![]() |
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 19:31, 17 August 2013 (UTC) reply
I found no significant coverage for this band. Fails WP:MUSIC. SL93 ( talk) 23:19, 10 August 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 16:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC) reply
I was not sure if I should have gone for CSD, but the subject looks non-notable. There are close to 1000 colleges in Tamil Nadu alone, being chairman (owning one) doesn't make one notable. Evano1van( எவனோ ஓருவன்) 09:40, 26 July 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Consensus that the general notability guideline is met. ( non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 23:33, 16 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Trivial subject and about a non-notable person. Peleio Aquiles ( talk) 22:42, 10 August 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. postdlf ( talk) 19:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Player fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. PROD was denied by User:Elisfkc for the following reason: "Proposed deletion removed as he now is on loan to 1st division US MLS team, Sporting KC". However, that is not a good enough reason to remove the PROD. Medranda still needs to actually play in MLS before he becomes notable, which he has not done yet, and he clearly does not pass GNG. So the reason deletion still stands. ArsenalFan700 ( talk) 22:08, 10 August 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep per nominator's own withdrawal. Schmidt, Michael Q. 10:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC) reply
unsourced BLP The Banner talk 21:43, 10 August 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. Deleted elsewhere — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 02:09, 18 August 2013 (UTC) reply
There already is an article about this song: One and Only (Adele song), redirected to the album page. Mayast ( talk) 21:31, 10 August 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was all were speedy deleted by User:Qwyrxian per CSD G3, with the closing comment "Blatant hoax." (Non-administrator discussion closure.) Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:12, 11 August 2013 (UTC) reply
This is an article on a fictitious show. See WP:MADEUP Pleasehelp ( talk) 19:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex#Video games. Mark Arsten ( talk) 16:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC) reply
This recently created article just duplicates information found at Ghost in the Shell#Stand Alone Complex and Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex#Video games. It also previously featured a reference that pointed to a link that did not actually exist, representing the statement now identified with a {{ fact}} tag. There are not enough references and there is not enough information to support a separate article at this time. This needs to be turned into a redirect, preferrably to the Stand Alone Complex page. — Ryulong ( 琉竜) 14:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was deleted. Materialscientist ( talk) 12:26, 17 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Unsourced crystal bol The Banner talk 18:49, 10 August 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nominator withdrew, and no delete !votes are present. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000 (talk) 17:54, 14 August 2013 (UTC) reply
An editor has been unable to verify the existence of this village and has removed the co-ordinates on that basis. So I am proposing it for deletion by paraphrasing the question they left in their edit summary; "Does this village exist?" (see this diff) Fiddle Faddle 17:53, 10 August 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep. Nominator requests withdrawl after article was improved. ( non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 21:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC) reply
no major content, locations is not notable. -- Aunva6 talk - contribs 16:52, 10 August 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 19:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC) reply
This is an unreliably-sourced article about what appears to be a non-notable organization. Other than its own Web site, the only result on Google News was http://www.dotmed.com/news/story/21484/ . — rybec 15:49, 10 August 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 19:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC) reply
The first AfD was a wash (violation of topic ban) but that doesn't mean the article should stay. Yogesh Khandke argued at the AfD that being a judge for the British Haiku Society was a reason to call him notable; I disagree (it's a small club). He also suggested that this proves the person's importance in the Haiku scene, but I don't see it. Now, the review he founded is a zine with zero notability, receiving no coverage besides on the website of the associated MET Press (Modern English Tanka). MET Press also published Woodward's book--through Lulu.com. (And this is not a relevant review or award.) In other words, doesn't pass the GNG, doesn't pass the AUTHOR or PROF guidelines. Drmies ( talk) 15:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 19:35, 17 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Promotional article that clearly fails WP:CORPDEPTH, despite having 15 references. 1 and 3 are stock ticker pages with links to press releases. 2 is self-authored SEC filing. 4 is brief mention in local paper of move out-of-town. 5 is sourced from press release. 6-14 do not mention subject of article at all. 15 is press release from PR firm that gives "awards" to its clients. Maybe some of this material could be included in the quantum dot article. Google News search turns up some more press releases. Logical Cowboy ( talk) 14:47, 10 August 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 19:36, 17 August 2013 (UTC) reply
No indication that this individual meets notability requirements. Fails WP:NGRIDIRON. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 14:46, 10 August 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 19:36, 17 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Upcoming film with no coverage, does not meet WP:NFF, deproded with no explanation BOVINEBOY 2008 14:33, 10 August 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 19:37, 17 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Not Notable Drajay1976 ( talk) 13:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. postdlf ( talk) 19:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Recreation of a previously deleted article, yet there is some new information with a album release in 2013. Worthy of a second look, instead of a speedy deletion. Procedural nomination (no vote) Nabla ( talk) 12:14, 10 August 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 19:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Closed and restarted due to canvassing and sockpuppetry issues. Previous rationale was "No significant coverage on google, aside from wikipedia page and a database listing. No indication of notability. [ UseTheCommandLine ~/ talk ]# ▄ 09:11, 10 August 2013 (UTC)" Black Kite ( talk) 10:54, 10 August 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 19:42, 17 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Relies on forum postings for primary references. unable to establish via google searches whether this refers to the "City Pride" building (which still only has a handful of mentions) or something else. It seems like having an article for a construction project that is still in the planning stages is somewhat ill-advised unless there are substantial RS about it. [ UseTheCommandLine ~/ talk ]# ▄ 09:18, 10 August 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was '. Closed and restarted due to canvassing Black Kite ( talk) 10:45, 10 August 2013 (UTC) reply
No significant coverage on google, aside from wikipedia page and a database listing. No indication of notability. [ UseTheCommandLine ~/ talk ]# ▄ 09:11, 10 August 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to One Nation (Australia). Mark Arsten ( talk) 16:36, 16 August 2013 (UTC) reply
WP:BLP1E. Briefly a candidate for political office, known only for one event, the gaffes that led to her not being a candidate any more. Shirt58 ( talk) 08:10, 10 August 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. No prejudice towards a merge discussion. Mark Arsten ( talk) 19:46, 17 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD. Seems to be a fairly non-notable term. There are only two references to its existence, the first being an essay which is near-impossible to track down, and the other is an arbitrary article in the Los Angeles Times. No real evidence of this term being used beyond that. I am told that the term was only coined for use within this essay itself. — Richard BB 07:57, 10 August 2013 (UTC) reply
" "The trap is that by science fiction convention there are no indications or clues as to which science in the story is 'straight stuff' and which is 'rubber science': speculation, extrapolation, fabrication or invention. . . .". It refers to a specific subset of science in science fiction: something what looks like real science, but isn't. Real science and explicit science laws violations appear in sci-fi as well, so it seems to me rubber science is very clearly defined in between. -- cyclopia speak! 15:44, 14 August 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was Closed and restarted due to canvassing Black Kite ( talk) 10:44, 10 August 2013 (UTC) reply
no CSD for buildings. no indication of notability. building is not complete, and entry was tagged as outdated in 2010. no references, no coverage on google news. uses skyscrapercity.com, a forum site, in its list of ELs. [ UseTheCommandLine ~/ talk ]# ▄ 05:33, 10 August 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete g5, created by sock of User:Morning277. NawlinWiki ( talk) 18:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC) reply
This appears to be a non-notable Web site: a Google News search turns up [15] (a press release) and [16] (incidental mention of the name) as the only results besides the company's own site. The site enjoys an Alexa rank of 88,929 in its home country [17]. Several unreliable sources are provided in this Wikipedia article. — rybec 04:01, 10 August 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. No prejudice towards a merge discussion. Mark Arsten ( talk) 19:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC) reply
sources aren't showing any info about the info added here. SefBau : msg 03:58, 10 August 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Relics associated with Jesus#Bodily relics. Consensus based on a lack of significant coverage and an appropriate redirect target. ( non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 23:47, 16 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Entirely original research and subject is not notable. Google does not show multiple independent reliable sources on the topic. Previously nominated for deletion in 2006, with 'keep' votes based on some Google traffic (unreliable sources). -- Wikipedical ( talk) 03:15, 10 August 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. The Bushranger One ping only 04:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC) reply
The article lacks citations, it's a list explaining the lyrics instead of content that explains why it's notable. It had no fame outside of the album Songs in the Key of Life so anything important about "Black Man" could go in that article instead. Does not follow music article standards for Wikipedia. Mrmoustache14 ( talk) 02:39, 3 August 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. There is no consensus here whether the subject meets WP:GNG. Mark Arsten ( talk) 18:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Article is about a boxer who doesn't come close to meeting WP:NBOX. The only sources are links to his fight record, birth, and marriage. None of those show notability. Mdtemp ( talk) 14:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC) reply
The refereeing controversy:
He also went missing in 1964 leading to a fight being delayed, which was reported in the press e.g.
And substantial coverage of his involvement in the British title fight with Pritchett:
The result was Delete. If this were a vote, it would be a close thing. However, it is not a vote, but an assessment of the strength of arguments in the light of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and it is not a close thing. The "delete" arguments are based substantially on Wikipedia policies, particularly lack of reliable sourcing and original research. The "keep" arguments, however, were essentially "this is exactly the sort of information we do well for our readers", "I don't see why not", "this is useful", none of which is based in any Wikipedia policy. Quite simply, content which is not supported by reliable sources, but which is the sort of thing which would be useful if it were supported by reliable sources, does not satisfy Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. The only editor in the "keep" camp who made any attempt at all to address the issues of sourcing and original research, namely Bearian, merely stated that "is certainly not original research", without saying why, and said that the issues "could be fixed" by finding beter sources etc. Simply saying that other sources "could be" found, without providing any, is not good enough: we need actual verifiable sources, not just an editor's speculation that there may be some somewhere.
This AfD discussion was previously closed by a non-administrator as "no consensus". I am reverting that closure, not only because I think that was a mistaken conclusion, as in the terms of Wikipedia policy there is a clear consensus, but also because non-admin closure is acceptable only in a limited set of circumstances, and this is not one of them. This is certainly not a "clear keep outcome" or a "speedy keep outcome", nor is it an AfD "with little or no discussion". JamesBWatson ( talk) 09:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC) reply
This complete original research. There are no reliable references. It would be more appropriate on a genealogical database. All info can be summarized with a sentence on John William Friso's page saying he is the ancestor of all monarchs today. The Emperor's New Spy ( talk) 23:14, 22 July 2013 (UTC) (categories) reply
The result was redirect to Alphabetical list of file formats (A–E). Though suggestions of redirecting to database are more represented, I note concerns that this extension is not necessarily related to database as a concept. Instead, per rybec's suggestion, this will be redirected to Alphabetical list of file formats (A–E) (after all, Redirects are cheap). — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 02:12, 18 August 2013 (UTC) reply
As the article itself states, the .db extension alone is not indicative of any file type; the article is mostly a dictionary definition too. � ( talk) 19:19, 3 August 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 19:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC) reply
does not meet WP:BIO Veenix ( talk) 00:52, 10 August 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 19:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Bootleg release with questionable notability. Has a mere four references, three of which are links to the Google page for the project itself and the other being an About.com article on ambient recordings which doesn't even mention this particular release; more than half of the article is completely unreferenced. A quick Google search (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) only shows links to Google and Facebook pages for the release and no links to reliable third-party sources. Viewing the history of the article, the primary contributor to the article appears to be the creator of the work himself, which has been pointed out several times by other users on this article history. Thus, the article seems to be an apparent violation of WP:SELFPROMOTE. Holiday56 ( talk) 08:04, 27 July 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. postdlf ( talk) 19:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Book series with little evidence of notability and written with a clear conflict of interest - sourced largely to blogs and the subject's own website, the only really claim of notability is that it is a #1 Amazon bestseller, a claim not supported by any reliable source (and the amazon store states otherwise) Jac16888 Talk 11:52, 27 July 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 16:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO, WP:ANYBIO and so on. Shirt58 ( talk) 13:24, 27 July 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. The Bushranger One ping only 04:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO. StringTheory11 ( t • c) 17:30, 3 August 2013 (UTC) reply
![]() |
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 19:31, 17 August 2013 (UTC) reply
I found no significant coverage for this band. Fails WP:MUSIC. SL93 ( talk) 23:19, 10 August 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 16:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC) reply
I was not sure if I should have gone for CSD, but the subject looks non-notable. There are close to 1000 colleges in Tamil Nadu alone, being chairman (owning one) doesn't make one notable. Evano1van( எவனோ ஓருவன்) 09:40, 26 July 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Consensus that the general notability guideline is met. ( non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 23:33, 16 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Trivial subject and about a non-notable person. Peleio Aquiles ( talk) 22:42, 10 August 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. postdlf ( talk) 19:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Player fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. PROD was denied by User:Elisfkc for the following reason: "Proposed deletion removed as he now is on loan to 1st division US MLS team, Sporting KC". However, that is not a good enough reason to remove the PROD. Medranda still needs to actually play in MLS before he becomes notable, which he has not done yet, and he clearly does not pass GNG. So the reason deletion still stands. ArsenalFan700 ( talk) 22:08, 10 August 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep per nominator's own withdrawal. Schmidt, Michael Q. 10:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC) reply
unsourced BLP The Banner talk 21:43, 10 August 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. Deleted elsewhere — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 02:09, 18 August 2013 (UTC) reply
There already is an article about this song: One and Only (Adele song), redirected to the album page. Mayast ( talk) 21:31, 10 August 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was all were speedy deleted by User:Qwyrxian per CSD G3, with the closing comment "Blatant hoax." (Non-administrator discussion closure.) Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:12, 11 August 2013 (UTC) reply
This is an article on a fictitious show. See WP:MADEUP Pleasehelp ( talk) 19:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex#Video games. Mark Arsten ( talk) 16:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC) reply
This recently created article just duplicates information found at Ghost in the Shell#Stand Alone Complex and Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex#Video games. It also previously featured a reference that pointed to a link that did not actually exist, representing the statement now identified with a {{ fact}} tag. There are not enough references and there is not enough information to support a separate article at this time. This needs to be turned into a redirect, preferrably to the Stand Alone Complex page. — Ryulong ( 琉竜) 14:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was deleted. Materialscientist ( talk) 12:26, 17 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Unsourced crystal bol The Banner talk 18:49, 10 August 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nominator withdrew, and no delete !votes are present. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000 (talk) 17:54, 14 August 2013 (UTC) reply
An editor has been unable to verify the existence of this village and has removed the co-ordinates on that basis. So I am proposing it for deletion by paraphrasing the question they left in their edit summary; "Does this village exist?" (see this diff) Fiddle Faddle 17:53, 10 August 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep. Nominator requests withdrawl after article was improved. ( non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 21:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC) reply
no major content, locations is not notable. -- Aunva6 talk - contribs 16:52, 10 August 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 19:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC) reply
This is an unreliably-sourced article about what appears to be a non-notable organization. Other than its own Web site, the only result on Google News was http://www.dotmed.com/news/story/21484/ . — rybec 15:49, 10 August 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 19:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC) reply
The first AfD was a wash (violation of topic ban) but that doesn't mean the article should stay. Yogesh Khandke argued at the AfD that being a judge for the British Haiku Society was a reason to call him notable; I disagree (it's a small club). He also suggested that this proves the person's importance in the Haiku scene, but I don't see it. Now, the review he founded is a zine with zero notability, receiving no coverage besides on the website of the associated MET Press (Modern English Tanka). MET Press also published Woodward's book--through Lulu.com. (And this is not a relevant review or award.) In other words, doesn't pass the GNG, doesn't pass the AUTHOR or PROF guidelines. Drmies ( talk) 15:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 19:35, 17 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Promotional article that clearly fails WP:CORPDEPTH, despite having 15 references. 1 and 3 are stock ticker pages with links to press releases. 2 is self-authored SEC filing. 4 is brief mention in local paper of move out-of-town. 5 is sourced from press release. 6-14 do not mention subject of article at all. 15 is press release from PR firm that gives "awards" to its clients. Maybe some of this material could be included in the quantum dot article. Google News search turns up some more press releases. Logical Cowboy ( talk) 14:47, 10 August 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 19:36, 17 August 2013 (UTC) reply
No indication that this individual meets notability requirements. Fails WP:NGRIDIRON. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 14:46, 10 August 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 19:36, 17 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Upcoming film with no coverage, does not meet WP:NFF, deproded with no explanation BOVINEBOY 2008 14:33, 10 August 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 19:37, 17 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Not Notable Drajay1976 ( talk) 13:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. postdlf ( talk) 19:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Recreation of a previously deleted article, yet there is some new information with a album release in 2013. Worthy of a second look, instead of a speedy deletion. Procedural nomination (no vote) Nabla ( talk) 12:14, 10 August 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 19:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Closed and restarted due to canvassing and sockpuppetry issues. Previous rationale was "No significant coverage on google, aside from wikipedia page and a database listing. No indication of notability. [ UseTheCommandLine ~/ talk ]# ▄ 09:11, 10 August 2013 (UTC)" Black Kite ( talk) 10:54, 10 August 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 19:42, 17 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Relies on forum postings for primary references. unable to establish via google searches whether this refers to the "City Pride" building (which still only has a handful of mentions) or something else. It seems like having an article for a construction project that is still in the planning stages is somewhat ill-advised unless there are substantial RS about it. [ UseTheCommandLine ~/ talk ]# ▄ 09:18, 10 August 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was '. Closed and restarted due to canvassing Black Kite ( talk) 10:45, 10 August 2013 (UTC) reply
No significant coverage on google, aside from wikipedia page and a database listing. No indication of notability. [ UseTheCommandLine ~/ talk ]# ▄ 09:11, 10 August 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to One Nation (Australia). Mark Arsten ( talk) 16:36, 16 August 2013 (UTC) reply
WP:BLP1E. Briefly a candidate for political office, known only for one event, the gaffes that led to her not being a candidate any more. Shirt58 ( talk) 08:10, 10 August 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. No prejudice towards a merge discussion. Mark Arsten ( talk) 19:46, 17 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD. Seems to be a fairly non-notable term. There are only two references to its existence, the first being an essay which is near-impossible to track down, and the other is an arbitrary article in the Los Angeles Times. No real evidence of this term being used beyond that. I am told that the term was only coined for use within this essay itself. — Richard BB 07:57, 10 August 2013 (UTC) reply
" "The trap is that by science fiction convention there are no indications or clues as to which science in the story is 'straight stuff' and which is 'rubber science': speculation, extrapolation, fabrication or invention. . . .". It refers to a specific subset of science in science fiction: something what looks like real science, but isn't. Real science and explicit science laws violations appear in sci-fi as well, so it seems to me rubber science is very clearly defined in between. -- cyclopia speak! 15:44, 14 August 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was Closed and restarted due to canvassing Black Kite ( talk) 10:44, 10 August 2013 (UTC) reply
no CSD for buildings. no indication of notability. building is not complete, and entry was tagged as outdated in 2010. no references, no coverage on google news. uses skyscrapercity.com, a forum site, in its list of ELs. [ UseTheCommandLine ~/ talk ]# ▄ 05:33, 10 August 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete g5, created by sock of User:Morning277. NawlinWiki ( talk) 18:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC) reply
This appears to be a non-notable Web site: a Google News search turns up [15] (a press release) and [16] (incidental mention of the name) as the only results besides the company's own site. The site enjoys an Alexa rank of 88,929 in its home country [17]. Several unreliable sources are provided in this Wikipedia article. — rybec 04:01, 10 August 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. No prejudice towards a merge discussion. Mark Arsten ( talk) 19:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC) reply
sources aren't showing any info about the info added here. SefBau : msg 03:58, 10 August 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Relics associated with Jesus#Bodily relics. Consensus based on a lack of significant coverage and an appropriate redirect target. ( non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 23:47, 16 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Entirely original research and subject is not notable. Google does not show multiple independent reliable sources on the topic. Previously nominated for deletion in 2006, with 'keep' votes based on some Google traffic (unreliable sources). -- Wikipedical ( talk) 03:15, 10 August 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. The Bushranger One ping only 04:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC) reply
The article lacks citations, it's a list explaining the lyrics instead of content that explains why it's notable. It had no fame outside of the album Songs in the Key of Life so anything important about "Black Man" could go in that article instead. Does not follow music article standards for Wikipedia. Mrmoustache14 ( talk) 02:39, 3 August 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. There is no consensus here whether the subject meets WP:GNG. Mark Arsten ( talk) 18:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Article is about a boxer who doesn't come close to meeting WP:NBOX. The only sources are links to his fight record, birth, and marriage. None of those show notability. Mdtemp ( talk) 14:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC) reply
The refereeing controversy:
He also went missing in 1964 leading to a fight being delayed, which was reported in the press e.g.
And substantial coverage of his involvement in the British title fight with Pritchett:
The result was Delete. If this were a vote, it would be a close thing. However, it is not a vote, but an assessment of the strength of arguments in the light of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and it is not a close thing. The "delete" arguments are based substantially on Wikipedia policies, particularly lack of reliable sourcing and original research. The "keep" arguments, however, were essentially "this is exactly the sort of information we do well for our readers", "I don't see why not", "this is useful", none of which is based in any Wikipedia policy. Quite simply, content which is not supported by reliable sources, but which is the sort of thing which would be useful if it were supported by reliable sources, does not satisfy Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. The only editor in the "keep" camp who made any attempt at all to address the issues of sourcing and original research, namely Bearian, merely stated that "is certainly not original research", without saying why, and said that the issues "could be fixed" by finding beter sources etc. Simply saying that other sources "could be" found, without providing any, is not good enough: we need actual verifiable sources, not just an editor's speculation that there may be some somewhere.
This AfD discussion was previously closed by a non-administrator as "no consensus". I am reverting that closure, not only because I think that was a mistaken conclusion, as in the terms of Wikipedia policy there is a clear consensus, but also because non-admin closure is acceptable only in a limited set of circumstances, and this is not one of them. This is certainly not a "clear keep outcome" or a "speedy keep outcome", nor is it an AfD "with little or no discussion". JamesBWatson ( talk) 09:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC) reply
This complete original research. There are no reliable references. It would be more appropriate on a genealogical database. All info can be summarized with a sentence on John William Friso's page saying he is the ancestor of all monarchs today. The Emperor's New Spy ( talk) 23:14, 22 July 2013 (UTC) (categories) reply
The result was redirect to Alphabetical list of file formats (A–E). Though suggestions of redirecting to database are more represented, I note concerns that this extension is not necessarily related to database as a concept. Instead, per rybec's suggestion, this will be redirected to Alphabetical list of file formats (A–E) (after all, Redirects are cheap). — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 02:12, 18 August 2013 (UTC) reply
As the article itself states, the .db extension alone is not indicative of any file type; the article is mostly a dictionary definition too. � ( talk) 19:19, 3 August 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 19:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC) reply
does not meet WP:BIO Veenix ( talk) 00:52, 10 August 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 19:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Bootleg release with questionable notability. Has a mere four references, three of which are links to the Google page for the project itself and the other being an About.com article on ambient recordings which doesn't even mention this particular release; more than half of the article is completely unreferenced. A quick Google search (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) only shows links to Google and Facebook pages for the release and no links to reliable third-party sources. Viewing the history of the article, the primary contributor to the article appears to be the creator of the work himself, which has been pointed out several times by other users on this article history. Thus, the article seems to be an apparent violation of WP:SELFPROMOTE. Holiday56 ( talk) 08:04, 27 July 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. postdlf ( talk) 19:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Book series with little evidence of notability and written with a clear conflict of interest - sourced largely to blogs and the subject's own website, the only really claim of notability is that it is a #1 Amazon bestseller, a claim not supported by any reliable source (and the amazon store states otherwise) Jac16888 Talk 11:52, 27 July 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 16:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO, WP:ANYBIO and so on. Shirt58 ( talk) 13:24, 27 July 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. The Bushranger One ping only 04:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO. StringTheory11 ( t • c) 17:30, 3 August 2013 (UTC) reply