![]() |
< 10 October | 12 October > |
---|
The result was merge to Hill figure. SarahStierch ( talk) 08:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The word "Gigantotomy" appears to be a neologism failing WP:NEO, invented "half humorously" by Morris Marples in 1949 [1]. It hasn't really caught on, with no dictionary references, nor peer reviewed journals. The correct phrase is " Hill figure". Iantresman ( talk) 23:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Drmies ( talk) 23:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Sorry, I accidentally Accepted this page as I was reviewing it. The same list is on the actual Gold Rush page so can this be deleted? ♠♥♣Shaun9876♠♥♣ Talk Email 23:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Drmies ( talk) 23:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Per the result from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of AT&T U-verse channels, channel listing directors for cable provides are not appropriate content for WP.
I am also nominating the following:
As to keep this multiple AFD reasonable (as most of the articles in Category:Lists of television channels by company fail this), I am going to do these region-by-region-ish, just in case any specific listing has a reason to be kept. MASEM ( t) 16:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Proposal. I propose that all members of Category:Lists of television channels by company also be nominated within this AfD, as well as any substantially similar "List of 'Provider X' channels" which may be found that should have been in that category; as well as the substantially analogous articles List of Sirius Satellite Radio stations and List of XM Satellite Radio channels.
This AfD specifically did not include these articles because of "logistical nightmares; doing it in smaller batches allows editors to identify exceptional cases to be kept." So I further propose that we could (under "Use common sense") customize this AfD such that if it succeeds, the "logistical" problems can be resolved by retaining articles containing "exceptional" content other than the subject of this AfD, with only the content in question being removed from them.
Rationale: It was suggested during Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of AT&T U-verse channels that, by noting the AfD on the talk pages of substantially similar articles, I was Canvassing. I have serious concerns about editor notifications, which I've raised at Canvassing's talk page. If I had been "canvassing", it was clearly ineffective, as very few additional editors commented on the AfD. Perhaps editors don't view talk pages that frequently, perhaps they don't take things seriously unless an article in which they're interested is tagged for deletion. As @Powergate92 notes upthread, there is now a larger group of editors commenting.
The AfD instructions at WP:BUNDLE state that "for group nominations it is often a good idea to only list one article at afd and see how it goes" - a "test case", as "AT&T U-verse" was. By not now nominating all relevant articles here, it could be misconstrued as being another "test case", getting "two bites at the apple", "dividing and conquering", as it were. Specifically, this AfD is mainly US-centric, lacking input from Canadian, UK, Australian and New Zealand editors, as well as others.
In a sense, this second "test case" could be seen as an example of "anti-Canvassing" - that is, specifically leaving out problematic editors who might object to the deletion of "their" articles.
Comments? I'm sure I'll have many. So be it. :( -- Chaswmsday ( talk) 17:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Angr ( talk) 20:03, 18 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Neologism invented today - see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clickly from same editor. Totally non-notable. Pam D 23:01, 11 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Drmies ( talk) 23:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC) reply
contested prod - no evidence from third party reliable sources that this is a notable studio, thus failing WP:GNG Ilikeeatingwaffles ( talk) 22:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Uthman ibn Affan. SarahStierch ( talk) 08:42, 21 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Unsourced biography stub. Righteousskills ( talk) 22:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Drmies ( talk) 23:25, 18 October 2012 (UTC) reply
PROD removed by author, rationale was non-notable designer, written like an advertisement, and is a link farm. Lego Kontribs TalkM 22:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete, WP:SNOW, WP:MADEUP, article states that the term was coined yesterday. NawlinWiki ( talk) 20:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Original Research, WP:MADEUP Anbu121 ( talk me) 20:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Drmies ( talk) 23:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Not notable 122.177.153.55 ( talk) 20:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Drmies ( talk) 23:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Not notable, with a not-notable tag since Feb 2012 and an Orphan tag since 2010 122.177.153.55 ( talk) 20:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Drmies ( talk) 23:49, 18 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Non-notable web-site. The article is positively stuffed with references--almost all of which are to the web-site itself, while the few which aren't are almost all are passing mentions. CalendarWatcher ( talk) 04:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Drmies ( talk) 23:50, 18 October 2012 (UTC) reply
No independent sources, not indexed in selective major databases. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Guillaume2303 ( talk) 11:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Discussion centered around WP:GNG, with most participants feeling that the sources provided were press releases and therefore not independent; thus, notability under WP:GNG was not established. j⚛e decker talk 21:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC) reply
No evidence of notability. One reference is a press release, the other three about the owner, not the company. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 01:05, 18 October 2012 (UTC) reply
There is no evidence of satisfying the notability guidelines. No independent sources are cited in the article. The first page of hits from a Google search were: two pages from Asianet Pakistan's own web site, Asianet Pakistan's page on a web site that markets pictures on behalf of subscribers, Facebook, Twitter, this Wikipedia article, Asianet Pakistan's page on a business marketing site, and so it continues on subsequent pages. There does not seem to be any substantial coverage in independent sources. (Note: The original version of the article was blatant spam, created by a single-purpose editor who clearly has a conflict of interest. The article was substantially despammed when a G11 speedy deletion was proposed. A PROD was removed by the creator of the article without any reason being given.) JamesBWatson ( talk) 10:56, 27 September 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Drmies ( talk) 23:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC) reply
"Upcoming" film article provides just 2 links, both brief mentions (one a student news site) which do not establish notability. This brief article has been flagged for lack of notability for months but nothing has been added to indicate the film has become notable. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 10:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Drmies ( talk) 23:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC) reply
fails WP:GNG. mere 1 gnews hit [16]. and nothing from a major canadian broadcaster [17] . let's see if the usual suspects turn up. LibStar ( talk) 02:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Terrible topic on what appears to be a notable subject Drmies ( talk) 23:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Has no claim to notability. Contested PROD. Created by a puppetmaster, probably while blocked. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 03:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Drmies ( talk) 23:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC) reply
No tour, no charts, no veriable records - sources given are more sort of social media, not independents one. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Ben Ben ( talk) 19:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Drmies ( talk) 23:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Non-notable online game with a single two outside sources. Orphaned. No longer online due to U.S. gambling laws. Also note that I am the creator of this article (but
G7 doesn't apply).
DMurphy (
talk)
04:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
reply
Well, if you created this article, but you are now begging for it to be deleted, I take it that you would not be too upset if the article were deleted! ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 23:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Drmies ( talk) 23:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC) reply
I declined this G11 CSD, but I cannot find any reliable sources which would suggest that this organisation is notable. I have found some sources which seem to suggest that this is a violent gang (such as this) which, if true, would mean the article in its current form should be deleted as a hoax (I chose not to speedy delete on those grounds because I'm not well enough informed about the organisation). So either: its a hoax and should be deleted, or it is not notable and should be deleted. ItsZippy ( talk • contributions) 15:51, 27 September 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Non-notable autobiography; only escapes speedy because of the claim that a book he contributed to is widely used as a college text. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. No consensus is reached; hope is expressed for further improvement to the article. Drmies ( talk) 19:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC) reply
I will admit that I don't know what the heck this is about, but I feel that the article doesn't show that it is notable and is also trying to promote it. This came to my attention when deleting an apparently similar thing as being promotional. I hope that some with more understanding of the subject can say yea or nay to it. If it is promotional, it's not blatant enough for CSD and a request was declined by an admin quite a few edits ago. Peridon ( talk) 17:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted under criterion A7 by Orangemike (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content)). Housekeeping closure. Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 20:25, 11 October 2012 (UTC) reply
This article is promotional and has been edited by two brand-new accounts who have removed the tags and provided only links to the program's website. The program is also not notable. My search yields only several different sub-pages on the subject's main page. This article is promotional, unverifiable, and not notable. Go Phightins! ( talk) 19:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Delaware_elections,_2012#Lieutenant_Governor. Mark Arsten ( talk) 03:32, 21 October 2012 (UTC) reply
per WP:POLITICIAN which states that being a candidate doesn't necessarily satisfy notability requirements...she doesn't seem to gain notability from anywhere but a party site and a governmental website that would list all candidates on the ballot. My google search yields a few voter guides, which Wikipedia is not, a campaign Facebook page, and a few other sporadic hits that don't make her notable. Go Phightins! ( talk) 19:17, 11 October 2012 (UTC) reply
' fails WP:POLITICIAN; I can't find any evidence of significant coverage in secondary reliable sources, falling short of WP:GNG too. -- Batard0 ( talk) 13:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Narendra Modi. MBisanz talk 22:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC) reply
I acknowledge that some speeches by politicians are notable (see Category:Speeches). So can interviews, through this seems much less common (see Category:Interviews). I guess it is not impossible for a live chat to be notable, but I couldn't find a single example on Wikipedia for a precedent, and in either case, this particular article does not strike me as a notable event. The event has generated some media coverage, but did it generate enough to make it notable? I have serious doubts about that, and I'd invite others to debate whether chats can be notable, and whether this one is. PS. I have no problem with the article being merged to Narendra Modi, I can see this as a valid section in his bio. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 18:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 03:32, 21 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Seems like this article is purely original research. Eleassar my talk 17:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Wiley (rapper). ( non-admin closure) Dori ☾ Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The album has virtually no sources nor is it notable per WP:NMUSIC. quite speculative as its a WP:FUTURE event. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 15:50, 11 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Editors participating were unable to discover sources they felt rose to WP:GNG j⚛e decker talk 21:57, 20 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Non notable game based on a creppypasta site that itself is non notable. Completely unreferenced, external links lead only to the game's website and material linked to the subject. The article also has tone issues and reads like an advertisement in some places. Googling the game yields a lot of hits for forum posts and social media about the game, but I can't seem to find any significant coverage from reliable sources. RPGMakerMan ( talk) 14:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete both. Beeblebrox ( talk) 19:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following product page for deletion:
Neither of the company nor the product appear to pass the necessary criteria of having multiple, independent reliable sources as mentioned in WP:CORP and WP:GNG. Instead, the company is a recent startup with a novelty product. As such, I am submitting them for deletion. Reaper Eternal ( talk) 14:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Editors were unable to find sources they felt evidenced notability under WP:GNG j⚛e decker talk 21:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Does not meet wiki:GNG criteria, also a recreation of already deleted article, notability is in doubt as most of the references are linked to personnel page Shrikanthv ( talk) 10:58, 11 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Although it seems clear further discussion and/or research is necessary, and redirecting may be desirable. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:20, 20 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Appears to fail WP:GNG's significant reliable source coverage requirement. Neither of the academics responsible for the research has a wikipedia article, and references are limited to the academics' own research. Did a search and didn't come up with anything saying otherwise. Batard0 ( talk) 18:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 03:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Not meeting the WIKI:GNG criteria and has no notablitly and reference tagging is not matching the statments Shrikanthv ( talk) 07:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 21:54, 20 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Insufficient sources to pass WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Google News archive has nothing, nor does HighBeam Research. Could probably qualify for A7 speedy deletion, but since it's been PRODed previously I'm bringing it here instead. Yunshui 雲 水 07:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Dori ☾ Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:48, 19 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Notability Petebutt ( talk) 05:50, 11 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. There is no consensus to delete or merge, however there is a strong sentiment (with which I happen to agree) that the articles should be renamed to "List of xyz typefaces" rather than "Samples of...". The sample images can remain, but these should be titled as proper list articles are. I won't mandate here that the articles be renamed, but I would highly encourage that they are renamed. If there is significant opposition to renaming the articles, then a discussion might need to take place first. If you need help moving the articles over redirects, contact me for assistance. ‑Scottywong | prattle _ 17:01, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Not an article. We do not host image galleries on Wikipedia. Apparently prodded in 2009 but it didn't show up with a warning when I prodded it today. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 04:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC) reply
*******************************************************************************
██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
█████████████████PLEASE READ THE MESSAGE AT THE TALKPAGE OF THIS ARTICLE BEFORE EDITING███████████████
██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
*******************************************************************************
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 03:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC) reply
unreferenced for over a year. Can't find any good sources. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 04:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was SPEEDY DELETE by me: CSD#G5, created by sockpuppet. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 04:22, 11 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 03:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD. Concern was Unencyclopedic essay Eeekster ( talk) 04:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 00:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Non-notable photographer lacking GHITS and GNEWS of substance. Fails WP:BIO. Appears to be an autobiographical article. reddogsix ( talk) 17:08, 26 September 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 01:03, 18 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The first real coverage I found was negative press by someone with the same initials at the article author. Not sure if AfD makes sense here, but thought it was an interesting coincidence. The current given reference is not a significant secondary source. heather walls ( talk) 09:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Due to the low participation, this is a soft delete, and the article can be undeleted through a request at WP:REFUND. — Mr. Stradivarius ( have a chat) 12:58, 11 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Article appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:BIO. A Google search for "Dan Williamson" sports did not appear to produce much more than some short news stories about him becoming sports director at a television station. Ks0stm ( T• C• G• E) 06:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 00:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC) reply
BLP without any treatment in secondary sources. Created by COI account along with article on wife that was barely kept in an AfD; this one has even less claim to notability. Abductive ( reasoning) 04:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Appears to be merely routine crime news - note all sources are from a two day period, etc. Wily D 08:50, 19 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:1E and WP:EVENT. Subject is not notable. WP is not News. Article does not indicate lasting effects of this man's suicide. WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 03:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:25, 20 October 2012 (UTC) reply
fails WP:N and is a blatant violation of WP:RECENT...this game was announced today, major verifiability issues as well as speculation on release date. Go Phightins! ( talk) 02:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC) reply
{{incomplete}}
and look forward to its expansion. (Overall, I
do agree that stronger notability standards should be established for VG.)
czar
·
·
17:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
replyThe result was keep. Mark Arsten ( talk) 01:03, 18 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Non-notable band. A single ref from about.com doesn't meet reliable sourcing Andy Dingley ( talk) 09:45, 4 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 00:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC) reply
I proposed the deletion of this back in 2010 because of WP:BIO. The re-created article still doesn't fix the problem. It looks like promotion. -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 07:43, 4 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 00:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC) reply
There are no sources to establish that this is even a thing. Fails WP:GNG. — Tom Morris ( talk) 07:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Woodlands House School (Boy's Wing). MBisanz talk 15:51, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
It doesn't meet WP:GNG. WP:NHS says "Like any other topic, articles on schools must be able to meet notability standards". This doesn't as yet. Mr T (Talk?) (New thread?) 08:45, 4 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 01:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Does not pass WP:GNG. Not enough coverage in third party sources specifically about him. Del♉sion23 (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 04:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Article about what appears to be a non-notable web-comic. Salimfadhley ( talk) 20:22, 26 September 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 04:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The entire article is about an unannounced video game based on speculation, heavily violating WP:FUTURE. -- Zeno McDohl (talk) 17:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Flies past WP:N with a speed that could embarass Superman. I'm a bit sensitive to the concerns that the CEO would rather we didn't have an article, but without a concrete problem, or any obvious issue in the article, I don't see how I could justify something like that. Wily D 08:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Does not appear to have sufficient notability to warrant stand alone article per
WP:ORG. For there to be notability, in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources are expected. Per the same policy, quoted self published materials and Press Release are excluded. At this the article is based on self published information and there's not sufficient sources that I can find at this point to consider this company genrally notable.
Cantaloupe2 (
talk)
16:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
reply
I find that support on general
notability on company is rather weak. The coverage received in cited mainstream news for national circulation is trivial and significant coverage is mainly in local paper for Puget Sound and Seattle area, the locale where this business is established. per
WP:ORGDEPTH coverage of local circulation is not much of indication of general notability.
Cantaloupe2 (
talk)
14:31, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
reply
What's so hilarious is that mentioning a company in the comments section of a blog post is a "link" and evidence "major conflict of interest", but hundreds of mentions in news articles and books aren't enough to keep an article. All I can say to that is that Wikipedia is not a battleground and when you are so obsessed with "winning" that you start making personal attacks and imagining, Glenn Beck-like, secret evil connections and conspiracies, it might be time to calm down and take a break.
Please don't attack any more editors in this discussion; you've done quite enough of that. It's tiresome, and it isn't going to help get this article deleted. There are appropriate venues to make complaints about other editors. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 18:35, 15 October 2012 (UTC) reply
You might wish that Wikipedia's notability requirements were something altogether different, but wishing does not make it so. And please don't refactor any more of my comments without permission. See WP:TPO.-- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 04:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:07, 20 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Insufficient support of notability for this company through secondary sources. Current sources on the page are from the company's own website, press or PR releases, or material from blogs (and not news blogs). A search of news articles revealed only press releases, product announcements, and merger announcements. In other words, there does not appear to be anything beyond routine coverage for companies. I recommend deletion. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 05:30, 26 September 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Beeblebrox ( talk) 18:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC) reply
I feel this is a borderline case, but ultimately am in favor of a delete and merge into Pacific Northwest Labor and Civil Rights History Projects, because it doesn't appear to have attracted a lot of notice on its own. Per WP:NWEB and WP:N, it does not inherit notability from its parent project. Batard0 ( talk) 16:59, 26 September 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Spam lacking a solid claim to notability. awards shown are not major. full of sources that verify associated aspects but not anything to do with Werner Grey. Deceptive sourcing designed to mislead. Mostly a mix of primary and non reliable sources. Closest we may have is a The Times of India article but a quick look shows this is not a reliable source as it publishes false claims, demonstarting a lack of "fact-checking and accuracy." Werner Grey lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Her acting falls short multiple significant roles. (see also related afds The Earth Diet, On the Course, I Love Earth). duffbeerforme ( talk) 09:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC) reply
WP:NOTDIR. No references, no claim to notability. Keφr ( talk) 05:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G5 - long term abuse JohnCD ( talk) 10:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC) reply
yes it has a ton of sources, but few seem to even be related to the subject, this at least is worth a discussion Go Phightins! ( talk) 02:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:41, 20 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Notability not established, but there is sufficient claim that I didn't think A7 would be applicable. Syrthiss ( talk) 11:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Justice Commandos of the Armenian Genocide. Mark Arsten ( talk) 01:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Falls under WP:BLP1E. Notable only because of a failed assassination attempt on his life. Has been on wikipedia since 2006, was AFD'd once and the result was no consensus. All relevant information is already covered in JCAG. George Spurlin ( talk) 07:22, 26 September 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 01:00, 18 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:GNG on lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Only cited sources are the company itself and a press release posted on thestreet.com. A Google search doesn't turn up secondary source coverage outside of industry publications, which don't cut it under WP:CORPDEPTH ("media of limited interest and circulation"). Batard0 ( talk) 04:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 03:32, 18 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:ORG which states: "An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it." So despite having some notable fighters associated to it, it fails to establish notability for an organization. WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 02:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete by RHaworth as G3 - hoax. (Non-admin technical closure) Ymblanter ( talk) 10:09, 12 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Unreleased film, no sources. Fails WP:NF BOVINEBOY 2008 02:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. as WP:TOOSOON for an article. Mark Arsten ( talk) 01:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC) reply
I think this fails the WP:GNG requirement and the WP:NONPROFIT criteria for lacking secondary sources. The organization is under formation as of 2012, and while it appears to be national or international in scope, I am unable to find any independent coverage of it or its founding. Batard0 ( talk) 12:36, 3 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 01:00, 18 October 2012 (UTC) reply
While the company may be notable, I do not believe that this person is notable. Being a government advisor does not infer notability - the same could be said of many corporate executives. Biker Biker ( talk) 16:53, 26 September 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. As is normal arguments with a basis in Wikipedia policy are given greater weight. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Claims to notability seem to be being a Minister's daughter and having lost 33kgs weight in a year. Nothing encyclopedic here. De-PRODded without comment, by original author. Pam D 07:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Do you really believe that minister's sons or daughters can buy fitness? Fitness cannot be purchased or influenced. There is no option to discipline and hard work if one wants to achieve a fitness goal. She is an ordinary person and helps many to lose weight without any monetary gain. Inspiration and motivation play a major role in weight loss success and she is doing that for others. She has shared all her weight loss diet plans, exercise plans and tips to motivate others. She is doing a lot of philanthropic activities in the field of fitness in India. This person definitely deserves to be in Wikipedia for the contribution she has made in the lives of many. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moksha Shah ( talk • contribs) 11:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC) reply
I do agree with unwanted information should be removed from the article but the page is created not just for identifying as a fan view. This page is created to show her popularity among the Indian people. Keep the article, may be we can protect this page for vandalism. --
Dineshkumar Ponnusamy (
talk)
14:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 00:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:ENT and WP:GNG. Unsourced BLP, unable to find significant coverage in independent reliable sources. SummerPhD ( talk) 02:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The magnitude arguments referencing non-notability and insufficiency of sources to meet GNG result in a deletion close. MBisanz talk 18:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC) reply
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Sesamevoila ( talk) 08:03, 28 September 2012 (UTC) reply
![]() |
< 10 October | 12 October > |
---|
The result was merge to Hill figure. SarahStierch ( talk) 08:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The word "Gigantotomy" appears to be a neologism failing WP:NEO, invented "half humorously" by Morris Marples in 1949 [1]. It hasn't really caught on, with no dictionary references, nor peer reviewed journals. The correct phrase is " Hill figure". Iantresman ( talk) 23:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Drmies ( talk) 23:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Sorry, I accidentally Accepted this page as I was reviewing it. The same list is on the actual Gold Rush page so can this be deleted? ♠♥♣Shaun9876♠♥♣ Talk Email 23:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Drmies ( talk) 23:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Per the result from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of AT&T U-verse channels, channel listing directors for cable provides are not appropriate content for WP.
I am also nominating the following:
As to keep this multiple AFD reasonable (as most of the articles in Category:Lists of television channels by company fail this), I am going to do these region-by-region-ish, just in case any specific listing has a reason to be kept. MASEM ( t) 16:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Proposal. I propose that all members of Category:Lists of television channels by company also be nominated within this AfD, as well as any substantially similar "List of 'Provider X' channels" which may be found that should have been in that category; as well as the substantially analogous articles List of Sirius Satellite Radio stations and List of XM Satellite Radio channels.
This AfD specifically did not include these articles because of "logistical nightmares; doing it in smaller batches allows editors to identify exceptional cases to be kept." So I further propose that we could (under "Use common sense") customize this AfD such that if it succeeds, the "logistical" problems can be resolved by retaining articles containing "exceptional" content other than the subject of this AfD, with only the content in question being removed from them.
Rationale: It was suggested during Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of AT&T U-verse channels that, by noting the AfD on the talk pages of substantially similar articles, I was Canvassing. I have serious concerns about editor notifications, which I've raised at Canvassing's talk page. If I had been "canvassing", it was clearly ineffective, as very few additional editors commented on the AfD. Perhaps editors don't view talk pages that frequently, perhaps they don't take things seriously unless an article in which they're interested is tagged for deletion. As @Powergate92 notes upthread, there is now a larger group of editors commenting.
The AfD instructions at WP:BUNDLE state that "for group nominations it is often a good idea to only list one article at afd and see how it goes" - a "test case", as "AT&T U-verse" was. By not now nominating all relevant articles here, it could be misconstrued as being another "test case", getting "two bites at the apple", "dividing and conquering", as it were. Specifically, this AfD is mainly US-centric, lacking input from Canadian, UK, Australian and New Zealand editors, as well as others.
In a sense, this second "test case" could be seen as an example of "anti-Canvassing" - that is, specifically leaving out problematic editors who might object to the deletion of "their" articles.
Comments? I'm sure I'll have many. So be it. :( -- Chaswmsday ( talk) 17:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Angr ( talk) 20:03, 18 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Neologism invented today - see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clickly from same editor. Totally non-notable. Pam D 23:01, 11 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Drmies ( talk) 23:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC) reply
contested prod - no evidence from third party reliable sources that this is a notable studio, thus failing WP:GNG Ilikeeatingwaffles ( talk) 22:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Uthman ibn Affan. SarahStierch ( talk) 08:42, 21 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Unsourced biography stub. Righteousskills ( talk) 22:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Drmies ( talk) 23:25, 18 October 2012 (UTC) reply
PROD removed by author, rationale was non-notable designer, written like an advertisement, and is a link farm. Lego Kontribs TalkM 22:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete, WP:SNOW, WP:MADEUP, article states that the term was coined yesterday. NawlinWiki ( talk) 20:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Original Research, WP:MADEUP Anbu121 ( talk me) 20:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Drmies ( talk) 23:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Not notable 122.177.153.55 ( talk) 20:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Drmies ( talk) 23:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Not notable, with a not-notable tag since Feb 2012 and an Orphan tag since 2010 122.177.153.55 ( talk) 20:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Drmies ( talk) 23:49, 18 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Non-notable web-site. The article is positively stuffed with references--almost all of which are to the web-site itself, while the few which aren't are almost all are passing mentions. CalendarWatcher ( talk) 04:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Drmies ( talk) 23:50, 18 October 2012 (UTC) reply
No independent sources, not indexed in selective major databases. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Guillaume2303 ( talk) 11:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Discussion centered around WP:GNG, with most participants feeling that the sources provided were press releases and therefore not independent; thus, notability under WP:GNG was not established. j⚛e decker talk 21:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC) reply
No evidence of notability. One reference is a press release, the other three about the owner, not the company. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 01:05, 18 October 2012 (UTC) reply
There is no evidence of satisfying the notability guidelines. No independent sources are cited in the article. The first page of hits from a Google search were: two pages from Asianet Pakistan's own web site, Asianet Pakistan's page on a web site that markets pictures on behalf of subscribers, Facebook, Twitter, this Wikipedia article, Asianet Pakistan's page on a business marketing site, and so it continues on subsequent pages. There does not seem to be any substantial coverage in independent sources. (Note: The original version of the article was blatant spam, created by a single-purpose editor who clearly has a conflict of interest. The article was substantially despammed when a G11 speedy deletion was proposed. A PROD was removed by the creator of the article without any reason being given.) JamesBWatson ( talk) 10:56, 27 September 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Drmies ( talk) 23:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC) reply
"Upcoming" film article provides just 2 links, both brief mentions (one a student news site) which do not establish notability. This brief article has been flagged for lack of notability for months but nothing has been added to indicate the film has become notable. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 10:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Drmies ( talk) 23:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC) reply
fails WP:GNG. mere 1 gnews hit [16]. and nothing from a major canadian broadcaster [17] . let's see if the usual suspects turn up. LibStar ( talk) 02:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Terrible topic on what appears to be a notable subject Drmies ( talk) 23:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Has no claim to notability. Contested PROD. Created by a puppetmaster, probably while blocked. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 03:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Drmies ( talk) 23:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC) reply
No tour, no charts, no veriable records - sources given are more sort of social media, not independents one. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Ben Ben ( talk) 19:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Drmies ( talk) 23:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Non-notable online game with a single two outside sources. Orphaned. No longer online due to U.S. gambling laws. Also note that I am the creator of this article (but
G7 doesn't apply).
DMurphy (
talk)
04:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
reply
Well, if you created this article, but you are now begging for it to be deleted, I take it that you would not be too upset if the article were deleted! ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 23:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Drmies ( talk) 23:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC) reply
I declined this G11 CSD, but I cannot find any reliable sources which would suggest that this organisation is notable. I have found some sources which seem to suggest that this is a violent gang (such as this) which, if true, would mean the article in its current form should be deleted as a hoax (I chose not to speedy delete on those grounds because I'm not well enough informed about the organisation). So either: its a hoax and should be deleted, or it is not notable and should be deleted. ItsZippy ( talk • contributions) 15:51, 27 September 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Non-notable autobiography; only escapes speedy because of the claim that a book he contributed to is widely used as a college text. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. No consensus is reached; hope is expressed for further improvement to the article. Drmies ( talk) 19:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC) reply
I will admit that I don't know what the heck this is about, but I feel that the article doesn't show that it is notable and is also trying to promote it. This came to my attention when deleting an apparently similar thing as being promotional. I hope that some with more understanding of the subject can say yea or nay to it. If it is promotional, it's not blatant enough for CSD and a request was declined by an admin quite a few edits ago. Peridon ( talk) 17:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted under criterion A7 by Orangemike (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content)). Housekeeping closure. Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 20:25, 11 October 2012 (UTC) reply
This article is promotional and has been edited by two brand-new accounts who have removed the tags and provided only links to the program's website. The program is also not notable. My search yields only several different sub-pages on the subject's main page. This article is promotional, unverifiable, and not notable. Go Phightins! ( talk) 19:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Delaware_elections,_2012#Lieutenant_Governor. Mark Arsten ( talk) 03:32, 21 October 2012 (UTC) reply
per WP:POLITICIAN which states that being a candidate doesn't necessarily satisfy notability requirements...she doesn't seem to gain notability from anywhere but a party site and a governmental website that would list all candidates on the ballot. My google search yields a few voter guides, which Wikipedia is not, a campaign Facebook page, and a few other sporadic hits that don't make her notable. Go Phightins! ( talk) 19:17, 11 October 2012 (UTC) reply
' fails WP:POLITICIAN; I can't find any evidence of significant coverage in secondary reliable sources, falling short of WP:GNG too. -- Batard0 ( talk) 13:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Narendra Modi. MBisanz talk 22:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC) reply
I acknowledge that some speeches by politicians are notable (see Category:Speeches). So can interviews, through this seems much less common (see Category:Interviews). I guess it is not impossible for a live chat to be notable, but I couldn't find a single example on Wikipedia for a precedent, and in either case, this particular article does not strike me as a notable event. The event has generated some media coverage, but did it generate enough to make it notable? I have serious doubts about that, and I'd invite others to debate whether chats can be notable, and whether this one is. PS. I have no problem with the article being merged to Narendra Modi, I can see this as a valid section in his bio. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 18:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 03:32, 21 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Seems like this article is purely original research. Eleassar my talk 17:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Wiley (rapper). ( non-admin closure) Dori ☾ Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The album has virtually no sources nor is it notable per WP:NMUSIC. quite speculative as its a WP:FUTURE event. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 15:50, 11 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Editors participating were unable to discover sources they felt rose to WP:GNG j⚛e decker talk 21:57, 20 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Non notable game based on a creppypasta site that itself is non notable. Completely unreferenced, external links lead only to the game's website and material linked to the subject. The article also has tone issues and reads like an advertisement in some places. Googling the game yields a lot of hits for forum posts and social media about the game, but I can't seem to find any significant coverage from reliable sources. RPGMakerMan ( talk) 14:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete both. Beeblebrox ( talk) 19:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following product page for deletion:
Neither of the company nor the product appear to pass the necessary criteria of having multiple, independent reliable sources as mentioned in WP:CORP and WP:GNG. Instead, the company is a recent startup with a novelty product. As such, I am submitting them for deletion. Reaper Eternal ( talk) 14:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Editors were unable to find sources they felt evidenced notability under WP:GNG j⚛e decker talk 21:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Does not meet wiki:GNG criteria, also a recreation of already deleted article, notability is in doubt as most of the references are linked to personnel page Shrikanthv ( talk) 10:58, 11 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Although it seems clear further discussion and/or research is necessary, and redirecting may be desirable. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:20, 20 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Appears to fail WP:GNG's significant reliable source coverage requirement. Neither of the academics responsible for the research has a wikipedia article, and references are limited to the academics' own research. Did a search and didn't come up with anything saying otherwise. Batard0 ( talk) 18:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 03:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Not meeting the WIKI:GNG criteria and has no notablitly and reference tagging is not matching the statments Shrikanthv ( talk) 07:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 21:54, 20 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Insufficient sources to pass WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Google News archive has nothing, nor does HighBeam Research. Could probably qualify for A7 speedy deletion, but since it's been PRODed previously I'm bringing it here instead. Yunshui 雲 水 07:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Dori ☾ Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:48, 19 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Notability Petebutt ( talk) 05:50, 11 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. There is no consensus to delete or merge, however there is a strong sentiment (with which I happen to agree) that the articles should be renamed to "List of xyz typefaces" rather than "Samples of...". The sample images can remain, but these should be titled as proper list articles are. I won't mandate here that the articles be renamed, but I would highly encourage that they are renamed. If there is significant opposition to renaming the articles, then a discussion might need to take place first. If you need help moving the articles over redirects, contact me for assistance. ‑Scottywong | prattle _ 17:01, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Not an article. We do not host image galleries on Wikipedia. Apparently prodded in 2009 but it didn't show up with a warning when I prodded it today. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 04:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC) reply
*******************************************************************************
██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
█████████████████PLEASE READ THE MESSAGE AT THE TALKPAGE OF THIS ARTICLE BEFORE EDITING███████████████
██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
*******************************************************************************
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 03:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC) reply
unreferenced for over a year. Can't find any good sources. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 04:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was SPEEDY DELETE by me: CSD#G5, created by sockpuppet. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 04:22, 11 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 03:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD. Concern was Unencyclopedic essay Eeekster ( talk) 04:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 00:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Non-notable photographer lacking GHITS and GNEWS of substance. Fails WP:BIO. Appears to be an autobiographical article. reddogsix ( talk) 17:08, 26 September 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 01:03, 18 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The first real coverage I found was negative press by someone with the same initials at the article author. Not sure if AfD makes sense here, but thought it was an interesting coincidence. The current given reference is not a significant secondary source. heather walls ( talk) 09:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Due to the low participation, this is a soft delete, and the article can be undeleted through a request at WP:REFUND. — Mr. Stradivarius ( have a chat) 12:58, 11 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Article appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:BIO. A Google search for "Dan Williamson" sports did not appear to produce much more than some short news stories about him becoming sports director at a television station. Ks0stm ( T• C• G• E) 06:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 00:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC) reply
BLP without any treatment in secondary sources. Created by COI account along with article on wife that was barely kept in an AfD; this one has even less claim to notability. Abductive ( reasoning) 04:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Appears to be merely routine crime news - note all sources are from a two day period, etc. Wily D 08:50, 19 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:1E and WP:EVENT. Subject is not notable. WP is not News. Article does not indicate lasting effects of this man's suicide. WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 03:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:25, 20 October 2012 (UTC) reply
fails WP:N and is a blatant violation of WP:RECENT...this game was announced today, major verifiability issues as well as speculation on release date. Go Phightins! ( talk) 02:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC) reply
{{incomplete}}
and look forward to its expansion. (Overall, I
do agree that stronger notability standards should be established for VG.)
czar
·
·
17:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
replyThe result was keep. Mark Arsten ( talk) 01:03, 18 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Non-notable band. A single ref from about.com doesn't meet reliable sourcing Andy Dingley ( talk) 09:45, 4 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 00:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC) reply
I proposed the deletion of this back in 2010 because of WP:BIO. The re-created article still doesn't fix the problem. It looks like promotion. -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 07:43, 4 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 00:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC) reply
There are no sources to establish that this is even a thing. Fails WP:GNG. — Tom Morris ( talk) 07:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Woodlands House School (Boy's Wing). MBisanz talk 15:51, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
It doesn't meet WP:GNG. WP:NHS says "Like any other topic, articles on schools must be able to meet notability standards". This doesn't as yet. Mr T (Talk?) (New thread?) 08:45, 4 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 01:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Does not pass WP:GNG. Not enough coverage in third party sources specifically about him. Del♉sion23 (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 04:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Article about what appears to be a non-notable web-comic. Salimfadhley ( talk) 20:22, 26 September 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 04:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The entire article is about an unannounced video game based on speculation, heavily violating WP:FUTURE. -- Zeno McDohl (talk) 17:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Flies past WP:N with a speed that could embarass Superman. I'm a bit sensitive to the concerns that the CEO would rather we didn't have an article, but without a concrete problem, or any obvious issue in the article, I don't see how I could justify something like that. Wily D 08:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Does not appear to have sufficient notability to warrant stand alone article per
WP:ORG. For there to be notability, in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources are expected. Per the same policy, quoted self published materials and Press Release are excluded. At this the article is based on self published information and there's not sufficient sources that I can find at this point to consider this company genrally notable.
Cantaloupe2 (
talk)
16:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
reply
I find that support on general
notability on company is rather weak. The coverage received in cited mainstream news for national circulation is trivial and significant coverage is mainly in local paper for Puget Sound and Seattle area, the locale where this business is established. per
WP:ORGDEPTH coverage of local circulation is not much of indication of general notability.
Cantaloupe2 (
talk)
14:31, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
reply
What's so hilarious is that mentioning a company in the comments section of a blog post is a "link" and evidence "major conflict of interest", but hundreds of mentions in news articles and books aren't enough to keep an article. All I can say to that is that Wikipedia is not a battleground and when you are so obsessed with "winning" that you start making personal attacks and imagining, Glenn Beck-like, secret evil connections and conspiracies, it might be time to calm down and take a break.
Please don't attack any more editors in this discussion; you've done quite enough of that. It's tiresome, and it isn't going to help get this article deleted. There are appropriate venues to make complaints about other editors. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 18:35, 15 October 2012 (UTC) reply
You might wish that Wikipedia's notability requirements were something altogether different, but wishing does not make it so. And please don't refactor any more of my comments without permission. See WP:TPO.-- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 04:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:07, 20 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Insufficient support of notability for this company through secondary sources. Current sources on the page are from the company's own website, press or PR releases, or material from blogs (and not news blogs). A search of news articles revealed only press releases, product announcements, and merger announcements. In other words, there does not appear to be anything beyond routine coverage for companies. I recommend deletion. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 05:30, 26 September 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Beeblebrox ( talk) 18:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC) reply
I feel this is a borderline case, but ultimately am in favor of a delete and merge into Pacific Northwest Labor and Civil Rights History Projects, because it doesn't appear to have attracted a lot of notice on its own. Per WP:NWEB and WP:N, it does not inherit notability from its parent project. Batard0 ( talk) 16:59, 26 September 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Spam lacking a solid claim to notability. awards shown are not major. full of sources that verify associated aspects but not anything to do with Werner Grey. Deceptive sourcing designed to mislead. Mostly a mix of primary and non reliable sources. Closest we may have is a The Times of India article but a quick look shows this is not a reliable source as it publishes false claims, demonstarting a lack of "fact-checking and accuracy." Werner Grey lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Her acting falls short multiple significant roles. (see also related afds The Earth Diet, On the Course, I Love Earth). duffbeerforme ( talk) 09:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC) reply
WP:NOTDIR. No references, no claim to notability. Keφr ( talk) 05:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G5 - long term abuse JohnCD ( talk) 10:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC) reply
yes it has a ton of sources, but few seem to even be related to the subject, this at least is worth a discussion Go Phightins! ( talk) 02:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:41, 20 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Notability not established, but there is sufficient claim that I didn't think A7 would be applicable. Syrthiss ( talk) 11:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Justice Commandos of the Armenian Genocide. Mark Arsten ( talk) 01:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Falls under WP:BLP1E. Notable only because of a failed assassination attempt on his life. Has been on wikipedia since 2006, was AFD'd once and the result was no consensus. All relevant information is already covered in JCAG. George Spurlin ( talk) 07:22, 26 September 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 01:00, 18 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:GNG on lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Only cited sources are the company itself and a press release posted on thestreet.com. A Google search doesn't turn up secondary source coverage outside of industry publications, which don't cut it under WP:CORPDEPTH ("media of limited interest and circulation"). Batard0 ( talk) 04:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 03:32, 18 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:ORG which states: "An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it." So despite having some notable fighters associated to it, it fails to establish notability for an organization. WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 02:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete by RHaworth as G3 - hoax. (Non-admin technical closure) Ymblanter ( talk) 10:09, 12 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Unreleased film, no sources. Fails WP:NF BOVINEBOY 2008 02:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. as WP:TOOSOON for an article. Mark Arsten ( talk) 01:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC) reply
I think this fails the WP:GNG requirement and the WP:NONPROFIT criteria for lacking secondary sources. The organization is under formation as of 2012, and while it appears to be national or international in scope, I am unable to find any independent coverage of it or its founding. Batard0 ( talk) 12:36, 3 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 01:00, 18 October 2012 (UTC) reply
While the company may be notable, I do not believe that this person is notable. Being a government advisor does not infer notability - the same could be said of many corporate executives. Biker Biker ( talk) 16:53, 26 September 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. As is normal arguments with a basis in Wikipedia policy are given greater weight. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Claims to notability seem to be being a Minister's daughter and having lost 33kgs weight in a year. Nothing encyclopedic here. De-PRODded without comment, by original author. Pam D 07:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Do you really believe that minister's sons or daughters can buy fitness? Fitness cannot be purchased or influenced. There is no option to discipline and hard work if one wants to achieve a fitness goal. She is an ordinary person and helps many to lose weight without any monetary gain. Inspiration and motivation play a major role in weight loss success and she is doing that for others. She has shared all her weight loss diet plans, exercise plans and tips to motivate others. She is doing a lot of philanthropic activities in the field of fitness in India. This person definitely deserves to be in Wikipedia for the contribution she has made in the lives of many. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moksha Shah ( talk • contribs) 11:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC) reply
I do agree with unwanted information should be removed from the article but the page is created not just for identifying as a fan view. This page is created to show her popularity among the Indian people. Keep the article, may be we can protect this page for vandalism. --
Dineshkumar Ponnusamy (
talk)
14:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 00:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:ENT and WP:GNG. Unsourced BLP, unable to find significant coverage in independent reliable sources. SummerPhD ( talk) 02:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The magnitude arguments referencing non-notability and insufficiency of sources to meet GNG result in a deletion close. MBisanz talk 18:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC) reply
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Sesamevoila ( talk) 08:03, 28 September 2012 (UTC) reply