this page. Minigoody101 ( talk) 09:36, 13 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC) reply
No evidence of such name or independence+unification movement. ELEKHH T 09:11, 13 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. KEEP as a combination of WP:IAR and WP:SNOW: the nominated article no longer exists, the copyvio properly Kerrrzappped. The new article may be renominated, of course, but I doubt that it will. Drmies ( talk) 17:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The article is directly copied from wiki.answers.com Wakowako ( talk) 08:57, 13 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC) reply
This seems to have been some good faith educational experiment, but the text is completely lacking focus, not being about the topic, but general aspects of ecology or some particular aspects of Malaysian Borneo only. I see nothing useful in there worth keeping, so is better to delete to enable a fresh start. ELEKHH T 08:43, 13 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC) reply
This article was created in April 2012 without any sources. There has been no substantive work done on it since. The language is unclear ("pollution" and "trash" are interchanged and undefined, "gets" and "gains" are interchanged and undefined). The science appears to be poor, e.g. no allowance is made for total volume of flow. The article is an orphan, and the article remains completely unsourced. Frappyjohn ( talk) 07:05, 13 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Per lack of assertions as to the notability of the underlying even to overcome a claim of WP:CRYSTAL. MBisanz talk 03:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Crystal - anticipated event in Feb 2013, not currently notable No unique names 03:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Time for a new tactic. Argueing to keep this page is pointless because MtKing and Hasteur won't listen to reason. It's time for a new tactic. Contact the Real wikipedia staff at donate@wikimedia.org and let them know that you won't be donating 1 cent to wikipedia until all UFC pages are rightfully restored. Spread the word. 119.225.96.189 ( talk) 03:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)htww — 119.225.96.189 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Keep As per reasons stated above in favour of the same outcome. Nothing more than the same users using the same failed reasons as to why UFC events are not notable. Would suggest that those users who disagree with these pages to be more productive than add a tag for deletion or vote to delete, such as help those who built up the page/s to beef it up to the point in which questioning notability will not exist. Very strong sources on this subject, and one could compare this sort of event to that of a WWE event, such Royal Rumble (2013), which was originally created on January 30, 2012, which is around a year before it happens, and was largely billed as The Rock's return match for the WWE title against CM Punk, which is unlikely to happen now due to the injury the champion recently suffered. Does this affect that events notability too? Does that mean that that event, just over a month away as well, should have a deletion tag on it because it clearly fails WP:CRYSTAL due to the high profile nature the event has received prior to the injury so plans are now scuffled for the event? Once you come to an answer for that then you have an answer for any events the UFC holds also. Pound4Pound ( talk) 22:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Keep....but stub. I don't know exactly if this runs afoul of WP:INVOLVED, but it's clear from this discussion that there is consensus (from those who understand Wikipedia's policies) that the current article is overly promotional. There also appears to be consensus that the underlying subject is notable enough to pass WP:ORG/ WP:GNG. As such, I'm closing this diiscussion as keep, but then I am going to go to the article and stub it. I will keep the two sources provided here that DGG specifically points to as being helpful; other editors are then welcome to re-add reliably sourced info that is neutral in tone. Qwyrxian ( talk) 04:13, 22 December 2012 (UTC) reply
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
This is a single class at a single school, and i would normally have no hesitation in deleting it as A7. But there seems to be sources about it, indicating it has been cited as an especially interesting example. I would tend to regard the article as rather promotional, but not to the extent of qualifying as G11. At least some of it is copied from their website, but possibly not totally, so if it is notable, that part can be rewritten. I originally tagged it as G12, but on reflection, I can not show it is entirely copyvio. I leave it to the community to decide what to do with it. DGG ( talk ) 06:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC) reply
A second argument is that the articles cited above are ‘press releases’. However it's also claimed that the mentions are in passing. These two claims seem to be at odds with each other. A press release would hardly have passing claims. ‘Passing’ mentions is what you would expect from independent articles written on the subject of entrepreneurship and entrepreneurs in Canada and the various programmes in the country, including The Next 36, that are trying to effect change, for the better, on that subject. Best efforts were made to pull all information about the The Next 36 from the articles cited. Only in few small circumstances where information was missing was it pulled from the official website. I would not argue with removing the content in the article that is pulled from the official website if that would help with the decision to keep the article. Example, the lower bound on the investment dollars the ventures received was pulled from their website. The upper bound was cited from the appropriate article.
Not a single press release from The Next 36 was cited. For reference, a list of press releases can be found here: http://www.newswire.ca/en/search?Ntt=The+Next+36
Furthermore, under notable the fifth criterion is presumed. Given that The Next 36 passes the first four tests of notability, at the very least The Next 36 should be included somewhere given its notability. However, while it is affiliated with the Canadian Universities mentioned in the articles cited, it is independent of all of them, so inclusion in one of their university entries would not be appropriate.
Concerning being an SPA. I’ve learned a lot in the last week interacting with fellow editors and administrators in the community and appreciate your patience.
Other misc points: I believe Anulmn is talking about his venture, which was incubated in The Next 36, not as an employee or founder of the The Next 36. Lasso615 ( talk) 15:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC) reply
As was mentioned before none of the sources are press releases, they are from national papers including Canada's Globe & Mail, Vancouver Sun, National Post, Financial Post and The Toronto Star. Most of the articles sourced are solely on the program, and not mentions of it. The founding patrons of the program are prominent figures in Canadian business and can be linked through other wikipedia pages. This was my first article I have submitted on Wikipedia, and I plan on submitting more, however I felt this was an ideal topic to start on as I am an alumni of the program and felt that since I am independent of the organization I am a viable source.
I too am learning, and have replaced any of the copy that I took directly from the website, or news articles. I would appreciate any advice to changing the article to keep it up. I would argue that the claim WP:GNG about notability was not researched as the community had already approved the article for its notability as it meets:
"Significant coverage" 13 Sources from National Sources.
"Reliable" - Published works in Print and Video. Media available in French and English. Secondary sources noted.
"Sources" - Multiple Sources and Authors from National News Sources.
"Independent of the subject" - Author Independent of the organization.
"Presumed" - No stand alone articles, National News Sources, Canadian University Partnerships.
Thanks for the help so far! Please give feedback!! Samjura ( talk) 05:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC) reply
What do we have here that is even worth considering as being substantially about the program: Financial Post Aug 15, and Nov 7. I consider them both PR. There's nothing else that is substantial. DGG ( talk ) 11:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Samjura ( talk) 14:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:CORP. No external refs at all. Refs that are provided demonstrate only that it exists and organizes conferences. Highly POV style which fails WP:ARTSPAM. Not notable Velella Velella Talk 11:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Adrienne Clarkson. MBisanz talk 03:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Non-notable radio presenter. Elongated shorty ( talk) 02:23, 13 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Go Phightins ! 22:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Notoriety - This page was discussed as a merge with Chip Coffey many months ago. Nothing came of that discussion. I have waited many months to see if this page would be expanded. It has not. I do not propose it merging with the Chip Coffey page as that would mean we were left with one page, with two paragraphs. The only citation on this page is one to its A&E webpage. Sgerbic ( talk) 01:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 03:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Notoriety - Only one reference to Baba in a secondary source, that mention is highly questionable, other "notes" on the page do not reference him directly except to the story that the mud-man was hundreds of years old and other fictional stories. I cleaned up most of the problems a few weeks ago (including the category for his birth in the year 900) and have been waiting to see if anyone found anything of relevance to prove his noteworthiness, this has not happened. Sgerbic ( talk) 01:57, 13 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. The arguments have it: keep. The [23] version that the delete voters looked at is utterly different from the ones subsequent keep voters saw. "Delete per nom" loses a bit of its value after the nom withdraws; "not urban dictionary" is undercut by the rigorous sourcing presented in this discussion--the article merely awaits implementation of Uncle G's research (hint!). Ryan, I trust there won't be a discussion next month, but I'll accept your lean. Drmies ( talk) 17:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following related page, which is merely a redirect left over from the move, and depending on the outcome of this discussion could be tagged {{
Db-xfd}}:
Wikipedia is not a dictionary; we already have
wikt:jump to conclusions; inbound links appear to be inconsequential. --
Trevj (
talk)
15:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
reply
Coin945, you had the right idea. You even had the right title. You just had utterly poor sources. Here are some of the many better ones, which should show you where else to look for more. Go! ☺
Zad
68
16:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
replyReferences
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The article defines a Greek word. It should be deleted per WP:NOTDICT. - Mr X 01:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Term just a minor meme/phrase that isn't notable. The article is mostly just quotes from the sources, and doesn't appear to meet the notability guidelines. Encyclopedic content could be moved to Indie rock or Independent music, though I'm not sure anything is actually noteworthy. NYSM talk page 00:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Mediran ( t • c) 05:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC) reply
This article seems to be a prima facie violation of WP:DIRECTORY. Programming evolves, and I fail to see how this article has any encyclopaedic value whether as a historical record or as a list of current programmes being broadcast. Ohconfucius ping / poke 02:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. This is discussion is way overdue ( non-admin closure) JayJay What did I do? 00:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Classical case of WP:BLP1E. Just living for a long time does not make someone notable. Also fails WP:GNG. Randykitty ( talk) 12:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC) reply
With the death of Mamie Rearden, Elsie Thompson is now the oldest living person in the United States. If that's not notable, I don't know what is. I am keeping my previous Keep vote for this article. Futurist110 ( talk) 20:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Non-notable artist. Also, the content is almost irretrievable and it is embarrassingly bad. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 05:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 03:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Non-notable musician who fails WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:NMUSIC, as well as WP:42, WP:GNG, etc. Qworty ( talk) 11:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The Steve 21:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Roll with It (Oasis song). ( non-admin closure) Mediran ( t • c) 00:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Non-notable B-side to an Oasis single that has not appeared on any other release by the band. Special K( KoЯn flakes) 19:08, 6 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Regular Show (season 1). j⚛e decker talk 19:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC) reply
A contested prod. Non-notable episode of a TV show. No significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. Rotten regard 22:21, 6 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Regular Show (season 1). While there is a consensus that the article is not notable, no direct or indirect argument was made to the suggestion of a redirect. j⚛e decker talk 19:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC) reply
A contested prod. Non-notable episode of a TV show. No significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. Rotten regard 22:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC) reply