The result was Withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) RadioFan ( talk) 03:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC) reply
contested prod. Lacks coverage in 3rd party sources. On reference I'm finding is a single insignificant mention in a directory of ghost towns. No other hits in Google Books or Google search. Several hits on an unrelated site in Colorado. RadioFan ( talk) 23:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 12:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC) reply
For all reasons listed in past deletion debates. They don't meet WP:GNG all of their citations come from social networking sites because of the scarce amount of reliable sources on them. This is a joke of an article. Put it out of it's misery. | help dןǝɥ | 23:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 23:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Does not appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO. Can't find much coverage online outside of blogs and primary sources. Pol430 talk to me 22:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Trademark dilution. ( non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 12:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Appears to be duplicate to Trademark dilution, though I am not an expert. Since the article appears mostly to address the concept in Canadian law a merge may be in order, but I'm listing at AfD to get more input on this. Prodego talk 22:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 23:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Article has zero refs. I cannot myself find substantial RS coverage of the magazine. Tagged for zero refs for well over 3 years. Created by an SPA. Epeefleche ( talk) 18:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. ( non-admin closure) Bryce ( talk | contribs) 02:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. No substantive, independent coverage. TM 21:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Reading the article and the sources, I'm fairly convinced that Lembcke is right in his assesment that there might have been no single historical figure that was this Apache. However, as the article stands, his minority position is noted, and the majority of sources all concur with Hathcocks account. That I (or other editors) believe differently is all well and good, but we should edit articles to what the sources are saying. Even if there was no historical sniper Apache, but as Carrite puts it " A story about an urban legend among American troops", then its certainly a notable legend. In the end, finding the truth is not up to us. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 22:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC) reply
I'm a Vietnamese. I have been studying about Vietnam war all my life. This is the first time i hear about this name. I have studied about Vietnam war on both USA and Vietnam sources. I'm currently live in America. Anyone with enough knowledge about Vietnam war can tell it's pretty much fake. Perhaps the person who written the book, which is the source used in the article, is someone who really hates Communist so he made up terrible stories to defame something the Communist didn't do. This conversation is not about Communist is bad or not. All i'm saying is this article contains FAKE information. Trongphu ( talk) 22:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
DeleteAs what i said above and this is an obvious propaganda against Vietnam. It's all fake!
Trongphu (
talk) 00:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
reply
@The Bushranger: Don't think i'm stupid. It's not even close to be a coincidence that you choose this article to keep. You participated in article for deletion once per day. It has about 100 articles everyday. So the chance of you randomly choose this article to participate in is 1%. You banned me once for a stupid reason and yep you still have some kind hatred toward me. I believe you have been "watchlist" me and patiently waiting for a chance to interfere me again. What shall we call this? Discrimination toward your own victim? Perhaps you can win the conversation but so what? It's not like i care. I just take a chance to destroy any lie that i saw. But i have no problem if people don't see them as a lie. Not my business. It's your own English Wikipedia reputation one day will be ruin by allowing fake articles. No matter what you do, you have no effect on me. Enjoy wasting your time. To me victory is mines in the long run. I have fun doing this, thanks for the entertainment. And also thanks for the reason that you opened my eye for me to see what Wikipedia is really like. Trongphu ( talk) 01:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC) reply
@Nyttend: I'm certainly sure that you involved to this just because of The Bushranger. You guys both were the admins that have some conflict with me before and indeed did show some kind of hatred toward me. I'm strongly urge the English community to invalid their votes for conspiracy against individual like me. You guys can check their history of contribution and my talk page to confirm my thoughts. (they both participate in article deletion about average once a day, there are about 100 everyday. By using logic there are .1% that both of them choosing the same one to participate in. The chance is even lower if the article for deletion associate with me, their banned victim before) It is not a coincidence that suddenly they both came here to vote against their victim before. Trongphu ( talk) 04:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC) reply
And what make it worse is it's about a woman. In Vietnam, for thousands of years according our tradition and culture. There are some rules Vietnamese women must follow. They describe the women as... (something i don't know how to translate to English but well it's about something good, so basically women must remain good in general) This is the first time ever i heard a Vietnamese woman that did this kind of brutal level. In Vietnam, for a woman to punch someone else is already a "big thing" not even talking about killing and torturing many people. This is shocking me. This brought me up another strong evidence The Viet cong would rather die than let a woman doing this kind of stuffs. And remember as the fact that the Viet cong got more support from common people than America and its ally. Man you got know idea how this is going to a profound effect on Asians people, particularly Vietnamese. I just realized now this is a serious issue, not even kidden. Trongphu ( talk) 05:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Go up and answer my question above, will you? Trongphu ( talk) 05:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC) reply
|
The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 21:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC) reply
I did find this, but a list of contests does not show notability especially when it is likely that the website itself submitted the list. I found no significant coverage. Fails WP:WEB. SL93 ( talk) 21:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Zero references = goodbye. Max Semenik ( talk) 09:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC) reply
This article is about rumors of Hussein's death even though it is well-known how he died. It is thus an indiscriminate collection of unfounded rumors and no longer has sufficient significance to be included on Wikipedia. The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 21:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. but feel free to make a mention on List of chess software. AfD doesn't really have a say on inclusion in that. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 21:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC) reply
I found nothing that shows this software's notability. Fails WP:N. SL93 ( talk) 21:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 12:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC) reply
A tag was placed on this article since January 2011, but no efforts have been made to attain reliable sources since then. Although there are sources listed in the article's reference, the vast majority of them comprise of links to online message boards and non-notable online publications. In order to assert notability, an article has to receive suitable media attention, as seen for other mods such as Black Mesa Source or Sven Coop. I have searched for any publications that fulfill WP:RS but have found none. Given that the project itself is also undergoing an indefinite hiatus, the chance of it becoming notable is highly doubtful. WaltCip ( talk) 21:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
References:
The result was speedy deleted. Non-admin close. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 21:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Seems to be a hoax or made up Jac16888 Talk 21:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 12:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Non-notable handbag merchant and candidate for president. None of these sources satisfy WP:N. GrapedApe ( talk) 20:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 18:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC) reply
four cites is not enough for WP:PROF, lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme ( talk) 05:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Guerillero | My Talk 02:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC) reply
This is a HUGE unsourced list of names of what are presumably mostly WP:BLPs, with little context or other information. Failing verification in published sources, it should be deleted. The significant contributors are already listed at Brookside, so that would not be a significant loss of information. Sandstein 20:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Bryce ( talk | contribs) 02:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC) reply
No evidence of existence or notability of the series. Article has previously been deleted twice by PROD. This version was unPRODded by original editor, with talk page comment "Please stop deleting my article." but no attempt to provide notability or sources.
Pam
D 20:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 21:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC) reply
No assertion of notability per WP:CORP; no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources; references are all press releases from the company, apart from one brief mention in a local paper. Evident WP:Conflict of interest by article's creator, though that on its own isn't sufficient reason to delete. Filing Flunky ( talk) 01:31, 22 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 21:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC) reply
BLP that lacks RS refs, and from what I can tell the subject also lacks substantial RS coverage. Created by an SPA. Epeefleche ( talk) 18:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. No one, except the nomination, advocates deletion of the article. ( non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 12:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:GNG or WP:Notability (people). Gsingh ( talk) 19:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete g11, advertising, g12, cut and pasted. NawlinWiki ( talk) 20:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
This movie has not yet been announced. No firm news on this movie. Please consider deletion. Thanks AKS ( talk) 18:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 21:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The article is about an amateur footballer, that have not played in a fully professional league and fails WP:NFOOTY. He is also a futsal player with matches for Norway national futsal team but none in Olympics or World Championship, and fails WP:ATHLETE Mentoz86 ( talk) 18:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Solar Cookers International. JohnCD ( talk) 20:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
There is no indication that this article meets the criteria for inclusion. As for now, it is not referenced by any independent sources, and it doesn't seem there is significant coverage by independent sources Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 02:34, 24 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to The 4-Hour Body. Interested editors please feel free to extract content from the page history and merge the content into other articles. Der yck C. 22:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Article about a health supplement. The only reference that is about the supplement is to book published by the creator of this supplement. The others are about individual ingredients of the supplement, so don't contribute to the notability of the supplement itself (we already know, for example, that garlic is notable). Searching for "pagg stack" returns forum spam, advertorials and promotional blog posts, but not independent, published sources. There are therefore no independent, secondary sources to demonstrate notability of this subject. Prod contested, so bringing here for discussion. Sparthorse ( talk) 17:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. It is possible that this movie will still gain traction if the producers do manage to make a larger name for themselves. So far this hasn't materialised though, and consensus is clear on deletion Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 21:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The only reference in the article is a dead link and I found zero significant coverage. Fails WP:NF. SL93 ( talk) 17:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. causa sui ( talk) 23:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Unreferenced BLP. Such articles should not be here, period. The IMDB is not a reliable source and does not establish notability. Stedrick ( talk) 16:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help); External link in |publisher=
(
help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)</ref>The result was redirect to List of Fear Street books. I don't know how usefull a redirect is, but they're cheap, and who knows it might help in a search query Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 21:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC) reply
This Fear Street book is non-notable although the author R. L. Stine is. Fails WP:BK. SL93 ( talk) 16:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 23:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC) reply
I found zero significant coverage. Most sources that I found are for the notable film of the same name. This band fails WP:MUSIC. SL93 ( talk) 16:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 12:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a newspaper. This article is about the publication of a scientific study that created a lot of buzz, but Wikipedia is not Wikinews. Poireau primesautier ( talk) 16:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Kubigula ( talk) 04:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Appears to fail WP:GNG. Ghits is only YouTube, social media, and other trivial mentions jsfouche ☽☾ Talk 16:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 12:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Notability concerns: He was the president of a couple of institutions, but where's the significant coverage in independent secondary sources as required by WP:SIGCOV? An anonymous editor removed the prod notice without addressing this concern. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 15:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Der yck C. 22:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD. Non-notable mall. Unreferenced. jsfouche ☽☾ Talk 15:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 21:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC) reply
This company does not meet WP:CORP as far as I can tell. Whilst the reports that they produce are widely cited by media organisations, I cannot find any coverage whatsoever about the company itself. Contributors may also wish to know that the article was written by a PR firm - see WP:COIN#Qorvis. SmartSE ( talk) 14:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. A fair amount of research has been done and the consensus is that sufficient sources do not exist.-- Kubigula ( talk) 03:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Self-published book; appears to fail WP:NBOOK. A quick google reveals plenty of results - thanks to a cobweb of promotional content associated with the author. Difficult to have an article on this topic without promoting the author and their fringe position, since few independent/mainstream sources have paid any attention to it. bobrayner ( talk) 13:02, 8 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}} . |
Rahulchic ( talk) 05:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC) reply
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Marketers_Are_Liars => Contains Amazon.com as reference.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_Brand Contains no references at all!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_to_Great Contains blogs as external links and no other ref.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_New_Thing => Two liner review. No reference.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fearless_Change => One line review. No reference.
Now these are not the only ones having such problem. These are only samples. But these have not been deleted. Perhaps because there has not been a fine networking like we have of "delete anti-Islamic texts" everywhere.
Btw, Bobrayner and Dougweller have edited the Wikipedia page; are they satisfied now? Some of their edits have left the article with fewer references than before - as if skies will fall if I use amazon.com link in the Wiki article.
Still waiting for Wikipedia moderators. We are not voting here for anything. We want an unbiased decision. My take is that the present shape of the article is better than 80% of book reviews available on Wikipedia. Let it remain there and spend our energies in better things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahulchic ( talk • contribs) 08:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Rahulchic ( talk) 08:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 21:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC) reply
While this newsweekly exists, it has not as far as I can tell attracted the substantial RS coverage needed to indicate notability. Zero refs. Tagged for that since November. Also tagged since then for lack of notability. Created by an SPA, whose user name suggests a possible COI. Epeefleche ( talk) 10:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Dear Admin, This might not be notable. Please review. Thanks AKS ( talk) 10:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. WP:SNOW (former-admin close) Secret account 02:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Dear Admin, This might not be notable. Please review. Thanks AKS ( talk) 10:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep. WP:SNOW and procedural concerns. Qwyrxian ( talk) 05:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Dear Admin, This might not be notable. Please review. Thanks AKS ( talk) 10:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Kubigula ( talk) 05:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC) reply
While this quartet existed, I cannot find sufficient substantial, non-passing-mention RS coverage to suggest it was notable per wp standards. Created by an SPA. Tagged for notability over 3 years ago. Zero refs, and tagged for that over 3 years ago. Epeefleche ( talk) 10:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Curtin_University#Student_Guild. There is a clear consensus, that a separate article isn't warranted. ( non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 12:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC) reply
While this student association exists, I cannot find sufficient RS coverage to suggest that it is notable by wp standards, to the extent that it should have a stand-alone article. Zero refs. Tagged for that defect for over 4 years. Tagged for notability for over 3 years. Created by an SPA. Epeefleche ( talk) 10:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 12:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Similar article here similar concern, no ref, google search turns up little Zzaffuto118 ( talk) 09:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Nominator withdrew the nomination. No !votes to delete were posted. (Non-Administrator closure.) Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Zero gnews hits. Zero gbooks hits. While this singer exists, I cannot find sufficient substantial RS coverage of him to meet our notability requirements. Others are welcome to try. Epeefleche ( talk) 09:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 21:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC) reply
I found no significant coverage. Fails WP:CORP. SL93 ( talk) 00:57, 29 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep. WP:SNOW, and the procedural concern. Qwyrxian ( talk) 05:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Dear Admin, This might not be notable. Please review. Thanks AKS ( talk) 09:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Delete: Not notable, no ref, google search turns up nothing Zzaffuto118 ( talk) 09:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 21:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD. Concern was "Non-notable youth player who has yet to play in a fully professional league. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY.", and was endorsed by another editor. PROD constested by the article's creator with no reason given. Concern remains valid. – Kosm 1 fent 09:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 11:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC) reply
I am unable to find significant coverage of this shopping centre in multiple, unrelated, reliable sources. [22] Till I Go Home ( talk) 08:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7 SmartSE ( talk) 15:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Non notable, not verified, appears to be an advertisement LuciferWildCat ( talk) 07:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 21:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. Was retagged, but I removed since you can only prod an article once. However, the reasoning still stands. " WP:NEOLOGISM; "capecodcracy" gets exactly two ghits, one of which is this article, and the other is in WP user space. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day" Funnyfarmofdoom (talk to me) 07:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 00:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC) reply
He is a candidate and has not been elected. Please discuss if this article should be kept on Wiki. Thanks AKS ( talk) 06:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy keep. No reason for deletion has been provided. Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
AKS ( talk) 06:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 00:18, 17 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}} . |
Non-notable subject, apparently known only for some obscure book. Article seems to have been written by the subject. However, makes some assertion of importance, so I thought AfD was more appropriate than CSD. Basalisk inspect damage⁄ berate 06:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 12:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Non notable album which failed to chart or win any awards, thus fails WP:NALBUM Jezhotwells ( talk) 04:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Stars discography. ( non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 12:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Non-notable song with no references. Article does not actually provide any information about the song. No actual proof that the song exists. What a pro. ( talk) 03:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy deleted by Smartse as "( G5: Creation by a banned user in violation of ban)". Non-admin closure — Frankie ( talk) 18:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The same article has been created often by the same Sockpuppets, and later deleted by an admin. Looks like this is just a repeat of past attempts by the sock.
Regarding article content, it is a poorly wrote, POV pushing and a largely copy and paste duplicate of information already given on main article. By contrast the original information on the main article is quite well wrote, well sourced and from a neutral point of view.
I suggest this article is deleted asap. Thank you for your time. Talk Woe90i 03:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
This article is a very informative one. It has been removed because user Woe90i wanted it to go. There exists an article like Future of the Royal Navy. Denying a page for the Indian Navy in a similar manner to have detailed information about the procurement and various vessels under construction is bias. Such bias must not exist in Wikipedia. Correctiondetail ( talk) 04:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The article needs expansion rather than deletion. I don't know what is this mad bias towards anything India and Indian. Such stupidity is going for a long long time. Need to stop. The article is need to be improved with lot of information on the latest procurement including the Navy's plans to induct Trimaran Stealth ships. This need to be kept updated to the latest information available. This page will also ensure that the main page of the Indian Navy is not cluttered with the long list of acquisition and construction details of ships, subs, satellites etc. Correctiondetail ( talk) 04:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
And on a lighter note, the construction and procurement plans of the Indian Navy is massive. It will take a whole page even to list those procurement, construction details. If anything need to be removed then that can be [[ Future of the Royal Navy which having very limited acquisitions and procurment and more of decommissions, can be fitted into the Royal Navy page. Correctiondetail ( talk) 05:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 23:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Non-notable music studio. The list of artists don't even have pages on here. Tinton5 ( talk) 02:39, 31 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Max Semenik ( talk) 10:01, 17 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}} . |
Article doesn't establish notability, and comes across primarily as very promotional in nature. Betty Logan ( talk) 12:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Revised Again21:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I also am a frequent Wikipedia user but don't do editing. I was given one of the artist's glass plates as a present - it came with a card having her name - I looked her up and out of curiousity came to this page. I want to weigh in, for what it is worth, to say that if 2 different cities have recognized this artist, shouldn't Wikipedia? If the artist is reading this - I love the plate! Make more! 66.10.94.35 ( talk) 20:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC) — 66.10.94.35 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
I removed plagiarized material, redundant material, press release material, material unsupported by its references, the wordy and repeated references that were arguments for keeping the article rather than references (references are sources, not arguments), and advertisements for the van Dam's merchandise. It is somewhat readable now.
TLDR, above, apparently stands for "Too Long, Didn't Read." I suspect they mean both the article on van Dam (way too long and the references were unreadable) and your post above, but maybe they don't. I do. Pseudofusulina ( talk) 00:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The sources in the article are general links to websites, links to the artist's own websites and sales of products, or the gallery listing that is simply a link to a mention of her as an "Ojai artist." None of these establish notability under wikipedia guidelines.
As this is a BLP and it does not establish the subject's notability, I think it should be deleted. If reliable third-party sources, stating the artist's notability, are found, the article can be recreated. Pseudofusulina ( talk) 19:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply
KEEP I agree with the prior comment (from User 208.127.109.195) that the "fulcrum issue for some editors in this instance might be that licensing history, however extensive and regardless if evidenced by the article, is not specifially clearly addressed in WP:ARTIST (or other) guidelines in the WP:DP." I like Users Chiswick Chap and Carrite, etc. did several searches, and like them found thousands of hits. I read a random selection of these hits and found several of newspaper articles from various regions that show the artist's works and name through her licensing has broad reach, such as in http://www.bestofneworleans.com/gambit/art-by-the-plateful/Content?oid=1252490 . This licensing reach of the artist's art and name, along with the animated book narrated by a fairly well-known voiceover talent, makes me agree with the conclusion of User 208.127.109.195 that this page should not be deleted. WP:DP (at the very top of the page) gives us permission to look outside the box, when it states all deletions are "best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." User 208.127.109.195 also noted http://www.sbcc.edu/art/website/index.php?page=115 which states (at the bottom, below the list of artists named in the gallery exhibit) that "On view will be a wide array of media and styles by these noted artists whose works have been seen nationally as well as regionally." I also reviewed the edits of the article and saw that at least four books by the artist were deleted in this edit, including "Through the Artists Eyes" and 3 books starting with the title SuperQuick. I did some extra digging on "Through the Artist's Eyes" and found that it seems to be primarily a Kindle book listed as "Thoughts, Illustrations and Poems of Love" and has "Through the Artist's Eyes" as a parenthetical, and is currently ranked 84 among Kindle Books on Artists according to its Amazon listing. The SuperQuick Books are books in traditional print, possibly self-published. I did not add any of these four books back into the article, as I do not wish to enter into an edit war, but perhaps their deletion should be reconsidered? I also found another book by the artist "The Art of M. Nicole van Dam" on the Kindle that isn't mentioned in either the earlier or current version of the article. My random checking of search results also found that several of the artist's books are for sale on the Barnes & Noble website as well as Amazon. I also agree with User Mr. Stradivarius that frightening away people from participating here should be avoided, and I would add that actually behavior such as bite the newcomers can do more harm to this site than leaving stray page that perhaps might need to be deleted 66.10.94.35 ( talk) 19:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Comment - Her academic employer promotes her thus: "... she has a wealth of experience in providing business, financial and legal expertise in the areas of multimedia, internet and e-commerce, music, entertainment, advertising, merchandising, branding and licensing, mergers and acquisitions, securities matters and public offerings, and various other facets of starting a thriving enterprise." http://www.scheinfeld.sbcc.edu/scheinfeld_center_info/professors/professor_Nicole.html"
Doesn't support an article about her as an artist to WP standards, rather makes it appear the WP article is intended as adding to a 'thriving enterprise', particularly considering the primary web presence found in a thorough search is entirely sales oriented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.200.137.96 ( talk) 00:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. The discussion was already relisted three times and still no substantial discussion took place. Thus the close is no consenus with the leave for speedy renomination. A merge discussion can take place at the article talk page. ( non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 12:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Disputed prod, the album has not been reviewed by Pitchfork as deprodder says. No significant coverage in reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Mattg82 ( talk) 16:31, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Der yck C. 12:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Prod declined without comment by user who has a lot of dubious edits. No non-trivial sources found. This is a very, very tiny mall with only 9 stores and it's about to be torn down for a Kohl's. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 02:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 00:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC) reply
MASTV is a cable television company operating in Mexico. It makes no sense to have articles with a list of programming from any cable company. In the United States, this would be equal to List of programs broadcast by Cable Company XYZ. This article treats MASTV as a broadcast network which is not. There are no references, most programs listed are redlinked. AMAPO ( talk) 02:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. SmartSE ( talk) 15:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Zero refs. Exists, but lacks substantial rs coverage. Tagged for notability since April. Created by a one-edit-only-ever SPA. Epeefleche ( talk) 23:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Delete. An article with only four lines and no notability whatsoever? — WylieCoyote ( talk) 02:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Der yck C. 12:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Has no non-primary sources or any evidence of notability. For the benefit of those interested in the comic, I'd recommend making a TV Tropes page or something. – Harry Blue5 ( talk • contribs) 15:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was Withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) RadioFan ( talk) 03:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC) reply
contested prod. Lacks coverage in 3rd party sources. On reference I'm finding is a single insignificant mention in a directory of ghost towns. No other hits in Google Books or Google search. Several hits on an unrelated site in Colorado. RadioFan ( talk) 23:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 12:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC) reply
For all reasons listed in past deletion debates. They don't meet WP:GNG all of their citations come from social networking sites because of the scarce amount of reliable sources on them. This is a joke of an article. Put it out of it's misery. | help dןǝɥ | 23:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 23:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Does not appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO. Can't find much coverage online outside of blogs and primary sources. Pol430 talk to me 22:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Trademark dilution. ( non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 12:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Appears to be duplicate to Trademark dilution, though I am not an expert. Since the article appears mostly to address the concept in Canadian law a merge may be in order, but I'm listing at AfD to get more input on this. Prodego talk 22:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 23:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Article has zero refs. I cannot myself find substantial RS coverage of the magazine. Tagged for zero refs for well over 3 years. Created by an SPA. Epeefleche ( talk) 18:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. ( non-admin closure) Bryce ( talk | contribs) 02:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. No substantive, independent coverage. TM 21:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Reading the article and the sources, I'm fairly convinced that Lembcke is right in his assesment that there might have been no single historical figure that was this Apache. However, as the article stands, his minority position is noted, and the majority of sources all concur with Hathcocks account. That I (or other editors) believe differently is all well and good, but we should edit articles to what the sources are saying. Even if there was no historical sniper Apache, but as Carrite puts it " A story about an urban legend among American troops", then its certainly a notable legend. In the end, finding the truth is not up to us. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 22:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC) reply
I'm a Vietnamese. I have been studying about Vietnam war all my life. This is the first time i hear about this name. I have studied about Vietnam war on both USA and Vietnam sources. I'm currently live in America. Anyone with enough knowledge about Vietnam war can tell it's pretty much fake. Perhaps the person who written the book, which is the source used in the article, is someone who really hates Communist so he made up terrible stories to defame something the Communist didn't do. This conversation is not about Communist is bad or not. All i'm saying is this article contains FAKE information. Trongphu ( talk) 22:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
DeleteAs what i said above and this is an obvious propaganda against Vietnam. It's all fake!
Trongphu (
talk) 00:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
reply
@The Bushranger: Don't think i'm stupid. It's not even close to be a coincidence that you choose this article to keep. You participated in article for deletion once per day. It has about 100 articles everyday. So the chance of you randomly choose this article to participate in is 1%. You banned me once for a stupid reason and yep you still have some kind hatred toward me. I believe you have been "watchlist" me and patiently waiting for a chance to interfere me again. What shall we call this? Discrimination toward your own victim? Perhaps you can win the conversation but so what? It's not like i care. I just take a chance to destroy any lie that i saw. But i have no problem if people don't see them as a lie. Not my business. It's your own English Wikipedia reputation one day will be ruin by allowing fake articles. No matter what you do, you have no effect on me. Enjoy wasting your time. To me victory is mines in the long run. I have fun doing this, thanks for the entertainment. And also thanks for the reason that you opened my eye for me to see what Wikipedia is really like. Trongphu ( talk) 01:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC) reply
@Nyttend: I'm certainly sure that you involved to this just because of The Bushranger. You guys both were the admins that have some conflict with me before and indeed did show some kind of hatred toward me. I'm strongly urge the English community to invalid their votes for conspiracy against individual like me. You guys can check their history of contribution and my talk page to confirm my thoughts. (they both participate in article deletion about average once a day, there are about 100 everyday. By using logic there are .1% that both of them choosing the same one to participate in. The chance is even lower if the article for deletion associate with me, their banned victim before) It is not a coincidence that suddenly they both came here to vote against their victim before. Trongphu ( talk) 04:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC) reply
And what make it worse is it's about a woman. In Vietnam, for thousands of years according our tradition and culture. There are some rules Vietnamese women must follow. They describe the women as... (something i don't know how to translate to English but well it's about something good, so basically women must remain good in general) This is the first time ever i heard a Vietnamese woman that did this kind of brutal level. In Vietnam, for a woman to punch someone else is already a "big thing" not even talking about killing and torturing many people. This is shocking me. This brought me up another strong evidence The Viet cong would rather die than let a woman doing this kind of stuffs. And remember as the fact that the Viet cong got more support from common people than America and its ally. Man you got know idea how this is going to a profound effect on Asians people, particularly Vietnamese. I just realized now this is a serious issue, not even kidden. Trongphu ( talk) 05:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Go up and answer my question above, will you? Trongphu ( talk) 05:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC) reply
|
The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 21:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC) reply
I did find this, but a list of contests does not show notability especially when it is likely that the website itself submitted the list. I found no significant coverage. Fails WP:WEB. SL93 ( talk) 21:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Zero references = goodbye. Max Semenik ( talk) 09:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC) reply
This article is about rumors of Hussein's death even though it is well-known how he died. It is thus an indiscriminate collection of unfounded rumors and no longer has sufficient significance to be included on Wikipedia. The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 21:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. but feel free to make a mention on List of chess software. AfD doesn't really have a say on inclusion in that. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 21:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC) reply
I found nothing that shows this software's notability. Fails WP:N. SL93 ( talk) 21:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 12:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC) reply
A tag was placed on this article since January 2011, but no efforts have been made to attain reliable sources since then. Although there are sources listed in the article's reference, the vast majority of them comprise of links to online message boards and non-notable online publications. In order to assert notability, an article has to receive suitable media attention, as seen for other mods such as Black Mesa Source or Sven Coop. I have searched for any publications that fulfill WP:RS but have found none. Given that the project itself is also undergoing an indefinite hiatus, the chance of it becoming notable is highly doubtful. WaltCip ( talk) 21:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
References:
The result was speedy deleted. Non-admin close. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 21:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Seems to be a hoax or made up Jac16888 Talk 21:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 12:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Non-notable handbag merchant and candidate for president. None of these sources satisfy WP:N. GrapedApe ( talk) 20:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 18:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC) reply
four cites is not enough for WP:PROF, lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme ( talk) 05:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Guerillero | My Talk 02:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC) reply
This is a HUGE unsourced list of names of what are presumably mostly WP:BLPs, with little context or other information. Failing verification in published sources, it should be deleted. The significant contributors are already listed at Brookside, so that would not be a significant loss of information. Sandstein 20:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Bryce ( talk | contribs) 02:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC) reply
No evidence of existence or notability of the series. Article has previously been deleted twice by PROD. This version was unPRODded by original editor, with talk page comment "Please stop deleting my article." but no attempt to provide notability or sources.
Pam
D 20:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 21:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC) reply
No assertion of notability per WP:CORP; no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources; references are all press releases from the company, apart from one brief mention in a local paper. Evident WP:Conflict of interest by article's creator, though that on its own isn't sufficient reason to delete. Filing Flunky ( talk) 01:31, 22 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 21:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC) reply
BLP that lacks RS refs, and from what I can tell the subject also lacks substantial RS coverage. Created by an SPA. Epeefleche ( talk) 18:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. No one, except the nomination, advocates deletion of the article. ( non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 12:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:GNG or WP:Notability (people). Gsingh ( talk) 19:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete g11, advertising, g12, cut and pasted. NawlinWiki ( talk) 20:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
This movie has not yet been announced. No firm news on this movie. Please consider deletion. Thanks AKS ( talk) 18:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 21:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The article is about an amateur footballer, that have not played in a fully professional league and fails WP:NFOOTY. He is also a futsal player with matches for Norway national futsal team but none in Olympics or World Championship, and fails WP:ATHLETE Mentoz86 ( talk) 18:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Solar Cookers International. JohnCD ( talk) 20:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
There is no indication that this article meets the criteria for inclusion. As for now, it is not referenced by any independent sources, and it doesn't seem there is significant coverage by independent sources Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 02:34, 24 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to The 4-Hour Body. Interested editors please feel free to extract content from the page history and merge the content into other articles. Der yck C. 22:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Article about a health supplement. The only reference that is about the supplement is to book published by the creator of this supplement. The others are about individual ingredients of the supplement, so don't contribute to the notability of the supplement itself (we already know, for example, that garlic is notable). Searching for "pagg stack" returns forum spam, advertorials and promotional blog posts, but not independent, published sources. There are therefore no independent, secondary sources to demonstrate notability of this subject. Prod contested, so bringing here for discussion. Sparthorse ( talk) 17:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. It is possible that this movie will still gain traction if the producers do manage to make a larger name for themselves. So far this hasn't materialised though, and consensus is clear on deletion Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 21:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The only reference in the article is a dead link and I found zero significant coverage. Fails WP:NF. SL93 ( talk) 17:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. causa sui ( talk) 23:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Unreferenced BLP. Such articles should not be here, period. The IMDB is not a reliable source and does not establish notability. Stedrick ( talk) 16:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help); External link in |publisher=
(
help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)</ref>The result was redirect to List of Fear Street books. I don't know how usefull a redirect is, but they're cheap, and who knows it might help in a search query Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 21:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC) reply
This Fear Street book is non-notable although the author R. L. Stine is. Fails WP:BK. SL93 ( talk) 16:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 23:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC) reply
I found zero significant coverage. Most sources that I found are for the notable film of the same name. This band fails WP:MUSIC. SL93 ( talk) 16:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 12:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a newspaper. This article is about the publication of a scientific study that created a lot of buzz, but Wikipedia is not Wikinews. Poireau primesautier ( talk) 16:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Kubigula ( talk) 04:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Appears to fail WP:GNG. Ghits is only YouTube, social media, and other trivial mentions jsfouche ☽☾ Talk 16:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 12:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Notability concerns: He was the president of a couple of institutions, but where's the significant coverage in independent secondary sources as required by WP:SIGCOV? An anonymous editor removed the prod notice without addressing this concern. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 15:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Der yck C. 22:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD. Non-notable mall. Unreferenced. jsfouche ☽☾ Talk 15:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 21:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC) reply
This company does not meet WP:CORP as far as I can tell. Whilst the reports that they produce are widely cited by media organisations, I cannot find any coverage whatsoever about the company itself. Contributors may also wish to know that the article was written by a PR firm - see WP:COIN#Qorvis. SmartSE ( talk) 14:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. A fair amount of research has been done and the consensus is that sufficient sources do not exist.-- Kubigula ( talk) 03:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Self-published book; appears to fail WP:NBOOK. A quick google reveals plenty of results - thanks to a cobweb of promotional content associated with the author. Difficult to have an article on this topic without promoting the author and their fringe position, since few independent/mainstream sources have paid any attention to it. bobrayner ( talk) 13:02, 8 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}} . |
Rahulchic ( talk) 05:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC) reply
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Marketers_Are_Liars => Contains Amazon.com as reference.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_Brand Contains no references at all!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_to_Great Contains blogs as external links and no other ref.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_New_Thing => Two liner review. No reference.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fearless_Change => One line review. No reference.
Now these are not the only ones having such problem. These are only samples. But these have not been deleted. Perhaps because there has not been a fine networking like we have of "delete anti-Islamic texts" everywhere.
Btw, Bobrayner and Dougweller have edited the Wikipedia page; are they satisfied now? Some of their edits have left the article with fewer references than before - as if skies will fall if I use amazon.com link in the Wiki article.
Still waiting for Wikipedia moderators. We are not voting here for anything. We want an unbiased decision. My take is that the present shape of the article is better than 80% of book reviews available on Wikipedia. Let it remain there and spend our energies in better things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahulchic ( talk • contribs) 08:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Rahulchic ( talk) 08:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 21:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC) reply
While this newsweekly exists, it has not as far as I can tell attracted the substantial RS coverage needed to indicate notability. Zero refs. Tagged for that since November. Also tagged since then for lack of notability. Created by an SPA, whose user name suggests a possible COI. Epeefleche ( talk) 10:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Dear Admin, This might not be notable. Please review. Thanks AKS ( talk) 10:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. WP:SNOW (former-admin close) Secret account 02:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Dear Admin, This might not be notable. Please review. Thanks AKS ( talk) 10:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep. WP:SNOW and procedural concerns. Qwyrxian ( talk) 05:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Dear Admin, This might not be notable. Please review. Thanks AKS ( talk) 10:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Kubigula ( talk) 05:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC) reply
While this quartet existed, I cannot find sufficient substantial, non-passing-mention RS coverage to suggest it was notable per wp standards. Created by an SPA. Tagged for notability over 3 years ago. Zero refs, and tagged for that over 3 years ago. Epeefleche ( talk) 10:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Curtin_University#Student_Guild. There is a clear consensus, that a separate article isn't warranted. ( non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 12:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC) reply
While this student association exists, I cannot find sufficient RS coverage to suggest that it is notable by wp standards, to the extent that it should have a stand-alone article. Zero refs. Tagged for that defect for over 4 years. Tagged for notability for over 3 years. Created by an SPA. Epeefleche ( talk) 10:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 12:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Similar article here similar concern, no ref, google search turns up little Zzaffuto118 ( talk) 09:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Nominator withdrew the nomination. No !votes to delete were posted. (Non-Administrator closure.) Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Zero gnews hits. Zero gbooks hits. While this singer exists, I cannot find sufficient substantial RS coverage of him to meet our notability requirements. Others are welcome to try. Epeefleche ( talk) 09:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 21:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC) reply
I found no significant coverage. Fails WP:CORP. SL93 ( talk) 00:57, 29 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep. WP:SNOW, and the procedural concern. Qwyrxian ( talk) 05:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Dear Admin, This might not be notable. Please review. Thanks AKS ( talk) 09:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Delete: Not notable, no ref, google search turns up nothing Zzaffuto118 ( talk) 09:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 21:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD. Concern was "Non-notable youth player who has yet to play in a fully professional league. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY.", and was endorsed by another editor. PROD constested by the article's creator with no reason given. Concern remains valid. – Kosm 1 fent 09:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 11:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC) reply
I am unable to find significant coverage of this shopping centre in multiple, unrelated, reliable sources. [22] Till I Go Home ( talk) 08:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7 SmartSE ( talk) 15:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Non notable, not verified, appears to be an advertisement LuciferWildCat ( talk) 07:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 21:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. Was retagged, but I removed since you can only prod an article once. However, the reasoning still stands. " WP:NEOLOGISM; "capecodcracy" gets exactly two ghits, one of which is this article, and the other is in WP user space. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day" Funnyfarmofdoom (talk to me) 07:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 00:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC) reply
He is a candidate and has not been elected. Please discuss if this article should be kept on Wiki. Thanks AKS ( talk) 06:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy keep. No reason for deletion has been provided. Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
AKS ( talk) 06:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 00:18, 17 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}} . |
Non-notable subject, apparently known only for some obscure book. Article seems to have been written by the subject. However, makes some assertion of importance, so I thought AfD was more appropriate than CSD. Basalisk inspect damage⁄ berate 06:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 12:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Non notable album which failed to chart or win any awards, thus fails WP:NALBUM Jezhotwells ( talk) 04:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Stars discography. ( non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 12:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Non-notable song with no references. Article does not actually provide any information about the song. No actual proof that the song exists. What a pro. ( talk) 03:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy deleted by Smartse as "( G5: Creation by a banned user in violation of ban)". Non-admin closure — Frankie ( talk) 18:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The same article has been created often by the same Sockpuppets, and later deleted by an admin. Looks like this is just a repeat of past attempts by the sock.
Regarding article content, it is a poorly wrote, POV pushing and a largely copy and paste duplicate of information already given on main article. By contrast the original information on the main article is quite well wrote, well sourced and from a neutral point of view.
I suggest this article is deleted asap. Thank you for your time. Talk Woe90i 03:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
This article is a very informative one. It has been removed because user Woe90i wanted it to go. There exists an article like Future of the Royal Navy. Denying a page for the Indian Navy in a similar manner to have detailed information about the procurement and various vessels under construction is bias. Such bias must not exist in Wikipedia. Correctiondetail ( talk) 04:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The article needs expansion rather than deletion. I don't know what is this mad bias towards anything India and Indian. Such stupidity is going for a long long time. Need to stop. The article is need to be improved with lot of information on the latest procurement including the Navy's plans to induct Trimaran Stealth ships. This need to be kept updated to the latest information available. This page will also ensure that the main page of the Indian Navy is not cluttered with the long list of acquisition and construction details of ships, subs, satellites etc. Correctiondetail ( talk) 04:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
And on a lighter note, the construction and procurement plans of the Indian Navy is massive. It will take a whole page even to list those procurement, construction details. If anything need to be removed then that can be [[ Future of the Royal Navy which having very limited acquisitions and procurment and more of decommissions, can be fitted into the Royal Navy page. Correctiondetail ( talk) 05:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 23:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Non-notable music studio. The list of artists don't even have pages on here. Tinton5 ( talk) 02:39, 31 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Max Semenik ( talk) 10:01, 17 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}} . |
Article doesn't establish notability, and comes across primarily as very promotional in nature. Betty Logan ( talk) 12:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Revised Again21:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I also am a frequent Wikipedia user but don't do editing. I was given one of the artist's glass plates as a present - it came with a card having her name - I looked her up and out of curiousity came to this page. I want to weigh in, for what it is worth, to say that if 2 different cities have recognized this artist, shouldn't Wikipedia? If the artist is reading this - I love the plate! Make more! 66.10.94.35 ( talk) 20:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC) — 66.10.94.35 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
I removed plagiarized material, redundant material, press release material, material unsupported by its references, the wordy and repeated references that were arguments for keeping the article rather than references (references are sources, not arguments), and advertisements for the van Dam's merchandise. It is somewhat readable now.
TLDR, above, apparently stands for "Too Long, Didn't Read." I suspect they mean both the article on van Dam (way too long and the references were unreadable) and your post above, but maybe they don't. I do. Pseudofusulina ( talk) 00:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The sources in the article are general links to websites, links to the artist's own websites and sales of products, or the gallery listing that is simply a link to a mention of her as an "Ojai artist." None of these establish notability under wikipedia guidelines.
As this is a BLP and it does not establish the subject's notability, I think it should be deleted. If reliable third-party sources, stating the artist's notability, are found, the article can be recreated. Pseudofusulina ( talk) 19:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply
KEEP I agree with the prior comment (from User 208.127.109.195) that the "fulcrum issue for some editors in this instance might be that licensing history, however extensive and regardless if evidenced by the article, is not specifially clearly addressed in WP:ARTIST (or other) guidelines in the WP:DP." I like Users Chiswick Chap and Carrite, etc. did several searches, and like them found thousands of hits. I read a random selection of these hits and found several of newspaper articles from various regions that show the artist's works and name through her licensing has broad reach, such as in http://www.bestofneworleans.com/gambit/art-by-the-plateful/Content?oid=1252490 . This licensing reach of the artist's art and name, along with the animated book narrated by a fairly well-known voiceover talent, makes me agree with the conclusion of User 208.127.109.195 that this page should not be deleted. WP:DP (at the very top of the page) gives us permission to look outside the box, when it states all deletions are "best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." User 208.127.109.195 also noted http://www.sbcc.edu/art/website/index.php?page=115 which states (at the bottom, below the list of artists named in the gallery exhibit) that "On view will be a wide array of media and styles by these noted artists whose works have been seen nationally as well as regionally." I also reviewed the edits of the article and saw that at least four books by the artist were deleted in this edit, including "Through the Artists Eyes" and 3 books starting with the title SuperQuick. I did some extra digging on "Through the Artist's Eyes" and found that it seems to be primarily a Kindle book listed as "Thoughts, Illustrations and Poems of Love" and has "Through the Artist's Eyes" as a parenthetical, and is currently ranked 84 among Kindle Books on Artists according to its Amazon listing. The SuperQuick Books are books in traditional print, possibly self-published. I did not add any of these four books back into the article, as I do not wish to enter into an edit war, but perhaps their deletion should be reconsidered? I also found another book by the artist "The Art of M. Nicole van Dam" on the Kindle that isn't mentioned in either the earlier or current version of the article. My random checking of search results also found that several of the artist's books are for sale on the Barnes & Noble website as well as Amazon. I also agree with User Mr. Stradivarius that frightening away people from participating here should be avoided, and I would add that actually behavior such as bite the newcomers can do more harm to this site than leaving stray page that perhaps might need to be deleted 66.10.94.35 ( talk) 19:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Comment - Her academic employer promotes her thus: "... she has a wealth of experience in providing business, financial and legal expertise in the areas of multimedia, internet and e-commerce, music, entertainment, advertising, merchandising, branding and licensing, mergers and acquisitions, securities matters and public offerings, and various other facets of starting a thriving enterprise." http://www.scheinfeld.sbcc.edu/scheinfeld_center_info/professors/professor_Nicole.html"
Doesn't support an article about her as an artist to WP standards, rather makes it appear the WP article is intended as adding to a 'thriving enterprise', particularly considering the primary web presence found in a thorough search is entirely sales oriented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.200.137.96 ( talk) 00:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. The discussion was already relisted three times and still no substantial discussion took place. Thus the close is no consenus with the leave for speedy renomination. A merge discussion can take place at the article talk page. ( non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 12:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Disputed prod, the album has not been reviewed by Pitchfork as deprodder says. No significant coverage in reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Mattg82 ( talk) 16:31, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Der yck C. 12:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Prod declined without comment by user who has a lot of dubious edits. No non-trivial sources found. This is a very, very tiny mall with only 9 stores and it's about to be torn down for a Kohl's. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 02:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 00:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC) reply
MASTV is a cable television company operating in Mexico. It makes no sense to have articles with a list of programming from any cable company. In the United States, this would be equal to List of programs broadcast by Cable Company XYZ. This article treats MASTV as a broadcast network which is not. There are no references, most programs listed are redlinked. AMAPO ( talk) 02:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. SmartSE ( talk) 15:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Zero refs. Exists, but lacks substantial rs coverage. Tagged for notability since April. Created by a one-edit-only-ever SPA. Epeefleche ( talk) 23:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Delete. An article with only four lines and no notability whatsoever? — WylieCoyote ( talk) 02:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Der yck C. 12:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Has no non-primary sources or any evidence of notability. For the benefit of those interested in the comic, I'd recommend making a TV Tropes page or something. – Harry Blue5 ( talk • contribs) 15:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC) reply