< 29 February | 2 March > |
---|
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Seems to be cited from local sources, and also fails to meet WP:NN. The article doesn't show anything to indicate that the company is notable. Jab843 ( talk) 02:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC) reply
Keep -- They have an international reputation, I don't even follow ballet and I've heard of them in Canada. There aren't that many professional ballet companies, and they are one prominent one. The students from the ballet school that they run compete in national USA competitions. They perform regionally in California, Nevada, Arizona, and collaborate with international performers like Cirque du Soleil. Former members have gone on to work for international ballet groups that tour worldwide. They've been in existence for over 25 years under two names. I think the issue here is that it's an artsy topic, so its falling through the cracks of WP's notability criteria, which strangely enough, seem to have allowed every 4th rate Science Fiction author in the world to get a biography here. We don't have notability criteria specifically for performing arts/theatre companies, although there is Wikipedia:Notability (music) for guidance... OttawaAC ( talk) 20:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Swarm X 05:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. Nothing on Google News, and Google only returns primary sources and press releases. Delete. Blanchardb - Me• MyEars• MyMouth- timed 19:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC) reply
If this record is allowed then I will add more case references for barristers practicing ar Cornerstone Barristers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.99.173.211 ( talk) 15:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 05:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC) reply
An IP relisted an AFD from 2010 which was closed as "speedy delete". This person does not seem to have sufficient standalone notability — just routine coverage. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 22:25, 1 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 02:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC) reply
I am sure the author was well meaning, but this is an essay, and specifically wp:not what Wikipedia is meant for. Dennis Brown ( talk) 21:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sandstein 21:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC) reply
A couple of blog posts don't establish notability, I'm afraid.
I'd also add that, while assuming good faith, creation of this article seems like a backhanded attempt to overturn
this AfD on Oliviu Crâznic. At that discussion, one of the article creator's main contentions in favor of keeping was that Crâznic had won something called the Galileo Awards, which nobody had heard of. By creating an article on the awards and pretending they're notable, restoring the Crâznic article becomes more plausible. Let's not fall for the trick, if this is what is happening. And even if it isn't, the point is that the awards lack any kind of meaningful coverage in independent sources -
Biruitorul
Talk 20:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 05:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Article does not indicate notability. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 20:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 05:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Athlete who has competed only at the amateur level. No indications of meeting WP:ATH. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 19:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 05:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. There is consensus for deletion. This makes attribution for two paragraphs or so now merged to Apple media events problematic, but this does not prevent deletion; instead, the two paragraphs can be deleted or rewritten by any editor who considers that this lack of attribution is in fact a problem. Sandstein 21:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC) reply
This corporate product-promotion event, possibly for the third iteration of the iPad, is in itself not notable. The iPad 3 will deserve its own article, the WP:ROUTINE event announcing it deserves a sentence or two at that article, not its own article. WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, this event will not have lasting WP:EFFECT. If something earth-shaking were to happen at this event, an article can be created at that time, the routine marketing hype leading up to it doesn't make this event meet Wikipedia event notability standards. Note that Wikipedia does not even have a separate article for the FIRST release of the iPad. Zad68 ( talk) 18:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC) reply
*(
edit conflict)Speedy delete - Most of this seems to be a DIRECT copy/paste of my
userspace draft which was created several hours before this article and rejected at AfC per
WP:NOT. As such it won't survive in mainspace with that copy/paste move and should be speedily deleted as a duplicate page.
Barts1a /
What did I actually do right? /
What did I do wrong this time? 22:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Due to recent events I am changing my !vote. See below
Barts1a /
What did I actually do right? /
What did I do wrong this time? 22:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
reply
( edit conflict)::Apparantly CSD A10 does not apply in this case. Guess I'll just have to wait for this article to be deleted here... Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 23:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC) reply
::I would fully support a history merge. Although I am still rather peeved that proper process was so blatantly ignored and it would be confusing to see the AfC template vanish before the review was conducted. Personally I think we should
Nuke it,
Salt it to prevent a repeat of these events and then move the article into mainspace once the AfC process has concluded properly.
Barts1a /
What did I actually do right? /
What did I do wrong this time? 05:35, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
As a histmerge is not possible but as the copyright issues have been address per the comment below I am changing my !vote to Keep. There are plenty of reliable verifiable sources for this event, The speculation is referred to as just that; speculation. As such I see no logical reason to delete it.
Barts1a /
What did I actually do right? /
What did I do wrong this time? 22:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
reply
No you really don't get my point about sales - this sums it up really quite well. The original iPhone releases opening weekend was at the time the biggest consumer electronics launch ever, and they sold 300k phones in the first 2 days or something. Then the launch of the iPhone 3G overtook that by a factor of three. That hype is entirely built up by Apple's events and the press around them.
Yes overall the iPhone has sold better quarter by quarter as time has gone on, but the launches themselves have always been huge.
You're also missing the point about Obama's birth. Yes his birth was a catalyst for his presidency technically, but the event doesn't meet any of our other criteria for notability, and all the relevant content can be easily included in the Obama article as there is so little to say about it due to the lack of coverage at the time about his birth.
Everyone here has already agreed that not all the content about the media event will be appropriate to include in the iPad 3 article - if that wasn't an issue then there would be no good reason to keep this article as a standalone one.
Additionally if I create an overall "Apple media events" article (which seems like the most sensible way to organise the content so that all of it can be included) I will get an AfD with the same points expressing a strong dislike of Apple and business in general with a pretty weak grasp of the relevant guidelines and policy that has been the case in this discussion.
With regards to complaining about the cited articles, I really don't see what your point is, yes they talk mainly about Jobs as he has done the vast majority of Apple product launches, but the formula that they talk about isn't really Jobs specific and is being continued post Jobs - again it would be inappropriate to include this content in the Steve Jobs article. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 13:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Eraserhead1 < talk> 21:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Comment - Well... this is interesting... According to the {{ copied}} template " March 7 Apple Media Event now serves to provide attribution for that content in Apple media events and must not be deleted so long as Apple media events exists.". Do we now have to have another AfD discussion for Apple media events to delete that before restarting this discussion? Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 23:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy deleted A7 (and G11). Peridon ( talk) 18:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Likely a CSD candidate, but there is a giant list of sources that are not reliable. Listed for lack of notability, and Wikipedia isn't a resume. Dennis Brown ( talk) 18:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete per arguments and PORNBIO Shii (tock) 07:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:PORNBIO, WP:ENT and the GNG; no nontrivial pertinent GNews or GBooks hits; no independent, reliable sourcing indicating notability. Previous AFD, closed as no consensus, should have been closed as delete on its merits, but was marred by socking, including the closing admin. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 18:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. There is certainly no consensus to delete this material. There might be consensus to merge, but that's not for AfD Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 13:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Subject lacks notability, the article contains no references and few links. Information on the subject is sufficiently provided in a separate article, "Dans le ciel". Aunty-S ( talk) 18:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Weak keep/merge ::: In all fairness when we have articles like List of Pokemon and List of G-Jane characters and List of Power Rangers episodes one does find your remark "The creator doesnt seem to understand Wikipedia's notability guidelines" amusing given that we generally accept articles on fictional characters and list cruft which are utter shite. It woulod be double standards, one does not have to look far to find scores of articles on characters and TV episodes on series a lot of us have not heard of. At least this article is analytical. PDF sources do not matter. This character has some critical commentary on it. I think it would be suitable for merging into the main article or a List of Octave Mirbeau characters but the main article is so underdeveloped it should probably be merged.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete - AfD was raised by someone unfamiliar with our procedures. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 02:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC) reply
I nominated this article because there was very little information about it as well as no references, categories, etc. I don't feel that this article, being only one sentence, should be kept.
− GouramiWatcher (Gulp) 17:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 05:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC) reply
I'm bringing this to AfD because I can't see any reason for it to be kept. He is the son of a former president, and got stopped at an airport because security thought they'd detected TNT in a nappy bag. (The mind boggles...) Otherwise, nothing. I don't reckon that's sufficient, as, unlike certain other leaders' children, he doesn't seem to have been involved in state affairs (wise man...). Peridon ( talk) 17:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep ; nomination withdrawn and there are no outstanding delete !votes. Non-admin closure. — KuyaBriBri Talk 18:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Aaron Booth ( talk) 17:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 05:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC) reply
I don't see proof that he's notable. He has high ranks, including one from his own organization, but I don't see him meeting WP:MANOTE or WP:GNG. Mdtemp ( talk) 17:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 05:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The software doesn't seem to be notable, and the article serves as an advertisement. Yutsi Talk/ Contributions 16:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 01:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Corporate certification program. Article is entirely referenced to the program's own web site. Searching the web reveals no independent coverage. Seems to be non-notable. Livit⇑ Eh?/ What? 16:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sandstein 21:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Doesn't appear to be a notable term. Yutsi Talk/ Contributions 16:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 05:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The previous AfD was based on a very different looking article. The "keep" nominators agreed that it needed a complete rework]. The rework happened but has resulted in an article which makes no claim to notability and provides no evidence thereof. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 15:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 01:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD, references have been added but no notability is shown for the club, the references only comment on the league position - and the league is fourth-level and non-professional. Fails WP:GNG. Cloudz 679 15:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 01:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD, author has added references, but these only support the team's appearance in the fourth-level of Iranian football and that they were relegated from that level. No indication that the article meets either the General Notability Guidline or the specific football criteria for inclusion. Cloudz 679 15:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was merge/redirect with LED Film, which at least has a bunch of sources. Shii (tock) 14:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Previous AfD: [8]
No evidence of any notability at all, no reliable secondary sources discuss it. Significant coverage by reliable sources is required to satisfy WP:GNG. The article creator created the similar articles Dichroic_LEDGlass, LEDFilm and Ledglass. I have no idea how something completely unsourced with no evidence of notability survived the first AfD although it seems there was a lack of responses. IRWolfie- ( talk) 15:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Enclaved Greek Cypriots. part procedural (no argument to delete is brought forward in the request, only a request to merge), but as Fut.Perf. stresses, care should be taken with the merge in the light of the references not supporting the text, or being mis-represented Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 01:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC) reply
This person is famous for WP:ONEEVENT, and is not notable by themselves. It should be merged into Enclaved Greek Cypriots. CMD ( talk) 15:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC) CMD ( talk) 15:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 05:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC) reply
This organization appears to be an adult education center (although you'd never know that from the overblown description provided by the COI author). References (such as I could understand from Google's translation of the Hungarian and Romanian originals) appear to be little more than program announcements and local "feel good" features. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 13:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 01:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Previous version of article deleted after AfD - see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ron_L._Zheng. No claim of notability established. gråb whåt you cån ( talk) 12:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Apache Incubator. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC) reply
No asserted notability in this unreferenced article. Fails WP:GNG. I have previously nominated the article for CSD, but was declined with the reason "csd does not apply to products, software, etc". B music ian 11:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 05:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Non-notable football player who has never played at a notable level, PDL not notable .. fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG TonyStarks ( talk) 09:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy deleted by User:Jimfbleak under criterion A7 with additional comment of "kid's page". (non admin closure) " Pepper" @ 11:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Looks like a simple mistake, editor probably meant this to be added to their own userpage
Aunty-S ( talk) 08:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 21:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The article is largely surplus to requirements given the information already contained in Battle of Stalingrad and the associated Axis order of battle at the Battle of Stalingrad and Red Army order of battle at the Battle of Stalingrad. EyeSerene talk 08:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 05:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC) reply
"List of tallest buildings" article about a place that has next to no remarkable tall buildings at all. Among currently completed buildings, it lists only 4 that merely pass 10 storeys. There are a handful more projected buildings, with only one of them reaching higher than 100 meters. By worldwide urban standards, this is just nowhere near remarkable enough to justify such a list article. Wikipedia is WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Article is largely unsourced too, and has been a favourite playground of annoying recurrent socks. (Note: article has been affected by a cut-and-paste move; earlier history of the page is in List of tallest buildings in Cagayan de Oro City.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 05:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC) reply
I don't see enough scholarly research solely on this topic to warrant an article
[21] Anything useful information will be better suited in
Sexual addiction and
Pornography addiction
SupernovaExplosion
Talk 05:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
reply
Withdrawing nom per the arguments presented above. -- SupernovaExplosion Talk 04:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Article is well-sourced. However, this is a classical case of WP:BLP1E. In addition, WP:BLPCRIME applies: this person has been accused of a crime, but has not yet been convicted. Finally, this is all extremely recent and WP is not a newspaper. If at all, this belongs on Wikinews. (Note: I am taking this to AFD on the advice of the BLP Noticeboard). Guillaume2303 ( talk) 03:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 05:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Non-notable person. Could not find reliable information as to why this individual is important and/or unique in any way. Tinton5 ( talk) 02:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 11:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Disputed PROD over whether this meets WP:MUSICBIO. On talk page, article's creator says that it meets the following criteria: Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city. However, no reliable sources have been provided to support that assertion. Singularity42 ( talk) 21:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Remove this article - User:HeidiSmith admits in their talk page that they created the Verismic Software article as part of their paid employment. If this isn't a COI then I don't know what is! The author has crafted an article made of self-published material and other links of a most 'advertorial' nature. It seems obvious the prime aim of the article is to self-promote and it should be withdrawn.
There are clear notability concerns. Source 1 is a type of press release by the creator of the Company. Source [3] is a press release and the rest of the sources are passing mentions, or don't mention the subject at all like [2]. The only source that may be reliable is this, but honestly and most of these local business news sites content is press releases, which this article sounds like. All the sources seem to have problems of independence and/or lack of substantial coverage. It seems clear it was created with a self-promotional intent. Whatyousaying ( talk) 17:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC) reply
This article has been created and then deleted at least three times in the last 12 months. On each occasion it has appeared in a similar format and without much difficulty established that it was self-promotional. On this occasion the author has admitted working for the subject corporation from the get-go. At least they're being honest but this the reliable, independent, standard we aspire too. The article needs to go. 31.185.142.25 ( talk) 21:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:03, 8 March 2012 (UTC) reply
No claim to fame for this comic; mere existence as a syndicated comic does not mean it merits more than a line in the Universal Press Syndicate article. Shii (tock) 06:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC) reply
This page should remain up as a warning. TheKompany.com was found guilty, along with it's subsidiary companies, Progrock Records and Mindawn of copyright infringement in United States Federal Court Case number SACV 09-00195-JVS (ANx)in 2013. The removal of this page would give cover and allow others to be harmed by dishonest business practices. The case is of public record and should remain available for the protection of the public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.83.55.181 ( talk) 12:35, 16 May 2014 (UTC) reply
The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 00:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was SPEEDY DELETE on author request. JIP | Talk 05:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Does not meet WP:BAND, in other words, no indication of notability Walter Görlitz ( talk) 01:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) ItsZippy ( talk • contributions) 19:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Long-tagged uncited article with no indication of why the subject is notable e.g. longest running, largest in country, large number of riders. Biker Biker ( talk) 09:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Real product, possibly popular, not notable. There is no significant coverage. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 09:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was nomination withdrawn. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:11, 8 March 2012 (UTC) reply
I'm nominating the entire Blue is For Nightmares series for deletion because there is nothing to show that this early series by Stolarz is notable. While I can vouch that the books are good, there are no independent and reliable sources to show notability and a search for sources did not bring anything up. At the very absolute most these would be usable as a redirect to the author's name, but they have no notability in and of themselves. Fails WP:NBOOK. Tokyogirl79 ( talk) 18:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79 I am also nominating the following related pages because they lack sources and I was unable to find any.: reply
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The concept of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases is not widely recognised within the medical community. Despite what the article says, it is very difficult to group together the widely divergent diseases listed. The fact that they're all treated with immunosuppression is about the only thing. Searching the term as a text word on Pubmed yields 45 references, none of which address the concept in itself. I think deletion is the best step here. JFW | T@lk 19:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Sir Wilfrid Laurier School Board. as always Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 01:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Non-notable elementary school with no evidence of its presence in independent, reliable sources. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The article on " Pinewood Elementary School (Mascouche, Quebec)" is closely related to the " Sir Wilfrid Laurier School Board" (SWLSB) article, primarly because the school is governed by the latter school board, and also because the name of the school figures on the " SWLSB" article. Pinewood Elementary school makes up an integrant part of the city of Mascouche, Quebec. I am therefore in accordance to mention the school in the " Mascouche, Quebec" article, but I disagree with the complete deletion of the article on Pinewood Elementary School, which contains a significant amount of useful information.
Also, please note that, as the main author of the article in question, I have NOT completed the article. I will keep improving it, adding information, new sections, etc., over a short period of time. This means that even if the article seems to miss some facts or not follow Wikipedia's guidelines properly (which I doubt), it is O.K. becuase everything will be fixed in the weeks to come.
For any personal messages, please write back on my talk page. Thank you. -- MaxAMSC ( talk) 03:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC) reply
It should also be noted that the Pinewood Elementary School article in question is closely related to the existing article named Rosemere High School, which is also part of the Sir Wilfrid Laurier School Board.-- MaxAMSC ( talk) 03:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC) reply
I'd like to point out something important. By typing " Pinewood Elementary School (Mascouche, Quebec)" in a search engine, such as Google, it is normal that very few, if any, results show up because the school is not known under that exact name. If you write something like "Pinewood Elementary School Sir Wilfrid Laurier School Board" or "Pinewood Elementary School SWLSB," many results come up. The "Mascouche, Quebec" segment was added because another article already had the name "Pinewood Elementary School."
Now, what I propose is as follows: we leave the article " Pinewood Elementary School (Mascouche, Quebec)" posted on Wikipedia for a little while (I will therefore have some time to ameliorate it with the help of anybody willing to aid me) and this page remains (so other contributors can write their opinions about the article).
-- MaxAMSC ( talk) 01:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC) reply
I've searched among all the main databases of reliable sources and could not find any reference to this school. The only references I found to a "Pinewood Elementary School" were schools of the same name in Surrey, BC and New York City. I appreciate that MaxAMSC may have some personal attachment to the school and wants to keep this article for sentimental reasons, but it seems appropriate to me to do as previously suggested and merge this into " Sir Wilfrid Laurier School Board" and/or " Mascouche, Quebec" -- JmaJeremy talk contribs 05:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 01:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Much of the text on this page is copyvio from this page on a connected site. I've been Googling and can only find maybe about 20 throwaway references to her in old 50s newspaper reports, and one dress in the LACMA with no information at all on it. While I normally champion obscure/nearly forgotten (by the modern world) fashion designers, I cannot find anything to indicate that Joy Kingston was particularly influential in her day. Even the bio does not mention that she won any awards except for the Dallas Alice (which I've never heard of and doesn't seem to be much about it on Google either although there IS a band called that which is swamping the results a bit...) so I'd query whether she was particularly notable in her day either. It pains me to say this, but I nominate this page for deletion, due to lack of resources, and the fact that there's such a nice biography on her on the foundation website so it's not like it's info not available elsewhere. Mabalu ( talk) 20:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC) reply
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help) (subscription required){{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help) (subscription required) Abstract: "Leave it to a California designer to ignore the traditional fall colors and develop her own--all to good purpose, too. That's exactly what Joy Kingston did in her collection of spectator sportswear titled, "Woman About Town and Country."The result was delete. Wifione Message 13:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Fails wp:band. BBC has their name in a list of other bands, and that is the only non-primary link. Too soon. Dennis Brown ( talk) 22:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. No quorum, thus, a WP:SOFTDELETE Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 01:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC) reply
A seemingly unnotable website and blog. It has no references that would support any sort of notability. Searching around only gives results of personal pages (facebook, twitter, etc), thus it fails WP:RS. Rorshacma ( talk) 00:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC) reply
< 29 February | 2 March > |
---|
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Seems to be cited from local sources, and also fails to meet WP:NN. The article doesn't show anything to indicate that the company is notable. Jab843 ( talk) 02:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC) reply
Keep -- They have an international reputation, I don't even follow ballet and I've heard of them in Canada. There aren't that many professional ballet companies, and they are one prominent one. The students from the ballet school that they run compete in national USA competitions. They perform regionally in California, Nevada, Arizona, and collaborate with international performers like Cirque du Soleil. Former members have gone on to work for international ballet groups that tour worldwide. They've been in existence for over 25 years under two names. I think the issue here is that it's an artsy topic, so its falling through the cracks of WP's notability criteria, which strangely enough, seem to have allowed every 4th rate Science Fiction author in the world to get a biography here. We don't have notability criteria specifically for performing arts/theatre companies, although there is Wikipedia:Notability (music) for guidance... OttawaAC ( talk) 20:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Swarm X 05:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. Nothing on Google News, and Google only returns primary sources and press releases. Delete. Blanchardb - Me• MyEars• MyMouth- timed 19:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC) reply
If this record is allowed then I will add more case references for barristers practicing ar Cornerstone Barristers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.99.173.211 ( talk) 15:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 05:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC) reply
An IP relisted an AFD from 2010 which was closed as "speedy delete". This person does not seem to have sufficient standalone notability — just routine coverage. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 22:25, 1 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 02:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC) reply
I am sure the author was well meaning, but this is an essay, and specifically wp:not what Wikipedia is meant for. Dennis Brown ( talk) 21:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sandstein 21:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC) reply
A couple of blog posts don't establish notability, I'm afraid.
I'd also add that, while assuming good faith, creation of this article seems like a backhanded attempt to overturn
this AfD on Oliviu Crâznic. At that discussion, one of the article creator's main contentions in favor of keeping was that Crâznic had won something called the Galileo Awards, which nobody had heard of. By creating an article on the awards and pretending they're notable, restoring the Crâznic article becomes more plausible. Let's not fall for the trick, if this is what is happening. And even if it isn't, the point is that the awards lack any kind of meaningful coverage in independent sources -
Biruitorul
Talk 20:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 05:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Article does not indicate notability. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 20:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 05:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Athlete who has competed only at the amateur level. No indications of meeting WP:ATH. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 19:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 05:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. There is consensus for deletion. This makes attribution for two paragraphs or so now merged to Apple media events problematic, but this does not prevent deletion; instead, the two paragraphs can be deleted or rewritten by any editor who considers that this lack of attribution is in fact a problem. Sandstein 21:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC) reply
This corporate product-promotion event, possibly for the third iteration of the iPad, is in itself not notable. The iPad 3 will deserve its own article, the WP:ROUTINE event announcing it deserves a sentence or two at that article, not its own article. WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, this event will not have lasting WP:EFFECT. If something earth-shaking were to happen at this event, an article can be created at that time, the routine marketing hype leading up to it doesn't make this event meet Wikipedia event notability standards. Note that Wikipedia does not even have a separate article for the FIRST release of the iPad. Zad68 ( talk) 18:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC) reply
*(
edit conflict)Speedy delete - Most of this seems to be a DIRECT copy/paste of my
userspace draft which was created several hours before this article and rejected at AfC per
WP:NOT. As such it won't survive in mainspace with that copy/paste move and should be speedily deleted as a duplicate page.
Barts1a /
What did I actually do right? /
What did I do wrong this time? 22:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Due to recent events I am changing my !vote. See below
Barts1a /
What did I actually do right? /
What did I do wrong this time? 22:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
reply
( edit conflict)::Apparantly CSD A10 does not apply in this case. Guess I'll just have to wait for this article to be deleted here... Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 23:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC) reply
::I would fully support a history merge. Although I am still rather peeved that proper process was so blatantly ignored and it would be confusing to see the AfC template vanish before the review was conducted. Personally I think we should
Nuke it,
Salt it to prevent a repeat of these events and then move the article into mainspace once the AfC process has concluded properly.
Barts1a /
What did I actually do right? /
What did I do wrong this time? 05:35, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
As a histmerge is not possible but as the copyright issues have been address per the comment below I am changing my !vote to Keep. There are plenty of reliable verifiable sources for this event, The speculation is referred to as just that; speculation. As such I see no logical reason to delete it.
Barts1a /
What did I actually do right? /
What did I do wrong this time? 22:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
reply
No you really don't get my point about sales - this sums it up really quite well. The original iPhone releases opening weekend was at the time the biggest consumer electronics launch ever, and they sold 300k phones in the first 2 days or something. Then the launch of the iPhone 3G overtook that by a factor of three. That hype is entirely built up by Apple's events and the press around them.
Yes overall the iPhone has sold better quarter by quarter as time has gone on, but the launches themselves have always been huge.
You're also missing the point about Obama's birth. Yes his birth was a catalyst for his presidency technically, but the event doesn't meet any of our other criteria for notability, and all the relevant content can be easily included in the Obama article as there is so little to say about it due to the lack of coverage at the time about his birth.
Everyone here has already agreed that not all the content about the media event will be appropriate to include in the iPad 3 article - if that wasn't an issue then there would be no good reason to keep this article as a standalone one.
Additionally if I create an overall "Apple media events" article (which seems like the most sensible way to organise the content so that all of it can be included) I will get an AfD with the same points expressing a strong dislike of Apple and business in general with a pretty weak grasp of the relevant guidelines and policy that has been the case in this discussion.
With regards to complaining about the cited articles, I really don't see what your point is, yes they talk mainly about Jobs as he has done the vast majority of Apple product launches, but the formula that they talk about isn't really Jobs specific and is being continued post Jobs - again it would be inappropriate to include this content in the Steve Jobs article. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 13:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Eraserhead1 < talk> 21:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Comment - Well... this is interesting... According to the {{ copied}} template " March 7 Apple Media Event now serves to provide attribution for that content in Apple media events and must not be deleted so long as Apple media events exists.". Do we now have to have another AfD discussion for Apple media events to delete that before restarting this discussion? Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 23:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy deleted A7 (and G11). Peridon ( talk) 18:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Likely a CSD candidate, but there is a giant list of sources that are not reliable. Listed for lack of notability, and Wikipedia isn't a resume. Dennis Brown ( talk) 18:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete per arguments and PORNBIO Shii (tock) 07:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:PORNBIO, WP:ENT and the GNG; no nontrivial pertinent GNews or GBooks hits; no independent, reliable sourcing indicating notability. Previous AFD, closed as no consensus, should have been closed as delete on its merits, but was marred by socking, including the closing admin. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 18:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. There is certainly no consensus to delete this material. There might be consensus to merge, but that's not for AfD Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 13:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Subject lacks notability, the article contains no references and few links. Information on the subject is sufficiently provided in a separate article, "Dans le ciel". Aunty-S ( talk) 18:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Weak keep/merge ::: In all fairness when we have articles like List of Pokemon and List of G-Jane characters and List of Power Rangers episodes one does find your remark "The creator doesnt seem to understand Wikipedia's notability guidelines" amusing given that we generally accept articles on fictional characters and list cruft which are utter shite. It woulod be double standards, one does not have to look far to find scores of articles on characters and TV episodes on series a lot of us have not heard of. At least this article is analytical. PDF sources do not matter. This character has some critical commentary on it. I think it would be suitable for merging into the main article or a List of Octave Mirbeau characters but the main article is so underdeveloped it should probably be merged.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete - AfD was raised by someone unfamiliar with our procedures. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 02:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC) reply
I nominated this article because there was very little information about it as well as no references, categories, etc. I don't feel that this article, being only one sentence, should be kept.
− GouramiWatcher (Gulp) 17:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 05:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC) reply
I'm bringing this to AfD because I can't see any reason for it to be kept. He is the son of a former president, and got stopped at an airport because security thought they'd detected TNT in a nappy bag. (The mind boggles...) Otherwise, nothing. I don't reckon that's sufficient, as, unlike certain other leaders' children, he doesn't seem to have been involved in state affairs (wise man...). Peridon ( talk) 17:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep ; nomination withdrawn and there are no outstanding delete !votes. Non-admin closure. — KuyaBriBri Talk 18:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Aaron Booth ( talk) 17:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 05:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC) reply
I don't see proof that he's notable. He has high ranks, including one from his own organization, but I don't see him meeting WP:MANOTE or WP:GNG. Mdtemp ( talk) 17:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 05:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The software doesn't seem to be notable, and the article serves as an advertisement. Yutsi Talk/ Contributions 16:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 01:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Corporate certification program. Article is entirely referenced to the program's own web site. Searching the web reveals no independent coverage. Seems to be non-notable. Livit⇑ Eh?/ What? 16:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sandstein 21:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Doesn't appear to be a notable term. Yutsi Talk/ Contributions 16:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 05:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The previous AfD was based on a very different looking article. The "keep" nominators agreed that it needed a complete rework]. The rework happened but has resulted in an article which makes no claim to notability and provides no evidence thereof. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 15:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 01:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD, references have been added but no notability is shown for the club, the references only comment on the league position - and the league is fourth-level and non-professional. Fails WP:GNG. Cloudz 679 15:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 01:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD, author has added references, but these only support the team's appearance in the fourth-level of Iranian football and that they were relegated from that level. No indication that the article meets either the General Notability Guidline or the specific football criteria for inclusion. Cloudz 679 15:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was merge/redirect with LED Film, which at least has a bunch of sources. Shii (tock) 14:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Previous AfD: [8]
No evidence of any notability at all, no reliable secondary sources discuss it. Significant coverage by reliable sources is required to satisfy WP:GNG. The article creator created the similar articles Dichroic_LEDGlass, LEDFilm and Ledglass. I have no idea how something completely unsourced with no evidence of notability survived the first AfD although it seems there was a lack of responses. IRWolfie- ( talk) 15:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Enclaved Greek Cypriots. part procedural (no argument to delete is brought forward in the request, only a request to merge), but as Fut.Perf. stresses, care should be taken with the merge in the light of the references not supporting the text, or being mis-represented Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 01:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC) reply
This person is famous for WP:ONEEVENT, and is not notable by themselves. It should be merged into Enclaved Greek Cypriots. CMD ( talk) 15:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC) CMD ( talk) 15:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 05:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC) reply
This organization appears to be an adult education center (although you'd never know that from the overblown description provided by the COI author). References (such as I could understand from Google's translation of the Hungarian and Romanian originals) appear to be little more than program announcements and local "feel good" features. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 13:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 01:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Previous version of article deleted after AfD - see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ron_L._Zheng. No claim of notability established. gråb whåt you cån ( talk) 12:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Apache Incubator. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC) reply
No asserted notability in this unreferenced article. Fails WP:GNG. I have previously nominated the article for CSD, but was declined with the reason "csd does not apply to products, software, etc". B music ian 11:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 05:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Non-notable football player who has never played at a notable level, PDL not notable .. fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG TonyStarks ( talk) 09:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy deleted by User:Jimfbleak under criterion A7 with additional comment of "kid's page". (non admin closure) " Pepper" @ 11:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Looks like a simple mistake, editor probably meant this to be added to their own userpage
Aunty-S ( talk) 08:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 21:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The article is largely surplus to requirements given the information already contained in Battle of Stalingrad and the associated Axis order of battle at the Battle of Stalingrad and Red Army order of battle at the Battle of Stalingrad. EyeSerene talk 08:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 05:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC) reply
"List of tallest buildings" article about a place that has next to no remarkable tall buildings at all. Among currently completed buildings, it lists only 4 that merely pass 10 storeys. There are a handful more projected buildings, with only one of them reaching higher than 100 meters. By worldwide urban standards, this is just nowhere near remarkable enough to justify such a list article. Wikipedia is WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Article is largely unsourced too, and has been a favourite playground of annoying recurrent socks. (Note: article has been affected by a cut-and-paste move; earlier history of the page is in List of tallest buildings in Cagayan de Oro City.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 05:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC) reply
I don't see enough scholarly research solely on this topic to warrant an article
[21] Anything useful information will be better suited in
Sexual addiction and
Pornography addiction
SupernovaExplosion
Talk 05:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
reply
Withdrawing nom per the arguments presented above. -- SupernovaExplosion Talk 04:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Article is well-sourced. However, this is a classical case of WP:BLP1E. In addition, WP:BLPCRIME applies: this person has been accused of a crime, but has not yet been convicted. Finally, this is all extremely recent and WP is not a newspaper. If at all, this belongs on Wikinews. (Note: I am taking this to AFD on the advice of the BLP Noticeboard). Guillaume2303 ( talk) 03:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 05:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Non-notable person. Could not find reliable information as to why this individual is important and/or unique in any way. Tinton5 ( talk) 02:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 11:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Disputed PROD over whether this meets WP:MUSICBIO. On talk page, article's creator says that it meets the following criteria: Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city. However, no reliable sources have been provided to support that assertion. Singularity42 ( talk) 21:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Remove this article - User:HeidiSmith admits in their talk page that they created the Verismic Software article as part of their paid employment. If this isn't a COI then I don't know what is! The author has crafted an article made of self-published material and other links of a most 'advertorial' nature. It seems obvious the prime aim of the article is to self-promote and it should be withdrawn.
There are clear notability concerns. Source 1 is a type of press release by the creator of the Company. Source [3] is a press release and the rest of the sources are passing mentions, or don't mention the subject at all like [2]. The only source that may be reliable is this, but honestly and most of these local business news sites content is press releases, which this article sounds like. All the sources seem to have problems of independence and/or lack of substantial coverage. It seems clear it was created with a self-promotional intent. Whatyousaying ( talk) 17:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC) reply
This article has been created and then deleted at least three times in the last 12 months. On each occasion it has appeared in a similar format and without much difficulty established that it was self-promotional. On this occasion the author has admitted working for the subject corporation from the get-go. At least they're being honest but this the reliable, independent, standard we aspire too. The article needs to go. 31.185.142.25 ( talk) 21:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:03, 8 March 2012 (UTC) reply
No claim to fame for this comic; mere existence as a syndicated comic does not mean it merits more than a line in the Universal Press Syndicate article. Shii (tock) 06:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC) reply
This page should remain up as a warning. TheKompany.com was found guilty, along with it's subsidiary companies, Progrock Records and Mindawn of copyright infringement in United States Federal Court Case number SACV 09-00195-JVS (ANx)in 2013. The removal of this page would give cover and allow others to be harmed by dishonest business practices. The case is of public record and should remain available for the protection of the public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.83.55.181 ( talk) 12:35, 16 May 2014 (UTC) reply
The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 00:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was SPEEDY DELETE on author request. JIP | Talk 05:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Does not meet WP:BAND, in other words, no indication of notability Walter Görlitz ( talk) 01:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) ItsZippy ( talk • contributions) 19:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Long-tagged uncited article with no indication of why the subject is notable e.g. longest running, largest in country, large number of riders. Biker Biker ( talk) 09:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Real product, possibly popular, not notable. There is no significant coverage. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 09:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was nomination withdrawn. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:11, 8 March 2012 (UTC) reply
I'm nominating the entire Blue is For Nightmares series for deletion because there is nothing to show that this early series by Stolarz is notable. While I can vouch that the books are good, there are no independent and reliable sources to show notability and a search for sources did not bring anything up. At the very absolute most these would be usable as a redirect to the author's name, but they have no notability in and of themselves. Fails WP:NBOOK. Tokyogirl79 ( talk) 18:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79 I am also nominating the following related pages because they lack sources and I was unable to find any.: reply
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The concept of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases is not widely recognised within the medical community. Despite what the article says, it is very difficult to group together the widely divergent diseases listed. The fact that they're all treated with immunosuppression is about the only thing. Searching the term as a text word on Pubmed yields 45 references, none of which address the concept in itself. I think deletion is the best step here. JFW | T@lk 19:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Sir Wilfrid Laurier School Board. as always Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 01:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Non-notable elementary school with no evidence of its presence in independent, reliable sources. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The article on " Pinewood Elementary School (Mascouche, Quebec)" is closely related to the " Sir Wilfrid Laurier School Board" (SWLSB) article, primarly because the school is governed by the latter school board, and also because the name of the school figures on the " SWLSB" article. Pinewood Elementary school makes up an integrant part of the city of Mascouche, Quebec. I am therefore in accordance to mention the school in the " Mascouche, Quebec" article, but I disagree with the complete deletion of the article on Pinewood Elementary School, which contains a significant amount of useful information.
Also, please note that, as the main author of the article in question, I have NOT completed the article. I will keep improving it, adding information, new sections, etc., over a short period of time. This means that even if the article seems to miss some facts or not follow Wikipedia's guidelines properly (which I doubt), it is O.K. becuase everything will be fixed in the weeks to come.
For any personal messages, please write back on my talk page. Thank you. -- MaxAMSC ( talk) 03:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC) reply
It should also be noted that the Pinewood Elementary School article in question is closely related to the existing article named Rosemere High School, which is also part of the Sir Wilfrid Laurier School Board.-- MaxAMSC ( talk) 03:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC) reply
I'd like to point out something important. By typing " Pinewood Elementary School (Mascouche, Quebec)" in a search engine, such as Google, it is normal that very few, if any, results show up because the school is not known under that exact name. If you write something like "Pinewood Elementary School Sir Wilfrid Laurier School Board" or "Pinewood Elementary School SWLSB," many results come up. The "Mascouche, Quebec" segment was added because another article already had the name "Pinewood Elementary School."
Now, what I propose is as follows: we leave the article " Pinewood Elementary School (Mascouche, Quebec)" posted on Wikipedia for a little while (I will therefore have some time to ameliorate it with the help of anybody willing to aid me) and this page remains (so other contributors can write their opinions about the article).
-- MaxAMSC ( talk) 01:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC) reply
I've searched among all the main databases of reliable sources and could not find any reference to this school. The only references I found to a "Pinewood Elementary School" were schools of the same name in Surrey, BC and New York City. I appreciate that MaxAMSC may have some personal attachment to the school and wants to keep this article for sentimental reasons, but it seems appropriate to me to do as previously suggested and merge this into " Sir Wilfrid Laurier School Board" and/or " Mascouche, Quebec" -- JmaJeremy talk contribs 05:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 01:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Much of the text on this page is copyvio from this page on a connected site. I've been Googling and can only find maybe about 20 throwaway references to her in old 50s newspaper reports, and one dress in the LACMA with no information at all on it. While I normally champion obscure/nearly forgotten (by the modern world) fashion designers, I cannot find anything to indicate that Joy Kingston was particularly influential in her day. Even the bio does not mention that she won any awards except for the Dallas Alice (which I've never heard of and doesn't seem to be much about it on Google either although there IS a band called that which is swamping the results a bit...) so I'd query whether she was particularly notable in her day either. It pains me to say this, but I nominate this page for deletion, due to lack of resources, and the fact that there's such a nice biography on her on the foundation website so it's not like it's info not available elsewhere. Mabalu ( talk) 20:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC) reply
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help) (subscription required){{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help) (subscription required) Abstract: "Leave it to a California designer to ignore the traditional fall colors and develop her own--all to good purpose, too. That's exactly what Joy Kingston did in her collection of spectator sportswear titled, "Woman About Town and Country."The result was delete. Wifione Message 13:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Fails wp:band. BBC has their name in a list of other bands, and that is the only non-primary link. Too soon. Dennis Brown ( talk) 22:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. No quorum, thus, a WP:SOFTDELETE Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 01:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC) reply
A seemingly unnotable website and blog. It has no references that would support any sort of notability. Searching around only gives results of personal pages (facebook, twitter, etc), thus it fails WP:RS. Rorshacma ( talk) 00:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC) reply