![]() |
The result was delete. Sandstein 05:29, 2 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Notability not established, primarily unreliable sources, most of article is unreferenced. Nouniquenames ( talk) 23:38, 24 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Simple vote counting puts delete votes slightly ahead of keep votes (roughly 60/40). An analysis of the arguments shows that most Keep voters argue that the topic passes WP:GNG, owing to the vast quantity of sources available on the subject. That argument is countered to some degree by those claiming that the vast majority of the sources are not primarily about the specific topic of Kutcher's use of Twitter, but otherwise I believe the consensus is that the topic most likely passes WP:GNG. However, the Delete voters make a compelling case for why passing WP:GNG doesn't matter in this case, and that's because policy trumps guidelines. The policy in this case is WP:NOT, in particular WP:INDISCRIMINATE (and to some degree WP:NOTDIARY), which states that "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." In the discussions below, there are many examples of other potential topics that receive a lot of coverage in reliable sources, but otherwise would not be suitable for an article as they would violate WP:NOT. In any case, I would be ok with restoring the article for the purpose of merging some of its material to other articles, upon request on my talk page. -Scottywong | comment _ 19:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, I am not sure how a person's account on Twitter can be seen as being worthy of an account.
Things like Category:Celebrity_Twitter_accounts make a mockery of building an encyclopaedia. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The above quote passes by the impact Ashton made on Twitter: the loss of Demi, and the shutdown itself.Similarly, a website may be notable, but the owners or authors do not "inherit" notability due to the web content they wrote.
Challenging CNN for bed sheets that reduce risks of malaria helps this topic achieve it. Fortunately, it passes " WP:Notability (web)" because of those events and other events that meet above, but how does it pass GNG? I crossed out my neutrality because I'm starting to figure out that this topic meets (an)other subject-notability guideline(s). -- George Ho ( talk) 00:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC) replyWhen evaluating the notability of web content, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. High-traffic websites are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability. However, smaller websites can be notable. Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger websites.
Alice Marwick; danah boyd. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies. May 2011. Vol.17,Iss.2;p.139 - 158. Source: SAGE Premier 2012. Kutcher's practices for use on Twitter were repeatedly cited in this paper and how it compares to others, in some cases explaining how this conceputalizes how Twitter itself is understood. Quote: "Responsiveness on Twitter is variable: while Ashton Kutcher may not write back to his fans, a fan will typically write back to him, and Ashton Kutcher will typically respond to other celebrities. This type of public recognition marks certain people as more important than others." And yeah, the existing article is pretty crap in that it focuses on Twitter metrics, with out contextualizing WHY this is encyclopediac. -- LauraHale ( talk) 05:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC) reply
![]() |
The Laughing Nutter |
Twitter sized summaries are required for twitter sized attention spans. WP:WHATTHEF***DOWEWANTGARBAGELIKETHISINANENCTCLOPAEDIAFOR is a vast improvement and outstandingly polite, note the ***'s where page after page after page after page after page after page (wait, not too much reiteration, I sense a sudden slump in twit-readership) after page of reasoning has failed, using approachable hopefully memorable language to explain policy is f***ing brilliant. Penyulap ☏ 19:48, 2 Jul 2012 (UTC) |
The result was delete. Sandstein 05:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Excessive detail that is not needed for Wikipedia. The sort of page that you'd see on a fan wiki. The plot, characters, setting and other sections of individual pages are more than enough to explain these terms. Thus the page is not needed. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 18:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Bencherlite Talk 08:41, 29 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Non-notable new film. Orange Mike | Talk 23:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sandstein 17:56, 2 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The subject doesn't meet WP: A7. I googled this up and found no reliable sources. This is probably original research about a non-notable figure. Electriccatfish2 ( talk) 21:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep (nomination withdrawn). The nominator withdrew their nomination, and no !votes to delete were posted (other than the nomination). ( Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000 (talk) 16:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Tagged for "no references" since June 2009. Unable to find secondary coverage in news or book sources for this one-year post-high school yeshiva for Americans in Israel. The rosh yeshiva is the editor of Jewish Thought, a periodical produced by the Orthodox Union, so he probably deserves his own page. Yoninah ( talk) 21:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Walnut Creek, California#Education. WP:OUTCOMES; clear result, no need to string things out. The Bushranger One ping only 22:08, 27 June 2012 (UTC) reply
nonnotable middle school, no redirect as the school district only contains primary/middle schools, no high schools. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 20:20, 24 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Walnut Creek, California#Education. WP:OUTCOMES; clear result, no need to string things out. The Bushranger One ping only 22:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC) reply
elementary school in a school district which has no secondary schools, so no redirect is possible. delete per policy on nonnotable primary schools. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 20:17, 24 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was WITHDRAWN by nominator. I was wrong! — JmaJeremy TALK CONTRIBS 00:51, 26 June 2012 (UTC) reply
— JmaJeremy TALK CONTRIBS 20:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 20:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:ORG. Almost no significant coverage in secondary sources based on an archive search of Google News. Most comes from primary sources, press releases, etc. Bbb23 ( talk) 18:37, 24 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete under criterion G3 as a blatant hoax. — C.Fred ( talk) 18:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Complete WP:Crystal - can't even find any google hits for it NtheP ( talk) 18:29, 24 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Opinions are roughly divided between those who consider this original research by synthesis, and those who want to keep it because they disagree or consider that it is a notable topic and just needs rewriting. Sandstein 05:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The article needs a complete re-write to be even encyclopedic. It currently is a synthesis ( WP:SYNTH) of primary studies and relies on media reports from fox news etc covering the studies rather than secondary sources from the peer reviewed literature for weight ( WP:FRINGE, WP:SCHOLARSHIP). It often fails to actually cite the studies and instead cites newspaper who are nowhere near reliable enough for the text ( WP:NOTNEWS). The article appears even worse than after the last AfD. The last closer noted that the article was a poorly-written melange of primary sources and news coverage, this is still the case. It also synthesis other vague related topics into the article such as how attractiveness influences voters. and whether conservatives are more attractive (based on an online poll of all things).
In summary, the article relies on a synthesis of news reports and primary studies and would require a rewrite to be encyclopaedic as it is unsalvageable. IRWolfie- ( talk) 18:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC) reply
This is the type of article which should be kept, even if it needs considerable re-writing for improvement. Re-writing rather than deletion would be the appropriate action here. ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 18:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. It's a blizzard in here. The Bushranger One ping only 22:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC) reply
This is not required and is unlikely to be read Calu2000 ( talk) 17:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 20:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC) reply
not notable thus fails WP:NSONG - Vivvt Talk 17:21, 24 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Opinions about whether the sources suffice for notability are divided. Sandstein 17:52, 2 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Of the two sources that could be construed as reliable, neither offers significant non-trivial coverage of the subject. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Regarding news coverage. Bear in mind that printer manufactures do not like the refill industry - it means less profit to them. The ink cartridge refill industry as a whole (including IIJ) has received very little news coverage which makes sense if you check the manufacturers financial statements and realize their most profitable divisions involve print consumables. They spend hundreds of millions of dollars on advertising with media outlets. The old saying "never bite the hand that feeds" comes to mind.
I respectfully submit that it is possible to achieve notoriety by the general community without the traditional "press coverage". Island Ink-Jet has refilled over 10 million cartridges to date which is impressive given we merely provide a service. It is ultimately the consumer that has chosen to refill and done so by bringing their cartridges to any of our locations (We wonder what would have happened if there had been substantial press coverage).
That said, there has been several nontrivial articles dealing with Island Ink-Jet however many are not preserved on the internet. In addition to the WSJ article cited, WSJ featured IIJ on the front page of the Business section on August 3rd, 2004. Island Ink-Jet was also featured on CTV's 6 o'clock evening news in 2005 (Pat Foran's consumer report segment) which discussed the refilling of ink cartridges and was shown nationwide within Canada. There have been several newspaper articles over the years but most are found in actual print rather than being searchable online. Island Ink-Jet has also been the recipient of numerous awards from chamber of commerce awards to consumers choice awards (Barrie Chamber of Commerce Green Award, Edmonton Consumers Choice award for #1 cartridge refiller, Canadian Office Products Association -COPA- award of excellence to name a few)- again none of which you would find by searching the internet as they are material things that are verifiable to anyone who contacts us and asks. Anyone interested in validating is welcome to contact Island Ink-Jet and request copies of articles that have appeared in print.
I am apalled by "Ohnoitsjamie"'s actions in nominating the Island Ink-Jet page for deletion. This is ultimately his retaliation in response to an update I placed on the "Ink Cartridge" page which he undid without any cause. I believe this is an abuse of power. As an expert within the industry I want to ensure the information is accurate and up to date. I removed a reference from an older PC World article an replaced it with a newer one. I also added information relating to how cartridges can be refilled. I was cognoscente that being an expert within the industry and being a member of IIJ could create a COI so I ensured the update was unbiased and neutral and it was certainly not promotional nor did it contain any external links. Wikipedia rules say use common sense and common sense would suggest that someone with a background in having refilled 10 million cartridges is probably an expert in the field - (even moreso than a PC world article writer who has never once refilled an ink cartridge). It's a shame when Wikipedia displays poor information as a result of a power tripping administrator like ohnoitsjamie.
We ask that common sense is used by other editors when reviewing this delete request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.112.26.83 ( talk) 05:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC) — 174.112.26.83 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Wikipedia is built upon the principle of collaboration and assuming that the efforts of others are in good faith. Wikipedia's guidelines go so far as to state "When you find a passage in an article that you find is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can. If that is not easily possible, and you disagree with a point of view expressed in an article, don't just delete it. Rather, balance it with what you think is neutral." In stark contrast to these stated goals Ohitsnotjamie simply uses his power to delete content without expertise on the subject matter, without cause, without reviewing the content and based on an assumption that writers on the subject matter are spammers and should they protest, he blocks their account. I think common sense would suggest this is going overboard. Common sense would also suggest that Ohitsnotjamie has nominated this article for deletion as a pesonal vendetta against "this account" (as he portrays this account as that of a spammer) when in fact the reality is that it is he who blocked the account in the first place and as a direct consequence to our disagreeing with his removal of content without any just cause. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.112.26.83 ( talk) 14:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was DELETE as content fork, per WP:SNOW. User:Agunter999 has been blocked as a purely disruptive account. postdlf ( talk) 06:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Appears to be a content fork of List of common World War II infantry weapons, with some information from other WWII-related lists, used by the article's creator to evade discussion at Talk:List of common World War II infantry weapons#Neutral countries. jfd34 ( talk) 15:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Agunter999 ( talk) 16:21, 24 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Sources provided which demonstrate notability. ( non-admin closure) MacMed talk stalk 01:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD, original rational was "Non-notable defunct magazine" which remains valid. Giant Snowman 15:41, 24 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) →TSU tp* 03:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Not notable. The refs are all first party ones except for one press release and one that briefly mentions the models. Other than that no indication of notability. JohnBlackburne words deeds 15:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. Already CSD'd by one editor and gthen deleted by another adlmin. Recreation of a previously CSD'd article under a slightly different nalme. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 15:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC) reply
dePRODed without addressing the issues of references. Just adding more websites of people the subject might have photographed does not add notability. The subject needs to have done something creative that gets written about, and awards, for its own merits - and then proven with WP:Reliable Sources Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 15:21, 24 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Sources satisfy GNG. ( non-admin closure) MacMed talk stalk 02:10, 1 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The achievements of this chess player are not high enough to be notable for an encyclopedia. SyG ( talk) 14:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC) SyG ( talk) 14:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. The discussion indicates that the topic might be notable, but would need better sourcing. Sandstein 05:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC) reply
There appears to be no article at ru for Умалатовой награды or even Умалатовa награды and a quick google search didn't find anything that looks particularly notable, although I accept my Russian isn't as good as it was 10 years ago. Looks NN. Spartaz Humbug! 10:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. I don't see how this unsourced, hyper-technical, possibly-OR content could be usefully merged, sorry Bearian. Sandstein 05:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Hopeless technically complicated. The weird "opening statement" in italics indicates a probable WP:OR problem too, as evidenced by the lack of sources. Basalisk inspect damage⁄ berate 11:50, 24 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy deleted WP:CSD#G11 by Kusma. ( non-admin closure) KTC ( talk) 21:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC) reply
How-to guide on how to join a game server on risingdead.com.br. Wikipedia is not a manual or guide. jfd34 ( talk) 11:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 20:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Biography of an author with a single published work, which has received no attention outside of his hometown and a few small bloggers. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 11:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 20:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC) reply
I'm not actually sure whether this is a hoax, speculation, or just a very obscure future film. The only hit I get for "Minecraft Di Flash" is in a Punjabi film internet forum. No sources are given in the article, and even a search for "Jelly Manjitpuri Baljit Deo" is inconclusive. If the film is true and more sources are found, then the article can be recreated, but for now, if it's not speculation, it's just too soon. PROD was removed by the author. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 10:54, 24 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Consensus is that he currently fails the notability guideline, but without prejudice to being restored if//when he does meet the guidelines. Davewild ( talk) 10:43, 1 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Player fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG Reckless182 (talk) 10:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC) reply
In just 2-3 months this player will play for a german team in the top leage. And he has already won a couple of prizes in Sweden witch gives him some general notability. Just give it some time and it will meet the required notability -- Divine time ( talk) 11:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Not only is this WP:ENT but it's a BLP. As such, it's unsourced - forums do not count. The actor does to appear to meet the "notable roles" requirement ( talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Indian Hindi TV actress who doesn't pass WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:GNG. §§ AnimeshKulkarni ( talk) 12:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Rocket Science (band). ( non-admin closure) MacMed talk stalk 02:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Non-notable member of a band. There are sources of him where he is being interviewed with his band etc. but no independent notability (such as activity outside of the bands) has been demonstrated. Thus fails WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO. Till 09:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. There is no support for deletion here (apart from the nominator) and while there is support for merging there is a rough consensus that the article is sufficiently notable to be kept. This does not prejudice however a consensus on the article talk page later reaching a decision on a merge. Davewild ( talk) 10:40, 1 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Was dePRODED but still fails to address notiability issues. Article needs to be about a school, or about its sports people, either way it needs more substantial coverage by WP:RS Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 08:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Davewild ( talk) 10:22, 1 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Doesn't seem to be notable, created by a SPA. — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 07:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Davewild ( talk) 10:22, 1 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Subject doesn't appear to be notable per WP:BIO. Credentials, while they may be impressive on a resume, aren't referenced and aren't so notable as to set the subject apart from many other physicians. The single reference is not about Kast and only mentions him a couple times in passing. All GNews seem to be about other people named "Robert Kast". Dismas| (talk) 06:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild ( talk) 10:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NHOCKEY. Not a first rounder in the recent draft. Contested PROD, removed under the mistake that the QMJHL counts towards criteria 3 (100 games played in minor professional league). The Q is a junior league, and doesn't count towards this criteria per long held consensus. Ravendrop 07:08, 24 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 20:34, 1 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Previously a Prod on the rationale "No evidence that this software meets the notability guidelines." Prod was removed by the article creator. There is a published Official Guide, but I found no reliable 3rd party sources that would establish notability, so I am bringing the article to AfD on the original rationale. (Note: there are also Engineering and Real Estate firms with similar names.) AllyD ( talk) 06:56, 3 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. A fine line between "keep" and "no consensus". The policy-based argument that this is a unique aircraft, and thus meets notability (and the associated Janes entry) moves me to Keep ( talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Originally nominated for speedy as G11, but declined. No notability for this one type of aircraft; the author de-proded after adding "reliable sources" from youtube, the manufacturer's website and a few databases etc. There aren't any other sources and so fails WP:GNG. Basalisk inspect damage⁄ berate 10:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. This is unsourced, incomplete, and as noted would be better served as part of Davao City#Cityscape. However, as the entries are currently unsourced, no merge is possible. At some point, those entries (such as top 5) could be moved there. As it's so unsourced, delete becomes the de facto consensus ( talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The list has no particularly tall buildings at all, so a question of notability is raised. Plus, another "Tall Buildings" list has been deleted for similar reasons: insufficient info, the city does not actually have "tall" buildings that warrant a separate article, etc. Xeltran ( talk) 11:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy deleted WP:CSD#A7 by Jimfbleak. ( non-admin closure) KTC ( talk) 09:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC) reply
I don't think that this branch is notable enough to have a individual Wikipedia page. If this isn't deleted, maybe we should merge it? Thekillerpenguin (talk) 05:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. The Bushranger One ping only 20:35, 1 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Non-notable businessman. He's president/CEO of Viacom International Media Networks, which is a sub-division of Viacom. That's not the kind of position that would create automatic notability. There are insufficient third party sources to demonstrate standalone notability. GrapedApe ( talk) 01:32, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 8). Deleted before redirecting. The Bushranger One ping only 20:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Article about a band member who appeared on TV talent series, The X factor. He is clearly not notable outside of this contest. Sionk ( talk) 12:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 05:52, 1 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Not notable. No notability asserted. No reliable refs. All refs are catalogue entries or twitter feeds. Highly advertising Velella Velella Talk 11:47, 9 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Stifle ( talk) 11:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Insufficient links to show notability. The only serious claim to notability (that Truman once stayed in one of it's buildings) does not seem to be verifiable. It's a weak claim at best. On the whole, even after clean-up this article appears to be promotional in tone. Salimfadhley ( talk) 13:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to JT Tran. The two first "keep" opinions advocate a merger, three other people recommend deletion as non-notable, and I'm discounting Josh769's opinion as it does not appear to offer any argument. The other opinions can be reconciled with a "redirect", this way anything that's worth retaining can be merged from the history, editorial consensus permitting. Sandstein 18:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Nomination of a page which appears to have little notability and appears to be have been created by sockpuppets to promote the company. Information on the company - which offers 'pick-up artist' tactics - seems to be based on promotional material.
Not only is the topic seemingly non-notable, but it also appears to exist only because of multiple editors (or sockpuppets) with obvious conflict of interest and should be deleted as per WP:SOAP
I am also nominating the following related page due its connection with the topic of this AfD and lack of notability, along with some being written in large part by some of the same group of editors/sockpuppets involved with this article
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Paxti ( talk • contribs) 17:40, 5 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. The Bushranger One ping only 05:47, 1 July 2012 (UTC) reply
I don't know why this has to be discussed yet again, the "film" still has not increased in notability. The author of this article has not established any sort of notability or importance, or included any reference to any of his or her claims. 117Avenue ( talk) 03:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy deleted WP:CSD#G3 by Jimfbleak. ( non-admin closure) KTC ( talk) 09:46, 24 June 2012 (UTC) reply
WP:MADEUP much? Ironholds ( talk) 02:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge to List of Barbie's friends and family. ( non-admin closure) KTC ( talk) 01:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Do we really need an article for every Barbie doll? I think not. Cyan Gardevoir (used EDIT!) 01:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to List of Barbie's friends and family. ( non-admin closure) -- Trevj ( talk) 10:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Do we really need an article for every Barbie doll? I think not. Cyan Gardevoir (used EDIT!) 01:57, 24 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge to Tutti and Todd (Barbie) if that article is kept, or to List of Barbie's friends and family otherwise. ( non-admin closure) KTC ( talk) 01:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Do we really need an article for every Barbie doll? I think not. Cyan Gardevoir (used EDIT!) 01:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge to List of Barbie's friends and family. ( non-admin closure) KTC ( talk) 01:34, 2 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Do we really need an article for every Barbie that has rolled of the production line? Cyan Gardevoir (used EDIT!) 01:55, 24 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. Just a copy of Farhan Saeed with the title changed, made by user with same username as the title Qwyrxian ( talk) 03:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, seems to be copy-and-pasted from somewhere. Cyan Gardevoir (used EDIT!) 01:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 05:43, 1 July 2012 (UTC) reply
I believe that this article fails WP:NEO and WP:GNG. It is on a concept written about by one author, and I can't find any secondary sources that discuss it. Mark Arsten ( talk) 00:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC) reply
You have to scroll down the list to find Jared Kimble on this one. http://www3.telus.net/public/sarlo/RatingsO.htm
blog discussion
http://spiritualnetworks.com/blog/83252/ego-worship/
I can offer more, but hope this moves me forward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siddha Buddha ( talk • contribs) 23:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC) — Siddha Buddha ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Galilean Library is well known.
Not all sources are dependable, but Galilean Library is, and I have two separate links that show the use and appearance of the word back in 2005. Some links are there to show that the word is taking on a life in society, and being part of major product line names, and other products, along with various people using the word for their own spiritual descriptions of life. Siddha Buddha ( talk) 19:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC) — Siddha Buddha ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Someone else made some nice changes. Have a look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siddha Buddha ( talk • contribs) 05:13, 19 June 2012 (UTC) — Siddha Buddha ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 20:38, 1 July 2012 (UTC) reply
I removed a good deal of advertising from this, but I don't think they're actually notable. The awards are local and sourced only to PR sources. DGG ( talk ) 02:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Obviously promotional IP opinions discounted. Sandstein 17:55, 2 July 2012 (UTC) reply
I don't agree that a "lesser" (term used very loosely) award received 10 years ago evidences this person's continual notability. That seems to be the singular assertion of notability. However I am interested in what other folks have to say. Thorncrag 15:50, 9 June 2012 (UTC) reply
I don't think that the reason for being notable for an award received 10 years ago. I think the notability factor lies in how fast he grew the business in the small time frame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alli440 ( talk • contribs) 04:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC) — Alli440 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
The result was redirect to geocoding. The Bushranger One ping only 20:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Advanced search for: "Geocode" | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
|
Advanced search for: "Geographic coding" | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
|
No evidence given of WP:GNG (or any references at all) after 5 years for this (allegedly brand-name) product. Closeapple ( talk) 04:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 20:40, 1 July 2012 (UTC) reply
non notable high school team; no sources. Prod removed by author DGG ( talk ) 05:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Closing this as non-admin as speedy keep per justification here. Player clearly meets WP:NBASKETBALL and WP:GNG. Jrcla2 ( talk) 19:08, 29 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Not a professional player - still at college level so this fails WP:NPLAYER. Spartaz Humbug! 09:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Comment - this AfD tag will come off when Ross is drafted in about an hour. He's one of 15 players invited to attend the draft, meaning he's projected as a sure-fire first round pick. Rikster2 ( talk) 23:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 05:42, 1 July 2012 (UTC) reply
could not verify any information about the dead journalist. a single dead link used as a reference. Tagged for notability since 2008 DBig Xray 09:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 05:40, 1 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The article is currently listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2012 May 23. I don't believe it qualifies as a copyright violation (other than the technical sense, that the attribution isn't sufficient) as the source is licensed CC-BY_SA, and a cursory review of the source history suggests it wasn't simply copied and pasted from another place.
The article has no references, which can be fixed, but it is written In-universe, contrary to MOS, and, IMO, would take as much work to rewrite as it would to start from scratch.
My specific suggestion is to userfy (and no-index) the article to the primary contributor, so that the editor can look into whether some portions might be merged elsewhere, or a new article should be written in an acceptable perspective. SPhilbrick (Talk) 18:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC) It should be noted that an attempted was made to convert this to a redirect, but it was reverted here. That may still be an option, but it clearly was opposed.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 18:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC) reply
![]() |
The result was delete. Sandstein 05:29, 2 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Notability not established, primarily unreliable sources, most of article is unreferenced. Nouniquenames ( talk) 23:38, 24 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Simple vote counting puts delete votes slightly ahead of keep votes (roughly 60/40). An analysis of the arguments shows that most Keep voters argue that the topic passes WP:GNG, owing to the vast quantity of sources available on the subject. That argument is countered to some degree by those claiming that the vast majority of the sources are not primarily about the specific topic of Kutcher's use of Twitter, but otherwise I believe the consensus is that the topic most likely passes WP:GNG. However, the Delete voters make a compelling case for why passing WP:GNG doesn't matter in this case, and that's because policy trumps guidelines. The policy in this case is WP:NOT, in particular WP:INDISCRIMINATE (and to some degree WP:NOTDIARY), which states that "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." In the discussions below, there are many examples of other potential topics that receive a lot of coverage in reliable sources, but otherwise would not be suitable for an article as they would violate WP:NOT. In any case, I would be ok with restoring the article for the purpose of merging some of its material to other articles, upon request on my talk page. -Scottywong | comment _ 19:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, I am not sure how a person's account on Twitter can be seen as being worthy of an account.
Things like Category:Celebrity_Twitter_accounts make a mockery of building an encyclopaedia. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The above quote passes by the impact Ashton made on Twitter: the loss of Demi, and the shutdown itself.Similarly, a website may be notable, but the owners or authors do not "inherit" notability due to the web content they wrote.
Challenging CNN for bed sheets that reduce risks of malaria helps this topic achieve it. Fortunately, it passes " WP:Notability (web)" because of those events and other events that meet above, but how does it pass GNG? I crossed out my neutrality because I'm starting to figure out that this topic meets (an)other subject-notability guideline(s). -- George Ho ( talk) 00:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC) replyWhen evaluating the notability of web content, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. High-traffic websites are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability. However, smaller websites can be notable. Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger websites.
Alice Marwick; danah boyd. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies. May 2011. Vol.17,Iss.2;p.139 - 158. Source: SAGE Premier 2012. Kutcher's practices for use on Twitter were repeatedly cited in this paper and how it compares to others, in some cases explaining how this conceputalizes how Twitter itself is understood. Quote: "Responsiveness on Twitter is variable: while Ashton Kutcher may not write back to his fans, a fan will typically write back to him, and Ashton Kutcher will typically respond to other celebrities. This type of public recognition marks certain people as more important than others." And yeah, the existing article is pretty crap in that it focuses on Twitter metrics, with out contextualizing WHY this is encyclopediac. -- LauraHale ( talk) 05:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC) reply
![]() |
The Laughing Nutter |
Twitter sized summaries are required for twitter sized attention spans. WP:WHATTHEF***DOWEWANTGARBAGELIKETHISINANENCTCLOPAEDIAFOR is a vast improvement and outstandingly polite, note the ***'s where page after page after page after page after page after page (wait, not too much reiteration, I sense a sudden slump in twit-readership) after page of reasoning has failed, using approachable hopefully memorable language to explain policy is f***ing brilliant. Penyulap ☏ 19:48, 2 Jul 2012 (UTC) |
The result was delete. Sandstein 05:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Excessive detail that is not needed for Wikipedia. The sort of page that you'd see on a fan wiki. The plot, characters, setting and other sections of individual pages are more than enough to explain these terms. Thus the page is not needed. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 18:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Bencherlite Talk 08:41, 29 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Non-notable new film. Orange Mike | Talk 23:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sandstein 17:56, 2 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The subject doesn't meet WP: A7. I googled this up and found no reliable sources. This is probably original research about a non-notable figure. Electriccatfish2 ( talk) 21:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep (nomination withdrawn). The nominator withdrew their nomination, and no !votes to delete were posted (other than the nomination). ( Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000 (talk) 16:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Tagged for "no references" since June 2009. Unable to find secondary coverage in news or book sources for this one-year post-high school yeshiva for Americans in Israel. The rosh yeshiva is the editor of Jewish Thought, a periodical produced by the Orthodox Union, so he probably deserves his own page. Yoninah ( talk) 21:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Walnut Creek, California#Education. WP:OUTCOMES; clear result, no need to string things out. The Bushranger One ping only 22:08, 27 June 2012 (UTC) reply
nonnotable middle school, no redirect as the school district only contains primary/middle schools, no high schools. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 20:20, 24 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Walnut Creek, California#Education. WP:OUTCOMES; clear result, no need to string things out. The Bushranger One ping only 22:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC) reply
elementary school in a school district which has no secondary schools, so no redirect is possible. delete per policy on nonnotable primary schools. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 20:17, 24 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was WITHDRAWN by nominator. I was wrong! — JmaJeremy TALK CONTRIBS 00:51, 26 June 2012 (UTC) reply
— JmaJeremy TALK CONTRIBS 20:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 20:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:ORG. Almost no significant coverage in secondary sources based on an archive search of Google News. Most comes from primary sources, press releases, etc. Bbb23 ( talk) 18:37, 24 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete under criterion G3 as a blatant hoax. — C.Fred ( talk) 18:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Complete WP:Crystal - can't even find any google hits for it NtheP ( talk) 18:29, 24 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Opinions are roughly divided between those who consider this original research by synthesis, and those who want to keep it because they disagree or consider that it is a notable topic and just needs rewriting. Sandstein 05:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The article needs a complete re-write to be even encyclopedic. It currently is a synthesis ( WP:SYNTH) of primary studies and relies on media reports from fox news etc covering the studies rather than secondary sources from the peer reviewed literature for weight ( WP:FRINGE, WP:SCHOLARSHIP). It often fails to actually cite the studies and instead cites newspaper who are nowhere near reliable enough for the text ( WP:NOTNEWS). The article appears even worse than after the last AfD. The last closer noted that the article was a poorly-written melange of primary sources and news coverage, this is still the case. It also synthesis other vague related topics into the article such as how attractiveness influences voters. and whether conservatives are more attractive (based on an online poll of all things).
In summary, the article relies on a synthesis of news reports and primary studies and would require a rewrite to be encyclopaedic as it is unsalvageable. IRWolfie- ( talk) 18:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC) reply
This is the type of article which should be kept, even if it needs considerable re-writing for improvement. Re-writing rather than deletion would be the appropriate action here. ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 18:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. It's a blizzard in here. The Bushranger One ping only 22:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC) reply
This is not required and is unlikely to be read Calu2000 ( talk) 17:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 20:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC) reply
not notable thus fails WP:NSONG - Vivvt Talk 17:21, 24 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Opinions about whether the sources suffice for notability are divided. Sandstein 17:52, 2 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Of the two sources that could be construed as reliable, neither offers significant non-trivial coverage of the subject. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Regarding news coverage. Bear in mind that printer manufactures do not like the refill industry - it means less profit to them. The ink cartridge refill industry as a whole (including IIJ) has received very little news coverage which makes sense if you check the manufacturers financial statements and realize their most profitable divisions involve print consumables. They spend hundreds of millions of dollars on advertising with media outlets. The old saying "never bite the hand that feeds" comes to mind.
I respectfully submit that it is possible to achieve notoriety by the general community without the traditional "press coverage". Island Ink-Jet has refilled over 10 million cartridges to date which is impressive given we merely provide a service. It is ultimately the consumer that has chosen to refill and done so by bringing their cartridges to any of our locations (We wonder what would have happened if there had been substantial press coverage).
That said, there has been several nontrivial articles dealing with Island Ink-Jet however many are not preserved on the internet. In addition to the WSJ article cited, WSJ featured IIJ on the front page of the Business section on August 3rd, 2004. Island Ink-Jet was also featured on CTV's 6 o'clock evening news in 2005 (Pat Foran's consumer report segment) which discussed the refilling of ink cartridges and was shown nationwide within Canada. There have been several newspaper articles over the years but most are found in actual print rather than being searchable online. Island Ink-Jet has also been the recipient of numerous awards from chamber of commerce awards to consumers choice awards (Barrie Chamber of Commerce Green Award, Edmonton Consumers Choice award for #1 cartridge refiller, Canadian Office Products Association -COPA- award of excellence to name a few)- again none of which you would find by searching the internet as they are material things that are verifiable to anyone who contacts us and asks. Anyone interested in validating is welcome to contact Island Ink-Jet and request copies of articles that have appeared in print.
I am apalled by "Ohnoitsjamie"'s actions in nominating the Island Ink-Jet page for deletion. This is ultimately his retaliation in response to an update I placed on the "Ink Cartridge" page which he undid without any cause. I believe this is an abuse of power. As an expert within the industry I want to ensure the information is accurate and up to date. I removed a reference from an older PC World article an replaced it with a newer one. I also added information relating to how cartridges can be refilled. I was cognoscente that being an expert within the industry and being a member of IIJ could create a COI so I ensured the update was unbiased and neutral and it was certainly not promotional nor did it contain any external links. Wikipedia rules say use common sense and common sense would suggest that someone with a background in having refilled 10 million cartridges is probably an expert in the field - (even moreso than a PC world article writer who has never once refilled an ink cartridge). It's a shame when Wikipedia displays poor information as a result of a power tripping administrator like ohnoitsjamie.
We ask that common sense is used by other editors when reviewing this delete request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.112.26.83 ( talk) 05:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC) — 174.112.26.83 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Wikipedia is built upon the principle of collaboration and assuming that the efforts of others are in good faith. Wikipedia's guidelines go so far as to state "When you find a passage in an article that you find is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can. If that is not easily possible, and you disagree with a point of view expressed in an article, don't just delete it. Rather, balance it with what you think is neutral." In stark contrast to these stated goals Ohitsnotjamie simply uses his power to delete content without expertise on the subject matter, without cause, without reviewing the content and based on an assumption that writers on the subject matter are spammers and should they protest, he blocks their account. I think common sense would suggest this is going overboard. Common sense would also suggest that Ohitsnotjamie has nominated this article for deletion as a pesonal vendetta against "this account" (as he portrays this account as that of a spammer) when in fact the reality is that it is he who blocked the account in the first place and as a direct consequence to our disagreeing with his removal of content without any just cause. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.112.26.83 ( talk) 14:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was DELETE as content fork, per WP:SNOW. User:Agunter999 has been blocked as a purely disruptive account. postdlf ( talk) 06:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Appears to be a content fork of List of common World War II infantry weapons, with some information from other WWII-related lists, used by the article's creator to evade discussion at Talk:List of common World War II infantry weapons#Neutral countries. jfd34 ( talk) 15:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Agunter999 ( talk) 16:21, 24 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Sources provided which demonstrate notability. ( non-admin closure) MacMed talk stalk 01:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD, original rational was "Non-notable defunct magazine" which remains valid. Giant Snowman 15:41, 24 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) →TSU tp* 03:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Not notable. The refs are all first party ones except for one press release and one that briefly mentions the models. Other than that no indication of notability. JohnBlackburne words deeds 15:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. Already CSD'd by one editor and gthen deleted by another adlmin. Recreation of a previously CSD'd article under a slightly different nalme. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 15:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC) reply
dePRODed without addressing the issues of references. Just adding more websites of people the subject might have photographed does not add notability. The subject needs to have done something creative that gets written about, and awards, for its own merits - and then proven with WP:Reliable Sources Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 15:21, 24 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Sources satisfy GNG. ( non-admin closure) MacMed talk stalk 02:10, 1 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The achievements of this chess player are not high enough to be notable for an encyclopedia. SyG ( talk) 14:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC) SyG ( talk) 14:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. The discussion indicates that the topic might be notable, but would need better sourcing. Sandstein 05:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC) reply
There appears to be no article at ru for Умалатовой награды or even Умалатовa награды and a quick google search didn't find anything that looks particularly notable, although I accept my Russian isn't as good as it was 10 years ago. Looks NN. Spartaz Humbug! 10:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. I don't see how this unsourced, hyper-technical, possibly-OR content could be usefully merged, sorry Bearian. Sandstein 05:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Hopeless technically complicated. The weird "opening statement" in italics indicates a probable WP:OR problem too, as evidenced by the lack of sources. Basalisk inspect damage⁄ berate 11:50, 24 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy deleted WP:CSD#G11 by Kusma. ( non-admin closure) KTC ( talk) 21:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC) reply
How-to guide on how to join a game server on risingdead.com.br. Wikipedia is not a manual or guide. jfd34 ( talk) 11:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 20:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Biography of an author with a single published work, which has received no attention outside of his hometown and a few small bloggers. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 11:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 20:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC) reply
I'm not actually sure whether this is a hoax, speculation, or just a very obscure future film. The only hit I get for "Minecraft Di Flash" is in a Punjabi film internet forum. No sources are given in the article, and even a search for "Jelly Manjitpuri Baljit Deo" is inconclusive. If the film is true and more sources are found, then the article can be recreated, but for now, if it's not speculation, it's just too soon. PROD was removed by the author. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 10:54, 24 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Consensus is that he currently fails the notability guideline, but without prejudice to being restored if//when he does meet the guidelines. Davewild ( talk) 10:43, 1 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Player fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG Reckless182 (talk) 10:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC) reply
In just 2-3 months this player will play for a german team in the top leage. And he has already won a couple of prizes in Sweden witch gives him some general notability. Just give it some time and it will meet the required notability -- Divine time ( talk) 11:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Not only is this WP:ENT but it's a BLP. As such, it's unsourced - forums do not count. The actor does to appear to meet the "notable roles" requirement ( talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Indian Hindi TV actress who doesn't pass WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:GNG. §§ AnimeshKulkarni ( talk) 12:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Rocket Science (band). ( non-admin closure) MacMed talk stalk 02:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Non-notable member of a band. There are sources of him where he is being interviewed with his band etc. but no independent notability (such as activity outside of the bands) has been demonstrated. Thus fails WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO. Till 09:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. There is no support for deletion here (apart from the nominator) and while there is support for merging there is a rough consensus that the article is sufficiently notable to be kept. This does not prejudice however a consensus on the article talk page later reaching a decision on a merge. Davewild ( talk) 10:40, 1 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Was dePRODED but still fails to address notiability issues. Article needs to be about a school, or about its sports people, either way it needs more substantial coverage by WP:RS Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 08:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Davewild ( talk) 10:22, 1 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Doesn't seem to be notable, created by a SPA. — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 07:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Davewild ( talk) 10:22, 1 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Subject doesn't appear to be notable per WP:BIO. Credentials, while they may be impressive on a resume, aren't referenced and aren't so notable as to set the subject apart from many other physicians. The single reference is not about Kast and only mentions him a couple times in passing. All GNews seem to be about other people named "Robert Kast". Dismas| (talk) 06:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild ( talk) 10:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NHOCKEY. Not a first rounder in the recent draft. Contested PROD, removed under the mistake that the QMJHL counts towards criteria 3 (100 games played in minor professional league). The Q is a junior league, and doesn't count towards this criteria per long held consensus. Ravendrop 07:08, 24 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 20:34, 1 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Previously a Prod on the rationale "No evidence that this software meets the notability guidelines." Prod was removed by the article creator. There is a published Official Guide, but I found no reliable 3rd party sources that would establish notability, so I am bringing the article to AfD on the original rationale. (Note: there are also Engineering and Real Estate firms with similar names.) AllyD ( talk) 06:56, 3 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. A fine line between "keep" and "no consensus". The policy-based argument that this is a unique aircraft, and thus meets notability (and the associated Janes entry) moves me to Keep ( talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Originally nominated for speedy as G11, but declined. No notability for this one type of aircraft; the author de-proded after adding "reliable sources" from youtube, the manufacturer's website and a few databases etc. There aren't any other sources and so fails WP:GNG. Basalisk inspect damage⁄ berate 10:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. This is unsourced, incomplete, and as noted would be better served as part of Davao City#Cityscape. However, as the entries are currently unsourced, no merge is possible. At some point, those entries (such as top 5) could be moved there. As it's so unsourced, delete becomes the de facto consensus ( talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The list has no particularly tall buildings at all, so a question of notability is raised. Plus, another "Tall Buildings" list has been deleted for similar reasons: insufficient info, the city does not actually have "tall" buildings that warrant a separate article, etc. Xeltran ( talk) 11:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy deleted WP:CSD#A7 by Jimfbleak. ( non-admin closure) KTC ( talk) 09:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC) reply
I don't think that this branch is notable enough to have a individual Wikipedia page. If this isn't deleted, maybe we should merge it? Thekillerpenguin (talk) 05:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. The Bushranger One ping only 20:35, 1 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Non-notable businessman. He's president/CEO of Viacom International Media Networks, which is a sub-division of Viacom. That's not the kind of position that would create automatic notability. There are insufficient third party sources to demonstrate standalone notability. GrapedApe ( talk) 01:32, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 8). Deleted before redirecting. The Bushranger One ping only 20:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Article about a band member who appeared on TV talent series, The X factor. He is clearly not notable outside of this contest. Sionk ( talk) 12:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 05:52, 1 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Not notable. No notability asserted. No reliable refs. All refs are catalogue entries or twitter feeds. Highly advertising Velella Velella Talk 11:47, 9 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Stifle ( talk) 11:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Insufficient links to show notability. The only serious claim to notability (that Truman once stayed in one of it's buildings) does not seem to be verifiable. It's a weak claim at best. On the whole, even after clean-up this article appears to be promotional in tone. Salimfadhley ( talk) 13:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to JT Tran. The two first "keep" opinions advocate a merger, three other people recommend deletion as non-notable, and I'm discounting Josh769's opinion as it does not appear to offer any argument. The other opinions can be reconciled with a "redirect", this way anything that's worth retaining can be merged from the history, editorial consensus permitting. Sandstein 18:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Nomination of a page which appears to have little notability and appears to be have been created by sockpuppets to promote the company. Information on the company - which offers 'pick-up artist' tactics - seems to be based on promotional material.
Not only is the topic seemingly non-notable, but it also appears to exist only because of multiple editors (or sockpuppets) with obvious conflict of interest and should be deleted as per WP:SOAP
I am also nominating the following related page due its connection with the topic of this AfD and lack of notability, along with some being written in large part by some of the same group of editors/sockpuppets involved with this article
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Paxti ( talk • contribs) 17:40, 5 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. The Bushranger One ping only 05:47, 1 July 2012 (UTC) reply
I don't know why this has to be discussed yet again, the "film" still has not increased in notability. The author of this article has not established any sort of notability or importance, or included any reference to any of his or her claims. 117Avenue ( talk) 03:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy deleted WP:CSD#G3 by Jimfbleak. ( non-admin closure) KTC ( talk) 09:46, 24 June 2012 (UTC) reply
WP:MADEUP much? Ironholds ( talk) 02:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge to List of Barbie's friends and family. ( non-admin closure) KTC ( talk) 01:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Do we really need an article for every Barbie doll? I think not. Cyan Gardevoir (used EDIT!) 01:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to List of Barbie's friends and family. ( non-admin closure) -- Trevj ( talk) 10:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Do we really need an article for every Barbie doll? I think not. Cyan Gardevoir (used EDIT!) 01:57, 24 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge to Tutti and Todd (Barbie) if that article is kept, or to List of Barbie's friends and family otherwise. ( non-admin closure) KTC ( talk) 01:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Do we really need an article for every Barbie doll? I think not. Cyan Gardevoir (used EDIT!) 01:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge to List of Barbie's friends and family. ( non-admin closure) KTC ( talk) 01:34, 2 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Do we really need an article for every Barbie that has rolled of the production line? Cyan Gardevoir (used EDIT!) 01:55, 24 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. Just a copy of Farhan Saeed with the title changed, made by user with same username as the title Qwyrxian ( talk) 03:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, seems to be copy-and-pasted from somewhere. Cyan Gardevoir (used EDIT!) 01:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 05:43, 1 July 2012 (UTC) reply
I believe that this article fails WP:NEO and WP:GNG. It is on a concept written about by one author, and I can't find any secondary sources that discuss it. Mark Arsten ( talk) 00:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC) reply
You have to scroll down the list to find Jared Kimble on this one. http://www3.telus.net/public/sarlo/RatingsO.htm
blog discussion
http://spiritualnetworks.com/blog/83252/ego-worship/
I can offer more, but hope this moves me forward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siddha Buddha ( talk • contribs) 23:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC) — Siddha Buddha ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Galilean Library is well known.
Not all sources are dependable, but Galilean Library is, and I have two separate links that show the use and appearance of the word back in 2005. Some links are there to show that the word is taking on a life in society, and being part of major product line names, and other products, along with various people using the word for their own spiritual descriptions of life. Siddha Buddha ( talk) 19:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC) — Siddha Buddha ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Someone else made some nice changes. Have a look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siddha Buddha ( talk • contribs) 05:13, 19 June 2012 (UTC) — Siddha Buddha ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 20:38, 1 July 2012 (UTC) reply
I removed a good deal of advertising from this, but I don't think they're actually notable. The awards are local and sourced only to PR sources. DGG ( talk ) 02:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Obviously promotional IP opinions discounted. Sandstein 17:55, 2 July 2012 (UTC) reply
I don't agree that a "lesser" (term used very loosely) award received 10 years ago evidences this person's continual notability. That seems to be the singular assertion of notability. However I am interested in what other folks have to say. Thorncrag 15:50, 9 June 2012 (UTC) reply
I don't think that the reason for being notable for an award received 10 years ago. I think the notability factor lies in how fast he grew the business in the small time frame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alli440 ( talk • contribs) 04:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC) — Alli440 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
The result was redirect to geocoding. The Bushranger One ping only 20:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Advanced search for: "Geocode" | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
|
Advanced search for: "Geographic coding" | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
|
No evidence given of WP:GNG (or any references at all) after 5 years for this (allegedly brand-name) product. Closeapple ( talk) 04:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 20:40, 1 July 2012 (UTC) reply
non notable high school team; no sources. Prod removed by author DGG ( talk ) 05:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Closing this as non-admin as speedy keep per justification here. Player clearly meets WP:NBASKETBALL and WP:GNG. Jrcla2 ( talk) 19:08, 29 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Not a professional player - still at college level so this fails WP:NPLAYER. Spartaz Humbug! 09:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Comment - this AfD tag will come off when Ross is drafted in about an hour. He's one of 15 players invited to attend the draft, meaning he's projected as a sure-fire first round pick. Rikster2 ( talk) 23:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 05:42, 1 July 2012 (UTC) reply
could not verify any information about the dead journalist. a single dead link used as a reference. Tagged for notability since 2008 DBig Xray 09:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 05:40, 1 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The article is currently listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2012 May 23. I don't believe it qualifies as a copyright violation (other than the technical sense, that the attribution isn't sufficient) as the source is licensed CC-BY_SA, and a cursory review of the source history suggests it wasn't simply copied and pasted from another place.
The article has no references, which can be fixed, but it is written In-universe, contrary to MOS, and, IMO, would take as much work to rewrite as it would to start from scratch.
My specific suggestion is to userfy (and no-index) the article to the primary contributor, so that the editor can look into whether some portions might be merged elsewhere, or a new article should be written in an acceptable perspective. SPhilbrick (Talk) 18:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC) It should be noted that an attempted was made to convert this to a redirect, but it was reverted here. That may still be an option, but it clearly was opposed.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 18:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC) reply