< 22 October | 24 October > |
---|
The result was keep. Obviously notable, nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Legoktm ( talk) 17:15, 26 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Basically a manifesto, not an encyclopedic article. Not G11 worthy, but is not WP:NPOV either. Legoktm ( talk) 23:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 15:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply
No indication of notability. Recreated from another title that was speedy deleted as promotional. Disputed prod noq ( talk) 23:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 01:26, 31 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Notability not demonstrated; sounds just one of thousands of similar commercial shopping centers in North America. Wkharrisjr ( talk) 23:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 15:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Unclear what this is. No in-line refs. Only external links refer to the same academic paper looking at the performance of a mixture of zeolite and carbon. No evidence that Zeocarbon is anything other than a neologism or somebody's day-dream. Probably just an essay. Velella Velella Talk 22:34, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Recent tragic death, but not sufficient coverage or significant enough an event to warrant an encyclopedia article. Fails WP:TABLOID, WP:ONEEVENT, WP:BASIC, and WP:ANYBIO. BusterD ( talk) 22:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 01:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Small, unsignificant subject ᶲAstridᶲ • ( Let's do this!) 21:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Ergiske. MBisanz talk 01:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Few sources, little notability, search has revealed little new information. ᶲAstridᶲ • ( Let's do this!) 21:25, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:26, 31 October 2012 (UTC) reply
This doesn't appear to be a notable product or service and feels like an advertisement. Roman à clef ( talk) 19:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to dialogic. or to dialectic MBisanz talk 01:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC) reply
This article has been around since 2003, so I feel a little bad for beating up on the old timer. But this just isn't the sort of thing that we do in the modern conception of Wikipedia. The article concept embodied by the title suggests essay-style original research. But the article's actual contents don't even really do that, merely interweaving snippets of information about the two philosophical methods. We have a fairly comprehensive article on dialectic and an ... article on dialogic. the only source here is a source about dialectic. There's literally nothing being referenced to support the article's ostensible premise. There are sources that discuss both viewpoints (including quite a few that consider them compatible), but I think we would be better off using such sources to strengthen the articles on the parent topics rather than craft a novel synthesis here (especially with the terrible title). We don't need this, especially if this is the fruit of nearly a decade; the original author is banned, and the only other significant contributors outside the ebb and flow of templating were a handful of IP editors (probably the same human) in 2009. Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 19:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was Snow Keep. Mark Arsten ( talk) 16:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Just a list of articles... unsure why it is notable. ReformedArsenal ( talk) 19:32, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Mark Arsten ( talk) 15:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Basically an essay about roman usurpers... makes no assertion to why this is notable apart from the general articles of the persons discussed. ReformedArsenal ( talk) 19:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:32, 31 October 2012 (UTC) reply
There is no reason why this episode is any more notable than any other episode, or why a single episode in the series needs to have an article when others do not. Makes no assertion of notability. ReformedArsenal ( talk) 19:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy A7ed, zero claim of importance, obvious self-promotional résumé. -- Kinu t/ c 19:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
No indication of notability and importance of the person Anbu121 ( talk me) 19:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) — ΛΧΣ 21™ 19:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Article does not assert notability, and I have been unable to locate anything that would make it notable. Article also does not provide significant detail beyond that information already present in either of the articles of the authors John Passarella and Joseph Gangemi who are not terribly notable in themselves. ReformedArsenal ( talk) 19:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy A7ed, zero claim of importance whatsoever, obvious résumé, created by sockpuppet of blocked user, etc. Take your pick. -- Kinu t/ c 19:22, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
No Claims of Importance or Notability. Anbu121 ( talk me) 18:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. We have disambiguation pages, and we have articles on file formats. This article fails as both. Electron9's argument is rejected: directory type pages are explicitly prohibited by WP:NOT and there are numerous websites that specifically address this need and make a much better job. Spinning Spark 16:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Useless disambiguation page. Disambiguates a single article on Wikipedia, which does not even mention the file extension. Forget that "plain/text" is not a valid MIME type, and disambiguation pages should not have references anyway. I tried WP:CSD#G6 already, but the author added two backlinks, seemingly just to make the page technically ineligible. Keφr ( talk) 18:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy redirect to Mimicry Srinivos. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 08:46, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply
An Indian mimic. Lots of pictures but no evidence of notability. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 18:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete g3, blatant hoax. NawlinWiki ( talk) 17:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
I suspect a rather elaborate hoax. IMDB page appears dodgy (as this purported $90,000,000 film has only one actor and no crew -- that's one well-paid actor!). No other sources found to confirm this dodgy source. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 17:14, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was Snow Delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 16:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is neither a soapbox nor a webhost. Yunshui 雲 水 17:11, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was Snow Delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 17:09, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply
This article reads very much like an advertisement or promotion, as if it is trying to establish notability by having a wikipedia article, but provides nowhere near enough sourcing or references as to why it is notable enough to warrant an article, as per WP:ORGDEPTH. Given that it is now over a year old, and the vast majority of editing done to it so far (including the original article creation and all content of any note) is from a user with a clear COI (user "Komaiko" is almost certainly "Richard Komaiko" - or a relative - who is listed in the article as one of the founders of the business), I'm inclined to nominate this article for deletion, since I see no point or value in trying to find sufficient notability where there likely is none. Besieged ( talk) 17:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 15:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Non-notable journal: no independent sources. Despite what the article claims (since then removed, see edit history), not listed in any selective major databases (see www.omicsonline.org/indexingjcsb.php predatory publisher). Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals. Guillaume2303 ( talk) 16:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Mark Arsten ( talk) 00:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Article has been bare of content of any value for over a year (since its original creation), and no editor of it has made any attempt to denote why it is notable, nor provide and references or links, and a quick search does not reveal any such reasons for notability. WP:ORGDEPTH is not readily met here. Besieged ( talk) 16:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 15:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Declined PROD. I can find exactly zero reliable sources supporting anything about this person. The stated sources are a blog and another Wikipedia article in Telugu. A search both in English and in Telugu yielded nothing helpful. Doesn't meet BLP notability; recommending deletion. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 16:46, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Mark Arsten ( talk) 15:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Legitimate topic, but the article is a point of view essay. Only in-line citations are to an unreliable source published online without peer review. The only salvageable content is the list of references. WP:TNT causa sui ( talk) 16:19, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 00:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Unsure of notability of band through lack of reliable sources. Apparently it was deleted before, too: see User talk:Vianello/Archive 3#Deletion of Park Avenue (band) - was speedied A7. If kept, this article requires a page move to meet Manual of Style. Raymie ( t • c) 00:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 18:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Has a strong hoaxy feel to it. The IMDB entry was written by "anonymous." There is a book about her available by Amazon -- but the book was self-published by the author (not her, at least not using her name). There are Web pages that appear to be genuine about her exhibitions -- but almost all of them repeat the exact content, almost word by word. While given this much somewhat-independent coverage I would be hesitant to ask for deletion, something just doesn't smell right to me. Delete. -- Nlu ( talk) 01:35, 30 September 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:32, 31 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD. Site does not appear to be notable (I have looked for significant coverage via Google news and found nothing beyond name-drops). Sources are alexa hits (not a sign of notability), and the primary site itself. MASEM ( t) 15:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 15:40, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:NBOOK. - Balph Eubank ✉ 15:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was Snow Keep. Mark Arsten ( talk) 16:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Contested prod, only claim to notability is small parts in a few films. Ridernyc ( talk) 14:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Ella_Spira#Achievements. Mark Arsten ( talk) 18:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply
This company fails WP:CORP - the sources currently in the article are IMDB and the company's homepage, and I couldn't find any other sources online. Note: there was a recent AfD discussion about one of the co-founders of this production company at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ella Spira. — Mr. Stradivarius ( have a chat) 05:48, 7 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:BAND. Group has yet to release their debut album, so throw a little WP:CRYSTAL on top. Almost all references are to their record label, Fearless Records. The one reference that is more than a track listing is all of three sentences announcing their signing to said record label. Jauerback dude?/ dude. 12:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Achitchcock ( talk) 19:40, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 00:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Article on a non-notable brand name of overshoes/galoshes. Article is basically an advertisement with references and links to press releases, the company website and other sites where you can buy this brand. I would be happy with a redirect to galoshes (I had originally done this, but the redirect was reverted multiple times and I was accused of vandalism), but if this is not thought to be a helpful redirect, it should be deleted. IronGargoyle ( talk) 13:23, 9 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Mark Arsten ( talk) 16:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Non-notable music project lacking GHIts and GNEWS of substance. It appears the release on an independent label does not meet the criteria in WP:MUSIC, I see evidence of only a single Album and an EP, not multiple albums. reddogsix ( talk) 10:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Mark Arsten ( talk) 00:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Page copies a lot of content from http://www.mikejonesracing.com.au. I raised a CSD for this page but the creater is simply deleting the Notification without giving any reason. I suppose this is vandalism but I will update the noticeboard after I see the reaction to this AFD Wikishagnik ( talk) 05:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC) reply
non-notable neologism; can't find any coverage in reliable and/or mainstream sources. Writ Keeper ⚇ ♔ 12:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Has no WP:RS which would otherwise indicate WP:N, and it probably fails WP:Notability (music). Izno ( talk) 12:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 18:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply
No demonstration of notability per the general notability guideline. Also Wikipedia is not a manual and Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 08:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Mark Arsten ( talk) 16:57, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply
No demonstration of notability per the general notability guideline and the notability guidelines for biographies. The user who created the article supplied [22] & [23] as references for notability. I'm not sure on the first one, but the second is an encyclopedia article, not being aware of the inclusion criteria I'm unsure whether it proves notability or not. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 07:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Billboard charts#International charts. MBisanz talk 01:37, 31 October 2012 (UTC) reply
This is a minor chart with Billboard magazine relegated to a simple top 10 list, not easy to find on Billboard.biz and published bi-weekly on the back pages of the print edition. The chart itself has zero notability outside of Billboard and there is no third-party coverage of what songs reach number one on this chart. Billboard is a trade magazine and publishes a lot of charts, and I don't see a need for an article and lists for the non-notable ones. A mention on Billboard charts would seem to suffice here. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 07:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Should have read more closely before relisting. Jenks24 ( talk) 14:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
I wrote this article at the time I thought it was needed. here are the main reasons we would like to have it deleted. 1. poorly sourced, misrepresentation of the individual after research and review. 2. Article vulnerable to vandalism due to ongoing court case. 3. no need for notability article on living persons. Perhaps in the future an AFC on individual would be written about. Please proceed with AFD JuneHazinek ( talk) 07:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC) JuneHazinek reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:34, 31 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Non-notable ceremony. Only referenced to non-independent or promotional looking sources. Peridon ( talk) 13:49, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
I disagree with the above comment. The ceremony is the biggest award ceremony in the Affiliate Industry and deserves recognition. There are many internal links. The references listed are factual pages. Davidmorgans ( talk) 23 October 2012 (UTC)
My quote is "deserves recognition", not needs recognition. The results for 2010-2012 are from the official site, but its not a promotional page, just a historical factual page. 2007-09 are independant company pages. If this is a problem remove the reference but that doesnt mean the page has to be removed. You could also try and improve the page yourself. Davidmorgans ( talk) 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Originally I posted the page without any references to the results and no one raised an issue. I only added the references a few days ago because I thought it would be better. If the only issue is the refences simply tag it as citation needed for each year, but to delete it seems churlish and half the articles on wikipedia could be deleted for a lack of quality or no references. Davidmorgans ( talk) 24 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.70.54.6 ( talk)
I dont think you have searched for A4U Awards which is what the orignal name of the ceremony was for the first 5 years. Here are some 'external' references to the ceremony, New Media Age in particular is a respectful publication in the media industry so I doubt they would make mention to a non notable ceremony.
Econsultancy
New Media Age
Internet Retailing
Davidmorgans ( talk) 29 October 2012 (UTC)
The result was Speedy delete. The article has been speedy deleted as A7 by User:Jimfbleak. (non-admin closure) SwisterTwister talk 17:24, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
I think so far as it seems this is self-promotion (written by Subhasom himself). It fails criteria for notability. Mr T (Talk?) (New thread?) 13:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to List_of_minor_planets:_40001-41000#201. Mark Arsten ( talk) 00:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Article adds nothing beyond what the associated List of minor planets: 40001–41000 already gives, nothing in the article establishes notability and I was unable to find any reason why this particular minor planet is notable. ReformedArsenal ( talk) 13:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 15:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Non- notable author. Three books, which have received notice in some minor blogs. Awards listed are of questionable notability and dubious verifiability. (The USA Book News award is only verifiable through a Google Docs document of unknown authorship -- the website itself does not list awardees.) WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 13:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 15:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The topic David J. Strachman stems from WP:ONEEVENT - the Murder of Yaron and Efrat Ungar. The information on that murder and its aftermath can be sufficiently covered in the Murder of Yaron and Efrat Ungar article. The source information available on Mr. Strachman is not a written account of Strachman's life - e.g., it's not about his early life or career. Rather, the available source information on Mr. Strachman details some of the cases he has had as an attorney, primarily the lawsuit where he represented the Ungar estate. The first AfD was close because the nomination was based on security/safety of David J. Strachman. [24] However, as a biography, the Strachman biography topic does not meet WP:GNG and source information on the Strachman topic can be covered in the Murder of Yaron and Efrat Ungar article. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 12:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 01:34, 31 October 2012 (UTC) reply
I am the original author of this article and I would like to make the case for its deletion. First, if Professor Levendusky is notable and truly meets the criteria for Wikipedia, it suggests that nearly all professors are notable. This standard seems untenable. Second, Professor Levendusky is not, in fact, a public personality. He does not do TV or radio and his work is not discussed widely outside the confines of peer reviewed political science journals. In that way, I do not believe that he is a "publicly known personality". If that changes, I would be happy to put the page back up. in the meantime, however, I think it is better to be safe and take it down. Third, as the original author of the page and the person that has done the most research on Professor Levendusky, I am very familiar with his work and feel extremely comfortable with this recommendation. Greg Kite ( talk) 12:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:34, 31 October 2012 (UTC) reply
No claims of importance can be seen in the article. The references are just passing mentions
Anbu121 (
talk me)
11:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
reply
On the talk page of Axel Scherer (engineer) [25] there are some arguments and more links Kiu77 ( talk) 12:55, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was Snow Delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 17:09, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply
As noted in the Homeopathy article (already a redirect from Nosodes), the term "nosodes" just refers to any homeopathic remedy derived from disease-related material. The Homeopathy page is the right place for dealing with these pseudoscientific concoctions that are actually water. Any therapeutic claim requires support from reliable medical sources ( WP:MEDRS), which are completely lacking [27] [28] (current content is based on a primary study [29] which does not meet WP:MEDRS). This article's subject is otherwise non-notable, and inclusion provides undue weight for quackery. MistyMorn ( talk) 11:07, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 15:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply
PROD contested on grounds that this player had played in a professional league in Cyprus; however, that claim remains unverified and I cannot find any sources which prove this player meets either WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:42, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was Snow Delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 17:10, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply
There is no evidence in the article that he has played in a fully professional league, thus failing WP:NFOOTBALL. Do we keep the article until such time or delete it? Gbawden ( talk) 08:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to West Coast, Singapore#Education. Mark Arsten ( talk) 00:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Convention with schools such as this primary school is that they do not generally warrant a stand-alone article, per
WP:OUTCOMES. Appears to be another random, non-notable school, given the lack of substantial multiple coverage in reliable sauces sources in google news and google books. It does exist, and has run-of-the-mill coverage, but that does not suffice. Also see
this.
Bonkers The Clown (
talk)
08:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
reply
The result was Withdrawn Toddst1 ( talk) 12:26, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Non-notable book, failling WP:BKCRIT Toddst1 ( talk) 04:39, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:35, 31 October 2012 (UTC) reply
I dont think this phrase is notable, and is apparently just a corporate phrase used to cover the field of support services for business growth. the main book is [58], which is Wikipedia articles. NONE of the weblinks reference the phrase (except the 2 i added). If someone can find this phrase critiqued or mentioned outside job ads in the Economist, et al, bring it forward. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 02:48, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 01:35, 31 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Doesn't come close to passing GNG. Name really doesn't google. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 03:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Spinning Spark 17:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply
This is not an article, it's a résumé or CV. It appears to have been created by a single-issue editor—only this man and one of the products he worked on—perhaps in an effort to drive traffic (work) to an individual working as a consultant. Mr. Pfefferle appears to have been a prolific inventor in his field, and the "Professional career" section includes links (of dubious permissibility) to the companies where he's worked, but there is zero support for any of the glowing praise for the man, nor is there evidence of notability as we define it on Wikipedia. — Scheinwerfermann T· C 13:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete, without prejudice to recreation if further reliable sources are forthcoming. Claims were made that offline sources exist, but these have not been identified either here or in the articles. I will undelete on request if sources are available. Spinning Spark 16:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply
I'm nominating two entries, neither of which have any or enough reliable sources to show that these books pass WP:NBOOK. Not Just Fate has one sole link whereas Suicide at Seventeen has none. The original sources on the articles were not usable as reliable sources, being linked primarily to unreliable sites such as personal blogs, mass review sites such as FlipKart, YouTube pages of the author, and sites where people can submit their own articles to be published. A search did not bring up anything that showed that either book passes notability guidelines. Since these books were published in India, I'm open to the idea that there might be foreign language sources but given the limited amount of chatter for the authors I'm somewhat doubting it. PROD removed by article creator. Tokyogirl79 ( talk) 11:09, 30 September 2012 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages for the reasons listed above: reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 18:09, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 17:00, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply
No evidence of notability. Creator has admitted (by e-mail) their COI. Prod removed with: "this is a new Java framework announced at the recent JavaOne 2012 conference". To which I simply say, "so what". — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 15:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 18:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply
A real estate broker who has been in the business for four years. She founded her own firm two years ago. Article says, "Her innovative business model won her national, state, and local acclaim" The national ref is an interview, state ref doesn't mention her and the local ref magazine allows people to pay to get an article about themselves or company. Article is nothing but an advertisement. Bgwhite ( talk) 22:09, 15 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Mark Arsten ( talk) 00:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply
An actor. The article was deleted before via an AfD. Article was re-created and the speedy was declined for, "not the same article, previous discussion doesn't seem to apply, given increased sourcing". One ref in the article is about a hit-in-run accident he was in. One ref is about the father and the movie, not about Kohli. Other ref is short and about the father "re-launching" his son's career. The relaunch didn't work. Most of the parts were not the leads as far as I can tell. Unable to find any independent, reliable refs that don't involve his car accident. Bgwhite ( talk) 22:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was DELETE. postdlf ( talk) 22:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:DISCRIMINATE and WP:GNG as being an unsourced, collection of bands that played at Edgefest. Any notable performances (and possibly headliners) can be worked into the main article, but a list of all bands that have ever played is, and likely never will be, encyclopedic. Ravendrop 23:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted by User:CactusWriter under criterion G12. (Non-admin closure) " Pepper" @ 10:46, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Reason ProjectXRay ( talk) 23:56, 22 October 2012 (UTC) The sole source for this article is a website: http://snowhillhistoricalsociety.wordpress.com/ reply
The text on this Wikipedia page is copied verbatim from a page on the site: http://snowhillhistoricalsociety.wordpress.com/the-snow-hill-massacre/
The site, although supposedly that of 'Snow Hill Historical Society' only contains an account of the supposed massacre and it's background and aftermath. Googling this supposed massacre only supplies links to this Wikipedia page the afformentioned 'Snow Hill Historical Society,' and pages dedicated to the 1968 'Spaghetti Western' 'The Great Silence'. (which features a massacre at a Utah 'Snow Hill' as part of the plot).
The site: http://snowhillhistoricalsociety.wordpress.com/ contains, as part of the story a doctored version of the British Music Hall poster featured on Wikimedia Commons, with one of the so-called massacre protagonists' name 'Mr Josiah Savage' inserted in to it (in place of the original name 'Mr John Douglass') as proprietor, and the theatre's location changed from 'Shoreditch' to 'Smithfield' (alleged location of the fictitious gangsters' lair).
The original image can be viewed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1867_NationalStandardTheatre.jpg
The doctored version can be viewed here: http://snowhillhistoricalsociety.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/national_standard_smithfield1.jpg
Googling the web address: http://snowhillhistoricalsociety.wordpress.com/ brings up several references to it being suspected to be fake. So far I've been unable to find any evidence supporting this supposed event ever occuring,despite the fact it allegedly concerns one of the most violent mass-murders ever to have occurred in the city of London, alledgedly occurring in a crowded marketplace in front of many witnesses, with all eight bodies recovered by the police. The original source website for this article goes on to say that there was a riot directed against the alleged perpetrators of the crime on Friday 18th November 1887 (see: http://snowhillhistoricalsociety.wordpress.com/the-return-of-cutter-savage/ ) which apparently resulted in at least 23 deaths. I have been unable to find any evidence whatsoever of this riot, although there is substantial evidence for the 1887 'Bloody Sunday' riot in London on November 13th of the same year, which was notorious for the killing of only THREE protesters against coercion in Ireland. No article I've seen about the 13/11/1887 'Bloody Sunday' riots makes any reference to any subsequent riots the same week.
In short: This article on the 'Snow Hill Massacre' seems to be too good to be true because IT IS! Believe me, I was intrigued when I first read it and believed it to be true, but the moment I scratched the surface, it became obvious it was a hoax. There's no evidence to support it, and quite clear evidence of materials having been doctored in order to provide fallacious evidence to support a false story. I don't know the motive behind this hoax but it's definitely fake. There never was a 'Snow Hill Massacre' (ProjectXRay (talk) 00:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
The result was KEEP, WP:SNOW. postdlf ( talk) 22:49, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Can be replaced by a category— Preceding unsigned comment added by Professorjohnas ( talk • contribs)
< 22 October | 24 October > |
---|
The result was keep. Obviously notable, nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Legoktm ( talk) 17:15, 26 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Basically a manifesto, not an encyclopedic article. Not G11 worthy, but is not WP:NPOV either. Legoktm ( talk) 23:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 15:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply
No indication of notability. Recreated from another title that was speedy deleted as promotional. Disputed prod noq ( talk) 23:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 01:26, 31 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Notability not demonstrated; sounds just one of thousands of similar commercial shopping centers in North America. Wkharrisjr ( talk) 23:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 15:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Unclear what this is. No in-line refs. Only external links refer to the same academic paper looking at the performance of a mixture of zeolite and carbon. No evidence that Zeocarbon is anything other than a neologism or somebody's day-dream. Probably just an essay. Velella Velella Talk 22:34, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Recent tragic death, but not sufficient coverage or significant enough an event to warrant an encyclopedia article. Fails WP:TABLOID, WP:ONEEVENT, WP:BASIC, and WP:ANYBIO. BusterD ( talk) 22:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 01:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Small, unsignificant subject ᶲAstridᶲ • ( Let's do this!) 21:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Ergiske. MBisanz talk 01:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Few sources, little notability, search has revealed little new information. ᶲAstridᶲ • ( Let's do this!) 21:25, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:26, 31 October 2012 (UTC) reply
This doesn't appear to be a notable product or service and feels like an advertisement. Roman à clef ( talk) 19:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to dialogic. or to dialectic MBisanz talk 01:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC) reply
This article has been around since 2003, so I feel a little bad for beating up on the old timer. But this just isn't the sort of thing that we do in the modern conception of Wikipedia. The article concept embodied by the title suggests essay-style original research. But the article's actual contents don't even really do that, merely interweaving snippets of information about the two philosophical methods. We have a fairly comprehensive article on dialectic and an ... article on dialogic. the only source here is a source about dialectic. There's literally nothing being referenced to support the article's ostensible premise. There are sources that discuss both viewpoints (including quite a few that consider them compatible), but I think we would be better off using such sources to strengthen the articles on the parent topics rather than craft a novel synthesis here (especially with the terrible title). We don't need this, especially if this is the fruit of nearly a decade; the original author is banned, and the only other significant contributors outside the ebb and flow of templating were a handful of IP editors (probably the same human) in 2009. Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 19:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was Snow Keep. Mark Arsten ( talk) 16:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Just a list of articles... unsure why it is notable. ReformedArsenal ( talk) 19:32, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Mark Arsten ( talk) 15:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Basically an essay about roman usurpers... makes no assertion to why this is notable apart from the general articles of the persons discussed. ReformedArsenal ( talk) 19:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:32, 31 October 2012 (UTC) reply
There is no reason why this episode is any more notable than any other episode, or why a single episode in the series needs to have an article when others do not. Makes no assertion of notability. ReformedArsenal ( talk) 19:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy A7ed, zero claim of importance, obvious self-promotional résumé. -- Kinu t/ c 19:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
No indication of notability and importance of the person Anbu121 ( talk me) 19:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) — ΛΧΣ 21™ 19:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Article does not assert notability, and I have been unable to locate anything that would make it notable. Article also does not provide significant detail beyond that information already present in either of the articles of the authors John Passarella and Joseph Gangemi who are not terribly notable in themselves. ReformedArsenal ( talk) 19:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy A7ed, zero claim of importance whatsoever, obvious résumé, created by sockpuppet of blocked user, etc. Take your pick. -- Kinu t/ c 19:22, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
No Claims of Importance or Notability. Anbu121 ( talk me) 18:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. We have disambiguation pages, and we have articles on file formats. This article fails as both. Electron9's argument is rejected: directory type pages are explicitly prohibited by WP:NOT and there are numerous websites that specifically address this need and make a much better job. Spinning Spark 16:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Useless disambiguation page. Disambiguates a single article on Wikipedia, which does not even mention the file extension. Forget that "plain/text" is not a valid MIME type, and disambiguation pages should not have references anyway. I tried WP:CSD#G6 already, but the author added two backlinks, seemingly just to make the page technically ineligible. Keφr ( talk) 18:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy redirect to Mimicry Srinivos. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 08:46, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply
An Indian mimic. Lots of pictures but no evidence of notability. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 18:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete g3, blatant hoax. NawlinWiki ( talk) 17:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
I suspect a rather elaborate hoax. IMDB page appears dodgy (as this purported $90,000,000 film has only one actor and no crew -- that's one well-paid actor!). No other sources found to confirm this dodgy source. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 17:14, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was Snow Delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 16:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is neither a soapbox nor a webhost. Yunshui 雲 水 17:11, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was Snow Delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 17:09, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply
This article reads very much like an advertisement or promotion, as if it is trying to establish notability by having a wikipedia article, but provides nowhere near enough sourcing or references as to why it is notable enough to warrant an article, as per WP:ORGDEPTH. Given that it is now over a year old, and the vast majority of editing done to it so far (including the original article creation and all content of any note) is from a user with a clear COI (user "Komaiko" is almost certainly "Richard Komaiko" - or a relative - who is listed in the article as one of the founders of the business), I'm inclined to nominate this article for deletion, since I see no point or value in trying to find sufficient notability where there likely is none. Besieged ( talk) 17:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 15:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Non-notable journal: no independent sources. Despite what the article claims (since then removed, see edit history), not listed in any selective major databases (see www.omicsonline.org/indexingjcsb.php predatory publisher). Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals. Guillaume2303 ( talk) 16:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Mark Arsten ( talk) 00:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Article has been bare of content of any value for over a year (since its original creation), and no editor of it has made any attempt to denote why it is notable, nor provide and references or links, and a quick search does not reveal any such reasons for notability. WP:ORGDEPTH is not readily met here. Besieged ( talk) 16:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 15:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Declined PROD. I can find exactly zero reliable sources supporting anything about this person. The stated sources are a blog and another Wikipedia article in Telugu. A search both in English and in Telugu yielded nothing helpful. Doesn't meet BLP notability; recommending deletion. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 16:46, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Mark Arsten ( talk) 15:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Legitimate topic, but the article is a point of view essay. Only in-line citations are to an unreliable source published online without peer review. The only salvageable content is the list of references. WP:TNT causa sui ( talk) 16:19, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 00:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Unsure of notability of band through lack of reliable sources. Apparently it was deleted before, too: see User talk:Vianello/Archive 3#Deletion of Park Avenue (band) - was speedied A7. If kept, this article requires a page move to meet Manual of Style. Raymie ( t • c) 00:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 18:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Has a strong hoaxy feel to it. The IMDB entry was written by "anonymous." There is a book about her available by Amazon -- but the book was self-published by the author (not her, at least not using her name). There are Web pages that appear to be genuine about her exhibitions -- but almost all of them repeat the exact content, almost word by word. While given this much somewhat-independent coverage I would be hesitant to ask for deletion, something just doesn't smell right to me. Delete. -- Nlu ( talk) 01:35, 30 September 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:32, 31 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD. Site does not appear to be notable (I have looked for significant coverage via Google news and found nothing beyond name-drops). Sources are alexa hits (not a sign of notability), and the primary site itself. MASEM ( t) 15:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 15:40, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:NBOOK. - Balph Eubank ✉ 15:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was Snow Keep. Mark Arsten ( talk) 16:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Contested prod, only claim to notability is small parts in a few films. Ridernyc ( talk) 14:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Ella_Spira#Achievements. Mark Arsten ( talk) 18:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply
This company fails WP:CORP - the sources currently in the article are IMDB and the company's homepage, and I couldn't find any other sources online. Note: there was a recent AfD discussion about one of the co-founders of this production company at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ella Spira. — Mr. Stradivarius ( have a chat) 05:48, 7 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:BAND. Group has yet to release their debut album, so throw a little WP:CRYSTAL on top. Almost all references are to their record label, Fearless Records. The one reference that is more than a track listing is all of three sentences announcing their signing to said record label. Jauerback dude?/ dude. 12:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Achitchcock ( talk) 19:40, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 00:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Article on a non-notable brand name of overshoes/galoshes. Article is basically an advertisement with references and links to press releases, the company website and other sites where you can buy this brand. I would be happy with a redirect to galoshes (I had originally done this, but the redirect was reverted multiple times and I was accused of vandalism), but if this is not thought to be a helpful redirect, it should be deleted. IronGargoyle ( talk) 13:23, 9 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Mark Arsten ( talk) 16:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Non-notable music project lacking GHIts and GNEWS of substance. It appears the release on an independent label does not meet the criteria in WP:MUSIC, I see evidence of only a single Album and an EP, not multiple albums. reddogsix ( talk) 10:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Mark Arsten ( talk) 00:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Page copies a lot of content from http://www.mikejonesracing.com.au. I raised a CSD for this page but the creater is simply deleting the Notification without giving any reason. I suppose this is vandalism but I will update the noticeboard after I see the reaction to this AFD Wikishagnik ( talk) 05:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC) reply
non-notable neologism; can't find any coverage in reliable and/or mainstream sources. Writ Keeper ⚇ ♔ 12:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Has no WP:RS which would otherwise indicate WP:N, and it probably fails WP:Notability (music). Izno ( talk) 12:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 18:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply
No demonstration of notability per the general notability guideline. Also Wikipedia is not a manual and Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 08:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Mark Arsten ( talk) 16:57, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply
No demonstration of notability per the general notability guideline and the notability guidelines for biographies. The user who created the article supplied [22] & [23] as references for notability. I'm not sure on the first one, but the second is an encyclopedia article, not being aware of the inclusion criteria I'm unsure whether it proves notability or not. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 07:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Billboard charts#International charts. MBisanz talk 01:37, 31 October 2012 (UTC) reply
This is a minor chart with Billboard magazine relegated to a simple top 10 list, not easy to find on Billboard.biz and published bi-weekly on the back pages of the print edition. The chart itself has zero notability outside of Billboard and there is no third-party coverage of what songs reach number one on this chart. Billboard is a trade magazine and publishes a lot of charts, and I don't see a need for an article and lists for the non-notable ones. A mention on Billboard charts would seem to suffice here. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 07:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Should have read more closely before relisting. Jenks24 ( talk) 14:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
I wrote this article at the time I thought it was needed. here are the main reasons we would like to have it deleted. 1. poorly sourced, misrepresentation of the individual after research and review. 2. Article vulnerable to vandalism due to ongoing court case. 3. no need for notability article on living persons. Perhaps in the future an AFC on individual would be written about. Please proceed with AFD JuneHazinek ( talk) 07:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC) JuneHazinek reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:34, 31 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Non-notable ceremony. Only referenced to non-independent or promotional looking sources. Peridon ( talk) 13:49, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
I disagree with the above comment. The ceremony is the biggest award ceremony in the Affiliate Industry and deserves recognition. There are many internal links. The references listed are factual pages. Davidmorgans ( talk) 23 October 2012 (UTC)
My quote is "deserves recognition", not needs recognition. The results for 2010-2012 are from the official site, but its not a promotional page, just a historical factual page. 2007-09 are independant company pages. If this is a problem remove the reference but that doesnt mean the page has to be removed. You could also try and improve the page yourself. Davidmorgans ( talk) 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Originally I posted the page without any references to the results and no one raised an issue. I only added the references a few days ago because I thought it would be better. If the only issue is the refences simply tag it as citation needed for each year, but to delete it seems churlish and half the articles on wikipedia could be deleted for a lack of quality or no references. Davidmorgans ( talk) 24 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.70.54.6 ( talk)
I dont think you have searched for A4U Awards which is what the orignal name of the ceremony was for the first 5 years. Here are some 'external' references to the ceremony, New Media Age in particular is a respectful publication in the media industry so I doubt they would make mention to a non notable ceremony.
Econsultancy
New Media Age
Internet Retailing
Davidmorgans ( talk) 29 October 2012 (UTC)
The result was Speedy delete. The article has been speedy deleted as A7 by User:Jimfbleak. (non-admin closure) SwisterTwister talk 17:24, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
I think so far as it seems this is self-promotion (written by Subhasom himself). It fails criteria for notability. Mr T (Talk?) (New thread?) 13:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to List_of_minor_planets:_40001-41000#201. Mark Arsten ( talk) 00:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Article adds nothing beyond what the associated List of minor planets: 40001–41000 already gives, nothing in the article establishes notability and I was unable to find any reason why this particular minor planet is notable. ReformedArsenal ( talk) 13:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 15:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Non- notable author. Three books, which have received notice in some minor blogs. Awards listed are of questionable notability and dubious verifiability. (The USA Book News award is only verifiable through a Google Docs document of unknown authorship -- the website itself does not list awardees.) WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 13:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 15:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The topic David J. Strachman stems from WP:ONEEVENT - the Murder of Yaron and Efrat Ungar. The information on that murder and its aftermath can be sufficiently covered in the Murder of Yaron and Efrat Ungar article. The source information available on Mr. Strachman is not a written account of Strachman's life - e.g., it's not about his early life or career. Rather, the available source information on Mr. Strachman details some of the cases he has had as an attorney, primarily the lawsuit where he represented the Ungar estate. The first AfD was close because the nomination was based on security/safety of David J. Strachman. [24] However, as a biography, the Strachman biography topic does not meet WP:GNG and source information on the Strachman topic can be covered in the Murder of Yaron and Efrat Ungar article. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 12:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 01:34, 31 October 2012 (UTC) reply
I am the original author of this article and I would like to make the case for its deletion. First, if Professor Levendusky is notable and truly meets the criteria for Wikipedia, it suggests that nearly all professors are notable. This standard seems untenable. Second, Professor Levendusky is not, in fact, a public personality. He does not do TV or radio and his work is not discussed widely outside the confines of peer reviewed political science journals. In that way, I do not believe that he is a "publicly known personality". If that changes, I would be happy to put the page back up. in the meantime, however, I think it is better to be safe and take it down. Third, as the original author of the page and the person that has done the most research on Professor Levendusky, I am very familiar with his work and feel extremely comfortable with this recommendation. Greg Kite ( talk) 12:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:34, 31 October 2012 (UTC) reply
No claims of importance can be seen in the article. The references are just passing mentions
Anbu121 (
talk me)
11:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
reply
On the talk page of Axel Scherer (engineer) [25] there are some arguments and more links Kiu77 ( talk) 12:55, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was Snow Delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 17:09, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply
As noted in the Homeopathy article (already a redirect from Nosodes), the term "nosodes" just refers to any homeopathic remedy derived from disease-related material. The Homeopathy page is the right place for dealing with these pseudoscientific concoctions that are actually water. Any therapeutic claim requires support from reliable medical sources ( WP:MEDRS), which are completely lacking [27] [28] (current content is based on a primary study [29] which does not meet WP:MEDRS). This article's subject is otherwise non-notable, and inclusion provides undue weight for quackery. MistyMorn ( talk) 11:07, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 15:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply
PROD contested on grounds that this player had played in a professional league in Cyprus; however, that claim remains unverified and I cannot find any sources which prove this player meets either WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:42, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was Snow Delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 17:10, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply
There is no evidence in the article that he has played in a fully professional league, thus failing WP:NFOOTBALL. Do we keep the article until such time or delete it? Gbawden ( talk) 08:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to West Coast, Singapore#Education. Mark Arsten ( talk) 00:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Convention with schools such as this primary school is that they do not generally warrant a stand-alone article, per
WP:OUTCOMES. Appears to be another random, non-notable school, given the lack of substantial multiple coverage in reliable sauces sources in google news and google books. It does exist, and has run-of-the-mill coverage, but that does not suffice. Also see
this.
Bonkers The Clown (
talk)
08:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
reply
The result was Withdrawn Toddst1 ( talk) 12:26, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Non-notable book, failling WP:BKCRIT Toddst1 ( talk) 04:39, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:35, 31 October 2012 (UTC) reply
I dont think this phrase is notable, and is apparently just a corporate phrase used to cover the field of support services for business growth. the main book is [58], which is Wikipedia articles. NONE of the weblinks reference the phrase (except the 2 i added). If someone can find this phrase critiqued or mentioned outside job ads in the Economist, et al, bring it forward. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 02:48, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 01:35, 31 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Doesn't come close to passing GNG. Name really doesn't google. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 03:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Spinning Spark 17:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply
This is not an article, it's a résumé or CV. It appears to have been created by a single-issue editor—only this man and one of the products he worked on—perhaps in an effort to drive traffic (work) to an individual working as a consultant. Mr. Pfefferle appears to have been a prolific inventor in his field, and the "Professional career" section includes links (of dubious permissibility) to the companies where he's worked, but there is zero support for any of the glowing praise for the man, nor is there evidence of notability as we define it on Wikipedia. — Scheinwerfermann T· C 13:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete, without prejudice to recreation if further reliable sources are forthcoming. Claims were made that offline sources exist, but these have not been identified either here or in the articles. I will undelete on request if sources are available. Spinning Spark 16:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply
I'm nominating two entries, neither of which have any or enough reliable sources to show that these books pass WP:NBOOK. Not Just Fate has one sole link whereas Suicide at Seventeen has none. The original sources on the articles were not usable as reliable sources, being linked primarily to unreliable sites such as personal blogs, mass review sites such as FlipKart, YouTube pages of the author, and sites where people can submit their own articles to be published. A search did not bring up anything that showed that either book passes notability guidelines. Since these books were published in India, I'm open to the idea that there might be foreign language sources but given the limited amount of chatter for the authors I'm somewhat doubting it. PROD removed by article creator. Tokyogirl79 ( talk) 11:09, 30 September 2012 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages for the reasons listed above: reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 18:09, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 17:00, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply
No evidence of notability. Creator has admitted (by e-mail) their COI. Prod removed with: "this is a new Java framework announced at the recent JavaOne 2012 conference". To which I simply say, "so what". — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 15:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 18:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply
A real estate broker who has been in the business for four years. She founded her own firm two years ago. Article says, "Her innovative business model won her national, state, and local acclaim" The national ref is an interview, state ref doesn't mention her and the local ref magazine allows people to pay to get an article about themselves or company. Article is nothing but an advertisement. Bgwhite ( talk) 22:09, 15 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Mark Arsten ( talk) 00:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply
An actor. The article was deleted before via an AfD. Article was re-created and the speedy was declined for, "not the same article, previous discussion doesn't seem to apply, given increased sourcing". One ref in the article is about a hit-in-run accident he was in. One ref is about the father and the movie, not about Kohli. Other ref is short and about the father "re-launching" his son's career. The relaunch didn't work. Most of the parts were not the leads as far as I can tell. Unable to find any independent, reliable refs that don't involve his car accident. Bgwhite ( talk) 22:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was DELETE. postdlf ( talk) 22:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:DISCRIMINATE and WP:GNG as being an unsourced, collection of bands that played at Edgefest. Any notable performances (and possibly headliners) can be worked into the main article, but a list of all bands that have ever played is, and likely never will be, encyclopedic. Ravendrop 23:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted by User:CactusWriter under criterion G12. (Non-admin closure) " Pepper" @ 10:46, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Reason ProjectXRay ( talk) 23:56, 22 October 2012 (UTC) The sole source for this article is a website: http://snowhillhistoricalsociety.wordpress.com/ reply
The text on this Wikipedia page is copied verbatim from a page on the site: http://snowhillhistoricalsociety.wordpress.com/the-snow-hill-massacre/
The site, although supposedly that of 'Snow Hill Historical Society' only contains an account of the supposed massacre and it's background and aftermath. Googling this supposed massacre only supplies links to this Wikipedia page the afformentioned 'Snow Hill Historical Society,' and pages dedicated to the 1968 'Spaghetti Western' 'The Great Silence'. (which features a massacre at a Utah 'Snow Hill' as part of the plot).
The site: http://snowhillhistoricalsociety.wordpress.com/ contains, as part of the story a doctored version of the British Music Hall poster featured on Wikimedia Commons, with one of the so-called massacre protagonists' name 'Mr Josiah Savage' inserted in to it (in place of the original name 'Mr John Douglass') as proprietor, and the theatre's location changed from 'Shoreditch' to 'Smithfield' (alleged location of the fictitious gangsters' lair).
The original image can be viewed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1867_NationalStandardTheatre.jpg
The doctored version can be viewed here: http://snowhillhistoricalsociety.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/national_standard_smithfield1.jpg
Googling the web address: http://snowhillhistoricalsociety.wordpress.com/ brings up several references to it being suspected to be fake. So far I've been unable to find any evidence supporting this supposed event ever occuring,despite the fact it allegedly concerns one of the most violent mass-murders ever to have occurred in the city of London, alledgedly occurring in a crowded marketplace in front of many witnesses, with all eight bodies recovered by the police. The original source website for this article goes on to say that there was a riot directed against the alleged perpetrators of the crime on Friday 18th November 1887 (see: http://snowhillhistoricalsociety.wordpress.com/the-return-of-cutter-savage/ ) which apparently resulted in at least 23 deaths. I have been unable to find any evidence whatsoever of this riot, although there is substantial evidence for the 1887 'Bloody Sunday' riot in London on November 13th of the same year, which was notorious for the killing of only THREE protesters against coercion in Ireland. No article I've seen about the 13/11/1887 'Bloody Sunday' riots makes any reference to any subsequent riots the same week.
In short: This article on the 'Snow Hill Massacre' seems to be too good to be true because IT IS! Believe me, I was intrigued when I first read it and believed it to be true, but the moment I scratched the surface, it became obvious it was a hoax. There's no evidence to support it, and quite clear evidence of materials having been doctored in order to provide fallacious evidence to support a false story. I don't know the motive behind this hoax but it's definitely fake. There never was a 'Snow Hill Massacre' (ProjectXRay (talk) 00:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
The result was KEEP, WP:SNOW. postdlf ( talk) 22:49, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Can be replaced by a category— Preceding unsigned comment added by Professorjohnas ( talk • contribs)