The result was delete. Black Kite ( talk) 09:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The subject falls well short of meeting the notability criteria set out in WP:CREATIVE — Fly by Night ( talk) 23:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Zad
68
19:50, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
replyThe result was delete. Black Kite ( talk) 09:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Non-notable pornographic actress. Fails WP:PORNBIO because her nominations are all for scene awards. The amount of coverage also does not rise up to the level to satisfy the general notability guidelines. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 22:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. T. Canens ( talk) 16:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Lubrano does not pass WP:CRIME. Vic49 ( talk) 22:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to VoltDB. T. Canens ( talk) 16:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Sources offered are all WP:PRIMARY. I have searched for better sources with Google and found nothing useful. It's possible this may become notable in the future, but for now, it's WP:TOOSOON. Msnicki ( talk) 00:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Zad
68
20:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
replyThe result was Keep as per unanimous positive consensus and no calls for deletion outside of the nominator. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended ( talk) 00:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Ordinary--and not particularly busy--actress. CalendarWatcher ( talk) 05:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. T. Canens ( talk) 16:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply
This individual fails WP:POLITICIAN. The claim advanced is that he is notable because he is the mayor of a Romanian county seat. That claim is, however, rather flimsy. To be sure, a few mayors of Romanian county seats are routinely notable: those seats that also happen to be large cities and regional centers (Cluj-Napoca, Iași, Timișoara, Constanța, Craiova). It does not follow that every such mayor is notable: the mayors of, say, Târgu Jiu, Slatina, Vaslui and, yes, Zalău are rarely prominent beyond the borders of their respective cities. With all due respect to Zalău, it's a town of just over 50,000, Romania's 38th-largest city, and not really influential outside a very small radius.
To use an American example, it's one thing to be mayor of Atlanta or Denver (always notable, often influential in national politics and routinely in state politics), and quite another to be mayor of, say, Jefferson City, MO or Pierre, SD (people no one outside those cities have heard of). Not every mayor of a US state capital is automatically notable either, and Zalău is more of a Pierre than a Denver.
In sum, neither Căpîlnăşiu's position, nor the press coverage he has received, which is invariably routine, indicate he is a notable politician. - Biruitorul Talk 14:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Black Kite ( talk) 09:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Subject not notable enough for its own article. INever Cry 20:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Black Kite ( talk) 09:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Non- notable company. The Fortune magazine "profile of MENA" is actually not a profile of this company; it is a review of investment opportunities in the Middle East and North Africa, a region known by the acronym MENA. The MENA company is mentioned, once, briefly, as the source of a single quote. Other references show similarly sketchy coverage. This investment firm does not appear to be anything by run of the mill. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 15:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC) reply
We should fix the reference then, but the notability of the company is that it's an influential private equity firm operating in the Middle East during a time of economic unrest associated with the Arab Spring. Their current AUM is low ($28 million), but that's down from over $100 million just a year ago - again, making them of interest and relevant. There aren't adequate Arab private equity firms investing in the MENA region represented in the private equity firm space on Wikipedia and this is a good candidate to help address that information gap. The firm is notable for being out front in encouraging investment in countries like Tunisia and Egypt during this period of political transition 12.171.157.178 ( talk) 18:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Black Kite ( talk) 09:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC) reply
As there is nothing in google to hint his notability as well that Wikipedia is not a resume, therefore this person is not notable, which explains my nomination for deletion. Donnie Park ( talk) 15:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Zad
68
20:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
replyThe result was delete. Black Kite ( talk) 09:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The article has no encyclopedic information that is associated with List of episodes. This one merely writes the plot and date of telecast. Also unreferenced and fails WP:GNG. §§ AnimeshKulkarni ( talk) 14:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. T. Canens ( talk) 16:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Does not meet basic WP:N requirements, known only for fairly low-key MTV tv series, no notable awards, no significant news coverage as an individual. — raeky t 03:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was incubate. T. Canens ( talk) 16:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply
A little independent film that got entered in a little local film festival (admittedly, in New York, which gives it some visibility no matter the size), and received some brief mentions in passing in articles about that festival (but not explicitly about the film itself). Fails WP:NF. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 20:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was KEEP. postdlf ( talk) 15:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC) reply
I truly fail to see how this article can be considered to contain encyclopedia-relevant information. The material in this article appears to be much more specific to an almanac/buyer's guide (to computer installation software.) I also see that at least one of its hyperlinks connects to a similar article being peer-reviewed for deletion. Less importantly, its bias is difficult to determine and completely lacks in citation. -- b1naryatr0phy ( talk) 12:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC) reply
I don't think deleting the article is the best solution, the issues can be fixed by editing. The issues you brought up were....
The material in this article appears to be much more specific to an almanac/buyer's guide
This can be fixed by editing.
how this article can be considered to contain encyclopedia-relevant information
I think lists have their own criteria for being encyclopedia-relevant.
at least one of its hyperlinks connects to a similar article being peer-reviewed for deletion.
the Hyperlinks can be removed.
its bias is difficult to determine and completely lacks in citation.
The bias can be removed/reworded
So all the points you mentioned can be fixed by editing, so I don't think deleting is the best idea at this point in time, although I may be wrong. Ziiike ( talk) 02:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. T. Canens ( talk) 16:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply
A PROD tag was removed by the article's creator without improvement to the article; the article was rejected at Articles for Creation immediately after it was posted in article space. Essentially this is a Malaysian indie film with no notable actors and which has received little or no critical attention (zero Google News hits for the title). No reliable sources have been provided and I found none in two searches (I expect there may be localized non-English sources but I was unable to do an effective search; I doubt that they would contribute to widespread notability.) Ubelowme U Me 20:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Turku#Name. T. Canens ( talk) 16:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply
I originally proposed this for deletion, stating that the "Turun" is just a genitive form of " Turku", which would be the same thing as creating an article about " of London". The author contested this proposal, saying that he had created this page as a "navigational aid" for non-Finnish speakers who might be wondering what "Turun" means. I feel that my original reasoning is still entirely valid. This is really nothing more than an extremely simple Finnish language lesson. All the actual information in the article amounts to "'Turun' means 'of Turku' in Finnish". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary or a guide to the Finnish language. This is not even in any way unique to "Turun", lots of other Finnish place names obey consonant gradation too. By that logic, we would need articles such as " Lappeenrannan", " Rovaniemen", etc., and even that's only for the genitive case, not to mention the other about ten cases in the Finnish language the gradation happens. I genuinely feel this article serves no purpose in an encyclopedia. Delete. JIP | Talk 18:29, 17 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 18:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Just a crackpot article. Some how its CSD nomination was refused. It's about a pair of teenage boys that see hidden signs in money and predict future events(!) Most of the references are to Yahoo's version of YouTube (Yahoo Voices?). They seem to have had a single mention in a local newspaper. This, IMHO, does not constitute multiple, non-trivial, third party references. — Fly by Night ( talk) 17:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn per this edit. ItsZippy ( talk • contributions) 17:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Utterly pointless redirect. Since there are no numbered "parts" to History of the Soviet Union (which is actually broken down into a number of time-period chunks, as well as hundreds of sup-pages), this is a search term nobody will ever use. Mogism ( talk) 16:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Without prejudice to any consensus to merge this from the RFC at Talk:The Legend of Korra. T. Canens ( talk) 16:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:GNG. Article is about a future television season that was just announced last Friday. The only source of information about it is a panel at the San Diego Comic-con. No other information other than minor setting and broadcast details have been released. — Parent5446 ☯ ( msg email) 15:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Extended Explanation: Unfortunately Wikipedia does not have a policy on future television series or seasons, but information from WP:NFF can be applied in this situation. A future media event that has yet to be released is notable iff "the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." As far as the notability of the production goes, there are only two sources available: 1) a brief mention of the second season in an interview, and 2) sources reporting on the recent San Diego Comic-con panel on the show. In the former case, the sourced interview only mentions the subject in question once, and only briefly describes the production status. For the latter sources, all information is just summaries/news reports on what the show's creators announced at the panel, which isn't much (all that was announced was the setting of the season and some initial concept art). — Parent5446 ☯ ( msg email) 16:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. T. Canens ( talk) 16:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Completely unsourced, and unreleased Mdann52 ( talk) 15:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy close. Artiquities, deletion nominations aren't the only tool in your toolbox. You've created a duplicate article. You've noticed that it's a duplicate article. You won't be the last to do this, because if you've been so convinced of this alternative name as to start a duplicate article here, so will someone else in the future. So the obvious thing to do is follow the procedure at Project:duplicate articles and merge. It doesn't involve administrators, deletion nominations, AFD, or the administrator deletion tool in any way. You have all of the tools for enacting the right thing yourself. You don't even need to ask anyone's permission or wait for one week. Be bold and use your tools right now! Uncle G ( talk) 20:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Article: on " Phillips de Pury & Company" already exists - hence this article is redundant. Artiquities ( talk) 15:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. If userification is desired, ping me. The Bushranger One ping only 18:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Delete due to lack of notability in accordance with the topical notability guidelines for actors or the general notability guidelines, which require significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. Best regards, Cindy( talk to me) 14:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Thank You for all the great feedback. Particularly WP:TOOSOON. If deleted, I'm confident in increased interest and will attempt a re-submission soon. Jdjbj43 ( talk) 06:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. WP:SNOW The Bushranger One ping only 01:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Per WP:ACADEMIC. A holder of an named chair must be from a major institution. So far as medical schools go, I don't think UNMC meets it. ...William 14:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Eulogio "Amang" Rodriguez Institute of Science and Technology#Publication. Merging (with attribution as required by the copying-within-Wikipedia policy) can be done from history. The Bushranger One ping only 18:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Does not appear to be a particularly notable school newspaper. Only one source given in the article that is actually about the subject is independent, and even then I'm not sure if it's reliable. Was previously de-prodded by article creator. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 13:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. T. Canens ( talk) 16:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply
All the information already present at the main horribly written article
C.I.D. (TV series). Then why not
be bold and redirect it or raise a Merge request instead of deletion? That's because i dont think even a redirect is necessary when readers can directly find the info on the main article and main article would be the primary search topic.
(I had tagged it with
CSD A10 yesterday but the tag was removed and contested by
User:Monty845 with reason that "2011 is not recently created". I hold the opinion that whensoever created if it is duplicate, it can be deleted under CSD A10. And "recent" is a relative term. If i was 90yrs old, 2011 would have been recent for me. Anyways... Just wanted to point out that a speedy deletion of the article was contested.) §§
AnimeshKulkarni (
talk)
12:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
reply
The result was redirect to Ethnic groups in West Asia. T. Canens ( talk) 16:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Unsourced article regarding the racial characteristics of people from a particular region. Likely original research or synthesis. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 12:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. "likely" copyright violation, says Mehran. Putting the name of the work that was copied in the title of the article was somewhat of a clue. It is, indeed, pages 903–904 of the 1993 Encyclopaedia of Islam. And of course this encyclopaedia already has a Nahj al-Balagha article, and has had for some time. Uncle G ( talk) 21:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Seems to be not notable and likely copyvio. ● Mehran Debate● 11:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 18:47, 24 July 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) 09:34, 17 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Whether to redirect or merge is left as an editorial decision. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 13:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The topic of the article seems like an unnotable theory, with not much impact on the astronomy sciene. The article itself cites only one source, Adams, F. C.; P. Bodenheimer, G. Laughlin (2005). "M dwarfs: planet formation and long term evolution", which was cited only 6 times according to Google Scholar. As far as I know (thanks to user:החבלן from he.wiki), searching for another text about it, there's also the article Gregory Laughlin, Peter Bodenheimer, and Fred C. Adams (1997). "The End of the Main Sequence", by the same scientists, which according to Google Scholar was cited only 41 times. If this is really all, then the article's subject is one of many scientific theories, and not a theory that left any significant impact on its field of research. So I don't think it follows notability guidelines. When you search for information about it on Google Scholar, please notice that there are several meanings to Blue dwarf, and usually the term doesn't refer to this red-dwarf stage. Tomer T ( talk) 09:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 18:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Seems to be all copy-pasted from official website. Probably fails WP:ORG. No significant GHits, only passing mention in news articles Zujua ( talk) 07:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 18:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a directory. The article claims that the show has aired 843 episodes (unsourced info) and states only trivial things like episode number, episode title and date of telecast. The encyclopedic information usually found on such lists is missing, eg. TRP ratings, Writer, Director, Production code, etc. All editors who think this is a case where improvement is needed and not deletion please note that this information for Indian TV shows is almost never available and even if found is found from some unreliable fan-chat-forums. Why not just redirect it then? Well... the last AfD had procedural closing because someone had redirected it proving it does not work that way. Some fan is gonna come up and create this page with some punctuation changes again. §§ AnimeshKulkarni ( talk) 10:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. T. Canens ( talk) 17:01, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply
This event fails WP:NOT, WP:EVENT, WP:SPORTSEVENT, and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER as there is no indication that the event has any enduring notability and lasting significance. Portillo ( talk) 09:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Note that all of those examples are teams, not individuals. Unscintillating ( talk) 00:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC) reply* The final series (or single game when there is not a series) determining the champion of a top league, e.g. 2009 Stanley Cup Finals, or 2009 All-Ireland Senior Football Championship Final, or Super Bowl XLIII, or 2006 UEFA Champions League Final
Unscintillating ( talk) 00:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC) reply"Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page, rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page."
Unscintillating ( talk) 21:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC) replyThe second source is a blog, the site lists the person as a "VIP blogger", and the essay makes no pretense to being anything but opinion. It does however provide a lead that there is a possible source at a newspaper called El Nuevo Día. Unscintillating ( talk) 02:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
The third source is from Bleacher Report. According to the Wikipedia article, they didn't exist before 2006. They have both paid and unpaid staff. It would take research to find how Wikipedia generally determines the reliability of such a source; however, the article lists that it has only been read 950 times, and the article contains personal opinions of the author such as "I have no idea what he’s talking about." Not WP:RS. Unscintillating ( talk) 03:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
The result was keep. The Bushranger One ping only 18:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC) reply
This event fails WP:NOT, WP:EVENT, WP:SPORTSEVENT, and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER as there is no indication that the event has any enduring notability and lasting significance. Portillo ( talk) 09:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep as per unanimous positive consensus and the absence of calls for deletion outside of the nominator. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended ( talk) 00:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC) reply
This event fails WP:NOT, WP:EVENT, WP:SPORTSEVENT, and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER as there is no indication that the event has any enduring notability and lasting significance. Portillo ( talk) 09:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. T. Canens ( talk) 17:01, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply
This event fails WP:NOT, WP:EVENT, WP:SPORTSEVENT, and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER as there is no indication that the event has any enduring notability and lasting significance. Portillo ( talk) 09:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. T. Canens ( talk) 17:01, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply
This event fails WP:NOT, WP:EVENT, WP:SPORTSEVENT, and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER as there is no indication that the event has any enduring notability and lasting significance. Portillo ( talk) 09:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. T. Canens ( talk) 17:01, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply
This event fails WP:NOT, WP:EVENT, WP:SPORTSEVENT, and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER as there is no indication that the event has any enduring notability and lasting significance. Portillo ( talk) 09:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. T. Canens ( talk) 17:01, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply
This event fails WP:NOT, WP:EVENT, WP:SPORTSEVENT, and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER as there is no indication that the event has any enduring notability and lasting significance. Portillo ( talk) 09:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. T. Canens ( talk) 17:01, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply
This event fails WP:NOT, WP:EVENT, WP:SPORTSEVENT, and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER as there is no indication that the event has any enduring notability and lasting significance. Portillo ( talk) 09:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. T. Canens ( talk) 17:01, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply
This event fails WP:NOT, WP:EVENT, WP:SPORTSEVENT, and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER as there is no indication that the event has any enduring notability and lasting significance. Portillo ( talk) 09:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Note that all of the examples listed are team sports. The counter-argument being passed around is that all UFC sports events deserve the status of the Stanley Cup Finals or the SuperBowl. Why should every event of one small company (Zuffa or SEG), get more coverage on Wikipedia than major league baseball? The answer that I sense is that these companies are "promoters", and that what is on Wikipedia is a function of WP:NOT WP:PROMOTION and WP:N "promotional activity". One can also tell by the almost non-existant media coverage that the world at large does not consider this Japan event to have the status of the Stanley Cup Finals or the Superbowl. The nominator correctly notes that the topic fails WP:EVENT, there is at most routine coverage of this event. I've clicked on dozens of links at Google without finding any actual newspaper articles about the event. WP:EVENT states, "Notable events usually have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group." and "Significant national or international coverage is usually expected for an event to be notable." Balloon boy incident is sometimes mentioned as a WP:EVENT benchmark, and the coverage given to balloon boy is massively greater, in world-wide coverage and the amount of time over which the event was regularly reported. I recommend that the redirect also be deleted as this is not a likely search term. Finally, our WP:NOT policy states, "routine news reporting on things like...sports...is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Unscintillating ( talk) 20:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC) replySome games or series are inherently notable[why?], including but not limited to the following:
• The final series (or single game when there is not a series) determining the champion of a top league, e.g. 2009 Stanley Cup Finals, or 2009 All-Ireland Senior Football Championship Final, or Super Bowl XLIII, or 2006 UEFA Champions League Final
The result was no consensus. T. Canens ( talk) 17:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply
This event fails WP:NOT, WP:EVENT, WP:SPORTSEVENT, and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER as there is no indication that the event has any enduring notability and lasting significance. Portillo ( talk) 09:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC) reply
THESE PAGES BRING NUMEROUS HITS TO YOUR SITE EACH MONTH; THESE ARE MY ONLY VISITS TO WIKIPEDIA. DELETE THEM, I'LL NEVER RETURN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.189.143.31 ( talk) 02:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Note that all of the examples listed are team sports. The counter-argument being passed around is that all UFC sports events deserve the status of the Stanley Cup Finals or the SuperBowl. Why should every event of one small company (Zuffa or SEG), get more coverage on Wikipedia than major league baseball? How is this is a "single game" that has determined the "championship of a top league" that is the equivalent of the Super Bowl or the Stanley Cup Finals? That would have been huge news if a Superbowl were won by forfeit. I've clicked on dozens of links at Google without finding any 1996 newspaper articles or even any secondary reliable coverage of any kind about the event, with one exception at yahoo.sports.com/mma. One can tell by the almost non-existant media coverage that the world at large does not consider this event to have the status of the Stanley Cup Finals or the Superbowl. Unscintillating ( talk) 22:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC) replySome games or series are inherently notable[why?], including but not limited to the following:
• The final series (or single game when there is not a series) determining the champion of a top league, e.g. 2009 Stanley Cup Finals, or 2009 All-Ireland Senior Football Championship Final, or Super Bowl XLIII, or 2006 UEFA Champions League Final
The result was delete. The SPAs !voting Keep appear to be either meat or sockpuppets; a SPI has been opened. The Bushranger One ping only 18:59, 24 July 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}} . |
New law firm. Most, if not all, of the current sources point to unrelated cases not mentioning this firm. Looks a bit like an advertisement and lacks sourced detail. MBisanz talk 04:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC) reply
-- chtousi ( talk) 21:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC) — chtousi ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
now, under wikipedia:verifiability, it says "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Source material must have been published (made available to the public in some form); unpublished materials are not considered reliable. Sources should directly support the material presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made. The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments; as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. Content related to living people or medicine should be sourced especially carefully.
Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science. But they are not the only reliable sources in such areas. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used, subject to the same criteria. See details in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:Search engine test."
the article cites court cases, articles from prestigy law firms, etc., no press releases and self-made info. also, i've visited about 10 law firm Wiki situs today, and can't find any better sourcing, sometimes they have only 1 or 2 sitations. so, i can't figure out why u guys don't think they pass Wiki's guidelines. -- Gbgupta ( talk) 20:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC) — Gbgupta ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 18:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC) reply
This list is just a way of telling the story of the show and that too in a worst possible manner. The story can be written in a "plot" section on the main article. There is no need of this separate article to just say that episode 1's title is "episode 1" (fans!!!) and keep repeating that it aired in 1996 and was directed by Tony Singh. §§ AnimeshKulkarni ( talk) 14:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 19:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Some non-notable award function held once but has no news coverage. Fails WP:GNG. §§ AnimeshKulkarni ( talk) 13:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. T. Canens ( talk) 17:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply
I see no reliable sources indicating this individual passes WP:MUSIC, only a piece in a tabloid. Biruitorul Talk 23:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. T. Canens ( talk) 16:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Non-notable company/building/clinic. Fails both WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. I looked up the included reference from the Charlotte Observer and the depth of coverage about the dental practice is minimal in my opinion. Searches for additional references find no substantial coverage of the subject. -- Gogo Dodo ( talk) 22:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was Soft redirect to Wiktionary. T. Canens ( talk) 16:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Article is mostly unsourced/original research. May fall under not#dictionary. General definition can be merged into sports glossaries. Jprg1966 (talk) 17:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Or rather, moot: the article has been substantially changed in title and scope from the nominated version. If still deemed problematic, it would need a new nomination. Sandstein 14:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply
This list was created in 2010, with the last addition in September 2011. It is nowhere near complete (only ever got as far as American Samoa, which isn't even a country), and more importantly, will not be able to be so as I seem to recall from a long-dead article attempting to display election year templates for every country that Wikipedia articles can only take a certain number of templates, and completing this page would take over 200. Even if they could all load, I'm fairly sure the page would be well over the recommended maximum size.
Number
5
7
18:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
reply
Withdrawn as I've come to an arrangement to change the scope of the list and started work on it. Number 5 7 08:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Country | Last national election | ||
---|---|---|---|
President | Parliament | ||
Lower House | Upper House | ||
Afghanistan | 2009 | 2010 | |
Albania | 2009 |
Firstly, an article of the title is obviously something which could have some value. Reading the proposed deletion, it sounds as if the article does need improvement. However, my argument would be that we should improve this list, rather than delete it. ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 23:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC) reply
":Going ahead with keeping the title and changing to table forma. Lihaas ( talk) 11:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Emanuel Bowen. Consensus was to merge, but there is no sourced content and hence no mergeable content. Jenks24 ( talk) 10:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply
No claim of notability, and way too specific an article (one map out of an entire atlas) Constantine ✍ 20:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 19:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC) reply
A near idea-for-idea reiteration for the already AFD'ed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nickelodeon (UK & Ireland) Events 2012, which was created by the abandoned (and warning filled account) DylansTVChannel ( talk · contribs), who came back under our nose with the blantant sock DylanGLC2011 ( talk · contribs). Absolutely no issues addressed from the "2012" iteration; the usual hallmarks of editors who add unsourced information about what most of us call a regular episode premiere, with a severe WP:ADVERT tone which violates WP:NOTTVGUIDE, and "email to a fan" certainly isn't a source in the least. One link to the "List of network programs" article and nothing else, and sources are terrible; e-mail screenshots, a link to Nick UK's promotional Facebook, a Sky programming highlights page and a guide listing which will disappear after the 22nd. Asking for an AFD as a PROD would be ignored and the user's past history. Nate • ( chatter) 03:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 19:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Unnotable time-filling continuity for Nickelodeon's British network which solely exists as WP:ADVERT content with no links out or in to speak of beyond the network and "List of network programs" artices, and seems to have nothing written about it. Article editor DylansTVChannel ( talk · contribs) abandoned their account after most of their articles were taken to deletion and now edits under DylanGLC2011 ( talk · contribs), so that account will be warned. Nate • ( chatter) 03:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC) reply
I don't see Anything wrong with this page or my List of Nickelodeon (UK & Ireland) Events. I understand that my page Nick Extra be deleted. But why delete this and the Events page? -- DylanGLC2011 ( talk) 09:01, 17 July 2012 (UTC) ( Nate • ( chatter) transferred this comment over from the talk page of this nomination) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 19:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:GNG, WP:MUSIC, WP:CRYSTALBALL Nouniquenames ( talk) 03:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to List of Naruto video games. The Bushranger One ping only 19:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC) reply
WP:ball, Game is "slated for release" next year. Notability is not established. The Determinator p t c 03:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 01:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC) reply
I'm not finding any indication of notability per Wikipedia's criteria of WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Google search brings up a lot of social networking-type sites and some sources about a professor (unrelated). ... discospinster talk 02:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Whether and what to redirect is an editorial decision. Sandstein 11:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC) reply
This article is unsourced since 2009. It doesn't explain why it is notable, and it does not receive significant coverage in reliable sources. Shrigley ( talk) 02:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 14:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Not notable. Sourced to a YouTube video and searching turns up nothing else so something someone made up one day for a video. Deprodded with the reason 'probably AfD is the best venue for this', which does not address the concerns of the proposed deletion but means, yes, it has to go through AfD now. JohnBlackburne words deeds 02:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was incubate. T. Canens ( talk) 16:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The film has not yet been made and currently the only sources available appear to be press releases by people involved with its production. Therefore, notability is unclear. An editor has suggested that userfication or incubation may be appropriate. Smcg8374 ( talk) 01:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 01:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Unable to find reliable, secondary sources which evidence the notability (or even verify most of the statements made here about) the article subject or his books. Worldcat doesn't seem to find the books, for example. Additional sources welcomed as always, though. j⚛e decker talk 01:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. If userification is desired, ping me. The Bushranger One ping only 19:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Non-notable movie; fails general notability guideline, as there is no coverage in independent sources that I can find. Writ Keeper ⚇ ♔ 00:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Ezra Jack Keats. Deleted before redirecting. The Bushranger One ping only 01:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC) reply
I can't find any evidence that the subject meets WP:NBOOKS. Besides, that, Wikipedia is not a catalogue. I realise that the author is notable in her own right, but notability is not inherited and is one of the arguments to be avoided in deletion discussions. — Fly by Night ( talk) 00:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Black Kite ( talk) 09:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The subject falls well short of meeting the notability criteria set out in WP:CREATIVE — Fly by Night ( talk) 23:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Zad
68
19:50, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
replyThe result was delete. Black Kite ( talk) 09:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Non-notable pornographic actress. Fails WP:PORNBIO because her nominations are all for scene awards. The amount of coverage also does not rise up to the level to satisfy the general notability guidelines. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 22:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. T. Canens ( talk) 16:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Lubrano does not pass WP:CRIME. Vic49 ( talk) 22:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to VoltDB. T. Canens ( talk) 16:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Sources offered are all WP:PRIMARY. I have searched for better sources with Google and found nothing useful. It's possible this may become notable in the future, but for now, it's WP:TOOSOON. Msnicki ( talk) 00:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Zad
68
20:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
replyThe result was Keep as per unanimous positive consensus and no calls for deletion outside of the nominator. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended ( talk) 00:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Ordinary--and not particularly busy--actress. CalendarWatcher ( talk) 05:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. T. Canens ( talk) 16:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply
This individual fails WP:POLITICIAN. The claim advanced is that he is notable because he is the mayor of a Romanian county seat. That claim is, however, rather flimsy. To be sure, a few mayors of Romanian county seats are routinely notable: those seats that also happen to be large cities and regional centers (Cluj-Napoca, Iași, Timișoara, Constanța, Craiova). It does not follow that every such mayor is notable: the mayors of, say, Târgu Jiu, Slatina, Vaslui and, yes, Zalău are rarely prominent beyond the borders of their respective cities. With all due respect to Zalău, it's a town of just over 50,000, Romania's 38th-largest city, and not really influential outside a very small radius.
To use an American example, it's one thing to be mayor of Atlanta or Denver (always notable, often influential in national politics and routinely in state politics), and quite another to be mayor of, say, Jefferson City, MO or Pierre, SD (people no one outside those cities have heard of). Not every mayor of a US state capital is automatically notable either, and Zalău is more of a Pierre than a Denver.
In sum, neither Căpîlnăşiu's position, nor the press coverage he has received, which is invariably routine, indicate he is a notable politician. - Biruitorul Talk 14:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Black Kite ( talk) 09:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Subject not notable enough for its own article. INever Cry 20:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Black Kite ( talk) 09:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Non- notable company. The Fortune magazine "profile of MENA" is actually not a profile of this company; it is a review of investment opportunities in the Middle East and North Africa, a region known by the acronym MENA. The MENA company is mentioned, once, briefly, as the source of a single quote. Other references show similarly sketchy coverage. This investment firm does not appear to be anything by run of the mill. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 15:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC) reply
We should fix the reference then, but the notability of the company is that it's an influential private equity firm operating in the Middle East during a time of economic unrest associated with the Arab Spring. Their current AUM is low ($28 million), but that's down from over $100 million just a year ago - again, making them of interest and relevant. There aren't adequate Arab private equity firms investing in the MENA region represented in the private equity firm space on Wikipedia and this is a good candidate to help address that information gap. The firm is notable for being out front in encouraging investment in countries like Tunisia and Egypt during this period of political transition 12.171.157.178 ( talk) 18:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Black Kite ( talk) 09:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC) reply
As there is nothing in google to hint his notability as well that Wikipedia is not a resume, therefore this person is not notable, which explains my nomination for deletion. Donnie Park ( talk) 15:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Zad
68
20:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
replyThe result was delete. Black Kite ( talk) 09:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The article has no encyclopedic information that is associated with List of episodes. This one merely writes the plot and date of telecast. Also unreferenced and fails WP:GNG. §§ AnimeshKulkarni ( talk) 14:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. T. Canens ( talk) 16:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Does not meet basic WP:N requirements, known only for fairly low-key MTV tv series, no notable awards, no significant news coverage as an individual. — raeky t 03:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was incubate. T. Canens ( talk) 16:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply
A little independent film that got entered in a little local film festival (admittedly, in New York, which gives it some visibility no matter the size), and received some brief mentions in passing in articles about that festival (but not explicitly about the film itself). Fails WP:NF. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 20:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was KEEP. postdlf ( talk) 15:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC) reply
I truly fail to see how this article can be considered to contain encyclopedia-relevant information. The material in this article appears to be much more specific to an almanac/buyer's guide (to computer installation software.) I also see that at least one of its hyperlinks connects to a similar article being peer-reviewed for deletion. Less importantly, its bias is difficult to determine and completely lacks in citation. -- b1naryatr0phy ( talk) 12:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC) reply
I don't think deleting the article is the best solution, the issues can be fixed by editing. The issues you brought up were....
The material in this article appears to be much more specific to an almanac/buyer's guide
This can be fixed by editing.
how this article can be considered to contain encyclopedia-relevant information
I think lists have their own criteria for being encyclopedia-relevant.
at least one of its hyperlinks connects to a similar article being peer-reviewed for deletion.
the Hyperlinks can be removed.
its bias is difficult to determine and completely lacks in citation.
The bias can be removed/reworded
So all the points you mentioned can be fixed by editing, so I don't think deleting is the best idea at this point in time, although I may be wrong. Ziiike ( talk) 02:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. T. Canens ( talk) 16:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply
A PROD tag was removed by the article's creator without improvement to the article; the article was rejected at Articles for Creation immediately after it was posted in article space. Essentially this is a Malaysian indie film with no notable actors and which has received little or no critical attention (zero Google News hits for the title). No reliable sources have been provided and I found none in two searches (I expect there may be localized non-English sources but I was unable to do an effective search; I doubt that they would contribute to widespread notability.) Ubelowme U Me 20:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Turku#Name. T. Canens ( talk) 16:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply
I originally proposed this for deletion, stating that the "Turun" is just a genitive form of " Turku", which would be the same thing as creating an article about " of London". The author contested this proposal, saying that he had created this page as a "navigational aid" for non-Finnish speakers who might be wondering what "Turun" means. I feel that my original reasoning is still entirely valid. This is really nothing more than an extremely simple Finnish language lesson. All the actual information in the article amounts to "'Turun' means 'of Turku' in Finnish". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary or a guide to the Finnish language. This is not even in any way unique to "Turun", lots of other Finnish place names obey consonant gradation too. By that logic, we would need articles such as " Lappeenrannan", " Rovaniemen", etc., and even that's only for the genitive case, not to mention the other about ten cases in the Finnish language the gradation happens. I genuinely feel this article serves no purpose in an encyclopedia. Delete. JIP | Talk 18:29, 17 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 18:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Just a crackpot article. Some how its CSD nomination was refused. It's about a pair of teenage boys that see hidden signs in money and predict future events(!) Most of the references are to Yahoo's version of YouTube (Yahoo Voices?). They seem to have had a single mention in a local newspaper. This, IMHO, does not constitute multiple, non-trivial, third party references. — Fly by Night ( talk) 17:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn per this edit. ItsZippy ( talk • contributions) 17:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Utterly pointless redirect. Since there are no numbered "parts" to History of the Soviet Union (which is actually broken down into a number of time-period chunks, as well as hundreds of sup-pages), this is a search term nobody will ever use. Mogism ( talk) 16:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Without prejudice to any consensus to merge this from the RFC at Talk:The Legend of Korra. T. Canens ( talk) 16:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:GNG. Article is about a future television season that was just announced last Friday. The only source of information about it is a panel at the San Diego Comic-con. No other information other than minor setting and broadcast details have been released. — Parent5446 ☯ ( msg email) 15:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Extended Explanation: Unfortunately Wikipedia does not have a policy on future television series or seasons, but information from WP:NFF can be applied in this situation. A future media event that has yet to be released is notable iff "the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." As far as the notability of the production goes, there are only two sources available: 1) a brief mention of the second season in an interview, and 2) sources reporting on the recent San Diego Comic-con panel on the show. In the former case, the sourced interview only mentions the subject in question once, and only briefly describes the production status. For the latter sources, all information is just summaries/news reports on what the show's creators announced at the panel, which isn't much (all that was announced was the setting of the season and some initial concept art). — Parent5446 ☯ ( msg email) 16:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. T. Canens ( talk) 16:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Completely unsourced, and unreleased Mdann52 ( talk) 15:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy close. Artiquities, deletion nominations aren't the only tool in your toolbox. You've created a duplicate article. You've noticed that it's a duplicate article. You won't be the last to do this, because if you've been so convinced of this alternative name as to start a duplicate article here, so will someone else in the future. So the obvious thing to do is follow the procedure at Project:duplicate articles and merge. It doesn't involve administrators, deletion nominations, AFD, or the administrator deletion tool in any way. You have all of the tools for enacting the right thing yourself. You don't even need to ask anyone's permission or wait for one week. Be bold and use your tools right now! Uncle G ( talk) 20:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Article: on " Phillips de Pury & Company" already exists - hence this article is redundant. Artiquities ( talk) 15:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. If userification is desired, ping me. The Bushranger One ping only 18:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Delete due to lack of notability in accordance with the topical notability guidelines for actors or the general notability guidelines, which require significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. Best regards, Cindy( talk to me) 14:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Thank You for all the great feedback. Particularly WP:TOOSOON. If deleted, I'm confident in increased interest and will attempt a re-submission soon. Jdjbj43 ( talk) 06:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. WP:SNOW The Bushranger One ping only 01:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Per WP:ACADEMIC. A holder of an named chair must be from a major institution. So far as medical schools go, I don't think UNMC meets it. ...William 14:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Eulogio "Amang" Rodriguez Institute of Science and Technology#Publication. Merging (with attribution as required by the copying-within-Wikipedia policy) can be done from history. The Bushranger One ping only 18:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Does not appear to be a particularly notable school newspaper. Only one source given in the article that is actually about the subject is independent, and even then I'm not sure if it's reliable. Was previously de-prodded by article creator. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 13:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. T. Canens ( talk) 16:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply
All the information already present at the main horribly written article
C.I.D. (TV series). Then why not
be bold and redirect it or raise a Merge request instead of deletion? That's because i dont think even a redirect is necessary when readers can directly find the info on the main article and main article would be the primary search topic.
(I had tagged it with
CSD A10 yesterday but the tag was removed and contested by
User:Monty845 with reason that "2011 is not recently created". I hold the opinion that whensoever created if it is duplicate, it can be deleted under CSD A10. And "recent" is a relative term. If i was 90yrs old, 2011 would have been recent for me. Anyways... Just wanted to point out that a speedy deletion of the article was contested.) §§
AnimeshKulkarni (
talk)
12:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
reply
The result was redirect to Ethnic groups in West Asia. T. Canens ( talk) 16:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Unsourced article regarding the racial characteristics of people from a particular region. Likely original research or synthesis. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 12:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. "likely" copyright violation, says Mehran. Putting the name of the work that was copied in the title of the article was somewhat of a clue. It is, indeed, pages 903–904 of the 1993 Encyclopaedia of Islam. And of course this encyclopaedia already has a Nahj al-Balagha article, and has had for some time. Uncle G ( talk) 21:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Seems to be not notable and likely copyvio. ● Mehran Debate● 11:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 18:47, 24 July 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) 09:34, 17 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Whether to redirect or merge is left as an editorial decision. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 13:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The topic of the article seems like an unnotable theory, with not much impact on the astronomy sciene. The article itself cites only one source, Adams, F. C.; P. Bodenheimer, G. Laughlin (2005). "M dwarfs: planet formation and long term evolution", which was cited only 6 times according to Google Scholar. As far as I know (thanks to user:החבלן from he.wiki), searching for another text about it, there's also the article Gregory Laughlin, Peter Bodenheimer, and Fred C. Adams (1997). "The End of the Main Sequence", by the same scientists, which according to Google Scholar was cited only 41 times. If this is really all, then the article's subject is one of many scientific theories, and not a theory that left any significant impact on its field of research. So I don't think it follows notability guidelines. When you search for information about it on Google Scholar, please notice that there are several meanings to Blue dwarf, and usually the term doesn't refer to this red-dwarf stage. Tomer T ( talk) 09:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 18:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Seems to be all copy-pasted from official website. Probably fails WP:ORG. No significant GHits, only passing mention in news articles Zujua ( talk) 07:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 18:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a directory. The article claims that the show has aired 843 episodes (unsourced info) and states only trivial things like episode number, episode title and date of telecast. The encyclopedic information usually found on such lists is missing, eg. TRP ratings, Writer, Director, Production code, etc. All editors who think this is a case where improvement is needed and not deletion please note that this information for Indian TV shows is almost never available and even if found is found from some unreliable fan-chat-forums. Why not just redirect it then? Well... the last AfD had procedural closing because someone had redirected it proving it does not work that way. Some fan is gonna come up and create this page with some punctuation changes again. §§ AnimeshKulkarni ( talk) 10:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. T. Canens ( talk) 17:01, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply
This event fails WP:NOT, WP:EVENT, WP:SPORTSEVENT, and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER as there is no indication that the event has any enduring notability and lasting significance. Portillo ( talk) 09:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Note that all of those examples are teams, not individuals. Unscintillating ( talk) 00:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC) reply* The final series (or single game when there is not a series) determining the champion of a top league, e.g. 2009 Stanley Cup Finals, or 2009 All-Ireland Senior Football Championship Final, or Super Bowl XLIII, or 2006 UEFA Champions League Final
Unscintillating ( talk) 00:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC) reply"Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page, rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page."
Unscintillating ( talk) 21:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC) replyThe second source is a blog, the site lists the person as a "VIP blogger", and the essay makes no pretense to being anything but opinion. It does however provide a lead that there is a possible source at a newspaper called El Nuevo Día. Unscintillating ( talk) 02:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
The third source is from Bleacher Report. According to the Wikipedia article, they didn't exist before 2006. They have both paid and unpaid staff. It would take research to find how Wikipedia generally determines the reliability of such a source; however, the article lists that it has only been read 950 times, and the article contains personal opinions of the author such as "I have no idea what he’s talking about." Not WP:RS. Unscintillating ( talk) 03:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
The result was keep. The Bushranger One ping only 18:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC) reply
This event fails WP:NOT, WP:EVENT, WP:SPORTSEVENT, and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER as there is no indication that the event has any enduring notability and lasting significance. Portillo ( talk) 09:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep as per unanimous positive consensus and the absence of calls for deletion outside of the nominator. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended ( talk) 00:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC) reply
This event fails WP:NOT, WP:EVENT, WP:SPORTSEVENT, and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER as there is no indication that the event has any enduring notability and lasting significance. Portillo ( talk) 09:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. T. Canens ( talk) 17:01, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply
This event fails WP:NOT, WP:EVENT, WP:SPORTSEVENT, and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER as there is no indication that the event has any enduring notability and lasting significance. Portillo ( talk) 09:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. T. Canens ( talk) 17:01, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply
This event fails WP:NOT, WP:EVENT, WP:SPORTSEVENT, and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER as there is no indication that the event has any enduring notability and lasting significance. Portillo ( talk) 09:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. T. Canens ( talk) 17:01, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply
This event fails WP:NOT, WP:EVENT, WP:SPORTSEVENT, and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER as there is no indication that the event has any enduring notability and lasting significance. Portillo ( talk) 09:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. T. Canens ( talk) 17:01, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply
This event fails WP:NOT, WP:EVENT, WP:SPORTSEVENT, and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER as there is no indication that the event has any enduring notability and lasting significance. Portillo ( talk) 09:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. T. Canens ( talk) 17:01, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply
This event fails WP:NOT, WP:EVENT, WP:SPORTSEVENT, and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER as there is no indication that the event has any enduring notability and lasting significance. Portillo ( talk) 09:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. T. Canens ( talk) 17:01, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply
This event fails WP:NOT, WP:EVENT, WP:SPORTSEVENT, and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER as there is no indication that the event has any enduring notability and lasting significance. Portillo ( talk) 09:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Note that all of the examples listed are team sports. The counter-argument being passed around is that all UFC sports events deserve the status of the Stanley Cup Finals or the SuperBowl. Why should every event of one small company (Zuffa or SEG), get more coverage on Wikipedia than major league baseball? The answer that I sense is that these companies are "promoters", and that what is on Wikipedia is a function of WP:NOT WP:PROMOTION and WP:N "promotional activity". One can also tell by the almost non-existant media coverage that the world at large does not consider this Japan event to have the status of the Stanley Cup Finals or the Superbowl. The nominator correctly notes that the topic fails WP:EVENT, there is at most routine coverage of this event. I've clicked on dozens of links at Google without finding any actual newspaper articles about the event. WP:EVENT states, "Notable events usually have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group." and "Significant national or international coverage is usually expected for an event to be notable." Balloon boy incident is sometimes mentioned as a WP:EVENT benchmark, and the coverage given to balloon boy is massively greater, in world-wide coverage and the amount of time over which the event was regularly reported. I recommend that the redirect also be deleted as this is not a likely search term. Finally, our WP:NOT policy states, "routine news reporting on things like...sports...is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Unscintillating ( talk) 20:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC) replySome games or series are inherently notable[why?], including but not limited to the following:
• The final series (or single game when there is not a series) determining the champion of a top league, e.g. 2009 Stanley Cup Finals, or 2009 All-Ireland Senior Football Championship Final, or Super Bowl XLIII, or 2006 UEFA Champions League Final
The result was no consensus. T. Canens ( talk) 17:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply
This event fails WP:NOT, WP:EVENT, WP:SPORTSEVENT, and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER as there is no indication that the event has any enduring notability and lasting significance. Portillo ( talk) 09:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC) reply
THESE PAGES BRING NUMEROUS HITS TO YOUR SITE EACH MONTH; THESE ARE MY ONLY VISITS TO WIKIPEDIA. DELETE THEM, I'LL NEVER RETURN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.189.143.31 ( talk) 02:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Note that all of the examples listed are team sports. The counter-argument being passed around is that all UFC sports events deserve the status of the Stanley Cup Finals or the SuperBowl. Why should every event of one small company (Zuffa or SEG), get more coverage on Wikipedia than major league baseball? How is this is a "single game" that has determined the "championship of a top league" that is the equivalent of the Super Bowl or the Stanley Cup Finals? That would have been huge news if a Superbowl were won by forfeit. I've clicked on dozens of links at Google without finding any 1996 newspaper articles or even any secondary reliable coverage of any kind about the event, with one exception at yahoo.sports.com/mma. One can tell by the almost non-existant media coverage that the world at large does not consider this event to have the status of the Stanley Cup Finals or the Superbowl. Unscintillating ( talk) 22:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC) replySome games or series are inherently notable[why?], including but not limited to the following:
• The final series (or single game when there is not a series) determining the champion of a top league, e.g. 2009 Stanley Cup Finals, or 2009 All-Ireland Senior Football Championship Final, or Super Bowl XLIII, or 2006 UEFA Champions League Final
The result was delete. The SPAs !voting Keep appear to be either meat or sockpuppets; a SPI has been opened. The Bushranger One ping only 18:59, 24 July 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}} . |
New law firm. Most, if not all, of the current sources point to unrelated cases not mentioning this firm. Looks a bit like an advertisement and lacks sourced detail. MBisanz talk 04:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC) reply
-- chtousi ( talk) 21:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC) — chtousi ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
now, under wikipedia:verifiability, it says "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Source material must have been published (made available to the public in some form); unpublished materials are not considered reliable. Sources should directly support the material presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made. The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments; as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. Content related to living people or medicine should be sourced especially carefully.
Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science. But they are not the only reliable sources in such areas. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used, subject to the same criteria. See details in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:Search engine test."
the article cites court cases, articles from prestigy law firms, etc., no press releases and self-made info. also, i've visited about 10 law firm Wiki situs today, and can't find any better sourcing, sometimes they have only 1 or 2 sitations. so, i can't figure out why u guys don't think they pass Wiki's guidelines. -- Gbgupta ( talk) 20:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC) — Gbgupta ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 18:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC) reply
This list is just a way of telling the story of the show and that too in a worst possible manner. The story can be written in a "plot" section on the main article. There is no need of this separate article to just say that episode 1's title is "episode 1" (fans!!!) and keep repeating that it aired in 1996 and was directed by Tony Singh. §§ AnimeshKulkarni ( talk) 14:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 19:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Some non-notable award function held once but has no news coverage. Fails WP:GNG. §§ AnimeshKulkarni ( talk) 13:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. T. Canens ( talk) 17:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply
I see no reliable sources indicating this individual passes WP:MUSIC, only a piece in a tabloid. Biruitorul Talk 23:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. T. Canens ( talk) 16:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Non-notable company/building/clinic. Fails both WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. I looked up the included reference from the Charlotte Observer and the depth of coverage about the dental practice is minimal in my opinion. Searches for additional references find no substantial coverage of the subject. -- Gogo Dodo ( talk) 22:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was Soft redirect to Wiktionary. T. Canens ( talk) 16:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Article is mostly unsourced/original research. May fall under not#dictionary. General definition can be merged into sports glossaries. Jprg1966 (talk) 17:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Or rather, moot: the article has been substantially changed in title and scope from the nominated version. If still deemed problematic, it would need a new nomination. Sandstein 14:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply
This list was created in 2010, with the last addition in September 2011. It is nowhere near complete (only ever got as far as American Samoa, which isn't even a country), and more importantly, will not be able to be so as I seem to recall from a long-dead article attempting to display election year templates for every country that Wikipedia articles can only take a certain number of templates, and completing this page would take over 200. Even if they could all load, I'm fairly sure the page would be well over the recommended maximum size.
Number
5
7
18:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
reply
Withdrawn as I've come to an arrangement to change the scope of the list and started work on it. Number 5 7 08:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Country | Last national election | ||
---|---|---|---|
President | Parliament | ||
Lower House | Upper House | ||
Afghanistan | 2009 | 2010 | |
Albania | 2009 |
Firstly, an article of the title is obviously something which could have some value. Reading the proposed deletion, it sounds as if the article does need improvement. However, my argument would be that we should improve this list, rather than delete it. ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 23:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC) reply
":Going ahead with keeping the title and changing to table forma. Lihaas ( talk) 11:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Emanuel Bowen. Consensus was to merge, but there is no sourced content and hence no mergeable content. Jenks24 ( talk) 10:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply
No claim of notability, and way too specific an article (one map out of an entire atlas) Constantine ✍ 20:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 19:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC) reply
A near idea-for-idea reiteration for the already AFD'ed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nickelodeon (UK & Ireland) Events 2012, which was created by the abandoned (and warning filled account) DylansTVChannel ( talk · contribs), who came back under our nose with the blantant sock DylanGLC2011 ( talk · contribs). Absolutely no issues addressed from the "2012" iteration; the usual hallmarks of editors who add unsourced information about what most of us call a regular episode premiere, with a severe WP:ADVERT tone which violates WP:NOTTVGUIDE, and "email to a fan" certainly isn't a source in the least. One link to the "List of network programs" article and nothing else, and sources are terrible; e-mail screenshots, a link to Nick UK's promotional Facebook, a Sky programming highlights page and a guide listing which will disappear after the 22nd. Asking for an AFD as a PROD would be ignored and the user's past history. Nate • ( chatter) 03:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 19:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Unnotable time-filling continuity for Nickelodeon's British network which solely exists as WP:ADVERT content with no links out or in to speak of beyond the network and "List of network programs" artices, and seems to have nothing written about it. Article editor DylansTVChannel ( talk · contribs) abandoned their account after most of their articles were taken to deletion and now edits under DylanGLC2011 ( talk · contribs), so that account will be warned. Nate • ( chatter) 03:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC) reply
I don't see Anything wrong with this page or my List of Nickelodeon (UK & Ireland) Events. I understand that my page Nick Extra be deleted. But why delete this and the Events page? -- DylanGLC2011 ( talk) 09:01, 17 July 2012 (UTC) ( Nate • ( chatter) transferred this comment over from the talk page of this nomination) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 19:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:GNG, WP:MUSIC, WP:CRYSTALBALL Nouniquenames ( talk) 03:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to List of Naruto video games. The Bushranger One ping only 19:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC) reply
WP:ball, Game is "slated for release" next year. Notability is not established. The Determinator p t c 03:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 01:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC) reply
I'm not finding any indication of notability per Wikipedia's criteria of WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Google search brings up a lot of social networking-type sites and some sources about a professor (unrelated). ... discospinster talk 02:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Whether and what to redirect is an editorial decision. Sandstein 11:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC) reply
This article is unsourced since 2009. It doesn't explain why it is notable, and it does not receive significant coverage in reliable sources. Shrigley ( talk) 02:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 14:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Not notable. Sourced to a YouTube video and searching turns up nothing else so something someone made up one day for a video. Deprodded with the reason 'probably AfD is the best venue for this', which does not address the concerns of the proposed deletion but means, yes, it has to go through AfD now. JohnBlackburne words deeds 02:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was incubate. T. Canens ( talk) 16:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The film has not yet been made and currently the only sources available appear to be press releases by people involved with its production. Therefore, notability is unclear. An editor has suggested that userfication or incubation may be appropriate. Smcg8374 ( talk) 01:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 01:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Unable to find reliable, secondary sources which evidence the notability (or even verify most of the statements made here about) the article subject or his books. Worldcat doesn't seem to find the books, for example. Additional sources welcomed as always, though. j⚛e decker talk 01:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. If userification is desired, ping me. The Bushranger One ping only 19:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Non-notable movie; fails general notability guideline, as there is no coverage in independent sources that I can find. Writ Keeper ⚇ ♔ 00:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Ezra Jack Keats. Deleted before redirecting. The Bushranger One ping only 01:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC) reply
I can't find any evidence that the subject meets WP:NBOOKS. Besides, that, Wikipedia is not a catalogue. I realise that the author is notable in her own right, but notability is not inherited and is one of the arguments to be avoided in deletion discussions. — Fly by Night ( talk) 00:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC) reply