The result was redirect. Daniel ( talk) 08:27, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Article has failed WP:DEL#REASON #7 for over four years. Ben Yes? 23:38, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 01:39, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Subject of article fails to meet Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and Guidelines for Professional/Academic listing. Subject is not notable and a search reveals that subject has not published hardly anything recently. Requesting registered user to please create this article's AFD page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.102.180 ( talk) 20:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 08:28, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Doesn't appear notable. Jackmcbarn ( talk) 22:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Delete Seams to lack Notability. Google search goves almost no results. [1] Vanjagenije ( talk) 22:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Probably notable, as it was published by Fantagraphics; in any case, if this is deleted, Gunma Kisaragi should be kept. -- CIRCLE OUTER WORLD ( talk) 22:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 08:29, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Newly created/coined as well as not notable discipline and portmanteau. Found no significant coverage to show meets WP:GNG. Sourced by webpage connected with the subject. Previously deleted as WP:CSD#g11. Was recreated with a stub that G11 would not wrap around. PRODed instead. G11 was declined on this iteration when it was a bare-bone stub. DePRODed, so here we are. Content now moving back in G11 direction. Looks like another rehash of some sort of motivational speech involving creativity and innovation. Taken at it's best, it's original research. Looks speediable to me, but I can't be objective right now. Bringing to AfD in case I have it all wrong, but I found no significant coverage Dloh cierekim 22:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC) Dloh cierekim 22:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
The result was merge to 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash. Get to work! SarahStierch ( talk) 17:31, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Article does not expand on what is parent article with anything of note, the days of mourning and football observance is already covered in main article and is just not notable for a stand-alone article MilborneOne ( talk) 22:01, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 08:29, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
A biography of a living person that doesn't tell us why he's important. He's a very young journalist ( WP:BLP1E) - he's written his own website and interviewed 2 people, and apparently shot a documentary film that hasn't been released. The whole history behind this article and others (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seoul Sisters, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lillian Wu suggests a WP:COI (and use of multiple sockpuppets) Barney the barney barney ( talk) 18:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
The result was delete. After ignoring the opinion by Breadbasket because of their disruptive conduct ("Germans never learn; there will be a WW3"), there is consensus to delete the article. Sandstein 10:10, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Non-notable, unsourced, original research. DrKiernan ( talk) 20:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 02:05, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
I do not think the very scanty references here prove notability -- but accepted from AfC DGG ( talk ) 19:33, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 10:08, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
WP:NOTESSAY and WP:CRYSTALBALL. Reads like an opinion article. Article was proded but prod was taken down. ...William 17:31, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 08:30, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
no evidence at all for notability , but this has been in WP since 2006 !! DGG ( talk ) 16:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 19:19, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
MMA fighter with no top tier fights, no significant coverage, and nothing to show his grappling meets WP:MANOTE. Mdtemp ( talk) 16:41, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
The result was delete. Closing early per WP:SNOW. Mark Arsten ( talk) 02:07, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Non-notable video game. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Contested PROD. Lugia2453 ( talk) 16:36, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 08:30, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Has tried many combat sports, but doesn't meet any of the notability standards. He had one kickboxing victory (which doesn't meet WP:KICK), one top tier MMA fight (which doesn't meet WP:NMMA), nothing in his boxing record shows he meets WP:NBOX, and he was released from his WWE developmental contract after a few months. Mdtemp ( talk) 16:34, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments (self-close per WP:NACD) ( non-admin closure) czar ♔ 03:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Currently fails all registers of WP:SCHOLAR notability, PROD removed czar ♔ 16:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 08:32, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Fails WP:NMMA with only one top tier fight and WP:GNG with no significant coverage. Mdtemp ( talk) 16:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 08:32, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
MMA fighter who lost both his top tier fights and fails WP:NMMA. Mdtemp ( talk) 16:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 08:33, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Retired MMA fighter who fails WP:NMMA with only one top tier fight. Mdtemp ( talk) 16:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
The result was redirect. If anyone wants to merge some of the content from behind the redirect, they can get it out of the history. Daniel ( talk) 08:34, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
A hoax website about the Fallout 4 video game. In December 2013, the article was deleted following discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thesurvivor2299.com. As indicated in a subsequent discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 December 10, the website has subsequently received media coverage for being a hoax. The article is remanded to a new deletion discussion to determine whether there are (still) reasons to delete it. This is a procedural nomination, I am neutral. Sandstein 14:39, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Jesus Christ, how many times are you going to play this game? PROTIP: use rewrite and update tags, and post on a talk page. -- Niemti ( talk) 21:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 08:34, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Advertisement for a non-notable microscopy product. Kolbasz ( talk) 14:23, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Robinsons Malls. There is consensus that the article can not exist as a standalone, and the best solution per WP:ATD is to redirect. The info can be eventually merged by someone. Other articles have never been formally nominated.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 10:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Mostly unsourced information, with only one source being a newspaper article. Likewise a good example of "wikipedia is not a directory" since article is mostly promotional and just lists down tenants.
GrayFullbuster (
talk)
13:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Additional- I think the following articles should also be considered for deletion as well:
Robinsons Place Palawan
Robinsons Place Dasmariñas
Robinsons Place Bacolod
Robinsons Magnolia
Robinsons Place Manila
and all other Robinsons and SM Supermall articles which are like the nominated article.
GrayFullbuster (
talk)
13:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
The result was delete. Consensus is that we probably should have an article about this, but that the current content is so deficient (unverifiable, original research, etc.) that it needs to be blown up. All are free to recreate a policy-compliant list and to userfy the former content to aid in this. Sandstein 10:15, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
This article has been tagged as lacking sources since January and as containing original research since April, but no effort seems to have been made to do anything about these issues. It does have a very very few references but lacks inline citations for almost every entry. As far as reigning monarchs go, it seems to be fairly accurate, but moves into a fantasy world of alternate reality for many of its entries, just for instance it names Queen Elizabeth II as Queen of Normandy in Northern France! on the basis, presumably of some hundreds and hundreds of years old historical claim, which however is not referenced at all. Then heads of families that were deposed from thrones a hundred years ago or more are named as "King", there are many examples of this,just at the top of the page we are told there are Kings of Albania and there is an Emperor of Austria, of course there have not been such titles for many years,it names many like that. It could well be contentious to some citizens of republics to see their country named as having a monarch, besides which it is a mess of original research and unsourced statements. I think WP would be better off without this article. Smeat75 ( talk) 03:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC) Relisted 13:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
I have huge, huge problems with this article, and have tried to correct errors on numerous occasions, but they have been reverted by User:Director on numerous occasions.
To start: i.Several of the entries are listed belonging to Royal Houses and they have been given the wrong name. For example; the Royal House of Belgium has been the 'House of Belgium' since 1921; not 'House of Wettin' (which was the former House designation), the Royal House of the Netherlands is simply the 'House of Orange-Nassau' (and it has been ever since 1908; via decree of Queen Wilhelmina, despite the fathers of the current and last-but-one Queens not coming from this house.) The grand ducal house of the Netherlands is listed as 'Bourbon, Parma line, Nassau-Weilburg sub line'; yet Grand Duke Jean changed the name of the House from 'Bourbon-Parma' to 'Nassau' (although the House does indeed descend agnatically from the House of Bourbon Parma) in 1986 in retaliation for the Head of the House of Bourbon-Parma; Carlos Hugo, Duke of Parma, ruling the marriage of Jean's son, the present Grand Duke Henri, as unequal and non-dynastic. The name now borne by the grand-ducal House is 'Luxembourg-Nassau', by grand-ducal decree. See here: http://www.monarchie.lu/fr/monarchie/droits-de-succession/annexe-au-communique-du-20062011.pdf Likewise, the House name given for the defunct throne of the Empire of Brazil is also wrong.
ii.There are several entries where claimants are given, but the family in question is extinct and no current pretender exists. There are also several entries where the House given is listed as 'extinct'-well; if the House is extinct, then there is no claimant; therefore why is it being listed? Likewise; there is no current pretender to the throne of Poland, nor is there for any of the various empires and kingdom that ruled over Haiti. Also, several pretenders for the (elective) throne of Poland are given, but; as Poland was an elective monarchy, none of these people would have any claim to the throne were the Polish monarchy restored.
iii.There are several entries where the 'pretender' given is not a pretender at all. For example, Amadeo, Duke of Savoy (the Head of the Aosta branch of the House of Savoy and rival to the headship of the entire house.), is listed as the pretender to the throne of Croatia. But not only did Amadeo's father Aimone relinquish any claims to the Kingship of Croatia in 1943 (which at any rate was an Axis puppet state and was ephemeral at best); neither Amadeo nor his father (nor anyone else for that matter) have ever considered him to be the 'pretender' to the defunct throne of Croatia. Similarly, Queen Margarethe II of Denmark was listed as the 'pretender' for Iceland; yet Queen Margarethe's grandfather King Christian X acknowledged the loss of his Icelandic throne (which at any rate was decided by plebiscite anyway) and no claims to the throne of Iceland have been made by any of his successors. Like with Elizabeth II and the loss of some of her thrones in the Commonwealth, King Christian X made no claim to or even lamented the loss of his Icelandic throne: he sent a congratulatory telegram to the Icelandic people, and the arms of Iceland were removed from the Royal arms of Denmark by his son Frederik IX in 1947. It could be argued that 'yes; but someone could view them as pretenders; it can be a claim made on their behalf' -but the monarchist movement in both countries is non-existent, and in both cases the loss of the throne was legally acknowledged, both by the state and by the Royal House.
iv. Several entries are given for entities that had no throne in the first place. For example, the various colonial possessions of Spain (the Viceroyalties) are listed; but these were only ever colonies of Spain rather than independent states in their own right that shared a monarch with Spain. Same as regards the thirteen colonies that later founded the U.S.A.: these were colonies rather than independent monarchies with their own throne. A colony is just an overseas territory of another country, not a sovereign state in its own right.
v.Several entries give the pretender to an extinct throne titles that they do not pretend to. Yes; there have been several deposed monarchs (who have thus become pretenders) who have continued to use the title they used as monarch (ex-Kings Simeon II of Bulgaria, Constantine II of Greece and Michael I of Romania are good examples); but this is common and standard diplomatic practice: a deposed monarch is allowed to use the title they used during their reign as a courtesy title; but this courtesy is not extended to their heirs (for example, when the former King Peter II of Yugoslavia died, his son did not proclaim himself 'King Alexander II of Yugoslavia' but simply used the title of Crown Prince that he had been entitled legally for a week after his birth.) There are examples of Heads of former royal houses using Monarchical titles, for example Crown Prince Leka, son of Zog I of Albania; declared himself 'King of the Albanians', but this practice is rare. Second to this; after it becomes impossible for a pretender to use a courtesy title (because they have been born after the abolition of the monarchy); the Pretender will use a title that shows they are Head of the Royal House; without using a title they are not qualified to use. Thus; for example, Georg Friedrich; Head of the Prussian Royal House is styled simply 'Prince of Prussia', and not 'Emperor Georg Friedrich I', as listed here.
In short, the whole article is misleading, not to mention the vast majority of it is WP:OR. For example, Prince Leka of Albania has never used an ordinal or claimed to be 'King of the Albanians', Likewise (as aforementioned) for Franz, Duke of Bavaria and Georg Friedrich, Prince of Prussia who have only ever used those titles. While there are some heads of former royal houses who do use the monarchical titles used by their ancestors (for example, Carlos, Duke of Parma or Andreas, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, this is the exception rather than the rule. Calling pretenders by titles and or ordinals they do not use is not only misleading, it's confusing and original research to boot.
Another massive; massive reason why it's not a good idea to use monarchical names for pretenders, heirs; or people who 'would be King or Queen if the monarchy still existed is that monarchs on their accession are not forced to use their first name as their regnal name. For example, George VI of the United Kingdom was christened Albert, but he used one of his middle names for his regnal name. Similarly, his grandfather; Edward VII; was also christened Albert, but used his middle name as his regnal name. King George I of Greece was born Prince Vilhelm of Denmark and George was one of his middle names, and so on.
And more to the point; what about someone like Georg Friedrich, Prince of Prussia? Would he be Georg Friedrich I, German Emperor and King of Prussia? Or maybe Friedrich IV; German Emperor and King of Prussia? Or maybe even Georg I, German Emperor? There are no rules in any monarchy which dictate what name the monarch has to use on their accession to the throne.
Also; what about monarchs who have adopted regnal names that are not one of their given names? King Haakon VII of Norway was born Prince Carl of Denmark and did not adopt the name Haakon until he became King of Norway in 1905 (in reference to the medieval kings of Norway who bore that name) and it was not amongst the names he was given when he was christened. Likewise; the short-reigning King Mindaugas II of Lithuania did not have that name amongst his given names; and neither did Tomislav II of Croatia.
Likewise; it would not be right to apply numbers after the names of would-be monarchs; because monarchical ordinals do not always follow logical patterns -for example; there's only ever been one Queen Elizabeth of Australia (the present one), but the present Queen is titled Elizabeth II of Australia. Likewise; there have only been seven kings of Sweden called Carl (rather than sixteen), but the present King of Sweden is called Carl XVI Gustaf. (because King Carl IX of Sweden adopted that number based on a mythical history of Sweden written by Johannes Magnus; seven of the Kings named Carl prior to Carl IX did not actually exist, and Kings Carl VIII and Carl VII were so numbered retroactively), and there are other examples as well. For all these reasons; putting someone like Franz, Duke of Bavaria as 'King Franz I' would be both WP:OR and WP:CRYSTALBALL because we cannot predict what regnal name these would-be monarchs would use should they regain the throne.
Take Elizabeth II. Her full name is Elizabeth Alexandra Mary. So; on her accession, she could have called herself Alexandra I. Or she could have called herself Mary III. Or she could have adopted a name totally at random that was not one of her given names; so she could very well have called herself Victoria II if she wanted. She could have decided to use whatever number after her name if she wanted; because the title of the monarch is part of the royal prerogative. It the purpose of wikipedia to present facts; not show people using titles they do not use and regnal names and titles they may well not use should they be lucky enough to regain their ancestor's throne. You can't just make stuff up and guess what they might be called if they were on the throne; because making stuff up and putting it on wikipedia is the very definition of what WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH is.
Lastly; the 'title rank' is whatever title rank the heir/pretender/monarch in exile actually uses. So Georg Friedrich, Prince of Prussia is merely 'Prince of Prussia'; not 'German Emperor and King of Prussia etc.', because he doesn't use those titles; and he doesn't use a monarchical ordinal. Same goes for Franz, Duke of Bavaria; his title rank is 'Duke', not 'King', because he's never used the title King. Ever. Neither has anyone on their behalf.
Sorry that's a bit long winded, but the whole business with the page irks me somewhat.
JWULTRABLIZZARD ( talk) 17:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree with most or all of what JWULTRABLIZZARD has said, but is there any reason why WP should not have an article giving a list of royal houses? ----
Ehrenkater (
talk)
18:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
The result was delete. While there are arguments made to Keep here, I find them unconvincing; one saying that headmasters of prominent schools are "inherently notable" without backing that up, and another who references the subject's inclusion in directories including Who's Who and Debrett's. I find neither argument convincing, especially given that this is an unsourced BLP. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 09:47, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Locally known headteacher. No significant coverage of the subject and offices held to date do not qualify the subject as notable Flaming Ferrari ( talk) 12:46, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List_of_Konami_games#1990-1999. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 09:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Non-notable Video game, written with a promotional tone. I would go for A7, but I am unsure whether it falls under this criteria -- Mdann 52 talk to me! 11:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC):Also nominating the following articles, as the whole series of articles seems to lack sourcing:
The result was delete all. Daniel ( talk) 08:35, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
No evidence of notability in for these unnamed railway bridges which cross canals, streams or minor rivers. (All of these articles are descriptively named after the bodies of water the bridges cross.) Brief Google searches didn't suggest that there would be any in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Articles are cited to photos on a railway enthusiast website/forum, which is not a reliable source. Related AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bridge near Prachantakham railway station. Paul_012 ( talk) 08:36, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 08:37, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Reason: this is an extremely commonplace automobile dealership that does not meet WP's notability guidelines for a business. Moreover, this article for a single location operation that is owned by a larger corporation. It is an attempt at using WP for free advertising. CZmarlin ( talk) 06:17, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 09:51, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Rejected PROD. Fails WP:NOTMEMORIAL: the only claim to notability is "first Romanian to die in an aircraft accident", which is not an establishment of notability. Fails WP:SOLDIER, WP:NPERSON. The Bushranger One ping only 05:36, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 08:38, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Non-notable hockey player, fails WP:NHOCKEY, no sources that satisfy the GNG which don't violate WP:ROUTINE or WP:GEOSCOPE. Ravenswing 03:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 08:38, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
MMA fighter who fails to meet WP:NMMA with no top tier fights and the article's only sources are to his fight record and his gym, so there's no independent coverage to meet GNG. Papaursa ( talk) 03:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
The result was delete. Blaster's comment makes absolutely no sense. Daniel ( talk) 08:39, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Does not clarify reasons for notability and unable to find enough reliable source coverage to justify article. Please note Talk page comments from the contest of CSD which was originally on it [article has been deleted as A7 once before]. James of UR ( talk) 03:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
The result was delete. The two references do not seem to make him pass WP:GNG.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 09:05, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Non-notable hockey player, fails WP:NHOCKEY, no sources that satisfy the GNG which don't violate WP:ROUTINE or WP:GEOSCOPE. Has played most of his career in amateur senior leagues. Ravenswing 03:13, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 08:39, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Fails to meet WP:NMMA with only two top tier fights and lacks the significant independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa ( talk) 03:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
The result was snow keep per WP:HEY, WP:GEOLAND, and WP:OUTCOMES. Great job of a rescue by Northamerica1000. Bearian ( talk) 18:42, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Article about a town that lacks any significance. Article cites no sources and has absolutely nothing written other than "Rogersville has a population of 7". Aclany ( talk) 01:38, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
The result was redirect. Daniel ( talk) 08:27, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Article has failed WP:DEL#REASON #7 for over four years. Ben Yes? 23:38, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 01:39, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Subject of article fails to meet Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and Guidelines for Professional/Academic listing. Subject is not notable and a search reveals that subject has not published hardly anything recently. Requesting registered user to please create this article's AFD page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.102.180 ( talk) 20:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 08:28, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Doesn't appear notable. Jackmcbarn ( talk) 22:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Delete Seams to lack Notability. Google search goves almost no results. [1] Vanjagenije ( talk) 22:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Probably notable, as it was published by Fantagraphics; in any case, if this is deleted, Gunma Kisaragi should be kept. -- CIRCLE OUTER WORLD ( talk) 22:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 08:29, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Newly created/coined as well as not notable discipline and portmanteau. Found no significant coverage to show meets WP:GNG. Sourced by webpage connected with the subject. Previously deleted as WP:CSD#g11. Was recreated with a stub that G11 would not wrap around. PRODed instead. G11 was declined on this iteration when it was a bare-bone stub. DePRODed, so here we are. Content now moving back in G11 direction. Looks like another rehash of some sort of motivational speech involving creativity and innovation. Taken at it's best, it's original research. Looks speediable to me, but I can't be objective right now. Bringing to AfD in case I have it all wrong, but I found no significant coverage Dloh cierekim 22:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC) Dloh cierekim 22:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
The result was merge to 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash. Get to work! SarahStierch ( talk) 17:31, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Article does not expand on what is parent article with anything of note, the days of mourning and football observance is already covered in main article and is just not notable for a stand-alone article MilborneOne ( talk) 22:01, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 08:29, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
A biography of a living person that doesn't tell us why he's important. He's a very young journalist ( WP:BLP1E) - he's written his own website and interviewed 2 people, and apparently shot a documentary film that hasn't been released. The whole history behind this article and others (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seoul Sisters, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lillian Wu suggests a WP:COI (and use of multiple sockpuppets) Barney the barney barney ( talk) 18:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
The result was delete. After ignoring the opinion by Breadbasket because of their disruptive conduct ("Germans never learn; there will be a WW3"), there is consensus to delete the article. Sandstein 10:10, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Non-notable, unsourced, original research. DrKiernan ( talk) 20:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 02:05, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
I do not think the very scanty references here prove notability -- but accepted from AfC DGG ( talk ) 19:33, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 10:08, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
WP:NOTESSAY and WP:CRYSTALBALL. Reads like an opinion article. Article was proded but prod was taken down. ...William 17:31, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 08:30, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
no evidence at all for notability , but this has been in WP since 2006 !! DGG ( talk ) 16:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 19:19, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
MMA fighter with no top tier fights, no significant coverage, and nothing to show his grappling meets WP:MANOTE. Mdtemp ( talk) 16:41, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
The result was delete. Closing early per WP:SNOW. Mark Arsten ( talk) 02:07, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Non-notable video game. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Contested PROD. Lugia2453 ( talk) 16:36, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 08:30, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Has tried many combat sports, but doesn't meet any of the notability standards. He had one kickboxing victory (which doesn't meet WP:KICK), one top tier MMA fight (which doesn't meet WP:NMMA), nothing in his boxing record shows he meets WP:NBOX, and he was released from his WWE developmental contract after a few months. Mdtemp ( talk) 16:34, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments (self-close per WP:NACD) ( non-admin closure) czar ♔ 03:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Currently fails all registers of WP:SCHOLAR notability, PROD removed czar ♔ 16:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 08:32, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Fails WP:NMMA with only one top tier fight and WP:GNG with no significant coverage. Mdtemp ( talk) 16:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 08:32, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
MMA fighter who lost both his top tier fights and fails WP:NMMA. Mdtemp ( talk) 16:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 08:33, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Retired MMA fighter who fails WP:NMMA with only one top tier fight. Mdtemp ( talk) 16:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
The result was redirect. If anyone wants to merge some of the content from behind the redirect, they can get it out of the history. Daniel ( talk) 08:34, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
A hoax website about the Fallout 4 video game. In December 2013, the article was deleted following discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thesurvivor2299.com. As indicated in a subsequent discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 December 10, the website has subsequently received media coverage for being a hoax. The article is remanded to a new deletion discussion to determine whether there are (still) reasons to delete it. This is a procedural nomination, I am neutral. Sandstein 14:39, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Jesus Christ, how many times are you going to play this game? PROTIP: use rewrite and update tags, and post on a talk page. -- Niemti ( talk) 21:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 08:34, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Advertisement for a non-notable microscopy product. Kolbasz ( talk) 14:23, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Robinsons Malls. There is consensus that the article can not exist as a standalone, and the best solution per WP:ATD is to redirect. The info can be eventually merged by someone. Other articles have never been formally nominated.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 10:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Mostly unsourced information, with only one source being a newspaper article. Likewise a good example of "wikipedia is not a directory" since article is mostly promotional and just lists down tenants.
GrayFullbuster (
talk)
13:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Additional- I think the following articles should also be considered for deletion as well:
Robinsons Place Palawan
Robinsons Place Dasmariñas
Robinsons Place Bacolod
Robinsons Magnolia
Robinsons Place Manila
and all other Robinsons and SM Supermall articles which are like the nominated article.
GrayFullbuster (
talk)
13:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
The result was delete. Consensus is that we probably should have an article about this, but that the current content is so deficient (unverifiable, original research, etc.) that it needs to be blown up. All are free to recreate a policy-compliant list and to userfy the former content to aid in this. Sandstein 10:15, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
This article has been tagged as lacking sources since January and as containing original research since April, but no effort seems to have been made to do anything about these issues. It does have a very very few references but lacks inline citations for almost every entry. As far as reigning monarchs go, it seems to be fairly accurate, but moves into a fantasy world of alternate reality for many of its entries, just for instance it names Queen Elizabeth II as Queen of Normandy in Northern France! on the basis, presumably of some hundreds and hundreds of years old historical claim, which however is not referenced at all. Then heads of families that were deposed from thrones a hundred years ago or more are named as "King", there are many examples of this,just at the top of the page we are told there are Kings of Albania and there is an Emperor of Austria, of course there have not been such titles for many years,it names many like that. It could well be contentious to some citizens of republics to see their country named as having a monarch, besides which it is a mess of original research and unsourced statements. I think WP would be better off without this article. Smeat75 ( talk) 03:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC) Relisted 13:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
I have huge, huge problems with this article, and have tried to correct errors on numerous occasions, but they have been reverted by User:Director on numerous occasions.
To start: i.Several of the entries are listed belonging to Royal Houses and they have been given the wrong name. For example; the Royal House of Belgium has been the 'House of Belgium' since 1921; not 'House of Wettin' (which was the former House designation), the Royal House of the Netherlands is simply the 'House of Orange-Nassau' (and it has been ever since 1908; via decree of Queen Wilhelmina, despite the fathers of the current and last-but-one Queens not coming from this house.) The grand ducal house of the Netherlands is listed as 'Bourbon, Parma line, Nassau-Weilburg sub line'; yet Grand Duke Jean changed the name of the House from 'Bourbon-Parma' to 'Nassau' (although the House does indeed descend agnatically from the House of Bourbon Parma) in 1986 in retaliation for the Head of the House of Bourbon-Parma; Carlos Hugo, Duke of Parma, ruling the marriage of Jean's son, the present Grand Duke Henri, as unequal and non-dynastic. The name now borne by the grand-ducal House is 'Luxembourg-Nassau', by grand-ducal decree. See here: http://www.monarchie.lu/fr/monarchie/droits-de-succession/annexe-au-communique-du-20062011.pdf Likewise, the House name given for the defunct throne of the Empire of Brazil is also wrong.
ii.There are several entries where claimants are given, but the family in question is extinct and no current pretender exists. There are also several entries where the House given is listed as 'extinct'-well; if the House is extinct, then there is no claimant; therefore why is it being listed? Likewise; there is no current pretender to the throne of Poland, nor is there for any of the various empires and kingdom that ruled over Haiti. Also, several pretenders for the (elective) throne of Poland are given, but; as Poland was an elective monarchy, none of these people would have any claim to the throne were the Polish monarchy restored.
iii.There are several entries where the 'pretender' given is not a pretender at all. For example, Amadeo, Duke of Savoy (the Head of the Aosta branch of the House of Savoy and rival to the headship of the entire house.), is listed as the pretender to the throne of Croatia. But not only did Amadeo's father Aimone relinquish any claims to the Kingship of Croatia in 1943 (which at any rate was an Axis puppet state and was ephemeral at best); neither Amadeo nor his father (nor anyone else for that matter) have ever considered him to be the 'pretender' to the defunct throne of Croatia. Similarly, Queen Margarethe II of Denmark was listed as the 'pretender' for Iceland; yet Queen Margarethe's grandfather King Christian X acknowledged the loss of his Icelandic throne (which at any rate was decided by plebiscite anyway) and no claims to the throne of Iceland have been made by any of his successors. Like with Elizabeth II and the loss of some of her thrones in the Commonwealth, King Christian X made no claim to or even lamented the loss of his Icelandic throne: he sent a congratulatory telegram to the Icelandic people, and the arms of Iceland were removed from the Royal arms of Denmark by his son Frederik IX in 1947. It could be argued that 'yes; but someone could view them as pretenders; it can be a claim made on their behalf' -but the monarchist movement in both countries is non-existent, and in both cases the loss of the throne was legally acknowledged, both by the state and by the Royal House.
iv. Several entries are given for entities that had no throne in the first place. For example, the various colonial possessions of Spain (the Viceroyalties) are listed; but these were only ever colonies of Spain rather than independent states in their own right that shared a monarch with Spain. Same as regards the thirteen colonies that later founded the U.S.A.: these were colonies rather than independent monarchies with their own throne. A colony is just an overseas territory of another country, not a sovereign state in its own right.
v.Several entries give the pretender to an extinct throne titles that they do not pretend to. Yes; there have been several deposed monarchs (who have thus become pretenders) who have continued to use the title they used as monarch (ex-Kings Simeon II of Bulgaria, Constantine II of Greece and Michael I of Romania are good examples); but this is common and standard diplomatic practice: a deposed monarch is allowed to use the title they used during their reign as a courtesy title; but this courtesy is not extended to their heirs (for example, when the former King Peter II of Yugoslavia died, his son did not proclaim himself 'King Alexander II of Yugoslavia' but simply used the title of Crown Prince that he had been entitled legally for a week after his birth.) There are examples of Heads of former royal houses using Monarchical titles, for example Crown Prince Leka, son of Zog I of Albania; declared himself 'King of the Albanians', but this practice is rare. Second to this; after it becomes impossible for a pretender to use a courtesy title (because they have been born after the abolition of the monarchy); the Pretender will use a title that shows they are Head of the Royal House; without using a title they are not qualified to use. Thus; for example, Georg Friedrich; Head of the Prussian Royal House is styled simply 'Prince of Prussia', and not 'Emperor Georg Friedrich I', as listed here.
In short, the whole article is misleading, not to mention the vast majority of it is WP:OR. For example, Prince Leka of Albania has never used an ordinal or claimed to be 'King of the Albanians', Likewise (as aforementioned) for Franz, Duke of Bavaria and Georg Friedrich, Prince of Prussia who have only ever used those titles. While there are some heads of former royal houses who do use the monarchical titles used by their ancestors (for example, Carlos, Duke of Parma or Andreas, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, this is the exception rather than the rule. Calling pretenders by titles and or ordinals they do not use is not only misleading, it's confusing and original research to boot.
Another massive; massive reason why it's not a good idea to use monarchical names for pretenders, heirs; or people who 'would be King or Queen if the monarchy still existed is that monarchs on their accession are not forced to use their first name as their regnal name. For example, George VI of the United Kingdom was christened Albert, but he used one of his middle names for his regnal name. Similarly, his grandfather; Edward VII; was also christened Albert, but used his middle name as his regnal name. King George I of Greece was born Prince Vilhelm of Denmark and George was one of his middle names, and so on.
And more to the point; what about someone like Georg Friedrich, Prince of Prussia? Would he be Georg Friedrich I, German Emperor and King of Prussia? Or maybe Friedrich IV; German Emperor and King of Prussia? Or maybe even Georg I, German Emperor? There are no rules in any monarchy which dictate what name the monarch has to use on their accession to the throne.
Also; what about monarchs who have adopted regnal names that are not one of their given names? King Haakon VII of Norway was born Prince Carl of Denmark and did not adopt the name Haakon until he became King of Norway in 1905 (in reference to the medieval kings of Norway who bore that name) and it was not amongst the names he was given when he was christened. Likewise; the short-reigning King Mindaugas II of Lithuania did not have that name amongst his given names; and neither did Tomislav II of Croatia.
Likewise; it would not be right to apply numbers after the names of would-be monarchs; because monarchical ordinals do not always follow logical patterns -for example; there's only ever been one Queen Elizabeth of Australia (the present one), but the present Queen is titled Elizabeth II of Australia. Likewise; there have only been seven kings of Sweden called Carl (rather than sixteen), but the present King of Sweden is called Carl XVI Gustaf. (because King Carl IX of Sweden adopted that number based on a mythical history of Sweden written by Johannes Magnus; seven of the Kings named Carl prior to Carl IX did not actually exist, and Kings Carl VIII and Carl VII were so numbered retroactively), and there are other examples as well. For all these reasons; putting someone like Franz, Duke of Bavaria as 'King Franz I' would be both WP:OR and WP:CRYSTALBALL because we cannot predict what regnal name these would-be monarchs would use should they regain the throne.
Take Elizabeth II. Her full name is Elizabeth Alexandra Mary. So; on her accession, she could have called herself Alexandra I. Or she could have called herself Mary III. Or she could have adopted a name totally at random that was not one of her given names; so she could very well have called herself Victoria II if she wanted. She could have decided to use whatever number after her name if she wanted; because the title of the monarch is part of the royal prerogative. It the purpose of wikipedia to present facts; not show people using titles they do not use and regnal names and titles they may well not use should they be lucky enough to regain their ancestor's throne. You can't just make stuff up and guess what they might be called if they were on the throne; because making stuff up and putting it on wikipedia is the very definition of what WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH is.
Lastly; the 'title rank' is whatever title rank the heir/pretender/monarch in exile actually uses. So Georg Friedrich, Prince of Prussia is merely 'Prince of Prussia'; not 'German Emperor and King of Prussia etc.', because he doesn't use those titles; and he doesn't use a monarchical ordinal. Same goes for Franz, Duke of Bavaria; his title rank is 'Duke', not 'King', because he's never used the title King. Ever. Neither has anyone on their behalf.
Sorry that's a bit long winded, but the whole business with the page irks me somewhat.
JWULTRABLIZZARD ( talk) 17:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree with most or all of what JWULTRABLIZZARD has said, but is there any reason why WP should not have an article giving a list of royal houses? ----
Ehrenkater (
talk)
18:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
The result was delete. While there are arguments made to Keep here, I find them unconvincing; one saying that headmasters of prominent schools are "inherently notable" without backing that up, and another who references the subject's inclusion in directories including Who's Who and Debrett's. I find neither argument convincing, especially given that this is an unsourced BLP. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 09:47, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Locally known headteacher. No significant coverage of the subject and offices held to date do not qualify the subject as notable Flaming Ferrari ( talk) 12:46, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List_of_Konami_games#1990-1999. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 09:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Non-notable Video game, written with a promotional tone. I would go for A7, but I am unsure whether it falls under this criteria -- Mdann 52 talk to me! 11:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC):Also nominating the following articles, as the whole series of articles seems to lack sourcing:
The result was delete all. Daniel ( talk) 08:35, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
No evidence of notability in for these unnamed railway bridges which cross canals, streams or minor rivers. (All of these articles are descriptively named after the bodies of water the bridges cross.) Brief Google searches didn't suggest that there would be any in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Articles are cited to photos on a railway enthusiast website/forum, which is not a reliable source. Related AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bridge near Prachantakham railway station. Paul_012 ( talk) 08:36, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 08:37, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Reason: this is an extremely commonplace automobile dealership that does not meet WP's notability guidelines for a business. Moreover, this article for a single location operation that is owned by a larger corporation. It is an attempt at using WP for free advertising. CZmarlin ( talk) 06:17, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 09:51, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Rejected PROD. Fails WP:NOTMEMORIAL: the only claim to notability is "first Romanian to die in an aircraft accident", which is not an establishment of notability. Fails WP:SOLDIER, WP:NPERSON. The Bushranger One ping only 05:36, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 08:38, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Non-notable hockey player, fails WP:NHOCKEY, no sources that satisfy the GNG which don't violate WP:ROUTINE or WP:GEOSCOPE. Ravenswing 03:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 08:38, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
MMA fighter who fails to meet WP:NMMA with no top tier fights and the article's only sources are to his fight record and his gym, so there's no independent coverage to meet GNG. Papaursa ( talk) 03:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
The result was delete. Blaster's comment makes absolutely no sense. Daniel ( talk) 08:39, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Does not clarify reasons for notability and unable to find enough reliable source coverage to justify article. Please note Talk page comments from the contest of CSD which was originally on it [article has been deleted as A7 once before]. James of UR ( talk) 03:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
The result was delete. The two references do not seem to make him pass WP:GNG.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 09:05, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Non-notable hockey player, fails WP:NHOCKEY, no sources that satisfy the GNG which don't violate WP:ROUTINE or WP:GEOSCOPE. Has played most of his career in amateur senior leagues. Ravenswing 03:13, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 08:39, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Fails to meet WP:NMMA with only two top tier fights and lacks the significant independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa ( talk) 03:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
The result was snow keep per WP:HEY, WP:GEOLAND, and WP:OUTCOMES. Great job of a rescue by Northamerica1000. Bearian ( talk) 18:42, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Article about a town that lacks any significance. Article cites no sources and has absolutely nothing written other than "Rogersville has a population of 7". Aclany ( talk) 01:38, 18 December 2013 (UTC)