![]() |
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) JayJay What did I do? 00:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC) reply
There is no sourcing I can find that indicates any sort of notability. Mentions noted in previous AfD were nearly all trivial. Being a journalist who writes articles is not sufficient for notability. Article is very poorly sourced and has been hit with recent egregious BLP violations. The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 23:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The WP:GNG argument is convincing, and not seriously addressed by most of the minority of "keep" opinions. On that basis, no need to examine the sockery issue more closely. Sandstein 00:50, 5 January 2013 (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}} . |
Unremarkable website. Fails WP:GNG. Sources appear to be mainly press releases or paid insertions. Contested speedy deletion. The appearance of a new account ( User:James9210) and an IP ( User:86.149.216.3) removing the speedy deletion template suggests that a closer look at the article creator might be advisable. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 23:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC) reply
*Comment "Unremarkable Website" is an opinion, and Wikipedia is not built on opinions. Also as I recall one is supposed to assume good faith.
Meanie (
talk)
03:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
reply
Delicious Carbuncle has been blocked on Wikipedia before and this sort of behvaiour should not be tolerated.
Furthermore your behaviour has been reported through the internet. A quick google search brought up many results: e.g here: http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=28826&st=40
That MfD, of evidence/background content and diffs to be used on the RFCU regarding Delicious carbuncle and their interactions with several users was disturbingly derailed by Wikipedia Review editors who attempted to OUT the main author. This is a part of the behaviour that has been cited as problematic of Delicious carbuncle; that they use Wikipedia Review to essentially canvass offsite - especially when they don't get their way; and that they attempt to subdue and WP:Grief their perceived targets by publicly shaming and outing them. There was disagreement how intertwined the Wikipedia Review angle should be on the RFCU but this latest incident has helped clear up that Wikipedia Review is yet again being used to WP:Game Wikipedia, cause disruption and create WP:Drama on Wikipedia. It's sad but at least more and more editors are seeing how Wikipedia Review is used to erode collegial efforts and civility. IMHO, an RFCU must and will go forward but should not be compromised by rushing into it or being bullied by a website that seems to thrive on disrupting Wikipedia and enabling banned editors. -- Banjeboi 10:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craddock1 ( talk • contribs)
I would also like to point out I have spent a considerable amount of time making the article up to Wikipedia Standards (around 12 hours), find references, resources, talking to users, editors and admins. I hope this is taken into account.
Regarding the case:
Amirite has received notable coverage as a fast growing startup similarly to other sites such as Formspring and Amen -
please look them up on Wikipedia: Amen (website) · Formspring
The Amirite article was also approved by the Wikimedia Foundation Community Fellow User:SarahStierch
Nearly a billion votes have been processed on Amirite which shows it is remarkable so I completely disagree with that statement. Press coverage reflects the site is notable and furthermore won the UK's largest investment competition.
:Also featured in Urban dictionary: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=amirite
Site has also been compared to twitter: http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/share-opinions-online-amiritenet-amirite/ - again showing it is notable
http://www.killerstartups.com/startup-spotlight/amirite-post-your-opinion/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craddock1 ( talk • contribs) 03:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Site has over 100,000 twitter and facebook followers combined and was only released from Beta recently and 3 million pageviews per month, 700,000 posts, and 2 million comments. :Again this shows it is not 'unremarkable'.
Please close the deletion case. Multiple unsigned comments by user:Craddock1 Craddock1 ( talk) 01:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)grouped and signed by User:Excirial reply
*Keep - Website meets
WP:GNG after a look at sources, its clear it has been the subject of discussion in third party industry publications. The article needs some help stylistically, and it needs to come out of the orphanage, but it is generally well written and NPOV.
Meanie (
talk)
03:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
reply
*******One of the Globe Articles is an Article.
Boatingfaster (
talk) 18:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
********
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2011/05/15/amirite/ - specifically this one
Boatingfaster (
talk)
18:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
reply
Collapse duplicate comment posted below
|
---|
|
Collapse duplicate comment posted above
|
---|
|
http://home.techhustlers.com/twalops-social-transaction-platform-will-make-you-cash-and-its-free/
http://www.killerstartups.com/startups-tools-and-guides/instagram-for-business/ - Instagram is a well known site too
You are ignoring the other sources too: http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/share-opinions-online-amiritenet-amirite/ Makeuseof
http://venturebeatprofiles.com/company/profile/amirite-net
In addition Amirite came as a top 3 winner in the UK's Largest Investment Conference. I read about it in a printed paper (I think it was the Evening Standard) you can even email the chief judge of the event by scrolling down: http://www.techentrepreneursweek.com/ (For your reference Jimmy Wales was one of the judges) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craddock1 ( talk • contribs) 17:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC) Craddock1 17:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Keeping in mind that all articles must conform with the policy on verifiability to reliable sources, and that primary sources alone are not sufficient to establish notability; web-specific content[3] may be notable based on meeting ONE of the following criteria:M
The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations[4] except for media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site.[5] or trivial coverage, such as: a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site, newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, and content descriptions in directories or online stores.
The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization
The website has won a significant award as I have mentioned above (judged by Jimmy Wales Jimmy Wales and Martin Warner Martin Warner and also has been the subject of MULTIPLE non-trivial published works. While I understand your concerns that it has not been published in millions of published works it has indeed attracted significant attention. I do not have time to go through the whole of the Internet but that fact that there are 5 million backlinks going to the Amirite.net and .com combined suggests there are other mentions too.
If common sense prevails this article should definitely be kept Craddock1 23:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
As I said earlier we are only here because there are people like you out there in the world. If I didn't know any better I would think you tried to submit one of your sites on wikipedia which got rejected because it lacked notability. Its also funny how you ignore all the positive points I make but jump on any old rubbish you can find.Craddock1 00:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
What you need to concentrate on is reliable and verifiable sources. Backlinks don't count, nor do self-published accounts, such as press releases.
If the article has won a significant award, then a reliable source, and likely multiple reliable sources should cover it. The fact that Jimbo was a judge is not significant as far as notability. If you doubt that, ask him on his talkpage - Jimbo actually reads it and responds. Focus on the article, not editors. GregJackP Boomer! 02:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC) reply
CommentAll the valid resources have been removed from the article by someone. For Admin's eyes - please see article history. I have also proof they won that competition. I have also found multiple articles online from notable sources. Furthermore this competition was judgeed by leading Venture Capital firms such as such as Accel, Doughty Hanson, Index Ventures and Fidelity Growth Partners. If the following pages are permitted to have wikipedia pages I see no reason as to not allow Amirite to have a page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amen_(website), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herotopia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formspring Many of the points above are invalid since they do not realize Amirite.com and Amirite.net are the same site. Furthermore my recent research invalidates all of the deletes request stating no notable and third party sources Craddock1 ( talk) 04:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC). reply
The result was WP:WITHDRAWN. ( non-admin closure) Mkdw talk 21:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC) reply
does not meet wiki notability Shrikanthv ( talk) 23:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Withdrawn by nominator, no delete !votes. Yunshui 雲 水 13:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC) reply
As Nominator i Withdraw my AFD Shrikanthv ( talk) 13:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC) Does not meet wiki notablity criteria Shrikanthv ( talk) 23:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. postdlf ( talk) 23:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC) reply
No apparent notability, most local masonic lodges are not notable
kcylsnavS{
screech
harrass}
22:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
reply
The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G4 JohnCD ( talk) 16:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Non-notable per WP:BIO. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 22:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 18:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Subject of article fails to meet the criteria set forth for journalists in Wikipedia:Notability (people)/ WP:CREATIVE. Unable to find significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Location ( talk) 22:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 18:55, 4 January 2013 (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 the Bulgarian Second Division is fully pro, a supposition not supported by reliable sources. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 21:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC) reply
This prove that Bulgarian 2nd dev and bulgarian cup are Fully proffesional,so the player is profesional player.
K.belev (
talk)
00:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
reply
http://www.pfl.bg/b-pfg - Then read the official BFL site ;) B group is profesional league K.belev ( talk) 17:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 18:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC) reply
This article was proposed for deletion for the second time, so I bring this here. I agree with the nominator, however, there no evidence that this is scheduled for a vote, being debated, or even a possibility. The 2010 referendum was an idea in 2008 but went nowhere. Hekerui ( talk) 21:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. postdlf ( talk) 23:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC) reply
This article relies on one reference that mentions the titular quote upon which the whole article text hangs, the remainder is a clear WP:COATRACK to put forward a large number of unsourced and highly selectively biased complaints as a criticism of one particular past national government. This article is essentially a Blog entry. The one ref cited is actually a very balanced treatment of the topic, but with the coatrack text removed the article would be just two sentences and is thus not suitable as a Wikipedia article. - Ahunt ( talk) 20:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC) reply
DO NOT Delete This is ridiculous harassment in a blatant attempt to cover up the previous Liberal government's disastrous decade in office. The Decade of Darkness happened; whether that term and time period gets an article with that name, or something else which more completely describes the Liberals' decade in office, this Decade of Darkness happened, and it is historical and relevant and necessary to acknowledge. ARMY101 ( talk) 21:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 18:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Proposed deletion removed by creator. Referenced to the system's official website and its creator; the only independent reference is completely irrelevant. Fails to establish notability. According to User:FreeRangeFrog, the "term [was] coined by a company/person/author that is not widely used in the industry; article is essentially a promotional piece for a book." [9] - Mike Rosoft ( talk) 20:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) — Yash [talk] 03:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Relentlessly promotional and when I try to strip out the promotion, I just can't convinced myself that we need an article on this person. He's mentioned in the media by virtue of being a DJ for the BBC, but do we truly need articles on all BBC disc jockeys? — Kww( talk) 20:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 18:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Footballer who fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Oleola ( talk) 19:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 03:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Internal school radio station. No indication of notability, and IMHO notability is extremely unlikely. TexasAndroid ( talk) 19:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. ( non-admin closure) Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Non-notable career minor league baseball player. He is the cousin of Vladimir Guerrero and did achieve the feat of 5 home runs in consecutive plate appearances, but none of that seems to have manifested itself in significant coverage independent of the subject. – Muboshgu ( talk) 17:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 18:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC) reply
WP:NEO. There is some third-party usage of the term, but those few sources actually identifying it as a term appear to be Wikimirrors [10] and/or possible copyvios [11], although I suspect the latter is a violation of WIkipedia's license, not the other way around. j⚛e decker talk 18:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Not sure why this was relisted, really. Courcelles 01:16, 4 January 2013 (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 by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 14:45, 21 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 01:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC) reply
PROD removed by Afghani nani ( talk · contribs), the article creator, with no explanation given. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL as the subject has not "appeared... in a fully professional league" and WP:GNG as the article shows no evidence of the subject receiving "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Mattythewhite ( talk) 13:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Consensus is to delete because the content consists only of unsourced plot summary and no sources are cited to establish the topic's notability. Sandstein 00:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC) reply
List of non-notable fictional weapons, does not pass notability criteria for lists. Claritas § 12:29, 21 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 18:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC) reply
There is an existing article for this: India national cricket team. Why this duplicate article? Most likely a POV fork. Forgot to put name 17:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Phani M ( talk) 04:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. A snow job for a very devious hoax. Kudos to ShelfSkewed for doing the digging that disproved this dissertation. The Bushranger One ping only 17:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC) reply
After careful consideration and some research, I have come to the conclusion that this article is a hoax—a clever and elaborate hoax, but a hoax nonetheless. An online search for "Bicholim conflict" or for many of the article's purported sources produces only results that can be traced back to the article itself. Take, for example, one of the article's major sources: Thompson, Mark, Mistrust between states, Oxford University Press, London 1996. No record at WorldCat. No mention at the OUP site. No used listings at Alibris or ABE. I can find no evidence anywhere that this book exists. Not being able to find any trace of an OUP book published within, say, the past 40 years? Ridiculous. If this book exists, then the original author of this WP article owns the only copy. I was similarly unsuccessful in tracking down Srinivasan Vasantakulan's Bharatiya Struggles (1000 AD – 1700 AD) (shown with an ISBN for a Swedish children's book) or David D'Souza's Roots of conflict in Portuguese Goa (also with an erroneous and unlikely ISBN). In addition, consider the comment by another editor on the article's talk page concerning the problems with the dates in the article. If I'm wrong about this, I'll look like a right idiot, but there are too many troubling things about this article to ignore. ShelfSkewed Talk 16:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Later comment moved down from Archived discussion.
Moonraker12 (
talk)
13:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
reply
NoteDaily Mail Reporter (4 January 2013).
"The war that never was: Most elaborate Wikipedia hoax ever as 4,500 word article on 'Bicholim Conflict' - a fictitious fight for Goan independence - fooled site for FIVE YEARS".
Daily Mail. Retrieved 7 January 2013. A lesson well learned.
7&6=thirteen (
☎)
20:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
reply
The result was WP:WITHDRAWN. ( non-admin closure) Mkdw talk 00:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Majority of content appears to have been copied and pasted from an external source. Freebirdthemonk 16:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Withdrawn. Freebirdthemonk
Howdy!
12:19, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
reply
Aashiq Ottapalam ( talk) 12:46, 23 May 2016 (UTC) I think This Should Be Kept in Wikipedia.Ottam Thullal is Famous and One Of The Oldest Arts and Cultural Form In Kerala,State Of India. But The content Of The Page Is Seemed To Be Copied From Somewhere Else. So If Anybody Is Able To Edit The Page Correctly It Would Be Better reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 18:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC) reply
No assertion of notability per WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:CREATIVE; no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. As can be seen from the edit history, there was a good deal of unsourced claims and promo, much of which appeared to be deliberate jokes or hoax. This article was already prodded and deleted once a few years ago, so thought it best to take this to AFD. Altered Walter ( talk) 15:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was : Redirected to Lists of universities and colleges by country#The Arab World. - Mike Rosoft ( talk) 20:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Redundant article. See Lists of universities and colleges by country#By region#The Arab World. Professorjohnas ( talk) 14:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 18:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Not a notable person
The result was delete. Courcelles 01:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Non-notable per WP:MUSICBIO. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 23:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 03:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Not notable. Unreferenced. Just one example of many manufactures who sold crystal gardens which were in wide use before their alleged invention in 1940. This is simply an an advertisement with no notability. The process is much better described at Chemical garden which is just partially duplicated here. Velella Velella Talk 09:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Chelmsford#Business and commerce. Deleted before redirecting. The Bushranger One ping only 21:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC) reply
From what I can tell, a non-notable shopping centre. We usually delete those as a speedy, but this one was declined. I searched on gnews and gbooks and ghits, and while it certainly does exist I could not find coverage or size sufficient to suggest this deserves an article. Epeefleche ( talk) 06:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect to the main iPod Touch Article. YuMa NuMa Contrib 01:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Article currently only contains duplicated information from the iPod Touch article and at the moment it's nothing more than a specification list from the back of a manual. Separate articles should be created if the main iPod Touch article becomes overloaded with specific but relevant information pertaining to each generation, however it not even approaching that - at the moment and I doubt it ever will due to the declining popularity of the device. YuMa NuMa Contrib 08:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 18:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC) reply
On notability grounds - has not fought in any noteworthy MMA fights. Peter Rehse ( talk) 09:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 18:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Article appears to be promotional in nature. Subject does not meet any of the notability requirements of WP:ATHLETE; is currently playing in a non-notable semi-pro league. Article has been tagged as an orphan for 3+ years. caknuck ° needs to be running more often 07:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Will userfy upon request. Mark Arsten ( talk) 18:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC) reply
He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 ( talk) 07:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Mediran ( t • c) 09:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Deleted PROD per WP:PROD (previous AFD) PROD rationale by User talk:I am One of Many is This article appears to by promotional (advertising) with no third party independent references. Also, appears to be independent research. Illia Connell ( talk) 06:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Step Up (soundtrack). ( non-admin closure) — Yash [talk] 03:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:NSONG. Not enough independent coverage for a stand alone article. Additionally, can content can easily be folded into the (currently short) article about the album Samantha Jade (album) LK ( talk) 06:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Step Up (soundtrack). The Bushranger One ping only 03:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:NSONG. Not enough independent coverage for a stand alone article. Additionally, can content can easily be folded into the (currently short) article about the album Samantha Jade (album) LK ( talk) 06:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Courcelles 01:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:NSONG. Not enough independent coverage for a stand alone article. Additionally, can content can easily be folded into the (currently short) article about the album Samantha Jade (album) LK ( talk) 06:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 01:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC) reply
This article is essentially a CV, and the only sources are a book he wrote and a telephone interview with him. I'm not finding much about him on Google, though that may partly be due to his somewhat common name. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 02:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Episode list only covers 2 episodes, which haven't aired yet. No need for a separate article from the main one this soon into the series' run. Paper Luigi T • C 05:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 02:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Never played or managed at a professional level, nor been the subject of significant coverage in reliable third-party sources ChrisTheDude ( talk) 13:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to List of major artifacts in Dungeons & Dragons. Courcelles 01:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Non-notable fictional weapon. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Claritas § 15:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 01:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Individual research & teaching center inside a single ordinary level academic department in an ordinary level university. No indication of particular importance, no external sources for notability, or any reason to think there might be: it does not even offer a doctorate, just a masters and an undergraduate major. The section of wildlife shows how little can be said about the actual center & its activities. DGG ( talk ) 18:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 03:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Notability has yet to be established. If he gets a fight against a bigger name opponent, then recreate the page. JonnyBonesJones ( talk) 09:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Keep. One of his 3 big fights was on NBC(NBC right?). PortlandOregon97217 ( talk) 10:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. As much as I think this article should be deleted, after four relistings it is quite clear that a consensus cannot be reached. ( non-admin closure) Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Non-notable company / organisation. No refs in article and nothing obvious in google. This appears to be a completely separate entity to the similarly unreferenced EADS Innovation Works. PROD repeatedly removed by creator. Stuartyeates ( talk) 04:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The twenty some refs I added were reverted by Piandcompany for an unspecified reason (marked as a "minor" change). I removed PROD once in accordance with the message in the PROD, stating that once issues had been addressed it can be deleted without discussion by anyone, including the creator. Cyounkins ( talk) 05:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC) reply
There are easily located sources from very reliable independent sources, including the Pittsburgh Post Gazette and the Pittsburgh Business Times.
Here are two articles from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the leading Pittsburgh daily newspaper:
Here are four articles from the Pittsburgh Business Times:
This article should have these reliable sources added, with information from the articles. -- DThomsen8 ( talk) 14:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to East Oakland, Oakland, California. The Bushranger One ping only 21:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC) reply
middle school, not connected with any school district. we normally dont have articles on middle schools unless uniquely notable (landmark building, etc). this has nothing like that. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 06:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to University of North Texas. Courcelles 01:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC) reply
No independent sources, not notable, etc. As per WP:NSONG, "a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." Runfellow ( talk) 05:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. There is a pretty clear consensus here from users who expressed an opinion that the article as existing is redundant to a category and relevant guidelines on this. There is a long discussion about ways in which the article could be re-purposed, although obviously I cannot take that into account as closer; however feel free to ask me to userfy the article if you believe the material could be used in some way. Black Kite ( talk) 01:31, 6 January 2013 (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}} . |
An incomplete list that is unnecessary due to Category:Female characters in video games. Cyan Gardevoir (used EDIT!) 01:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC) reply
There seems to be a beginning of understanding here. I prefer to use verifiability over notability for the inclusion criterion for the reasons stated in my "question to the nominator" above, that so far no one has answered; a navigational list should help readers locate content relevant to the list's topic, whether or not that content has a whole article for it; the way we organize the content is irrelevant to such reader. I think Purposes of lists is the guideline that best describes this approach, but WP:Build the web and Advantages of a list are also relevant.
If we limit the list critierion to include characters that have been described somewhere in Wikipedia with more than a few words and support from a reliable source, the scope is reduced considerably; it's no longer "a list of all female characters in videogames", but "an index to Wikipedia content that describes female characters". The amount of entries in the list is one-to-one with characters that Wikipedia editors have written about, so it is no longer unmaintenable.
Can you elaborate on what you don't agree of this analysis? Maybe you can think of a better approach than a list to achieve that goal? Diego ( talk) 17:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC) reply
User:Sue Rangell introduced a new concern of notability. (There was a conversation with Niemti about notability above, but it was about individual characters and not the notability of the topic). Sue's argument is a just not notable (a form of just pointing at a policy or guideline) with an argument to the person added by Sergecross73 (my involvement with the article should not have any weight for nor against my arguments); counting the !votes is a form of the support argument. There's a reason all those arguments are listed in the arguments to avoid - they are against current policies and guidelines, and as such they make very poor arguments against the list. An argument against notability should rely on the number or quality of the sources describing the topic.
Now this list has the exact same topic as the category, that had direct consensus to keep at this afd discussion. The sources that User:coelacan gave there (such as this and this, together with the references at Gender representation in video games), are a solid way to establish the notability of female characters in video games as a notable topic. Diego ( talk) 19:09, 1 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Diego, if you really need to have an otherwise random list of characters that you think are important and discuss their roles or whatever, maybe make your own wiki or a blog or even a whole website like this one (I'm not saying it's good, it's actually very poor and just ridicalous, but it's there). You now, that's why. -- Niemti ( talk) 23:16, 1 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Comment: Note that I didn't list this debate at the above page, I've just added the tag when I noticed. Diego ( talk) 09:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC) reply
What do you think of this inclusion criterion? The idea is to explicitly avoid saying "notable characters", because then any characters without an article of their own could be argued to be removed from the list, which is less than ideal. Diego ( talk) 07:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC) reply
If the list is to be kept and it to be easily maintainable I prefer the following:
I think the ideal solution would be to allow for the removal of characters that bulk up the list and make it harder to read without enhancing reader navigation to the more useful articles (i.e. those on notable topics). WP:N provides such an allowance without requiring the local-article-only definition of otherwise ill-defined terms. - Thibbs ( talk) 13:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Gaijin42 ( talk) 17:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Sergecross73 described an interesting case above - the list of characters from Chrono Cross don't need to be merged at all with List of female video game characters - it's enough that the first be included somewhere in the list or its sublists. But if you restrict the criterion to only notable characters, the link to Chrono Cross won't be included and a reader interested on the topic won't be able to navigate to it and find that this game's article has a verifiable description of female characters.
Above I talked with Thibbs about the need for a kind of "specific notability" criterion for the list that is based on properties relevant to portrayal of females. I'm planning a WP:straw poll to find out what's the detailed position of editors (beyond a simple "support" or "oppose" for the whole list) for each of the main subjects in the current conversation. I'll include questions about the overall notability of the topic (of female characters as a group), the possibility to define a new inclusion criterion for this topic (whether at this list or a new one), the use of GNG notability as the inclusion criterion, or some properties relevant to female characters that could be used as part of a new criterion. If you have some ideas for more questions that you'd want to see in the straw poll, let's us now and we'll add them to it. I think this will help the poor admin that must do the closing to get a better idea of where the consensus (or lack thereof) lies. Diego ( talk) 18:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was Withdrawn by nominator. Procedural close Monty 845 17:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC) reply
No indication of notability. Running for office and losing does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. Gtwfan52 ( talk) 04:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator withdrawn This article looks fine now. Gtwfan52 ( talk) 17:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 21:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Non-notable video recording. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 17:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 21:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Yet another rumour fest that violates WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NALBUMS, and WP:HAMMER. Per WP:NOT#CRYSTAL, Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumours. A project that has gone on this long may never come to fruition, and we shouldn't be tracking all the various rumours and tidbits that appear about it. We can have an article about the album when there's an album. — Kww( talk) 20:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 20:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC) reply
See here for reference.
The Intercontinental Cup was clearly not a world championship. This has come from numerous times by FIFA and they gave their reasons (very valid ones at that). For example, the Afro-Asian Championship could also claimed to be a world championship just for having two confederations coming together.
Seeing the above information, and the little relevance in having this, I propose this list be deleted. God Football ( talk) 21:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC) reply
It must be pointed out that no one here is denying the fact that the IC was a very relevant soccer trophy , official at UEFA and CONMEBOL, and a forerunner to the FCWC. All this are facts. However, the thing is just that. Nothing more. UEFA and CONMEBOL do not have jurisdiction over worldwide soccer (only FIFA has it) and therefore UEFA and CONMEBOL cannot give "world level legitimacy" to competitions. Besides, being "a forerunner to something" is not the same as being "that same something": the fact that one thing is forerunner to another does not mean at all that they have the same status or worth or value or importance. The fact that the IC was a forerunner to the FCWC does not mean that they have the same status or worth or importance. I will not make "copy and paste" here. Check the Portuguese-wikipedia article on the IC and you will find tons os links (in English) to the most valuable sources (FIFA, UEFA , CONMEBOL, BBC, Toyota, Japanese FA, several if not most IC-Winning clubs as Manchester and Real Madrid) making clear that the FCWC has a bigger dimension and is considered far more relevant than the IC.
All this was already indicated to Dantetheperuvian: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Intercontinental_Cup_(football)#The_Intercontinental_Cup_is_NOT_official_as_a_world_club_cup
Another example of text that was not listed inside the link above but I remember it now- FIFA making clear that the FCWC has a bigger dimension than the IC- http://www.fifa.com/tournaments/archive/tournament=107/edition=4735/news/newsid=95645.html
Other examples:
On its web-site, FIFA tells its official documents ( http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/officialdocuments/index.html , http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/officialdocuments/doclists/matches.html) apart from the other parts of its web-site, implying that the latter parts are not its official views. The only one FIFA official document to mention the Intercontinental Cup ( http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/fifafacts/mencompcwc/01/15/71/66/fcwc2012_kit.pdf) does NOT use the word "world" to refer to the Intercontinental Cup. In this document the word "world" is limited to the FIFA Club World Cup. The Intercontinental cup is mentioned as a predecessor to the FIFA Club World Cup but is NOT mentioned as being itself a club world title.
A UEFA official document saying that FIFA did NOT authorise the Intercontinental Cup: http://pt.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/EuroExperience/uefaorg/Publications/01/59/87/45/1598745_DOWNLOAD.pdf
For those who read Spanish, three times on which FIFA openly referred to the Intercontinental Cup as a non-World and non-FIFA Cup: http://hemeroteca.mundodeportivo.com/preview/1960/09/05/pagina-2/1384381/pdf.html?search=Intercontinental and http://hemeroteca.mundodeportivo.com/preview/1967/03/16/pagina-8/931136/pdf.html?search=Intercontinental and http://hemeroteca.mundodeportivo.com/preview/1966/07/27/pagina-6/936416/pdf.html?search=intercontinental
Here FIFA refers to the Intercontinental Cup as a symbolic world title ( http://www.fifa.com/tournaments/archive/tournament=107/edition=4735/news/newsid=95645.html) ;
in a July 28th 2005 text (about the 2005 FIFA Club World Cup) called "Japan welcomes the world with open arms" on its web-site, FIFA writes "Brought up watching the annual Europe-South America clash, Japanese fans are counting the days to the kick off of the true world club showdown", therefore FIFA makes clear the difference between "Europe-South America clash" (IC) and "the true world club showdown" (refering to the FIFA Club World Cup). therefore FIFA makes clear that only the FIFA Club World Cup is the true world club showdown.
also in a July 28th 2005 text (about the 2005 FIFA Club World Cup) called "Continental champions prepare for Tokyo draw" on its web-site, FIFA writes "the Toyota Cup, which superseded the Intercontinental Cup in 1980, has been revamped by FIFA to reach out to all confederations and associations across the globe so the winners may truly be regarded as the best club side in the world", therefore FIFA makes clear that only the FIFA Club World Cup truly indicates the world club champion.
( http://www.fifa.com/tournaments/archive/tournament=107/edition=4735/news/newsid=99485.html)
And, as I said, there are many many more sources at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Intercontinental_Cup_(football)#The_Intercontinental_Cup_is_NOT_official_as_a_world_club_cup and also at the IC and FCWC Portuguese-Wikipedia articles.
You see: in many texts FIFA makes very clear how bigger the FCWC is relative to the IC, and Dantetheperuvian keeps trying to "equalise" the IC and FCWC based on one single FIFA text.
As you will see through the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Intercontinental_Cup_(football)#The_Intercontinental_Cup_is_NOT_official_as_a_world_club_cup , Dantetheperuvian has already been informed all of this, and he intentionally decided to ignore it . He is not here impartially and honestly. He has behaving dishonestly on this matter, ignoring all these sources and trying to "mingle oranges with apples" (he intentionally mixes different concepts and aspects of the thing in order to confuse the debate and enforce his views). This Dantetheperuvian cannot be taken seriously - he is just a supporter of Juventus who insists on the sheer lie that the IC was equivalent to the FCWC because his Juventus only got the IC while its Milano rivals (AC Milan and Internazionale) won both the IC and the far-more-relevant FCWC. It is pointless to discuss with a person like him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soccer historian ( talk • contribs) 12:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC) reply
See the Portugues-Wikipedia article on the IC: http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copa_Intercontinental . See the links on it: UEFA, CONMEBOL, FIFA, Japanese Football Association, Toyota, several IC-winning clubs such as Ac Milan and Internazionale Milano, FC Barcelona, BBC's Tim Vickery's articles on BBC and UEFA-archive sites, Korean//Mexican/Spanish/CostaRican newspaper sources, and etc. All of them agree the IC was a predecessor to the FCWC. None of them says that the IC was a "world title" or "value equivalent" to the FCWC. Perhaps the IC was a "de facto world championship" in Dantetheperuvian's cheap talk, but not in the real world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soccer historian ( talk • contribs) 12:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC) reply
As Dante has now decided to cite Mr Blatter , I would like to show Blatter stating (to 2 Brazilian newspapers) that two-continent-limited competitions (such as the IC) cannot be considered world titles (one of them shows FIFA faxes in English language with the mentioned statement): http://acervo.estadao.com.br/pagina/#!/20001019-39083-nac-0033-esp-e3-not/busca/Toyota+Fifa+Mundial e http://www.gazetaesportiva.net/noticia/2012/12/campeonatos-mundial-de-clubes-fifa-2012/em-2000-fifa-confirmou-a-gazeta-esportiva-corinthians-1-campeao.html . Actually, see the FCWC talkpage: this information was alerady showed to Dante, but he tehn dismissed them. In his "great intelectual honesty", Dante only takes into consideration the FIFA views when they fit his ones.
The result was merge to Mike Resnick. ( non-admin closure) — Yash [talk] 03:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Non-notable individual on their own right. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. No reliable sources to support any claims, and even article claims they are "an uncredited editor" - which makes them uncredited and non-notable. Article was an undeleted WP:PROD and appears to have been heavily edited by the subject themself, with much WP:COI ( ✉→ BWilkins ←✎) 21:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Snowballs have a better chance than this WP:VANISPAMCRUFTISEMENT. The Bushranger One ping only 21:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The person fails notability because insufficient independent sources exist. An internet search found only press releases related to personal appearances and book signing events to promote her new book. Further, the text of the article is a copy-paste of those press releases. Recommend deletion. Senator2029 leave me a message 04:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Courcelles 01:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD. Biographical article about an Indian actress. I am bringing this to AFD because I cannot establish whether or not the coverage provided as sources and what I found is basically WP:ROUTINE. From what I understand of the Indian movie industry, this doesn't seem to be particularly substantive. If that is the case then the subject fails WP:GNG; I also find the two movies she has acted in to be less than enough to meet WP:ACTOR. § FreeRangeFrog croak 03:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 01:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Non-notable per WP:BIO. WP is not Linkedin or a place for filing a curriculum vitae -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 07:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Keep article as is Steven M. Cohen has been recognized by the Super Lawyers of New York for the past number of years as among the top litigators in the state. http://www.superlawyers.com/new-york-upstate/lawyer/Steven-M-Cohen/4224dc55-b4dc-438f-89db-10b9551da529.html Cohen has also been regarded as among the best lawyers in New York State according to the New York Times.
Steven M. Cohen has been featured on local, regional, national and international news sources for his involvement in high profile cases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nysfbla ( talk • contribs) 04:57, 22 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Save Article - I live in the Greater Buffalo Area and have personally been at conferences where Mr. Cohen is a featured speaker. He is published in such books as Elder Care by Thomas Cassidy. Steve Cohen consistantly makes headlines in Western New York through his pro bono work on such matters as Amanda Wienckowski (case where a girl found naked in a garbage tote was ruled an accidental death). As an attorney for Lynn DeJac he obtained one of the largest verdicts for a wrongfully convicted victim in New York State history. -MarkJermey — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.243.18.130 ( talk) 16:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 21:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC) reply
This article is unsourced and barely readable. Andrew ( talk) 08:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 01:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC) reply
This band may fail WP:N and likely WP:BAND. After several source searches, I found these Dutch sources, but the reliability of them is questionable regarding Wikipedia's purposes: [30], [31], [32]. Northamerica1000 (talk) 11:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Comment I love the line about the singers deep, raw voice. PortlandOregon97217 ( talk) 11:29, 21 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Kubigula ( talk) 17:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC) reply
no assertion of notability - fails WP:GNG / WP:ORG with no independent sources. I personally would like sources to be found, and the article improved per WP:FAILN. suggestions? Widefox; talk 14:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC) reply
and here is another [35] , and here it is talked about by Nessus [36] Though I agree the article here sucks. Another possibility is to turn it into OWASP top 10, an equivalent of PCI DSS Seektrue ( talk) 05:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Courcelles 01:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Non-notable store, fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. ukexpat ( talk) 17:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete, redirect, and protect. The Bushranger One ping only 01:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Non-notable fictional character. This page has been repeatedly redirected to List of Camp Half-Blood characters#Annabeth Chase. This may be an option over outright deletion. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 20:42, 21 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE The Bushranger One ping only 01:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC) reply
This is a term coined by Hillerbrand+Magsamen and seems to be used sparingly by them and no-one else. Therefore I'd say this was a non-notable neologism. Sionk ( talk) 20:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. The Bushranger One ping only 21:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC) reply
WP:OR. Found several books that throw the term around, but none that actually give a definition to what it actually is. The article is completely OR from top to bottom, and I see no sources that give a clear definition of what the South Carolina Lowcountry is. "Economy" and "Tourism" merely parrot other articles. The fact that this article has been completely devoid of sources SIX YEARS is appalling, but likely stems from the fact that there seems to be no clear definition for "South Carolina Lowcountry". Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 22:05, 21 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 03:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC) reply
This article is repeatedly recreated. The current version has multiple sources, and they're very nicely formatted, too. Not a one of them meets the reliable source guidelines. Do we think that this person meets Wikipedia's notability criteria? FisherQueen ( talk · contribs) 02:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Due to the ambiguity, any "merging" should be done from scratch. The Bushranger One ping only 03:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC) reply
This article was nominated by TonyTheTiger for WP:PROD in January 2012. His reason was, "Grade school with no evidence or assertion of meeting Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)." Danjel objected, saying that "per WP:OUTCOMES and general consensus at WP:WPSCH, this primary school should be merged/redirected to its locality or school authority, NOT deleted". I agree that WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES urges us to redirect the article to the relevant school district or locality, but that solution is not possible for this article because "Holy Family" is a name used by several Catholic parishes and schools. Edge3 ( talk) 01:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 01:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Article about a company that seems to fail WP:CORP; it has been created twice by an SPA, with the previous one deleted because of copyvio issues. I believe the purpose of this is purely promotional, since I cannot establish that the company is actually notable in any way, regardless of the attempt to claim notability for the founder. If sources are not found and the article is deleted, the title should probably also be salted. § FreeRangeFrog croak 15:57, 13 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Low Anthem. MBisanz talk 04:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Has been on patrol page for a month, no reliable references. Should be rolled into the Low Anthem article, if anything. -Jordgette [talk] 05:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Consensus following relisting. The Bushranger One ping only 21:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC) reply
This page does not provide any purpose that cannot be served by the category Filipino Comedians Op47 ( talk) 22:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Could be userfied if someone wants to competently write a new and sourced article about this topic. Sandstein 00:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC) reply
It has no references and is completely unreadable. The only way someone could fix this article would be to rewrite it entirely. Prof. Squirrel ( talk) 00:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 21:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 21:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC) reply
This sports event fails
WP:NOTNEWSPAPER policy, the
primary
routine sources quoted just cover the announcements of who is going to appear which NOTNEWSPAPER explicitly says "is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. There is no attempt in the article to demonstrate what the
lasting significance of this event will be, there will I have no doubt be 10 winners and 10 looser of 10 fights listed but beyond that any significance is pure
speculation.
For the avoidance of doubt this nomination has nothing to do with the events
notability or not, as a professional sports event, meeting the
WP:GNG is not in doubt, however that is no guarantee of a subjects suitability for an article in an encyclopedia if, as in this case, it fails the
inclusion policy.
Mt
king
(edits)
23:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
reply
The result was merge to Milladoiro. The Bushranger One ping only 22:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC) reply
No suggestion of notability, merely a listing of non-notable tracks ( ✉→ BWilkins ←✎) 23:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC) reply
This article was nominated for deletion on the grounds that it listed no tracks. That was because I was in the middle of writing the article and hadn't added them yet. The track listing is now included. Peyre ( talk) 23:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE The Bushranger One ping only 01:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, defunct online magazine. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 23:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 01:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Non-league footballer, only really gained independent coverage for one event and otherwise likely to remain low-profile, which is a classic example of WP:BLP1E. I might add he never played in a fully professional league or in a match involving two fully-professional teams. C 679 00:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 01:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Does not meet criteria of Wikipedia:WikiProject Figure Skating/Notability, see
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 18:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Does not meet criteria of Wikipedia:WikiProject Figure Skating/Notability. Didn't win Dancing on Ice either. Entry on List of Dancing on Ice professional skaters is sufficient. Hergilei ( talk) 13:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC) reply
![]() |
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) JayJay What did I do? 00:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC) reply
There is no sourcing I can find that indicates any sort of notability. Mentions noted in previous AfD were nearly all trivial. Being a journalist who writes articles is not sufficient for notability. Article is very poorly sourced and has been hit with recent egregious BLP violations. The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 23:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The WP:GNG argument is convincing, and not seriously addressed by most of the minority of "keep" opinions. On that basis, no need to examine the sockery issue more closely. Sandstein 00:50, 5 January 2013 (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}} . |
Unremarkable website. Fails WP:GNG. Sources appear to be mainly press releases or paid insertions. Contested speedy deletion. The appearance of a new account ( User:James9210) and an IP ( User:86.149.216.3) removing the speedy deletion template suggests that a closer look at the article creator might be advisable. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 23:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC) reply
*Comment "Unremarkable Website" is an opinion, and Wikipedia is not built on opinions. Also as I recall one is supposed to assume good faith.
Meanie (
talk)
03:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
reply
Delicious Carbuncle has been blocked on Wikipedia before and this sort of behvaiour should not be tolerated.
Furthermore your behaviour has been reported through the internet. A quick google search brought up many results: e.g here: http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=28826&st=40
That MfD, of evidence/background content and diffs to be used on the RFCU regarding Delicious carbuncle and their interactions with several users was disturbingly derailed by Wikipedia Review editors who attempted to OUT the main author. This is a part of the behaviour that has been cited as problematic of Delicious carbuncle; that they use Wikipedia Review to essentially canvass offsite - especially when they don't get their way; and that they attempt to subdue and WP:Grief their perceived targets by publicly shaming and outing them. There was disagreement how intertwined the Wikipedia Review angle should be on the RFCU but this latest incident has helped clear up that Wikipedia Review is yet again being used to WP:Game Wikipedia, cause disruption and create WP:Drama on Wikipedia. It's sad but at least more and more editors are seeing how Wikipedia Review is used to erode collegial efforts and civility. IMHO, an RFCU must and will go forward but should not be compromised by rushing into it or being bullied by a website that seems to thrive on disrupting Wikipedia and enabling banned editors. -- Banjeboi 10:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craddock1 ( talk • contribs)
I would also like to point out I have spent a considerable amount of time making the article up to Wikipedia Standards (around 12 hours), find references, resources, talking to users, editors and admins. I hope this is taken into account.
Regarding the case:
Amirite has received notable coverage as a fast growing startup similarly to other sites such as Formspring and Amen -
please look them up on Wikipedia: Amen (website) · Formspring
The Amirite article was also approved by the Wikimedia Foundation Community Fellow User:SarahStierch
Nearly a billion votes have been processed on Amirite which shows it is remarkable so I completely disagree with that statement. Press coverage reflects the site is notable and furthermore won the UK's largest investment competition.
:Also featured in Urban dictionary: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=amirite
Site has also been compared to twitter: http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/share-opinions-online-amiritenet-amirite/ - again showing it is notable
http://www.killerstartups.com/startup-spotlight/amirite-post-your-opinion/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craddock1 ( talk • contribs) 03:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Site has over 100,000 twitter and facebook followers combined and was only released from Beta recently and 3 million pageviews per month, 700,000 posts, and 2 million comments. :Again this shows it is not 'unremarkable'.
Please close the deletion case. Multiple unsigned comments by user:Craddock1 Craddock1 ( talk) 01:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)grouped and signed by User:Excirial reply
*Keep - Website meets
WP:GNG after a look at sources, its clear it has been the subject of discussion in third party industry publications. The article needs some help stylistically, and it needs to come out of the orphanage, but it is generally well written and NPOV.
Meanie (
talk)
03:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
reply
*******One of the Globe Articles is an Article.
Boatingfaster (
talk) 18:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
********
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2011/05/15/amirite/ - specifically this one
Boatingfaster (
talk)
18:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
reply
Collapse duplicate comment posted below
|
---|
|
Collapse duplicate comment posted above
|
---|
|
http://home.techhustlers.com/twalops-social-transaction-platform-will-make-you-cash-and-its-free/
http://www.killerstartups.com/startups-tools-and-guides/instagram-for-business/ - Instagram is a well known site too
You are ignoring the other sources too: http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/share-opinions-online-amiritenet-amirite/ Makeuseof
http://venturebeatprofiles.com/company/profile/amirite-net
In addition Amirite came as a top 3 winner in the UK's Largest Investment Conference. I read about it in a printed paper (I think it was the Evening Standard) you can even email the chief judge of the event by scrolling down: http://www.techentrepreneursweek.com/ (For your reference Jimmy Wales was one of the judges) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craddock1 ( talk • contribs) 17:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC) Craddock1 17:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Keeping in mind that all articles must conform with the policy on verifiability to reliable sources, and that primary sources alone are not sufficient to establish notability; web-specific content[3] may be notable based on meeting ONE of the following criteria:M
The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations[4] except for media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site.[5] or trivial coverage, such as: a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site, newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, and content descriptions in directories or online stores.
The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization
The website has won a significant award as I have mentioned above (judged by Jimmy Wales Jimmy Wales and Martin Warner Martin Warner and also has been the subject of MULTIPLE non-trivial published works. While I understand your concerns that it has not been published in millions of published works it has indeed attracted significant attention. I do not have time to go through the whole of the Internet but that fact that there are 5 million backlinks going to the Amirite.net and .com combined suggests there are other mentions too.
If common sense prevails this article should definitely be kept Craddock1 23:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
As I said earlier we are only here because there are people like you out there in the world. If I didn't know any better I would think you tried to submit one of your sites on wikipedia which got rejected because it lacked notability. Its also funny how you ignore all the positive points I make but jump on any old rubbish you can find.Craddock1 00:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
What you need to concentrate on is reliable and verifiable sources. Backlinks don't count, nor do self-published accounts, such as press releases.
If the article has won a significant award, then a reliable source, and likely multiple reliable sources should cover it. The fact that Jimbo was a judge is not significant as far as notability. If you doubt that, ask him on his talkpage - Jimbo actually reads it and responds. Focus on the article, not editors. GregJackP Boomer! 02:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC) reply
CommentAll the valid resources have been removed from the article by someone. For Admin's eyes - please see article history. I have also proof they won that competition. I have also found multiple articles online from notable sources. Furthermore this competition was judgeed by leading Venture Capital firms such as such as Accel, Doughty Hanson, Index Ventures and Fidelity Growth Partners. If the following pages are permitted to have wikipedia pages I see no reason as to not allow Amirite to have a page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amen_(website), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herotopia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formspring Many of the points above are invalid since they do not realize Amirite.com and Amirite.net are the same site. Furthermore my recent research invalidates all of the deletes request stating no notable and third party sources Craddock1 ( talk) 04:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC). reply
The result was WP:WITHDRAWN. ( non-admin closure) Mkdw talk 21:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC) reply
does not meet wiki notability Shrikanthv ( talk) 23:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Withdrawn by nominator, no delete !votes. Yunshui 雲 水 13:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC) reply
As Nominator i Withdraw my AFD Shrikanthv ( talk) 13:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC) Does not meet wiki notablity criteria Shrikanthv ( talk) 23:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. postdlf ( talk) 23:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC) reply
No apparent notability, most local masonic lodges are not notable
kcylsnavS{
screech
harrass}
22:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
reply
The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G4 JohnCD ( talk) 16:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Non-notable per WP:BIO. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 22:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 18:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Subject of article fails to meet the criteria set forth for journalists in Wikipedia:Notability (people)/ WP:CREATIVE. Unable to find significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Location ( talk) 22:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 18:55, 4 January 2013 (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 the Bulgarian Second Division is fully pro, a supposition not supported by reliable sources. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 21:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC) reply
This prove that Bulgarian 2nd dev and bulgarian cup are Fully proffesional,so the player is profesional player.
K.belev (
talk)
00:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
reply
http://www.pfl.bg/b-pfg - Then read the official BFL site ;) B group is profesional league K.belev ( talk) 17:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 18:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC) reply
This article was proposed for deletion for the second time, so I bring this here. I agree with the nominator, however, there no evidence that this is scheduled for a vote, being debated, or even a possibility. The 2010 referendum was an idea in 2008 but went nowhere. Hekerui ( talk) 21:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. postdlf ( talk) 23:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC) reply
This article relies on one reference that mentions the titular quote upon which the whole article text hangs, the remainder is a clear WP:COATRACK to put forward a large number of unsourced and highly selectively biased complaints as a criticism of one particular past national government. This article is essentially a Blog entry. The one ref cited is actually a very balanced treatment of the topic, but with the coatrack text removed the article would be just two sentences and is thus not suitable as a Wikipedia article. - Ahunt ( talk) 20:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC) reply
DO NOT Delete This is ridiculous harassment in a blatant attempt to cover up the previous Liberal government's disastrous decade in office. The Decade of Darkness happened; whether that term and time period gets an article with that name, or something else which more completely describes the Liberals' decade in office, this Decade of Darkness happened, and it is historical and relevant and necessary to acknowledge. ARMY101 ( talk) 21:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 18:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Proposed deletion removed by creator. Referenced to the system's official website and its creator; the only independent reference is completely irrelevant. Fails to establish notability. According to User:FreeRangeFrog, the "term [was] coined by a company/person/author that is not widely used in the industry; article is essentially a promotional piece for a book." [9] - Mike Rosoft ( talk) 20:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) — Yash [talk] 03:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Relentlessly promotional and when I try to strip out the promotion, I just can't convinced myself that we need an article on this person. He's mentioned in the media by virtue of being a DJ for the BBC, but do we truly need articles on all BBC disc jockeys? — Kww( talk) 20:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 18:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Footballer who fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Oleola ( talk) 19:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 03:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Internal school radio station. No indication of notability, and IMHO notability is extremely unlikely. TexasAndroid ( talk) 19:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. ( non-admin closure) Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Non-notable career minor league baseball player. He is the cousin of Vladimir Guerrero and did achieve the feat of 5 home runs in consecutive plate appearances, but none of that seems to have manifested itself in significant coverage independent of the subject. – Muboshgu ( talk) 17:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 18:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC) reply
WP:NEO. There is some third-party usage of the term, but those few sources actually identifying it as a term appear to be Wikimirrors [10] and/or possible copyvios [11], although I suspect the latter is a violation of WIkipedia's license, not the other way around. j⚛e decker talk 18:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Not sure why this was relisted, really. Courcelles 01:16, 4 January 2013 (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 by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 14:45, 21 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 01:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC) reply
PROD removed by Afghani nani ( talk · contribs), the article creator, with no explanation given. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL as the subject has not "appeared... in a fully professional league" and WP:GNG as the article shows no evidence of the subject receiving "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Mattythewhite ( talk) 13:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Consensus is to delete because the content consists only of unsourced plot summary and no sources are cited to establish the topic's notability. Sandstein 00:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC) reply
List of non-notable fictional weapons, does not pass notability criteria for lists. Claritas § 12:29, 21 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 18:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC) reply
There is an existing article for this: India national cricket team. Why this duplicate article? Most likely a POV fork. Forgot to put name 17:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Phani M ( talk) 04:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. A snow job for a very devious hoax. Kudos to ShelfSkewed for doing the digging that disproved this dissertation. The Bushranger One ping only 17:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC) reply
After careful consideration and some research, I have come to the conclusion that this article is a hoax—a clever and elaborate hoax, but a hoax nonetheless. An online search for "Bicholim conflict" or for many of the article's purported sources produces only results that can be traced back to the article itself. Take, for example, one of the article's major sources: Thompson, Mark, Mistrust between states, Oxford University Press, London 1996. No record at WorldCat. No mention at the OUP site. No used listings at Alibris or ABE. I can find no evidence anywhere that this book exists. Not being able to find any trace of an OUP book published within, say, the past 40 years? Ridiculous. If this book exists, then the original author of this WP article owns the only copy. I was similarly unsuccessful in tracking down Srinivasan Vasantakulan's Bharatiya Struggles (1000 AD – 1700 AD) (shown with an ISBN for a Swedish children's book) or David D'Souza's Roots of conflict in Portuguese Goa (also with an erroneous and unlikely ISBN). In addition, consider the comment by another editor on the article's talk page concerning the problems with the dates in the article. If I'm wrong about this, I'll look like a right idiot, but there are too many troubling things about this article to ignore. ShelfSkewed Talk 16:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Later comment moved down from Archived discussion.
Moonraker12 (
talk)
13:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
reply
NoteDaily Mail Reporter (4 January 2013).
"The war that never was: Most elaborate Wikipedia hoax ever as 4,500 word article on 'Bicholim Conflict' - a fictitious fight for Goan independence - fooled site for FIVE YEARS".
Daily Mail. Retrieved 7 January 2013. A lesson well learned.
7&6=thirteen (
☎)
20:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
reply
The result was WP:WITHDRAWN. ( non-admin closure) Mkdw talk 00:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Majority of content appears to have been copied and pasted from an external source. Freebirdthemonk 16:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Withdrawn. Freebirdthemonk
Howdy!
12:19, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
reply
Aashiq Ottapalam ( talk) 12:46, 23 May 2016 (UTC) I think This Should Be Kept in Wikipedia.Ottam Thullal is Famous and One Of The Oldest Arts and Cultural Form In Kerala,State Of India. But The content Of The Page Is Seemed To Be Copied From Somewhere Else. So If Anybody Is Able To Edit The Page Correctly It Would Be Better reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 18:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC) reply
No assertion of notability per WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:CREATIVE; no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. As can be seen from the edit history, there was a good deal of unsourced claims and promo, much of which appeared to be deliberate jokes or hoax. This article was already prodded and deleted once a few years ago, so thought it best to take this to AFD. Altered Walter ( talk) 15:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was : Redirected to Lists of universities and colleges by country#The Arab World. - Mike Rosoft ( talk) 20:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Redundant article. See Lists of universities and colleges by country#By region#The Arab World. Professorjohnas ( talk) 14:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 18:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Not a notable person
The result was delete. Courcelles 01:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Non-notable per WP:MUSICBIO. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 23:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 03:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Not notable. Unreferenced. Just one example of many manufactures who sold crystal gardens which were in wide use before their alleged invention in 1940. This is simply an an advertisement with no notability. The process is much better described at Chemical garden which is just partially duplicated here. Velella Velella Talk 09:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Chelmsford#Business and commerce. Deleted before redirecting. The Bushranger One ping only 21:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC) reply
From what I can tell, a non-notable shopping centre. We usually delete those as a speedy, but this one was declined. I searched on gnews and gbooks and ghits, and while it certainly does exist I could not find coverage or size sufficient to suggest this deserves an article. Epeefleche ( talk) 06:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect to the main iPod Touch Article. YuMa NuMa Contrib 01:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Article currently only contains duplicated information from the iPod Touch article and at the moment it's nothing more than a specification list from the back of a manual. Separate articles should be created if the main iPod Touch article becomes overloaded with specific but relevant information pertaining to each generation, however it not even approaching that - at the moment and I doubt it ever will due to the declining popularity of the device. YuMa NuMa Contrib 08:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 18:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC) reply
On notability grounds - has not fought in any noteworthy MMA fights. Peter Rehse ( talk) 09:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 18:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Article appears to be promotional in nature. Subject does not meet any of the notability requirements of WP:ATHLETE; is currently playing in a non-notable semi-pro league. Article has been tagged as an orphan for 3+ years. caknuck ° needs to be running more often 07:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Will userfy upon request. Mark Arsten ( talk) 18:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC) reply
He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 ( talk) 07:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Mediran ( t • c) 09:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Deleted PROD per WP:PROD (previous AFD) PROD rationale by User talk:I am One of Many is This article appears to by promotional (advertising) with no third party independent references. Also, appears to be independent research. Illia Connell ( talk) 06:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Step Up (soundtrack). ( non-admin closure) — Yash [talk] 03:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:NSONG. Not enough independent coverage for a stand alone article. Additionally, can content can easily be folded into the (currently short) article about the album Samantha Jade (album) LK ( talk) 06:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Step Up (soundtrack). The Bushranger One ping only 03:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:NSONG. Not enough independent coverage for a stand alone article. Additionally, can content can easily be folded into the (currently short) article about the album Samantha Jade (album) LK ( talk) 06:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Courcelles 01:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:NSONG. Not enough independent coverage for a stand alone article. Additionally, can content can easily be folded into the (currently short) article about the album Samantha Jade (album) LK ( talk) 06:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 01:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC) reply
This article is essentially a CV, and the only sources are a book he wrote and a telephone interview with him. I'm not finding much about him on Google, though that may partly be due to his somewhat common name. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 02:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Episode list only covers 2 episodes, which haven't aired yet. No need for a separate article from the main one this soon into the series' run. Paper Luigi T • C 05:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 02:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Never played or managed at a professional level, nor been the subject of significant coverage in reliable third-party sources ChrisTheDude ( talk) 13:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to List of major artifacts in Dungeons & Dragons. Courcelles 01:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Non-notable fictional weapon. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Claritas § 15:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 01:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Individual research & teaching center inside a single ordinary level academic department in an ordinary level university. No indication of particular importance, no external sources for notability, or any reason to think there might be: it does not even offer a doctorate, just a masters and an undergraduate major. The section of wildlife shows how little can be said about the actual center & its activities. DGG ( talk ) 18:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 03:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Notability has yet to be established. If he gets a fight against a bigger name opponent, then recreate the page. JonnyBonesJones ( talk) 09:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Keep. One of his 3 big fights was on NBC(NBC right?). PortlandOregon97217 ( talk) 10:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. As much as I think this article should be deleted, after four relistings it is quite clear that a consensus cannot be reached. ( non-admin closure) Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Non-notable company / organisation. No refs in article and nothing obvious in google. This appears to be a completely separate entity to the similarly unreferenced EADS Innovation Works. PROD repeatedly removed by creator. Stuartyeates ( talk) 04:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The twenty some refs I added were reverted by Piandcompany for an unspecified reason (marked as a "minor" change). I removed PROD once in accordance with the message in the PROD, stating that once issues had been addressed it can be deleted without discussion by anyone, including the creator. Cyounkins ( talk) 05:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC) reply
There are easily located sources from very reliable independent sources, including the Pittsburgh Post Gazette and the Pittsburgh Business Times.
Here are two articles from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the leading Pittsburgh daily newspaper:
Here are four articles from the Pittsburgh Business Times:
This article should have these reliable sources added, with information from the articles. -- DThomsen8 ( talk) 14:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to East Oakland, Oakland, California. The Bushranger One ping only 21:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC) reply
middle school, not connected with any school district. we normally dont have articles on middle schools unless uniquely notable (landmark building, etc). this has nothing like that. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 06:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to University of North Texas. Courcelles 01:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC) reply
No independent sources, not notable, etc. As per WP:NSONG, "a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." Runfellow ( talk) 05:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. There is a pretty clear consensus here from users who expressed an opinion that the article as existing is redundant to a category and relevant guidelines on this. There is a long discussion about ways in which the article could be re-purposed, although obviously I cannot take that into account as closer; however feel free to ask me to userfy the article if you believe the material could be used in some way. Black Kite ( talk) 01:31, 6 January 2013 (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}} . |
An incomplete list that is unnecessary due to Category:Female characters in video games. Cyan Gardevoir (used EDIT!) 01:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC) reply
There seems to be a beginning of understanding here. I prefer to use verifiability over notability for the inclusion criterion for the reasons stated in my "question to the nominator" above, that so far no one has answered; a navigational list should help readers locate content relevant to the list's topic, whether or not that content has a whole article for it; the way we organize the content is irrelevant to such reader. I think Purposes of lists is the guideline that best describes this approach, but WP:Build the web and Advantages of a list are also relevant.
If we limit the list critierion to include characters that have been described somewhere in Wikipedia with more than a few words and support from a reliable source, the scope is reduced considerably; it's no longer "a list of all female characters in videogames", but "an index to Wikipedia content that describes female characters". The amount of entries in the list is one-to-one with characters that Wikipedia editors have written about, so it is no longer unmaintenable.
Can you elaborate on what you don't agree of this analysis? Maybe you can think of a better approach than a list to achieve that goal? Diego ( talk) 17:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC) reply
User:Sue Rangell introduced a new concern of notability. (There was a conversation with Niemti about notability above, but it was about individual characters and not the notability of the topic). Sue's argument is a just not notable (a form of just pointing at a policy or guideline) with an argument to the person added by Sergecross73 (my involvement with the article should not have any weight for nor against my arguments); counting the !votes is a form of the support argument. There's a reason all those arguments are listed in the arguments to avoid - they are against current policies and guidelines, and as such they make very poor arguments against the list. An argument against notability should rely on the number or quality of the sources describing the topic.
Now this list has the exact same topic as the category, that had direct consensus to keep at this afd discussion. The sources that User:coelacan gave there (such as this and this, together with the references at Gender representation in video games), are a solid way to establish the notability of female characters in video games as a notable topic. Diego ( talk) 19:09, 1 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Diego, if you really need to have an otherwise random list of characters that you think are important and discuss their roles or whatever, maybe make your own wiki or a blog or even a whole website like this one (I'm not saying it's good, it's actually very poor and just ridicalous, but it's there). You now, that's why. -- Niemti ( talk) 23:16, 1 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Comment: Note that I didn't list this debate at the above page, I've just added the tag when I noticed. Diego ( talk) 09:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC) reply
What do you think of this inclusion criterion? The idea is to explicitly avoid saying "notable characters", because then any characters without an article of their own could be argued to be removed from the list, which is less than ideal. Diego ( talk) 07:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC) reply
If the list is to be kept and it to be easily maintainable I prefer the following:
I think the ideal solution would be to allow for the removal of characters that bulk up the list and make it harder to read without enhancing reader navigation to the more useful articles (i.e. those on notable topics). WP:N provides such an allowance without requiring the local-article-only definition of otherwise ill-defined terms. - Thibbs ( talk) 13:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Gaijin42 ( talk) 17:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Sergecross73 described an interesting case above - the list of characters from Chrono Cross don't need to be merged at all with List of female video game characters - it's enough that the first be included somewhere in the list or its sublists. But if you restrict the criterion to only notable characters, the link to Chrono Cross won't be included and a reader interested on the topic won't be able to navigate to it and find that this game's article has a verifiable description of female characters.
Above I talked with Thibbs about the need for a kind of "specific notability" criterion for the list that is based on properties relevant to portrayal of females. I'm planning a WP:straw poll to find out what's the detailed position of editors (beyond a simple "support" or "oppose" for the whole list) for each of the main subjects in the current conversation. I'll include questions about the overall notability of the topic (of female characters as a group), the possibility to define a new inclusion criterion for this topic (whether at this list or a new one), the use of GNG notability as the inclusion criterion, or some properties relevant to female characters that could be used as part of a new criterion. If you have some ideas for more questions that you'd want to see in the straw poll, let's us now and we'll add them to it. I think this will help the poor admin that must do the closing to get a better idea of where the consensus (or lack thereof) lies. Diego ( talk) 18:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was Withdrawn by nominator. Procedural close Monty 845 17:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC) reply
No indication of notability. Running for office and losing does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. Gtwfan52 ( talk) 04:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator withdrawn This article looks fine now. Gtwfan52 ( talk) 17:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 21:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Non-notable video recording. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 17:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 21:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Yet another rumour fest that violates WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NALBUMS, and WP:HAMMER. Per WP:NOT#CRYSTAL, Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumours. A project that has gone on this long may never come to fruition, and we shouldn't be tracking all the various rumours and tidbits that appear about it. We can have an article about the album when there's an album. — Kww( talk) 20:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 20:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC) reply
See here for reference.
The Intercontinental Cup was clearly not a world championship. This has come from numerous times by FIFA and they gave their reasons (very valid ones at that). For example, the Afro-Asian Championship could also claimed to be a world championship just for having two confederations coming together.
Seeing the above information, and the little relevance in having this, I propose this list be deleted. God Football ( talk) 21:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC) reply
It must be pointed out that no one here is denying the fact that the IC was a very relevant soccer trophy , official at UEFA and CONMEBOL, and a forerunner to the FCWC. All this are facts. However, the thing is just that. Nothing more. UEFA and CONMEBOL do not have jurisdiction over worldwide soccer (only FIFA has it) and therefore UEFA and CONMEBOL cannot give "world level legitimacy" to competitions. Besides, being "a forerunner to something" is not the same as being "that same something": the fact that one thing is forerunner to another does not mean at all that they have the same status or worth or value or importance. The fact that the IC was a forerunner to the FCWC does not mean that they have the same status or worth or importance. I will not make "copy and paste" here. Check the Portuguese-wikipedia article on the IC and you will find tons os links (in English) to the most valuable sources (FIFA, UEFA , CONMEBOL, BBC, Toyota, Japanese FA, several if not most IC-Winning clubs as Manchester and Real Madrid) making clear that the FCWC has a bigger dimension and is considered far more relevant than the IC.
All this was already indicated to Dantetheperuvian: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Intercontinental_Cup_(football)#The_Intercontinental_Cup_is_NOT_official_as_a_world_club_cup
Another example of text that was not listed inside the link above but I remember it now- FIFA making clear that the FCWC has a bigger dimension than the IC- http://www.fifa.com/tournaments/archive/tournament=107/edition=4735/news/newsid=95645.html
Other examples:
On its web-site, FIFA tells its official documents ( http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/officialdocuments/index.html , http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/officialdocuments/doclists/matches.html) apart from the other parts of its web-site, implying that the latter parts are not its official views. The only one FIFA official document to mention the Intercontinental Cup ( http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/fifafacts/mencompcwc/01/15/71/66/fcwc2012_kit.pdf) does NOT use the word "world" to refer to the Intercontinental Cup. In this document the word "world" is limited to the FIFA Club World Cup. The Intercontinental cup is mentioned as a predecessor to the FIFA Club World Cup but is NOT mentioned as being itself a club world title.
A UEFA official document saying that FIFA did NOT authorise the Intercontinental Cup: http://pt.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/EuroExperience/uefaorg/Publications/01/59/87/45/1598745_DOWNLOAD.pdf
For those who read Spanish, three times on which FIFA openly referred to the Intercontinental Cup as a non-World and non-FIFA Cup: http://hemeroteca.mundodeportivo.com/preview/1960/09/05/pagina-2/1384381/pdf.html?search=Intercontinental and http://hemeroteca.mundodeportivo.com/preview/1967/03/16/pagina-8/931136/pdf.html?search=Intercontinental and http://hemeroteca.mundodeportivo.com/preview/1966/07/27/pagina-6/936416/pdf.html?search=intercontinental
Here FIFA refers to the Intercontinental Cup as a symbolic world title ( http://www.fifa.com/tournaments/archive/tournament=107/edition=4735/news/newsid=95645.html) ;
in a July 28th 2005 text (about the 2005 FIFA Club World Cup) called "Japan welcomes the world with open arms" on its web-site, FIFA writes "Brought up watching the annual Europe-South America clash, Japanese fans are counting the days to the kick off of the true world club showdown", therefore FIFA makes clear the difference between "Europe-South America clash" (IC) and "the true world club showdown" (refering to the FIFA Club World Cup). therefore FIFA makes clear that only the FIFA Club World Cup is the true world club showdown.
also in a July 28th 2005 text (about the 2005 FIFA Club World Cup) called "Continental champions prepare for Tokyo draw" on its web-site, FIFA writes "the Toyota Cup, which superseded the Intercontinental Cup in 1980, has been revamped by FIFA to reach out to all confederations and associations across the globe so the winners may truly be regarded as the best club side in the world", therefore FIFA makes clear that only the FIFA Club World Cup truly indicates the world club champion.
( http://www.fifa.com/tournaments/archive/tournament=107/edition=4735/news/newsid=99485.html)
And, as I said, there are many many more sources at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Intercontinental_Cup_(football)#The_Intercontinental_Cup_is_NOT_official_as_a_world_club_cup and also at the IC and FCWC Portuguese-Wikipedia articles.
You see: in many texts FIFA makes very clear how bigger the FCWC is relative to the IC, and Dantetheperuvian keeps trying to "equalise" the IC and FCWC based on one single FIFA text.
As you will see through the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Intercontinental_Cup_(football)#The_Intercontinental_Cup_is_NOT_official_as_a_world_club_cup , Dantetheperuvian has already been informed all of this, and he intentionally decided to ignore it . He is not here impartially and honestly. He has behaving dishonestly on this matter, ignoring all these sources and trying to "mingle oranges with apples" (he intentionally mixes different concepts and aspects of the thing in order to confuse the debate and enforce his views). This Dantetheperuvian cannot be taken seriously - he is just a supporter of Juventus who insists on the sheer lie that the IC was equivalent to the FCWC because his Juventus only got the IC while its Milano rivals (AC Milan and Internazionale) won both the IC and the far-more-relevant FCWC. It is pointless to discuss with a person like him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soccer historian ( talk • contribs) 12:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC) reply
See the Portugues-Wikipedia article on the IC: http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copa_Intercontinental . See the links on it: UEFA, CONMEBOL, FIFA, Japanese Football Association, Toyota, several IC-winning clubs such as Ac Milan and Internazionale Milano, FC Barcelona, BBC's Tim Vickery's articles on BBC and UEFA-archive sites, Korean//Mexican/Spanish/CostaRican newspaper sources, and etc. All of them agree the IC was a predecessor to the FCWC. None of them says that the IC was a "world title" or "value equivalent" to the FCWC. Perhaps the IC was a "de facto world championship" in Dantetheperuvian's cheap talk, but not in the real world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soccer historian ( talk • contribs) 12:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC) reply
As Dante has now decided to cite Mr Blatter , I would like to show Blatter stating (to 2 Brazilian newspapers) that two-continent-limited competitions (such as the IC) cannot be considered world titles (one of them shows FIFA faxes in English language with the mentioned statement): http://acervo.estadao.com.br/pagina/#!/20001019-39083-nac-0033-esp-e3-not/busca/Toyota+Fifa+Mundial e http://www.gazetaesportiva.net/noticia/2012/12/campeonatos-mundial-de-clubes-fifa-2012/em-2000-fifa-confirmou-a-gazeta-esportiva-corinthians-1-campeao.html . Actually, see the FCWC talkpage: this information was alerady showed to Dante, but he tehn dismissed them. In his "great intelectual honesty", Dante only takes into consideration the FIFA views when they fit his ones.
The result was merge to Mike Resnick. ( non-admin closure) — Yash [talk] 03:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Non-notable individual on their own right. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. No reliable sources to support any claims, and even article claims they are "an uncredited editor" - which makes them uncredited and non-notable. Article was an undeleted WP:PROD and appears to have been heavily edited by the subject themself, with much WP:COI ( ✉→ BWilkins ←✎) 21:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Snowballs have a better chance than this WP:VANISPAMCRUFTISEMENT. The Bushranger One ping only 21:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The person fails notability because insufficient independent sources exist. An internet search found only press releases related to personal appearances and book signing events to promote her new book. Further, the text of the article is a copy-paste of those press releases. Recommend deletion. Senator2029 leave me a message 04:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Courcelles 01:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD. Biographical article about an Indian actress. I am bringing this to AFD because I cannot establish whether or not the coverage provided as sources and what I found is basically WP:ROUTINE. From what I understand of the Indian movie industry, this doesn't seem to be particularly substantive. If that is the case then the subject fails WP:GNG; I also find the two movies she has acted in to be less than enough to meet WP:ACTOR. § FreeRangeFrog croak 03:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 01:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Non-notable per WP:BIO. WP is not Linkedin or a place for filing a curriculum vitae -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 07:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Keep article as is Steven M. Cohen has been recognized by the Super Lawyers of New York for the past number of years as among the top litigators in the state. http://www.superlawyers.com/new-york-upstate/lawyer/Steven-M-Cohen/4224dc55-b4dc-438f-89db-10b9551da529.html Cohen has also been regarded as among the best lawyers in New York State according to the New York Times.
Steven M. Cohen has been featured on local, regional, national and international news sources for his involvement in high profile cases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nysfbla ( talk • contribs) 04:57, 22 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Save Article - I live in the Greater Buffalo Area and have personally been at conferences where Mr. Cohen is a featured speaker. He is published in such books as Elder Care by Thomas Cassidy. Steve Cohen consistantly makes headlines in Western New York through his pro bono work on such matters as Amanda Wienckowski (case where a girl found naked in a garbage tote was ruled an accidental death). As an attorney for Lynn DeJac he obtained one of the largest verdicts for a wrongfully convicted victim in New York State history. -MarkJermey — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.243.18.130 ( talk) 16:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 21:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC) reply
This article is unsourced and barely readable. Andrew ( talk) 08:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 01:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC) reply
This band may fail WP:N and likely WP:BAND. After several source searches, I found these Dutch sources, but the reliability of them is questionable regarding Wikipedia's purposes: [30], [31], [32]. Northamerica1000 (talk) 11:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Comment I love the line about the singers deep, raw voice. PortlandOregon97217 ( talk) 11:29, 21 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Kubigula ( talk) 17:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC) reply
no assertion of notability - fails WP:GNG / WP:ORG with no independent sources. I personally would like sources to be found, and the article improved per WP:FAILN. suggestions? Widefox; talk 14:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC) reply
and here is another [35] , and here it is talked about by Nessus [36] Though I agree the article here sucks. Another possibility is to turn it into OWASP top 10, an equivalent of PCI DSS Seektrue ( talk) 05:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Courcelles 01:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Non-notable store, fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. ukexpat ( talk) 17:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete, redirect, and protect. The Bushranger One ping only 01:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Non-notable fictional character. This page has been repeatedly redirected to List of Camp Half-Blood characters#Annabeth Chase. This may be an option over outright deletion. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 20:42, 21 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE The Bushranger One ping only 01:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC) reply
This is a term coined by Hillerbrand+Magsamen and seems to be used sparingly by them and no-one else. Therefore I'd say this was a non-notable neologism. Sionk ( talk) 20:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. The Bushranger One ping only 21:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC) reply
WP:OR. Found several books that throw the term around, but none that actually give a definition to what it actually is. The article is completely OR from top to bottom, and I see no sources that give a clear definition of what the South Carolina Lowcountry is. "Economy" and "Tourism" merely parrot other articles. The fact that this article has been completely devoid of sources SIX YEARS is appalling, but likely stems from the fact that there seems to be no clear definition for "South Carolina Lowcountry". Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 22:05, 21 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 03:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC) reply
This article is repeatedly recreated. The current version has multiple sources, and they're very nicely formatted, too. Not a one of them meets the reliable source guidelines. Do we think that this person meets Wikipedia's notability criteria? FisherQueen ( talk · contribs) 02:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Due to the ambiguity, any "merging" should be done from scratch. The Bushranger One ping only 03:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC) reply
This article was nominated by TonyTheTiger for WP:PROD in January 2012. His reason was, "Grade school with no evidence or assertion of meeting Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)." Danjel objected, saying that "per WP:OUTCOMES and general consensus at WP:WPSCH, this primary school should be merged/redirected to its locality or school authority, NOT deleted". I agree that WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES urges us to redirect the article to the relevant school district or locality, but that solution is not possible for this article because "Holy Family" is a name used by several Catholic parishes and schools. Edge3 ( talk) 01:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 01:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Article about a company that seems to fail WP:CORP; it has been created twice by an SPA, with the previous one deleted because of copyvio issues. I believe the purpose of this is purely promotional, since I cannot establish that the company is actually notable in any way, regardless of the attempt to claim notability for the founder. If sources are not found and the article is deleted, the title should probably also be salted. § FreeRangeFrog croak 15:57, 13 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Low Anthem. MBisanz talk 04:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Has been on patrol page for a month, no reliable references. Should be rolled into the Low Anthem article, if anything. -Jordgette [talk] 05:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Consensus following relisting. The Bushranger One ping only 21:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC) reply
This page does not provide any purpose that cannot be served by the category Filipino Comedians Op47 ( talk) 22:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Could be userfied if someone wants to competently write a new and sourced article about this topic. Sandstein 00:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC) reply
It has no references and is completely unreadable. The only way someone could fix this article would be to rewrite it entirely. Prof. Squirrel ( talk) 00:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 21:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 21:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC) reply
This sports event fails
WP:NOTNEWSPAPER policy, the
primary
routine sources quoted just cover the announcements of who is going to appear which NOTNEWSPAPER explicitly says "is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. There is no attempt in the article to demonstrate what the
lasting significance of this event will be, there will I have no doubt be 10 winners and 10 looser of 10 fights listed but beyond that any significance is pure
speculation.
For the avoidance of doubt this nomination has nothing to do with the events
notability or not, as a professional sports event, meeting the
WP:GNG is not in doubt, however that is no guarantee of a subjects suitability for an article in an encyclopedia if, as in this case, it fails the
inclusion policy.
Mt
king
(edits)
23:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
reply
The result was merge to Milladoiro. The Bushranger One ping only 22:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC) reply
No suggestion of notability, merely a listing of non-notable tracks ( ✉→ BWilkins ←✎) 23:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC) reply
This article was nominated for deletion on the grounds that it listed no tracks. That was because I was in the middle of writing the article and hadn't added them yet. The track listing is now included. Peyre ( talk) 23:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE The Bushranger One ping only 01:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, defunct online magazine. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 23:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 01:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Non-league footballer, only really gained independent coverage for one event and otherwise likely to remain low-profile, which is a classic example of WP:BLP1E. I might add he never played in a fully professional league or in a match involving two fully-professional teams. C 679 00:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 01:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Does not meet criteria of Wikipedia:WikiProject Figure Skating/Notability, see
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 18:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Does not meet criteria of Wikipedia:WikiProject Figure Skating/Notability. Didn't win Dancing on Ice either. Entry on List of Dancing on Ice professional skaters is sufficient. Hergilei ( talk) 13:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC) reply