The result was redirect to Donald Trump#Personal life. J04n( talk page) 00:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
Notability is not inherited. Her minimal career does not establish any sort of notability independent of her famous father (and her less-famous mother), and the most extensive previous version of the BLP (which was deleted for copyvio) didn't do anything to advance the idea that she met the notability threshold. (The copyvio was from The Frisky, which doesn't inspire confidence.) Horologium (talk) 22:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Jarboe. J04n( talk page) 00:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply
I earlier deleted this on speedy A9 as it appears the group had no WP article and there was nothing asserted here indicating notability . It has recently been re-created, and I see one of the artists has an article, so I do not know how to interpret the speedy criterion. I send it here, as this is one of the fields where I am not sufficiently knowledgable to proceed further. DGG ( talk ) 22:22, 23 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
non-notable company. can't see article for the spam. There may be a notable article under the advert, but I couldn't verify it, with what I could verify wasn't in the source. Widefox; talk 22:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. J04n( talk page) 01:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
Non-notable new journal established in 2012. Too young to have become notable yet. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Article creation vastly premature. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJOURNALS. Randykitty ( talk) 21:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. J04n( talk page) 01:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:NMMA with no top tier fights and has the usual routine sports coverage. Mdtemp ( talk) 21:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Psychotronics. J04n( talk page) 01:16, 7 May 2013 (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}} . |
POV fork from Psychotronics. Editor engaged in edit warring on both articles to add original research based on sources which don't mention psychotronics at all or do not support the cited facts. Posting on AFD in the hope of a community decision which would lead an uninvolved admin to redirect and lock article. GDallimore ( Talk) 20:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC) reply
Collapsing off-topic discussion of "whether or not psychotronic weapons exist". Take it to Article Talk LuckyLouie ( talk) 23:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC) reply |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
The result was delete. J04n( talk page) 01:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
Fails to meet WP:NMMA with no top tier fights and the coverage is routine--sherdog, the fight promotion, etc. Mdtemp ( talk) 20:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. J04n( talk page) 12:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
One top tier fight (a loss) and a second tier championship is not enough to meet WP:NMMA and he lacks non-routine coverage. Mdtemp ( talk) 20:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. J04n( talk page) 01:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
Has only 1 top tier MMA fight and coverage appears to be routine sports reporting so he fails both WP:NMMA and WP:GNG. Mdtemp ( talk) 20:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. J04n( talk page) 01:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
Not notable - no evidence given in article of notability. Artiquities ( talk) 20:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy resolved and closed per WP:TWODABS bd2412 T 02:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC) reply
User:Peter coxhead and I agree that my move of the page Cooksonia to Cooksonia (plant) was not a good one due to the number of links to the first page and the number of visitors compared to the alternative Cooksonia (butterfly). Therefore please delete Cooksonia disamb. JMK ( talk) 19:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. J04n( talk page) 01:37, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
I am not sure of the notability of this article, with some of its content being pure advertising and part of it consumer complaints. DGG ( talk ) 19:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. J04n( talk page) 01:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
I suspect WP:COI issues. 2 conference papers, 1 further paper, but otherwise no idnciation of significance. Barney the barney barney ( talk) 16:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC) Barney the barney barney ( talk) 16:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. J04n( talk page) 00:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:GNG Darkness Shines ( talk) 16:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. J04n( talk page) 00:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply
I'm not convinced that this organization has sufficient in-depth coverage in reliable sources to meet our notability requirements. Of the sixteen citations provided, nearly all of them are either to primary sources (i.e., the Flag Institute itself or those closely affiliated with it) or don't discuss the Flag Institute at all. There are only two sources which are independent, reliable, and actually mention the Institute, but even in those two the coverage is extremely scant. See the collapsed section for a full citation-by-citation analysis.
Extended content
|
---|
|
The result was speedy keep. Dea db eef 21:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, inadequate referencing. References weren't improved and are still not independent nor reliable. The previous discussion called for material to be added, which wasn't, thus the article stands as a mere stub with no notability besides number of downloads, which is not a notability claim per se. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 12:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep. WP:SNOW ( non-admin closure) Mkdw talk 01:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
The article purports to describe a legend concerning a hypothetical native American people, however is weakly sourced. There may indeed be Cherokee legend concerning the "moon-eyed people" however all we have to go on is a few odd mentions which all ultimately seem to be based on the exact same source - a mention these people in 1797. I'm sure we all agree that not every nugget of folklore is WP:N - and given the lack of substantial coverage of this story I think we are far below the threshold of notability at the moment. Salimfadhley ( talk) 12:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC Comment - this article was recently the subject of a discussion on WP:FTN. -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 12:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC) reply
Keep: Certainly seems to have a couple of reliable academic articles on it. Don't know why we would require more than that. Peregrine981 ( talk) 15:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC) reply
{{
cite book}}
: |work=
ignored (
help) at
Internet Archive
7&6=thirteen (
☎) 19:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
replyThe result was delete. This was a tough close. Numbers-wise it is fairly even but the deletion arguments are stronger and more policy based. J04n( talk page) 00:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply
per WP:directory- see comments on Victoria list Crusoe8181 ( talk) 11:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. J04n( talk page) 00:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply
per WP:Directory- see comments on Victoria list Crusoe8181 ( talk) 11:03, 23 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. J04n( talk page) 00:53, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply
per WP:Directory- see comments on Victoria list Crusoe8181 ( talk) 11:02, 23 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. J04n( talk page) 00:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply
per WP:Directory- see comments on Victoria list Crusoe8181 ( talk) 11:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. J04n( talk page) 00:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply
per WP:Directory- see comments on Victoria list Crusoe8181 ( talk) 11:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. J04n( talk page) 00:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply
per WP:Directory - see comments on Victoria list Crusoe8181 ( talk) 10:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. J04n( talk page) 00:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply
Wp:directory- see comments on Victoria lis Crusoe8181 ( talk) 10:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. J04n( talk page) 00:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply
per WP:Directory. Australia Post maintains a correct list of postcodes. We have an incorrect list of no particular use with no added information and of no benefit to our readership, and we are providing possible incorrect info to those who come here thinking we are a directory. Crusoe8181 ( talk) 10:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 15:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
See first nomination. Non-notable sports season, per WP:ROUTINE and WP:CFBSEASON. Edge3 ( talk) 00:54, 16 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. J04n( talk page) 00:59, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply
As with the prod, "It is an online message board with no coverage in other sources". A search found no better sources. duffbeerforme ( talk) 10:57, 30 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. J04n( talk page) 01:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply
As with the prod, " spam from Voidz. non notable web series, lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. mix of non mentions, passing mentions, pr and non reliable sources" and prod2, This is just WP:TOOSOON for this to have an article. The mention in the NYT is a brief mention and none of the other sources are really the type that are usable as RS. None of the awards seem to be of the type that would extend notability either. Userfication is an option if anyone wants to do it, but I think that this is just too soon for an article." [6]. Prod removed without improvement. duffbeerforme ( talk) 10:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. J04n( talk page) 01:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply
spam from Voidz. non notable thing, lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. the blog referenced is not a reliable sources. Not enough to support this original research. Prod removed without improvement. duffbeerforme ( talk) 10:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) czar · · 17:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. The is a work of synthesis not directly supported by the sourcing. The sourcing supports associated aspects and they are bought together in this work. Created by a SPA who's purpose appears to be to introduce research by the team behind RecycleBot into Wikipedia, in this case refs 7 and 10. duffbeerforme ( talk) 10:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Mascot#Corporate mascots . The history will remain in case anyone wants to merge any of it. J04n( talk page) 01:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply
This is just an agglomeration of two ordinary English words; it is not a distinct subject in itself, despite the multitude of cruft-laden lists that support it. Not every list article needs a parent on the subject. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) ( talk) 09:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. J04n( talk page) 01:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply
No independent sources, not indexed in any selective major databases (GS aims to cover everything and is not selective). Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty ( talk) 08:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. J04n( talk page) 01:10, 8 May 2013 (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}} . |
Could not find a reliable source talking about subject. Fails Notability, possible WP:ARTSPAM Evano1van ( talk) 07:41, 19 April 2013 (UTC) reply
We are trying to establish WP:NOTABILITY – please follow the link to find out about what that means. For notability, we need "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and, if we cannot establish notability, then there cannot be an article. It's almost impossible to demonstrate notability using blogs so pointing out more and more blog articles almost certainly won't make a difference: we need something in the mainstream media, in a book or something like that. Dricherby ( talk) 07:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. J04n( talk page) 01:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply
With prior discussions in 2007 and 2008, this was turned into a redirect in October 2012. It was nominated at RfD, where consensus was to revert to an article and give it a go here at AfD to debate its merit. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 06:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete housekeeping non-admin closure: 06:10, 30 April 2013 Jimfbleak (talk | contribs) deleted page Omar Borkan AL Gala (A7: No explanation of significance (real person/animal/organization/web content/organized event): Essay, original research, no independent sources) czar · · 06:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC) reply
WP:BLP1E Tentinator 05:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep. SK#2: nom was banned for sockpuppet disruption relating to this article, and no one else has recommended deletion. ( non-admin closure) czar · · 15:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC) reply
Since the day of its creation this article has been flagged for being written like an advertisement. The page is acting as a propaganda tool to promote the institution's self interest and not supply reliable information on the institution itself. The article's contents are not sourced and are rather irrelevant, especially before recent edits. The institution the page is based around is not an important part of the city or something frequently searched for and thereby is unworthy of having a Wikipedia article based upon it. Lastly, this article contains literally three lines of text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Free6om ( talk • contribs) 05:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Black Kite ( talk) 06:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC) reply
Request per subject, self-assertion of non-notability. VRTS ticket # 2013042910008353 L Faraone 02:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC) reply
Zad
68
01:51, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
reply
Zad
68
15:30, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
replyThe result was : Speedy/ snowball deletion, not notable, self-promotion. - Mike Rosoft ( talk) 15:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC) reply
Non-notable novel by non-notable author. — teb728 t c 02:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination ( non-admin closure) czar · · 02:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
The given sources, I feel, are not enough to establish the topic's notability. I also think that just because of the fact that a person gave an "outstanding performance" on something does not make it appropriate to have a Wikipedia article on him/her. smtchahal (talk) 06:37, 16 April 2013 (UTC) reply
Comment The current references is the article include at least two in-depth articles substantially about the subject from apparently reliable sources (the Sunday Nation and The Standard (Kenya)). As both have clearly been occasioned by the subject's participation in a recent high-profile political court case, there may be some BLP1E issues - but at least one of the articles seems to state that the subject has also taken part in some previous high-profile cases. If these can be further substantiated from reliable sources, then the BLP1E issues would no longer apply and the article should then be kept. PWilkinson ( talk) 21:43, 27 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. J04n( talk page) 01:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply
I deleted an earlier more promotional version of this; though not my subject, I do not see what is asserted that shows notability. The recordings seem all still to be released. DGG ( talk ) 22:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Beeblebrox ( talk) 18:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC) reply
Appears to be an undrafted player who played in the NBA Development League and in the USBL. Appears to fail all three points of WP:NHOOPS. No other indication of notability. PROD declined without explanation by an IP that is likely the article creator. Safiel ( talk) 15:03, 23 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. J04n( talk page) 11:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply
Neither the article itself nor anything else that I can find gives any evidence that this subject satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines.
The references in the "references" section are as follows. (1) A link to www.worldpeaceflame.org, which is clearly not an independent source. (2) A dead link. (3) A report about a man who committed suicide after contact with a cult called "the Life Foundation". The article is not substantially about the "World peace flame". It does briefly mention a flame, not referred to as "the World peace flame", which it said had been burning for 28 years at the time of the article (19 November 2006) meaning that the flame in question had been burning since 1978, whereas the article says that the World peace flame has been burning since July 1999. It is therefore unclear that it is the same flame, but even if it is, the report does not constitute substantial coverage.
In addition to those references listed in the "references" section, there are ten inline external links. These are all about the organisation behind the flame, not the flame itself: only two of them even mention the flame, and those two don't give it substantial coverage. Three of them are links to Wikipedia pages.
(Note: A PROD was removed without any explanation by an IP editor all of whose recent edits have been on the topic of the organisation responsible for this "flame".) JamesBWatson ( talk) 11:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links to create a new discussion page using the name format of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination). When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->
The result was redirect to Jane by Design#Recurring cast . J04n( talk page) 11:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply
Self-promotional page without evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines, created by a user named Bryan Dechart. The references are substanially non-reliable (e.g. Wikia, IMDb) or non-independent (e.g. a page on the web site for a film he acted in, a page which describes its contents as "From the Press Release") or both. What is more, none of them gives substantial coverage to Bryan Dechart. Several of them do no more than list his name in a credit, and none of them gives more than two sentences of text about him. (A PROD was removed without explanation by an IP editor whose only other edit has been adding a Wikilink to this article into another article.) JamesBWatson ( talk) 14:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Jafeluv ( talk) 14:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
There is nothing about this article that infers notability. It fails WP:N/CA and WP:VICTIM. WWGB ( talk) 11:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. J04n( talk page) 11:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply
This was listed for Prod as " Effectively unreferenced article about a non-notable business, another international consulting and system integration company that specialises in Business Intelligence (BI), Customer Relationship Management (CRM), e-Business and Enterprise Information Management (EIM)... ( MEGO)."
Before we delete a company that is in Euronext and has a p. on the frWP, I'd prefer to have a community decision. DGG ( talk ) 01:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was soft delete. J04n( talk page) 11:47, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply
I already nominated this page for deletion, but it did not generate much discussion, perhaps because I expressed my rationale too mildly. "Paris-Ouest" simply does not exist in any way (apart tha "Université Paris-Ouest" refeers to Paris X Nanterre (a rather working class neighborhood by the way, not really in accordance with what this article describes). Superzoulou ( talk) 08:22, 23 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Bihari people. J04n( talk page) 11:49, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply
Topic lacks in-depth coverage in secondary sources. Also the reliability of the claims in the article seems dubious (based on original research). Talked with the creator and gave what I think was an ample amount of time to come up with WP:RSes but all in vain. Mr T (Talk?) (New thread?) 08:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC) reply
Comment. A quick Google search turns up information that the Bhojpuri might be a segment of the Bihari. The only lengthy article that I could find came from an evangelical website, describing them repeatedly in the article as the "Bhojpuri Bihari". There's very little information on them out there, and a lot more about their language. The article here on Wikipedia describing the Bihari also includes Bhojpuri speakers among them. If they're not an independent group of people, though, and are a distinctive segment of the Bihari, then I would definitely suggest a delete on the page, with information about the cultural distinctions common to Bhojpuri speakers on the Bihari page. Chri$topher 19:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete-- Ymblanter ( talk) 06:58, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMEDIA. Only reference is the IMDB page about the production company. Cabe 6403 ( Talk• Sign) 15:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. J04n( talk page) 03:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC) reply
Completing nomination for Fivestarfluff, whose rationale was posted at the original AFD ( here), and is included verbatim below. This appears to be the second AFD on this subject. On the merits, I have no opinion. Note that I'm transcluding this on 22 April, so I'd ask the closing admin to proceed accordingly (and ignore the 20 April date on the nomination below). Thanks. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC) reply
Fails wp:bio has been nominated several times before but nothing seemed to happen. Advertising as others have mentioned. WP:BASIC has not been met and sources include blogs that lack fact checking. Stevies only possible reference but not enough for "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" Fivestarfluff ( talk) 16:18, 20 April 2013 (UTC) reply
New to this editing thing so forgive me if I'm flunking protocols by posting this, but found this delete notice when I looked Clarke up after hearing her on CBC radio today, and I was rather shocked by the thought it would be removed. I think she's at least as notable if not more than say, Olav Klokk, who came up in my random article link press! Even if the Americans on here don't know the Canadian media outlets noted are a big deal, surely the webby honour counts for something? - Bob — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.162.75.254 ( talk) 23:46, 22 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Mkdw talk 01:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
There is no evidence of notability. The sources given as "references" are all by Jeffrey St. Clair, not about him, but there are several "external links", which should be considered as references. One of those is an archived copy of an advertisement for a recording of a speech by Jeffrey St. Clair; others are certainly not independent sources, namely pages at socialistworker.org, www.pressaction.com and www.lewrockwell.com; one is a mere listing of articles by Jeffrey St. Clair. The only independent source, a review at www.nytimes.com, is mainly a book by another author, and merely mentions a book by St. Clair in a few sentences. The article was previously discussed in April 2007 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey St. Clair, where the reason for the nomination was that the article was completely unsourced, and the nominator withdrew when sources were provided. However, as I have indicated, those sources are not enough to show notability, and, whatever may have been the case six years ago, standards of sourcing are now much higher than those achieved in this article. JamesBWatson ( talk) 13:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination ( non-admin closure) czar · · 02:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
Non-notable businessperson Orange Mike | Talk 01:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. If anyone feels that there was WP:MEDRS-compliant content that needs to be merged into stem-cell therapy where the topic can be adequate covered I will email the deleted text for such use. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 14:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC) reply
Topic is already dealt with at stem cell therapy. Redirect there. No proper refs here. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC) reply
"Regeneration therapy is a therapy for stimulating the regrowth of an amputated or destroyed body part"isn't a medical claim needs to find out how to use an English dictionary. -- RexxS ( talk) 00:41, 27 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Wizardman 15:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
Subject fails WP:NGRIDIRON. Deadbeef (talk) 03:26, 20 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:23, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
Non-notable actress at this time with her only best known role being Young and the Restless as Abby Carlton for two years. There isn't any evidence to suggest she has won any awards (not even a Young Artist Award). Google News searches for some of the notable TV shows show minor mentions through episode listings (such as The Futon Critic) and other non-substantial links. I also found a Hollywood Reporter article about her here (requires subscription, but looking through a reprint, it doesn't seem to be substantial) and a blog here which provides some more details but nothing much. In 2010, she received attention for being casted in a MTV pilot Patito Feo but it doesn't seem to have aired. There are links for attending a dinner party with other Young and the Restless co-stars but it seems it only happened once. Even Emma Degerstedt (I saved this article from deletion) has won two Young Artist Awards for a TV show and her career is shorter. She's a young cute girl so I'm sure she'll have more work in the future so I have no objection towards userfying or a future article when she becomes notable. SwisterTwister talk 00:26, 5 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. J04n( talk page) 03:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC) reply
Article says there is no evidence they work, yet says they work. Article is constructed by a synthesis of different papers to this topic. Does not pass WP:GNG. Sources like this: [18] are about treating specific medical conditions, they do not support whether or not danazol works on the general public as a breast size reducer. The article is synthesising papers like this into the subject IRWolfie- ( talk) 11:32, 20 April 2013 (UTC) reply
Zad
68
14:29, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
replyThe result was delete. Black Kite ( talk) 06:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC) reply
University student society that does not meet WP:GNG. If relevant, I am the Vice President of the society currently, and still see no reason for the article. Samwalton9 ( talk) 23:05, 20 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 00:27, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
There's nothing that establish notability for inclusion. Searches basically point to two things, an organization to which the topic is affliated with and a bibliography of his books. Neither determines notability. Cold Season ( talk) 00:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Donald Trump#Personal life. J04n( talk page) 00:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
Notability is not inherited. Her minimal career does not establish any sort of notability independent of her famous father (and her less-famous mother), and the most extensive previous version of the BLP (which was deleted for copyvio) didn't do anything to advance the idea that she met the notability threshold. (The copyvio was from The Frisky, which doesn't inspire confidence.) Horologium (talk) 22:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Jarboe. J04n( talk page) 00:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply
I earlier deleted this on speedy A9 as it appears the group had no WP article and there was nothing asserted here indicating notability . It has recently been re-created, and I see one of the artists has an article, so I do not know how to interpret the speedy criterion. I send it here, as this is one of the fields where I am not sufficiently knowledgable to proceed further. DGG ( talk ) 22:22, 23 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
non-notable company. can't see article for the spam. There may be a notable article under the advert, but I couldn't verify it, with what I could verify wasn't in the source. Widefox; talk 22:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. J04n( talk page) 01:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
Non-notable new journal established in 2012. Too young to have become notable yet. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Article creation vastly premature. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJOURNALS. Randykitty ( talk) 21:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. J04n( talk page) 01:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:NMMA with no top tier fights and has the usual routine sports coverage. Mdtemp ( talk) 21:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Psychotronics. J04n( talk page) 01:16, 7 May 2013 (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}} . |
POV fork from Psychotronics. Editor engaged in edit warring on both articles to add original research based on sources which don't mention psychotronics at all or do not support the cited facts. Posting on AFD in the hope of a community decision which would lead an uninvolved admin to redirect and lock article. GDallimore ( Talk) 20:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC) reply
Collapsing off-topic discussion of "whether or not psychotronic weapons exist". Take it to Article Talk LuckyLouie ( talk) 23:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC) reply |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
The result was delete. J04n( talk page) 01:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
Fails to meet WP:NMMA with no top tier fights and the coverage is routine--sherdog, the fight promotion, etc. Mdtemp ( talk) 20:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. J04n( talk page) 12:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
One top tier fight (a loss) and a second tier championship is not enough to meet WP:NMMA and he lacks non-routine coverage. Mdtemp ( talk) 20:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. J04n( talk page) 01:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
Has only 1 top tier MMA fight and coverage appears to be routine sports reporting so he fails both WP:NMMA and WP:GNG. Mdtemp ( talk) 20:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. J04n( talk page) 01:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
Not notable - no evidence given in article of notability. Artiquities ( talk) 20:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy resolved and closed per WP:TWODABS bd2412 T 02:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC) reply
User:Peter coxhead and I agree that my move of the page Cooksonia to Cooksonia (plant) was not a good one due to the number of links to the first page and the number of visitors compared to the alternative Cooksonia (butterfly). Therefore please delete Cooksonia disamb. JMK ( talk) 19:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. J04n( talk page) 01:37, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
I am not sure of the notability of this article, with some of its content being pure advertising and part of it consumer complaints. DGG ( talk ) 19:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. J04n( talk page) 01:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
I suspect WP:COI issues. 2 conference papers, 1 further paper, but otherwise no idnciation of significance. Barney the barney barney ( talk) 16:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC) Barney the barney barney ( talk) 16:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. J04n( talk page) 00:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:GNG Darkness Shines ( talk) 16:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. J04n( talk page) 00:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply
I'm not convinced that this organization has sufficient in-depth coverage in reliable sources to meet our notability requirements. Of the sixteen citations provided, nearly all of them are either to primary sources (i.e., the Flag Institute itself or those closely affiliated with it) or don't discuss the Flag Institute at all. There are only two sources which are independent, reliable, and actually mention the Institute, but even in those two the coverage is extremely scant. See the collapsed section for a full citation-by-citation analysis.
Extended content
|
---|
|
The result was speedy keep. Dea db eef 21:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, inadequate referencing. References weren't improved and are still not independent nor reliable. The previous discussion called for material to be added, which wasn't, thus the article stands as a mere stub with no notability besides number of downloads, which is not a notability claim per se. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 12:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep. WP:SNOW ( non-admin closure) Mkdw talk 01:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
The article purports to describe a legend concerning a hypothetical native American people, however is weakly sourced. There may indeed be Cherokee legend concerning the "moon-eyed people" however all we have to go on is a few odd mentions which all ultimately seem to be based on the exact same source - a mention these people in 1797. I'm sure we all agree that not every nugget of folklore is WP:N - and given the lack of substantial coverage of this story I think we are far below the threshold of notability at the moment. Salimfadhley ( talk) 12:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC Comment - this article was recently the subject of a discussion on WP:FTN. -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 12:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC) reply
Keep: Certainly seems to have a couple of reliable academic articles on it. Don't know why we would require more than that. Peregrine981 ( talk) 15:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC) reply
{{
cite book}}
: |work=
ignored (
help) at
Internet Archive
7&6=thirteen (
☎) 19:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
replyThe result was delete. This was a tough close. Numbers-wise it is fairly even but the deletion arguments are stronger and more policy based. J04n( talk page) 00:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply
per WP:directory- see comments on Victoria list Crusoe8181 ( talk) 11:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. J04n( talk page) 00:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply
per WP:Directory- see comments on Victoria list Crusoe8181 ( talk) 11:03, 23 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. J04n( talk page) 00:53, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply
per WP:Directory- see comments on Victoria list Crusoe8181 ( talk) 11:02, 23 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. J04n( talk page) 00:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply
per WP:Directory- see comments on Victoria list Crusoe8181 ( talk) 11:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. J04n( talk page) 00:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply
per WP:Directory- see comments on Victoria list Crusoe8181 ( talk) 11:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. J04n( talk page) 00:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply
per WP:Directory - see comments on Victoria list Crusoe8181 ( talk) 10:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. J04n( talk page) 00:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply
Wp:directory- see comments on Victoria lis Crusoe8181 ( talk) 10:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. J04n( talk page) 00:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply
per WP:Directory. Australia Post maintains a correct list of postcodes. We have an incorrect list of no particular use with no added information and of no benefit to our readership, and we are providing possible incorrect info to those who come here thinking we are a directory. Crusoe8181 ( talk) 10:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 15:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
See first nomination. Non-notable sports season, per WP:ROUTINE and WP:CFBSEASON. Edge3 ( talk) 00:54, 16 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. J04n( talk page) 00:59, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply
As with the prod, "It is an online message board with no coverage in other sources". A search found no better sources. duffbeerforme ( talk) 10:57, 30 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. J04n( talk page) 01:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply
As with the prod, " spam from Voidz. non notable web series, lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. mix of non mentions, passing mentions, pr and non reliable sources" and prod2, This is just WP:TOOSOON for this to have an article. The mention in the NYT is a brief mention and none of the other sources are really the type that are usable as RS. None of the awards seem to be of the type that would extend notability either. Userfication is an option if anyone wants to do it, but I think that this is just too soon for an article." [6]. Prod removed without improvement. duffbeerforme ( talk) 10:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. J04n( talk page) 01:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply
spam from Voidz. non notable thing, lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. the blog referenced is not a reliable sources. Not enough to support this original research. Prod removed without improvement. duffbeerforme ( talk) 10:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) czar · · 17:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. The is a work of synthesis not directly supported by the sourcing. The sourcing supports associated aspects and they are bought together in this work. Created by a SPA who's purpose appears to be to introduce research by the team behind RecycleBot into Wikipedia, in this case refs 7 and 10. duffbeerforme ( talk) 10:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Mascot#Corporate mascots . The history will remain in case anyone wants to merge any of it. J04n( talk page) 01:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply
This is just an agglomeration of two ordinary English words; it is not a distinct subject in itself, despite the multitude of cruft-laden lists that support it. Not every list article needs a parent on the subject. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) ( talk) 09:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. J04n( talk page) 01:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply
No independent sources, not indexed in any selective major databases (GS aims to cover everything and is not selective). Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty ( talk) 08:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. J04n( talk page) 01:10, 8 May 2013 (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}} . |
Could not find a reliable source talking about subject. Fails Notability, possible WP:ARTSPAM Evano1van ( talk) 07:41, 19 April 2013 (UTC) reply
We are trying to establish WP:NOTABILITY – please follow the link to find out about what that means. For notability, we need "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and, if we cannot establish notability, then there cannot be an article. It's almost impossible to demonstrate notability using blogs so pointing out more and more blog articles almost certainly won't make a difference: we need something in the mainstream media, in a book or something like that. Dricherby ( talk) 07:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. J04n( talk page) 01:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply
With prior discussions in 2007 and 2008, this was turned into a redirect in October 2012. It was nominated at RfD, where consensus was to revert to an article and give it a go here at AfD to debate its merit. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 06:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete housekeeping non-admin closure: 06:10, 30 April 2013 Jimfbleak (talk | contribs) deleted page Omar Borkan AL Gala (A7: No explanation of significance (real person/animal/organization/web content/organized event): Essay, original research, no independent sources) czar · · 06:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC) reply
WP:BLP1E Tentinator 05:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep. SK#2: nom was banned for sockpuppet disruption relating to this article, and no one else has recommended deletion. ( non-admin closure) czar · · 15:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC) reply
Since the day of its creation this article has been flagged for being written like an advertisement. The page is acting as a propaganda tool to promote the institution's self interest and not supply reliable information on the institution itself. The article's contents are not sourced and are rather irrelevant, especially before recent edits. The institution the page is based around is not an important part of the city or something frequently searched for and thereby is unworthy of having a Wikipedia article based upon it. Lastly, this article contains literally three lines of text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Free6om ( talk • contribs) 05:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Black Kite ( talk) 06:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC) reply
Request per subject, self-assertion of non-notability. VRTS ticket # 2013042910008353 L Faraone 02:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC) reply
Zad
68
01:51, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
reply
Zad
68
15:30, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
replyThe result was : Speedy/ snowball deletion, not notable, self-promotion. - Mike Rosoft ( talk) 15:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC) reply
Non-notable novel by non-notable author. — teb728 t c 02:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination ( non-admin closure) czar · · 02:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
The given sources, I feel, are not enough to establish the topic's notability. I also think that just because of the fact that a person gave an "outstanding performance" on something does not make it appropriate to have a Wikipedia article on him/her. smtchahal (talk) 06:37, 16 April 2013 (UTC) reply
Comment The current references is the article include at least two in-depth articles substantially about the subject from apparently reliable sources (the Sunday Nation and The Standard (Kenya)). As both have clearly been occasioned by the subject's participation in a recent high-profile political court case, there may be some BLP1E issues - but at least one of the articles seems to state that the subject has also taken part in some previous high-profile cases. If these can be further substantiated from reliable sources, then the BLP1E issues would no longer apply and the article should then be kept. PWilkinson ( talk) 21:43, 27 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. J04n( talk page) 01:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply
I deleted an earlier more promotional version of this; though not my subject, I do not see what is asserted that shows notability. The recordings seem all still to be released. DGG ( talk ) 22:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Beeblebrox ( talk) 18:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC) reply
Appears to be an undrafted player who played in the NBA Development League and in the USBL. Appears to fail all three points of WP:NHOOPS. No other indication of notability. PROD declined without explanation by an IP that is likely the article creator. Safiel ( talk) 15:03, 23 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. J04n( talk page) 11:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply
Neither the article itself nor anything else that I can find gives any evidence that this subject satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines.
The references in the "references" section are as follows. (1) A link to www.worldpeaceflame.org, which is clearly not an independent source. (2) A dead link. (3) A report about a man who committed suicide after contact with a cult called "the Life Foundation". The article is not substantially about the "World peace flame". It does briefly mention a flame, not referred to as "the World peace flame", which it said had been burning for 28 years at the time of the article (19 November 2006) meaning that the flame in question had been burning since 1978, whereas the article says that the World peace flame has been burning since July 1999. It is therefore unclear that it is the same flame, but even if it is, the report does not constitute substantial coverage.
In addition to those references listed in the "references" section, there are ten inline external links. These are all about the organisation behind the flame, not the flame itself: only two of them even mention the flame, and those two don't give it substantial coverage. Three of them are links to Wikipedia pages.
(Note: A PROD was removed without any explanation by an IP editor all of whose recent edits have been on the topic of the organisation responsible for this "flame".) JamesBWatson ( talk) 11:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links to create a new discussion page using the name format of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination). When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->
The result was redirect to Jane by Design#Recurring cast . J04n( talk page) 11:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply
Self-promotional page without evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines, created by a user named Bryan Dechart. The references are substanially non-reliable (e.g. Wikia, IMDb) or non-independent (e.g. a page on the web site for a film he acted in, a page which describes its contents as "From the Press Release") or both. What is more, none of them gives substantial coverage to Bryan Dechart. Several of them do no more than list his name in a credit, and none of them gives more than two sentences of text about him. (A PROD was removed without explanation by an IP editor whose only other edit has been adding a Wikilink to this article into another article.) JamesBWatson ( talk) 14:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Jafeluv ( talk) 14:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
There is nothing about this article that infers notability. It fails WP:N/CA and WP:VICTIM. WWGB ( talk) 11:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. J04n( talk page) 11:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply
This was listed for Prod as " Effectively unreferenced article about a non-notable business, another international consulting and system integration company that specialises in Business Intelligence (BI), Customer Relationship Management (CRM), e-Business and Enterprise Information Management (EIM)... ( MEGO)."
Before we delete a company that is in Euronext and has a p. on the frWP, I'd prefer to have a community decision. DGG ( talk ) 01:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was soft delete. J04n( talk page) 11:47, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply
I already nominated this page for deletion, but it did not generate much discussion, perhaps because I expressed my rationale too mildly. "Paris-Ouest" simply does not exist in any way (apart tha "Université Paris-Ouest" refeers to Paris X Nanterre (a rather working class neighborhood by the way, not really in accordance with what this article describes). Superzoulou ( talk) 08:22, 23 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Bihari people. J04n( talk page) 11:49, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply
Topic lacks in-depth coverage in secondary sources. Also the reliability of the claims in the article seems dubious (based on original research). Talked with the creator and gave what I think was an ample amount of time to come up with WP:RSes but all in vain. Mr T (Talk?) (New thread?) 08:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC) reply
Comment. A quick Google search turns up information that the Bhojpuri might be a segment of the Bihari. The only lengthy article that I could find came from an evangelical website, describing them repeatedly in the article as the "Bhojpuri Bihari". There's very little information on them out there, and a lot more about their language. The article here on Wikipedia describing the Bihari also includes Bhojpuri speakers among them. If they're not an independent group of people, though, and are a distinctive segment of the Bihari, then I would definitely suggest a delete on the page, with information about the cultural distinctions common to Bhojpuri speakers on the Bihari page. Chri$topher 19:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete-- Ymblanter ( talk) 06:58, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMEDIA. Only reference is the IMDB page about the production company. Cabe 6403 ( Talk• Sign) 15:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. J04n( talk page) 03:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC) reply
Completing nomination for Fivestarfluff, whose rationale was posted at the original AFD ( here), and is included verbatim below. This appears to be the second AFD on this subject. On the merits, I have no opinion. Note that I'm transcluding this on 22 April, so I'd ask the closing admin to proceed accordingly (and ignore the 20 April date on the nomination below). Thanks. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC) reply
Fails wp:bio has been nominated several times before but nothing seemed to happen. Advertising as others have mentioned. WP:BASIC has not been met and sources include blogs that lack fact checking. Stevies only possible reference but not enough for "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" Fivestarfluff ( talk) 16:18, 20 April 2013 (UTC) reply
New to this editing thing so forgive me if I'm flunking protocols by posting this, but found this delete notice when I looked Clarke up after hearing her on CBC radio today, and I was rather shocked by the thought it would be removed. I think she's at least as notable if not more than say, Olav Klokk, who came up in my random article link press! Even if the Americans on here don't know the Canadian media outlets noted are a big deal, surely the webby honour counts for something? - Bob — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.162.75.254 ( talk) 23:46, 22 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Mkdw talk 01:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
There is no evidence of notability. The sources given as "references" are all by Jeffrey St. Clair, not about him, but there are several "external links", which should be considered as references. One of those is an archived copy of an advertisement for a recording of a speech by Jeffrey St. Clair; others are certainly not independent sources, namely pages at socialistworker.org, www.pressaction.com and www.lewrockwell.com; one is a mere listing of articles by Jeffrey St. Clair. The only independent source, a review at www.nytimes.com, is mainly a book by another author, and merely mentions a book by St. Clair in a few sentences. The article was previously discussed in April 2007 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey St. Clair, where the reason for the nomination was that the article was completely unsourced, and the nominator withdrew when sources were provided. However, as I have indicated, those sources are not enough to show notability, and, whatever may have been the case six years ago, standards of sourcing are now much higher than those achieved in this article. JamesBWatson ( talk) 13:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination ( non-admin closure) czar · · 02:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
Non-notable businessperson Orange Mike | Talk 01:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. If anyone feels that there was WP:MEDRS-compliant content that needs to be merged into stem-cell therapy where the topic can be adequate covered I will email the deleted text for such use. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 14:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC) reply
Topic is already dealt with at stem cell therapy. Redirect there. No proper refs here. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC) reply
"Regeneration therapy is a therapy for stimulating the regrowth of an amputated or destroyed body part"isn't a medical claim needs to find out how to use an English dictionary. -- RexxS ( talk) 00:41, 27 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Wizardman 15:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
Subject fails WP:NGRIDIRON. Deadbeef (talk) 03:26, 20 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:23, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
Non-notable actress at this time with her only best known role being Young and the Restless as Abby Carlton for two years. There isn't any evidence to suggest she has won any awards (not even a Young Artist Award). Google News searches for some of the notable TV shows show minor mentions through episode listings (such as The Futon Critic) and other non-substantial links. I also found a Hollywood Reporter article about her here (requires subscription, but looking through a reprint, it doesn't seem to be substantial) and a blog here which provides some more details but nothing much. In 2010, she received attention for being casted in a MTV pilot Patito Feo but it doesn't seem to have aired. There are links for attending a dinner party with other Young and the Restless co-stars but it seems it only happened once. Even Emma Degerstedt (I saved this article from deletion) has won two Young Artist Awards for a TV show and her career is shorter. She's a young cute girl so I'm sure she'll have more work in the future so I have no objection towards userfying or a future article when she becomes notable. SwisterTwister talk 00:26, 5 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. J04n( talk page) 03:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC) reply
Article says there is no evidence they work, yet says they work. Article is constructed by a synthesis of different papers to this topic. Does not pass WP:GNG. Sources like this: [18] are about treating specific medical conditions, they do not support whether or not danazol works on the general public as a breast size reducer. The article is synthesising papers like this into the subject IRWolfie- ( talk) 11:32, 20 April 2013 (UTC) reply
Zad
68
14:29, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
replyThe result was delete. Black Kite ( talk) 06:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC) reply
University student society that does not meet WP:GNG. If relevant, I am the Vice President of the society currently, and still see no reason for the article. Samwalton9 ( talk) 23:05, 20 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 00:27, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
There's nothing that establish notability for inclusion. Searches basically point to two things, an organization to which the topic is affliated with and a bibliography of his books. Neither determines notability. Cold Season ( talk) 00:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC) reply