![]() |
< 20 January | 22 January > |
---|
The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 09:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply
This appears to be a non-notable weather event with no lasting impact. This snowstorm only lasted 2 days. SL93 ( talk) 23:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Delete - per SL93. Bruvtakesover ( T| C) 23:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Consensus is clearly keep, plus nominator withdrew. ( non-admin closure) Bryce ( talk | contribs) 00:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Declined Prod. Prod Reason was "Unreferenced and Uncited Article of non-encyclopedic nature". Objection was "has general references so PROD rationale is faulty". This is a WP:POINTY decline as the only external links are to top level landing pages of map sites. Hasteur ( talk) 23:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 06:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Seems to be the original research of one person, Silviu Olariu, and I can find no evidence that this mathematical construction has attracted any outside notice. I can't find any sources that cover this except Wikipedia and its mirrors, and a bunch of things written by Olariu. Therefore this subject does not pass our notability requirements. Reyk YO! 22:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 09:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Appears to be an unimportant, typical law firm. Contest prod. Whenaxis about | talk 22:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 06:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 22:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following article for the same reason. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 22:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 09:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Promotional article for an actor/producer of questionable notability. IMDB page lists many roles, but most are either uncredited or background parts. Google news search on "Michael Wehrhahn" shows only two results, neither relevant to this person. Standard search on the name shows only primary sources, social media, and sales links - no significant coverage found in independent reliable sources. MikeWazowski ( talk) 21:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep per WP:SNOW. Bearian ( talk) 19:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Un-referenced article, full of original research. GimliDotNet ( talk) 21:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 09:29, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply
He has done nothing after the show and has failed notability and BLP1E. There's no sources (reliable and third-party) for this article. ApprenticeFan work 21:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 17:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Barely comprehensible, largely ungrammatical and severely unencyclopedic article about a non-notable monument apparently situated in a village in India (at least, that's what I figured out the article is meant to be about; it's difficult to ascertain.) No independent coverage, no indication of notability. No sourcing. Was created by new contributor with evident promotional interest in the topic, who also removed a PROD tag. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:03, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Sources:
The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 19:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Non-notable web site. The site exists but no indication that it's notable from various searches, not helped by the article's complete lack of sources. JohnBlackburne words deeds 20:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 06:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Article is also completely unreferenced. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 06:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. This has been going for a month and a half, which really shouldn't have happened. No consensus is by definition the result. Stifle ( talk) 16:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Non-notable fashion company. The first result for "extè" on Google is their website which is down, the second is the article page on Wikipedia. Jean ( t· c) 23:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 16:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply
A non-notable person. Got interviewed for something. The subject of the interview may be significant, the he interviewee is a generic nobody WP:1E. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and a guy getting arrested is not encyclopedic. (Full disclosure: I am the anon IP {{ prod}}:er of the article, having not to bothered log in.) Captain Hindsight ( talk) 20:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Brooklyn Thrill Killers#Film. ( non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 17:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC) reply
I found nothing to show notability. This film fails WP:NF. SL93 ( talk) 19:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Stifle ( talk) 16:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Zero refs. Appears non-notable, and tagged as such for over a year. Epeefleche ( talk) 23:09, 25 December 2011 (UTC) reply
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |publisher=
(
help){{
cite web}}
: External link in |publisher=
(
help){{
cite web}}
: External link in |publisher=
(
help){{
cite web}}
: External link in |publisher=
(
help)This article provides no significant coverage of Route 66.The Dutch company said Feb. 14 that navigation company Route 66 started a mapping and navigation application for Google Inc.'s Android handset system using TomTom's maps.
No significant coverage.HTC's mapping offering, built together with navigation software firm Route 66, enables ...
Keep Company seems notable enough that there are a few articles written about it, like this: "Route 66 Launches Mobile 7 for Windows Mobile Smartphones" Wireless News, 8 April 2005, 173 words, (English) Deathlibrarian ( talk) 11:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Stifle ( talk) 16:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply
No evidence of satisfying any of the notability guidelines. JamesBWatson ( talk) 17:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 17:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NF. Not only hasn't been commercially released, it apparently hasn't even been seen yet (may not even be finished; per IMDb), as its first appearance is scheduled to be a film festival. This per one single source, a press release (from the festival); no other evidence of notability. Google shows me no reviews, no awards, no wide distribution. All of its actors and even its director are apperantly so lacking in notability themselves that they rate only redlinks on WP. The author hints that I should try Google, but doesn't reveal what one should Google for to get better results, and hasn't provided any further proof of notability themselves. — JohnFromPinckney ( talk) 19:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy speedily deleted. ( non-admin closure) RadioFan ( talk) 04:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Promotional article for a company of questionable notability. Google news search on company name shows no results. Standard search shows a lot of primary sources, directory listsings, sales links, and social media, but no significant coverage found. MikeWazowski ( talk) 18:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to List of Blackpool F.C. players. Stifle ( talk) 16:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Notability is assumed in all Wikipedia articles and arbitrarily assigning it to some players is WP:OR. There is already List of Blackpool F.C. players, so this is furthermore redundant. PROD was denied with "Rmv prod - such lists exist for many clubs, has refs" but I don't see any other "Lists of notable X" at Special:Allpages/List_of_notable nor in Category:Lists of association football players by club. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 18:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
*Keep there are many articles like this covering only notable players. Not every single player ever to have played. Until today I didnt realise the full list was prefered. A wider discussion is required.
Edinburgh
Wanderer
11:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
reply
The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 09:34, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply
This is a classic WP:BLP1E article -- outside of the one event the person has no notability. I would not even suggest a redirect, as it is appleimac.com that has some notability, not the person. Y u no be Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 17:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete, no minimal claim of significance. Full text: Martel Communication was founded in Wichita, Kansas. Martel offered discounted long distance service in the USA. Martel service is offered to home and small business consumers from all states in the US. Headquarters are located near Chicago in Lake in the Hills, Illinois. Martel shut down operation in 2009. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:CORP. Bbb23 ( talk) 17:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 09:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NLIST. Cites to only one source, essentially copying their list into our article. The source describes itself as a news source, but it's unclear how reliable the source is. The article seems to be a WP:COATRACK (see sentence about Internet censorshiip). Bbb23 ( talk) 16:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Southern African Development Community. ( non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 17:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Unsourced, there's almost no content here, so what little there is could be merged with the main article. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Elf (Dungeons & Dragons). ( non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 23:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC) reply
This article was previously nominated for deletion in a mass group nomination here, but the discussion was muddled with so many varying articles. The closing administrator suggested that the articles should be nominated individually, which is what I am doing now. A search for reliable, secondary sources reveals an insufficient amount of significant coverage. This article fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for elements of fiction. Neelix ( talk) 16:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete All. Michig ( talk) 16:50, 28 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The three players above do not meet the guidelines for footballer notability, having not played in a fully professional league - their only appearances are for the semi-professional team Barrow A.F.C., in the not-fully-professional Football Conference. None of them appear to otherwise meet the general notability guidelines. Pretty Green ( talk) 15:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to WayForward Technologies. ( non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 22:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
No indication of WP:notability. Bit part actor and businessman. Only reference is to imdb where he appears to have had 3 bit bits. No sources for business career. Google searches reveal nothing significant. Disputed prod. noq ( talk) 12:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep. Wikipedia is not cleanup. ( non-admin closure) Bryce ( talk | contribs) 11:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Reason: The article for the main part is not about the British Raj but rather Indian independence along with a whole load of socialist revisionism. Eighteen months ago I requested that Indian independence apart from the relevant paragraphs be removed along with a whole load of npov socialist revisionism but to no avail. Twobells ( talk) 14:42, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Stifle ( talk) 16:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Disputed prod. Site fails WP:WEB rules for notability. Won no important awards and has not received the requisite press or scholarly recognition via multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable sources, etc. DreamGuy ( talk) 20:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Due to limited consensus over three weeks, this counts as a PROD deletion so can be reversed by simple request at WP:REFUND. Stifle ( talk) 16:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply
While this actress certainly exists, I cannot find substantial, non-trivial, multiple RS pieces on her. Others are welcome to try. Tagged for notability, etc., last month. Epeefleche ( talk) 22:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 16:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Is this art professor notable? I see no evidence of it. Delete. -- Nlu ( talk) 19:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Is this artist sufficiently notable? I don't think the article shows it. Delete. -- Nlu ( talk) 19:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Tom Morris ( talk) 21:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Was this professor sufficiently notable? I can't discern any real notability. Delete. -- Nlu ( talk) 18:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 13:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Is this artist sufficiently notable? From an outsider's view, I don't think so, but further thoughts are requested. Delete. -- Nlu ( talk) 18:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Keep, Some notable museum/Biennale survey exhibition inclusion, mostly independently curated, plus after digging i found an in depth review from the senior art critic at the NYT about the artwork http://www.nytimes.com/1999/03/05/arts/art-in-review-ma-liuming.html,}} Euartcurator ( talk) 10:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Non-notable; quite limited RS coverage relates to competing in a Pop Idol style competition, where the singer didn't even place in the top 3. My understanding is that falls short of our notability requirements. Epeefleche ( talk) 02:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. with a leave for speedy renomination. ( non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 10:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Zero refs. Zero gnews hits. I can't find sufficient substantial RS coverage to indicate notability. Others are welcome to try. Epeefleche ( talk) 22:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was soft delete. In the absence of any opinions of any type over three weeks, this is considered an uncontested deletion and can be restored by request at WP:REFUND. Stifle ( talk) 16:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Zero refs. Not to be confused with another film of the same name. Lack (from what I can find) substantial RS coverage. Others are welcome to search for it. Tagged for zero refs, and absence of notability, for over 2 years. Epeefleche ( talk) 22:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Stifle ( talk) 16:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Despite his own numerous publications, this is not the subject of non-trivial coverage in multiple, reliable, third-party sources (failing WP:BASIC). This subject also fails WP:PROFESSOR; there's no indication this individual is widely cited, and most publications giving even trivial mention seem to come from organizations with which the subject is affiliated. JFHJr ( ㊟) 21:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 16:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Minor political figure with no substantial independent coverage. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. WWGB ( talk) 04:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was soft delete. No submissions in three weeks, so I am deleting as though this were an expired PROD. Stifle ( talk) 17:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Non-notable credit union. Fails WP:N as not having "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Does not satisfy any of the standards in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Being "oldest and largest entirely student-run credit union in the country" doesn't confer inherent notability. GrapedApe ( talk) 03:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 17:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply
No valid source, Iran is not known Kasir talk 16:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was soft delete. No comment in three weeks, so this is treated as an expired PROD. Stifle ( talk) 17:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Company does not appear to be notable. Article is advertising. Philafrenzy ( talk) 22:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. With no prejudice against speedy renomination ( non-admin closure) Bryce ( talk | contribs) 11:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Person has done little of relevance outside of being on two reality shows, both of which are noted on those shows' respective pages TheNate ( talk) 12:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. with a leave for speedy renomination. ( non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 17:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Dear Admin, Page created for a website in Sri Lanka. Please check if this article meets WP guidelines. Thanks AKS ( talk) 10:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was soft delete. No contributions to the debate for three weeks. Treated as expired PROD. Stifle ( talk) 17:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Detailed article, but I can't find sufficient substantial RS coverage of this guitarist/composer/record producer. Others are welcome to try. Epeefleche ( talk) 07:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was soft delete. Counts as expired PROD. Stifle ( talk) 17:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply
This DJ/music producer/record label owner lacks significant RS coverage. Epeefleche ( talk) 06:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was soft delete. Counts as expired PROD. Stifle ( talk) 17:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply
While he exists, this Polish DJ, producer, and promoter lacks substantial RS coverage. Zero refs, as well. Created by an SPA. Epeefleche ( talk) 06:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was soft delete. Counts as expired PROD. Stifle ( talk) 17:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Lacks substantial RS coverage. Gnews never heard of it, and gbooks has only a snippet. Tagged for lack of refs and as an orphan for over 2 years. Epeefleche ( talk) 06:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 17:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Lacks substantial RS coverage. Zero refs. Tagged for zero refs, and for being an orphan, over 3 years ago. Created by an SPA. Epeefleche ( talk) 06:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 17:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Challenging notability of person, lack of references proving notability. Zzaffuto118 ( talk) 06:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was deleted per CSD G11. Bearcat ( talk) 01:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Apparently non-notable television show. Airs on a regional broadcast network, not nationally distributed. I can find no independent coverage: no gnews hits, and all ghits are either the show's own pages, the network's pages, or social media. Livit⇑ Eh?/ What? 03:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was soft delete. Counts as expired PROD. Stifle ( talk) 17:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Non-notable small record company. No third party sources to establish notability, as required by WP:N. Fails WP:MUSIC, as well. Notability is not inherited to the record company through any notability of the bands signed to that label. Notability in question since August 2010. -- GrapedApe ( talk) 03:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was soft delete. Counts as expired PROD. Stifle ( talk) 17:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Firm is not notable. Article is corporate advertisement. No mainstream media publications reference the firm in question Jun Kayama 19:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was soft delete. Counts as expired PROD. Stifle ( talk) 17:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply
No indication of WP:notability. Only reference is to a directory listing of two films with no commentary. Google searches not showing anything to establish notability. noq ( talk) 00:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. — Tom Morris ( talk) 21:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply
This person does not seem to meet our notability requirements, and IMHO lacks substantial independent non-trivial RS coverage. Epeefleche ( talk) 22:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. With no prejudice against speedy renomination. ( non-admin closure) Bryce ( talk | contribs) 11:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC) reply
While this 19-year-old radio dj exists, and may be notable in the future, I cannot find substantial, multiple independent RS coverage of him. Created by an SPA. Epeefleche ( talk) 22:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 17:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply
While this DJ/record producer/presenter exists, I cannot find substantial, independent RS coverage of him such as meets our notability guidelines. Others are welcome to try. Article has zero refs, though it has non-independent ELs. Created by an SPA. Epeefleche ( talk) 22:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Marshall Islands general election, 2011. Stifle ( talk) 16:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The Marshall Islands does not hold presidential elections. The president is elected by parliament in what is part of the general election process. This year's election of Loeak was fairly unsurprising (he's a veteran and an iroijlaplap) and uneventful (gets exactly 28 hits on Google news). It will never be more than a stub, and was easily merged into the general election article (of which it is an essential part and will need to be discussed under anyway). Nightw 15:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Tabernacle Township, New Jersey. ( non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 13:29, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Possibly merge to Tabernacle Township, New Jersey. Not sourced, either. Tinton5 ( talk) 23:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC) reply
BTW, fully agree w/ above about procedure here. Djflem ( talk) 21:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirected as per below. Useful material was merged over. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Original research on a made-up term. Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 09:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Done I went ahead and incorporated the content of this article in a rewritten version of
Text semigraphics. It remains to be seen whether that article should be reamed to
Semigraphics, I am neutral on that, and I rewrote it so that it doesn't matter. Obviously this article can now be deleted.
Mahjongg (
talk)
22:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
reply
The result was no consensus. Stifle ( talk) 17:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply
An article on Bollywood songs. Poorly sourced, disrupts neutrality, and is likely to be useless for all purposes relating to the article's subject. A category exists, I believe, having a list of notable Bollywood songs, and this one has only certain songs, some of which are unnotable too. There is another article for Filmi covering most of the stuff about Indian music, which is not restricted to Bollywood alone. Not only that, I believe this article is used in the Bollywood article in the "See also" section, as well as in a main article in some other section. It has little relevance to the article. X.One SOS 08:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
:::Anyway, with the edits I have made, the article is just about suitable now. I have added eight referenced statements and rather than go to the trouble of deleting and recreating, I think this one can be salvaged here and now. With this and more edits, it can serve as a base for a well-referenced article. With change in content, I request dissenting editors to reconsider the deletion, as it would only add more process to its recovery, which I am sure is at least as acceptable an alternative as simple deletion. Struck out since it is considered as CANVASSING. Article in present form copied to user-space in case consensus is to delete.
AshLin (
talk)
17:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
reply
The result was keep. Notability has been established, and that is stated even by those calling for deletion. Concerns about the quality of the article are best met by editing. SilkTork ✔Tea time 00:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Fundamentally flawed article, sole content contributor is Robert Ørsted-Jensen [45] [46] and is the author of the major sources used, noting that other reference cited in the article are for quotes only. Personaly I think this is a candidate for a WP:CSD#G11 which is for Unambiguous advertising or promotion, though I know that would be controversial hence this AFD. The Author Robert Ørsted-Jensen is only one of a handful people who write about the controvercial subject Australian frontier wars given that this article is written by one person based solely on his work the article couldnt be concievably written in accordance within the requirements of a neutral point of view. Carl Freilberg probably is notable as the incidental quotes indicate that he was a recognised individual associated with what is now referred to as Australian frontier wars, but an article written solely by someone with a clear WP:COI should be deleted and recreated from fresh by editors without any COI and rely on multiple sources. Gnan garra 07:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Well gnanarra - if this was the only source - but it is not - a whole range of other sources of which all of the most notable are listed for anyone to see and read. Besides were you to delete all articles based on unpublished doctorates, you would be very busy indeed, we would have to produce some gigantic bonfires Helsned 04:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
The result was delete. Michig ( talk) 16:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC) reply
This article was written on the false premise that the subject post is a Shadow Cabinet post in the UK. It is not and never has been. There isn't even any evidence that Doyle actually has this portfolio or that Labour gives names to sub-Shadow Cabinet posts (other than a select few), let alone that they use the same nomenclature as the Government. The article is also unsourced and has few incoming links, with little prospect for more.
As it does nothing more than say the holder of the supposed office shadows a particular minister and list the current supposed holder, the article really serves no purpose. Rrius ( talk) 06:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 17:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Page is nothing more than a list of plot devices used in a cartoon. It serves little to no purpose and would not even be necessary in the main article or episode list. Nothing more than fancruft. Steve Farrell ( talk) 04:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Michig ( talk) 16:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Never played at professional level, not notable .. fails WP:NSPORTS and WP:GNG TonyStarks ( talk) 04:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 17:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC) reply
I found no significant coverage for this goddess of tuna. SL93 ( talk) 02:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
*Delete Striking-see below. This article must have been under some kind of divine protection for the last ten years. One sentence, no references, and no improvements in a decade.
Tigerboy1966 (
talk)
02:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
reply
The result was merge to Corruption. There is a clear consensus, that a separate article for this term isn't warranted. ( non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 10:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Not sure that there is enough for this article to exist independently. Suggest it be merged with Corruption or Political corruption or deleted. It's hard for me to determine whether "systemic" corruption is a concept distinct from the generic usage of the term. Noformation Talk 02:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. No arguments for keeping in two weeks of discussion. Michig ( talk) 16:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC) reply
This shopping centre exists, but lacks substantial non-passing coverage in RSs. Zero refs. Tagged for that problem for 2 years. Epeefleche ( talk) 05:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. I am sympathetic to claims that items of internet culture should be kept; however, consensus has long been that to establish notability there needs to be independent sources outside of YouTube and someone's own website. It is not for us to establish notability - for that we rely on adequate sources, which are missing here. SilkTork ✔Tea time 00:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC) reply
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Notability not supported by secondary, independent sources. ZZArch talk to me 07:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 01:26, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
No indication of notability, 99% of this artilce is lyrics, making this essentially a copyvio. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 17:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD. Rationale was "Lack of notability, long unsourced BLP". I can't find anything establishing significant coverage either. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 01:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Dear Wiki editors---
Here are some articles about Josh Max. The first three are about the network television show he hosted in December on the Discovery channel's Velocity network, and the final one, published by MediaBistro.com in 2008, is about how Max began his career as a journalist.
http://www.gibson.com/en-us/Lifestyle/News/carnivore-josh-max-1213-2011/
http://www.guitaraficionado.com/ga-contributor-josh-max-debuts-carnivore.html
http://suzetteklierocks.appspot.com/www.mediabistro.com/articles/cache/a10248.asp
Finally, here is a commercial for "CARnivore" on the Discovery channel's Velocity network YouTube.com page:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6ER-wC7rd0&list=LLESHyc1U5ke2kSZ0_397ahQ&feature=mh_lolz
Trust this solves the issue of "I can find nothing about him."
Thanks for reinstating his page. AP — Preceding unsigned comment added by AntoinePancakes ( talk • contribs) 03:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC) reply
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |publisher=
(
help){{
cite web}}
: External link in |publisher=
(
help)The result was delete. Michig ( talk) 16:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Not notable persons biography disguised as a not notable lawsuit You really can 00:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
*Keep possibly speedy. There are tons of news articles on this person.
Tigerboy1966 (
talk) 03:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC) Striking comment. I didnt read gnews hits properly: it was VERY late.
Tigerboy1966 (
talk)
10:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. Michig ( talk) 16:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC) reply
![]() |
< 20 January | 22 January > |
---|
The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 09:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply
This appears to be a non-notable weather event with no lasting impact. This snowstorm only lasted 2 days. SL93 ( talk) 23:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Delete - per SL93. Bruvtakesover ( T| C) 23:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Consensus is clearly keep, plus nominator withdrew. ( non-admin closure) Bryce ( talk | contribs) 00:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Declined Prod. Prod Reason was "Unreferenced and Uncited Article of non-encyclopedic nature". Objection was "has general references so PROD rationale is faulty". This is a WP:POINTY decline as the only external links are to top level landing pages of map sites. Hasteur ( talk) 23:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 06:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Seems to be the original research of one person, Silviu Olariu, and I can find no evidence that this mathematical construction has attracted any outside notice. I can't find any sources that cover this except Wikipedia and its mirrors, and a bunch of things written by Olariu. Therefore this subject does not pass our notability requirements. Reyk YO! 22:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 09:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Appears to be an unimportant, typical law firm. Contest prod. Whenaxis about | talk 22:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 06:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 22:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following article for the same reason. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 22:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 09:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Promotional article for an actor/producer of questionable notability. IMDB page lists many roles, but most are either uncredited or background parts. Google news search on "Michael Wehrhahn" shows only two results, neither relevant to this person. Standard search on the name shows only primary sources, social media, and sales links - no significant coverage found in independent reliable sources. MikeWazowski ( talk) 21:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep per WP:SNOW. Bearian ( talk) 19:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Un-referenced article, full of original research. GimliDotNet ( talk) 21:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 09:29, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply
He has done nothing after the show and has failed notability and BLP1E. There's no sources (reliable and third-party) for this article. ApprenticeFan work 21:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 17:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Barely comprehensible, largely ungrammatical and severely unencyclopedic article about a non-notable monument apparently situated in a village in India (at least, that's what I figured out the article is meant to be about; it's difficult to ascertain.) No independent coverage, no indication of notability. No sourcing. Was created by new contributor with evident promotional interest in the topic, who also removed a PROD tag. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:03, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Sources:
The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 19:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Non-notable web site. The site exists but no indication that it's notable from various searches, not helped by the article's complete lack of sources. JohnBlackburne words deeds 20:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 06:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Article is also completely unreferenced. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 06:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. This has been going for a month and a half, which really shouldn't have happened. No consensus is by definition the result. Stifle ( talk) 16:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Non-notable fashion company. The first result for "extè" on Google is their website which is down, the second is the article page on Wikipedia. Jean ( t· c) 23:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 16:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply
A non-notable person. Got interviewed for something. The subject of the interview may be significant, the he interviewee is a generic nobody WP:1E. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and a guy getting arrested is not encyclopedic. (Full disclosure: I am the anon IP {{ prod}}:er of the article, having not to bothered log in.) Captain Hindsight ( talk) 20:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Brooklyn Thrill Killers#Film. ( non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 17:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC) reply
I found nothing to show notability. This film fails WP:NF. SL93 ( talk) 19:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Stifle ( talk) 16:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Zero refs. Appears non-notable, and tagged as such for over a year. Epeefleche ( talk) 23:09, 25 December 2011 (UTC) reply
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |publisher=
(
help){{
cite web}}
: External link in |publisher=
(
help){{
cite web}}
: External link in |publisher=
(
help){{
cite web}}
: External link in |publisher=
(
help)This article provides no significant coverage of Route 66.The Dutch company said Feb. 14 that navigation company Route 66 started a mapping and navigation application for Google Inc.'s Android handset system using TomTom's maps.
No significant coverage.HTC's mapping offering, built together with navigation software firm Route 66, enables ...
Keep Company seems notable enough that there are a few articles written about it, like this: "Route 66 Launches Mobile 7 for Windows Mobile Smartphones" Wireless News, 8 April 2005, 173 words, (English) Deathlibrarian ( talk) 11:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Stifle ( talk) 16:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply
No evidence of satisfying any of the notability guidelines. JamesBWatson ( talk) 17:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 17:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NF. Not only hasn't been commercially released, it apparently hasn't even been seen yet (may not even be finished; per IMDb), as its first appearance is scheduled to be a film festival. This per one single source, a press release (from the festival); no other evidence of notability. Google shows me no reviews, no awards, no wide distribution. All of its actors and even its director are apperantly so lacking in notability themselves that they rate only redlinks on WP. The author hints that I should try Google, but doesn't reveal what one should Google for to get better results, and hasn't provided any further proof of notability themselves. — JohnFromPinckney ( talk) 19:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy speedily deleted. ( non-admin closure) RadioFan ( talk) 04:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Promotional article for a company of questionable notability. Google news search on company name shows no results. Standard search shows a lot of primary sources, directory listsings, sales links, and social media, but no significant coverage found. MikeWazowski ( talk) 18:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to List of Blackpool F.C. players. Stifle ( talk) 16:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Notability is assumed in all Wikipedia articles and arbitrarily assigning it to some players is WP:OR. There is already List of Blackpool F.C. players, so this is furthermore redundant. PROD was denied with "Rmv prod - such lists exist for many clubs, has refs" but I don't see any other "Lists of notable X" at Special:Allpages/List_of_notable nor in Category:Lists of association football players by club. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 18:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
*Keep there are many articles like this covering only notable players. Not every single player ever to have played. Until today I didnt realise the full list was prefered. A wider discussion is required.
Edinburgh
Wanderer
11:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
reply
The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 09:34, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply
This is a classic WP:BLP1E article -- outside of the one event the person has no notability. I would not even suggest a redirect, as it is appleimac.com that has some notability, not the person. Y u no be Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 17:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete, no minimal claim of significance. Full text: Martel Communication was founded in Wichita, Kansas. Martel offered discounted long distance service in the USA. Martel service is offered to home and small business consumers from all states in the US. Headquarters are located near Chicago in Lake in the Hills, Illinois. Martel shut down operation in 2009. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:CORP. Bbb23 ( talk) 17:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 09:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NLIST. Cites to only one source, essentially copying their list into our article. The source describes itself as a news source, but it's unclear how reliable the source is. The article seems to be a WP:COATRACK (see sentence about Internet censorshiip). Bbb23 ( talk) 16:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Southern African Development Community. ( non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 17:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Unsourced, there's almost no content here, so what little there is could be merged with the main article. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Elf (Dungeons & Dragons). ( non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 23:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC) reply
This article was previously nominated for deletion in a mass group nomination here, but the discussion was muddled with so many varying articles. The closing administrator suggested that the articles should be nominated individually, which is what I am doing now. A search for reliable, secondary sources reveals an insufficient amount of significant coverage. This article fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for elements of fiction. Neelix ( talk) 16:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete All. Michig ( talk) 16:50, 28 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The three players above do not meet the guidelines for footballer notability, having not played in a fully professional league - their only appearances are for the semi-professional team Barrow A.F.C., in the not-fully-professional Football Conference. None of them appear to otherwise meet the general notability guidelines. Pretty Green ( talk) 15:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to WayForward Technologies. ( non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 22:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
No indication of WP:notability. Bit part actor and businessman. Only reference is to imdb where he appears to have had 3 bit bits. No sources for business career. Google searches reveal nothing significant. Disputed prod. noq ( talk) 12:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep. Wikipedia is not cleanup. ( non-admin closure) Bryce ( talk | contribs) 11:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Reason: The article for the main part is not about the British Raj but rather Indian independence along with a whole load of socialist revisionism. Eighteen months ago I requested that Indian independence apart from the relevant paragraphs be removed along with a whole load of npov socialist revisionism but to no avail. Twobells ( talk) 14:42, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Stifle ( talk) 16:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Disputed prod. Site fails WP:WEB rules for notability. Won no important awards and has not received the requisite press or scholarly recognition via multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable sources, etc. DreamGuy ( talk) 20:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Due to limited consensus over three weeks, this counts as a PROD deletion so can be reversed by simple request at WP:REFUND. Stifle ( talk) 16:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply
While this actress certainly exists, I cannot find substantial, non-trivial, multiple RS pieces on her. Others are welcome to try. Tagged for notability, etc., last month. Epeefleche ( talk) 22:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 16:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Is this art professor notable? I see no evidence of it. Delete. -- Nlu ( talk) 19:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Is this artist sufficiently notable? I don't think the article shows it. Delete. -- Nlu ( talk) 19:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Tom Morris ( talk) 21:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Was this professor sufficiently notable? I can't discern any real notability. Delete. -- Nlu ( talk) 18:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 13:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Is this artist sufficiently notable? From an outsider's view, I don't think so, but further thoughts are requested. Delete. -- Nlu ( talk) 18:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Keep, Some notable museum/Biennale survey exhibition inclusion, mostly independently curated, plus after digging i found an in depth review from the senior art critic at the NYT about the artwork http://www.nytimes.com/1999/03/05/arts/art-in-review-ma-liuming.html,}} Euartcurator ( talk) 10:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Non-notable; quite limited RS coverage relates to competing in a Pop Idol style competition, where the singer didn't even place in the top 3. My understanding is that falls short of our notability requirements. Epeefleche ( talk) 02:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. with a leave for speedy renomination. ( non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 10:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Zero refs. Zero gnews hits. I can't find sufficient substantial RS coverage to indicate notability. Others are welcome to try. Epeefleche ( talk) 22:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was soft delete. In the absence of any opinions of any type over three weeks, this is considered an uncontested deletion and can be restored by request at WP:REFUND. Stifle ( talk) 16:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Zero refs. Not to be confused with another film of the same name. Lack (from what I can find) substantial RS coverage. Others are welcome to search for it. Tagged for zero refs, and absence of notability, for over 2 years. Epeefleche ( talk) 22:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Stifle ( talk) 16:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Despite his own numerous publications, this is not the subject of non-trivial coverage in multiple, reliable, third-party sources (failing WP:BASIC). This subject also fails WP:PROFESSOR; there's no indication this individual is widely cited, and most publications giving even trivial mention seem to come from organizations with which the subject is affiliated. JFHJr ( ㊟) 21:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 16:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Minor political figure with no substantial independent coverage. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. WWGB ( talk) 04:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was soft delete. No submissions in three weeks, so I am deleting as though this were an expired PROD. Stifle ( talk) 17:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Non-notable credit union. Fails WP:N as not having "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Does not satisfy any of the standards in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Being "oldest and largest entirely student-run credit union in the country" doesn't confer inherent notability. GrapedApe ( talk) 03:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 17:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply
No valid source, Iran is not known Kasir talk 16:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was soft delete. No comment in three weeks, so this is treated as an expired PROD. Stifle ( talk) 17:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Company does not appear to be notable. Article is advertising. Philafrenzy ( talk) 22:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. With no prejudice against speedy renomination ( non-admin closure) Bryce ( talk | contribs) 11:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Person has done little of relevance outside of being on two reality shows, both of which are noted on those shows' respective pages TheNate ( talk) 12:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. with a leave for speedy renomination. ( non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 17:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Dear Admin, Page created for a website in Sri Lanka. Please check if this article meets WP guidelines. Thanks AKS ( talk) 10:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was soft delete. No contributions to the debate for three weeks. Treated as expired PROD. Stifle ( talk) 17:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Detailed article, but I can't find sufficient substantial RS coverage of this guitarist/composer/record producer. Others are welcome to try. Epeefleche ( talk) 07:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was soft delete. Counts as expired PROD. Stifle ( talk) 17:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply
This DJ/music producer/record label owner lacks significant RS coverage. Epeefleche ( talk) 06:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was soft delete. Counts as expired PROD. Stifle ( talk) 17:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply
While he exists, this Polish DJ, producer, and promoter lacks substantial RS coverage. Zero refs, as well. Created by an SPA. Epeefleche ( talk) 06:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was soft delete. Counts as expired PROD. Stifle ( talk) 17:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Lacks substantial RS coverage. Gnews never heard of it, and gbooks has only a snippet. Tagged for lack of refs and as an orphan for over 2 years. Epeefleche ( talk) 06:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 17:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Lacks substantial RS coverage. Zero refs. Tagged for zero refs, and for being an orphan, over 3 years ago. Created by an SPA. Epeefleche ( talk) 06:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 17:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Challenging notability of person, lack of references proving notability. Zzaffuto118 ( talk) 06:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was deleted per CSD G11. Bearcat ( talk) 01:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Apparently non-notable television show. Airs on a regional broadcast network, not nationally distributed. I can find no independent coverage: no gnews hits, and all ghits are either the show's own pages, the network's pages, or social media. Livit⇑ Eh?/ What? 03:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was soft delete. Counts as expired PROD. Stifle ( talk) 17:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Non-notable small record company. No third party sources to establish notability, as required by WP:N. Fails WP:MUSIC, as well. Notability is not inherited to the record company through any notability of the bands signed to that label. Notability in question since August 2010. -- GrapedApe ( talk) 03:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was soft delete. Counts as expired PROD. Stifle ( talk) 17:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Firm is not notable. Article is corporate advertisement. No mainstream media publications reference the firm in question Jun Kayama 19:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was soft delete. Counts as expired PROD. Stifle ( talk) 17:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply
No indication of WP:notability. Only reference is to a directory listing of two films with no commentary. Google searches not showing anything to establish notability. noq ( talk) 00:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. — Tom Morris ( talk) 21:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply
This person does not seem to meet our notability requirements, and IMHO lacks substantial independent non-trivial RS coverage. Epeefleche ( talk) 22:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. With no prejudice against speedy renomination. ( non-admin closure) Bryce ( talk | contribs) 11:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC) reply
While this 19-year-old radio dj exists, and may be notable in the future, I cannot find substantial, multiple independent RS coverage of him. Created by an SPA. Epeefleche ( talk) 22:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 17:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply
While this DJ/record producer/presenter exists, I cannot find substantial, independent RS coverage of him such as meets our notability guidelines. Others are welcome to try. Article has zero refs, though it has non-independent ELs. Created by an SPA. Epeefleche ( talk) 22:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Marshall Islands general election, 2011. Stifle ( talk) 16:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The Marshall Islands does not hold presidential elections. The president is elected by parliament in what is part of the general election process. This year's election of Loeak was fairly unsurprising (he's a veteran and an iroijlaplap) and uneventful (gets exactly 28 hits on Google news). It will never be more than a stub, and was easily merged into the general election article (of which it is an essential part and will need to be discussed under anyway). Nightw 15:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Tabernacle Township, New Jersey. ( non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 13:29, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Possibly merge to Tabernacle Township, New Jersey. Not sourced, either. Tinton5 ( talk) 23:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC) reply
BTW, fully agree w/ above about procedure here. Djflem ( talk) 21:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirected as per below. Useful material was merged over. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Original research on a made-up term. Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 09:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Done I went ahead and incorporated the content of this article in a rewritten version of
Text semigraphics. It remains to be seen whether that article should be reamed to
Semigraphics, I am neutral on that, and I rewrote it so that it doesn't matter. Obviously this article can now be deleted.
Mahjongg (
talk)
22:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
reply
The result was no consensus. Stifle ( talk) 17:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply
An article on Bollywood songs. Poorly sourced, disrupts neutrality, and is likely to be useless for all purposes relating to the article's subject. A category exists, I believe, having a list of notable Bollywood songs, and this one has only certain songs, some of which are unnotable too. There is another article for Filmi covering most of the stuff about Indian music, which is not restricted to Bollywood alone. Not only that, I believe this article is used in the Bollywood article in the "See also" section, as well as in a main article in some other section. It has little relevance to the article. X.One SOS 08:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
:::Anyway, with the edits I have made, the article is just about suitable now. I have added eight referenced statements and rather than go to the trouble of deleting and recreating, I think this one can be salvaged here and now. With this and more edits, it can serve as a base for a well-referenced article. With change in content, I request dissenting editors to reconsider the deletion, as it would only add more process to its recovery, which I am sure is at least as acceptable an alternative as simple deletion. Struck out since it is considered as CANVASSING. Article in present form copied to user-space in case consensus is to delete.
AshLin (
talk)
17:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
reply
The result was keep. Notability has been established, and that is stated even by those calling for deletion. Concerns about the quality of the article are best met by editing. SilkTork ✔Tea time 00:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Fundamentally flawed article, sole content contributor is Robert Ørsted-Jensen [45] [46] and is the author of the major sources used, noting that other reference cited in the article are for quotes only. Personaly I think this is a candidate for a WP:CSD#G11 which is for Unambiguous advertising or promotion, though I know that would be controversial hence this AFD. The Author Robert Ørsted-Jensen is only one of a handful people who write about the controvercial subject Australian frontier wars given that this article is written by one person based solely on his work the article couldnt be concievably written in accordance within the requirements of a neutral point of view. Carl Freilberg probably is notable as the incidental quotes indicate that he was a recognised individual associated with what is now referred to as Australian frontier wars, but an article written solely by someone with a clear WP:COI should be deleted and recreated from fresh by editors without any COI and rely on multiple sources. Gnan garra 07:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Well gnanarra - if this was the only source - but it is not - a whole range of other sources of which all of the most notable are listed for anyone to see and read. Besides were you to delete all articles based on unpublished doctorates, you would be very busy indeed, we would have to produce some gigantic bonfires Helsned 04:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
The result was delete. Michig ( talk) 16:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC) reply
This article was written on the false premise that the subject post is a Shadow Cabinet post in the UK. It is not and never has been. There isn't even any evidence that Doyle actually has this portfolio or that Labour gives names to sub-Shadow Cabinet posts (other than a select few), let alone that they use the same nomenclature as the Government. The article is also unsourced and has few incoming links, with little prospect for more.
As it does nothing more than say the holder of the supposed office shadows a particular minister and list the current supposed holder, the article really serves no purpose. Rrius ( talk) 06:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 17:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Page is nothing more than a list of plot devices used in a cartoon. It serves little to no purpose and would not even be necessary in the main article or episode list. Nothing more than fancruft. Steve Farrell ( talk) 04:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Michig ( talk) 16:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Never played at professional level, not notable .. fails WP:NSPORTS and WP:GNG TonyStarks ( talk) 04:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 17:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC) reply
I found no significant coverage for this goddess of tuna. SL93 ( talk) 02:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
*Delete Striking-see below. This article must have been under some kind of divine protection for the last ten years. One sentence, no references, and no improvements in a decade.
Tigerboy1966 (
talk)
02:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
reply
The result was merge to Corruption. There is a clear consensus, that a separate article for this term isn't warranted. ( non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 10:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Not sure that there is enough for this article to exist independently. Suggest it be merged with Corruption or Political corruption or deleted. It's hard for me to determine whether "systemic" corruption is a concept distinct from the generic usage of the term. Noformation Talk 02:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. No arguments for keeping in two weeks of discussion. Michig ( talk) 16:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC) reply
This shopping centre exists, but lacks substantial non-passing coverage in RSs. Zero refs. Tagged for that problem for 2 years. Epeefleche ( talk) 05:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. I am sympathetic to claims that items of internet culture should be kept; however, consensus has long been that to establish notability there needs to be independent sources outside of YouTube and someone's own website. It is not for us to establish notability - for that we rely on adequate sources, which are missing here. SilkTork ✔Tea time 00:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC) reply
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Notability not supported by secondary, independent sources. ZZArch talk to me 07:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 01:26, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
No indication of notability, 99% of this artilce is lyrics, making this essentially a copyvio. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 17:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD. Rationale was "Lack of notability, long unsourced BLP". I can't find anything establishing significant coverage either. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 01:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Dear Wiki editors---
Here are some articles about Josh Max. The first three are about the network television show he hosted in December on the Discovery channel's Velocity network, and the final one, published by MediaBistro.com in 2008, is about how Max began his career as a journalist.
http://www.gibson.com/en-us/Lifestyle/News/carnivore-josh-max-1213-2011/
http://www.guitaraficionado.com/ga-contributor-josh-max-debuts-carnivore.html
http://suzetteklierocks.appspot.com/www.mediabistro.com/articles/cache/a10248.asp
Finally, here is a commercial for "CARnivore" on the Discovery channel's Velocity network YouTube.com page:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6ER-wC7rd0&list=LLESHyc1U5ke2kSZ0_397ahQ&feature=mh_lolz
Trust this solves the issue of "I can find nothing about him."
Thanks for reinstating his page. AP — Preceding unsigned comment added by AntoinePancakes ( talk • contribs) 03:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC) reply
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |publisher=
(
help){{
cite web}}
: External link in |publisher=
(
help)The result was delete. Michig ( talk) 16:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Not notable persons biography disguised as a not notable lawsuit You really can 00:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
*Keep possibly speedy. There are tons of news articles on this person.
Tigerboy1966 (
talk) 03:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC) Striking comment. I didnt read gnews hits properly: it was VERY late.
Tigerboy1966 (
talk)
10:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. Michig ( talk) 16:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC) reply