The result was keep. Per the comments below. The article does meet WP:GNG and WP:BAND. ( non-admin closure) Vaca tion 9 00:02, 21 February 2013 (UTC) reply
I am making this nomination on behalf of an IP user who made a speedy-deletion nomination with the following rationale:
This page contains incorrect information and is using the names of popular music industry executives to draw attention to it in searches, this is a verifiability issue and is a breach of Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons. This page is also for a band who has never charted once on any of the billboard charts, The band also isn't around anymore, and hans't sold enough albums to meet the relevant criteria for content of the encyclopedia . Because of these reasons the page fails to meet the relevant notability guidelines required for wikipedia. Over all this page in unsuitable.
The article history shows edit-warring over the last year and more intensely over the last few days. See also arguments on the article talk page. Procedural nomination: I express no view. JohnCD ( talk) 23:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
- hsxeric ( talk), 9:15 15 February, 2013.
The result was delete. Secret account 01:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC) reply
I can't find any evidence that this is a notable salad. Google search comes up with this article and then pages of irrelevant results. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 21:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Secret account 01:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC) reply
This page came up as a "Random article". It was a mess, so I tidied it up, realisng as I went on that there was nothing genuinely notable and it was a suitable case for nomination for deletion. The article was created in June 2006 by MJB12, which is almost certainly the Matt Brown referred to in the article, and probably, by my reading, his age at the time! The article is about an "an independent film making label" (i.e Matt and his mate) who have an impressive selected filmography of 16 films in the space of four years (and that really is selected since the article claims over 50 films to their credit!). This company's high point seems to be not the Venice Film Festival, not Sundance, but the Cherry Creek High School 2006 Film Festival. So, we basically have two 9 - 12yo kids with a camera who knock stuff out an incredible rate with no indication of notability (unless you count 2nd prize in a school contest?) Emeraude ( talk) 20:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) LlamaAl ( talk) 00:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Seems to be a non-notable neologism. The only source cited is a non-reliable website. The author also quotes two Bible passages which he or she thinks are relevant. Needless to say people did not "date" in the time of Saint Paul. Besides that he was talking about marriage in these verses. There is already an article on Marital conversion, which is a related topic. There is really nothing here to merge there, but maybe a redirect would be a good thing. BigJim707 ( talk) 19:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to College Democrats. ( non-admin closure) LlamaAl ( talk) 00:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Single chapter of College Democrats--notability is not inherited from University or national organization ( WP:NOTINHERITED). No evidence of stand-alone notability through WP:GNG or WP:ORG. There's nothing to distinguish this chapter from the hundreds of other chapters ( Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill). GrapedApe ( talk) 13:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Secret account 01:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Test case. Googling didn't find any significant news coverage to meet WP:ORG or WP:WEB. Note that although this is a high school, it is an online high school, and thus many of the local notability reasons that normally cause us to keep small high schools do not, I feel, apply. Ray Talk 15:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. No prejudice towards a merge discussion. Mark Arsten ( talk) 00:04, 22 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Unfinished thing about a local cuisine, but so incomplete that it makes no sense at all. The Banner talk 15:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Secret account 01:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The ship itself existed, but there is no indication that the uprising happened. Kunta Kinte is a fictional character, and all of the events in this article are from the series, not reality. See also this interview with Alex Haley (the author of the book) [1], which does not mention anything about this rebellion. FunkMonk ( talk) 13:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy keep per WP:SK criteria 1 and 2. ( non-admin closure) Storkk ( talk) 16:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Reason SKOPPO ( talk) 13:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. WP:SNOW, WP:PORNBIO and WP:POINT. ( non-admin closure) TBrandley ( what's up) 20:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC) reply
We have been here before. She has now won an industry award that leads to no real world reliable coverage and I personally feel that PORNBIO is not a reliable SNG because it contradicts BLP that requires proper sourcing for biographical articles. I therefore do not feel the AVN = a notable second event and that this remains essentially a BLP1E. Spartaz Humbug! 13:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to College Democrats. Per WP:ORG#Local_units_of_larger_organizations ( non-admin closure) Vaca tion 9 00:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Single chapter of College Democrats--notability is not inherited from University or national organization ( WP:NOTINHERITED). No evidence of stand-alone notability through WP:GNG or WP:ORG. There's nothing to distinguish this chapter from the hundreds of other chapters ( Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill). GrapedApe ( talk) 13:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to College Democrats. Per WP:ORG#Local_units_of_larger_organizations ( non-admin closure) Vaca tion 9 00:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC) reply
State-level arm of the national College Republicans--notability is not inherited ( WP:NOTINHERITED). No evidence of stand-alone notability through WP:GNG or WP:ORG. GrapedApe ( talk) 12:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to College Republicans. Per WP:ORG#Local_units_of_larger_organizations ( non-admin closure) Vaca tion 9 00:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC) reply
State-level arm of the national College Republicans--notability is not inherited ( WP:NOTINHERITED). No evidence of stand-alone notability through WP:GNG or WP:ORG. GrapedApe ( talk) 12:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Secret account 01:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Wikilinked to only one article. Offers non-notable information. Unsourced. WP:NOTDIR. Same rationale for this one and this one. List of shopping malls in the Philippines already sufficient. Xeltran ( talk) 03:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G4 JohnCD ( talk) 18:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Article has been PRODed before. ArsenalFan700 ( talk) 11:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) TBrandley ( what's up) 00:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The original concern of the PROD was "While this is a topic that does exist, the article is full of original research and the only references in use are to show the charting information for the K-On! songs." I'm taking this to AfD since I believe that this PROD could possibly be controversial since there are sources in the article, and also because I want a wider hearing for this article. I have no particular opinion on this article; as such, I abstain and state that my opinion is neutral. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 11:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Kahaani#Sequel. ( non-admin closure) Vaca tion 9 00:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Isn't it too early to talk about K2, as filming has not yet started? -- Plea$ant 1623 ✉ 10:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Secret account 03:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Kickboxer who's appears to never been ranked in the top 10 or fought for a major championship. He has one big upset win, but lost his last fight and has never cracked the top 10. Does not meet WP:MANOTE or any other notability criteria. Mdtemp ( talk) 20:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) — Theopolisme ( talk) 22:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC) reply
non-notable and it is spam. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 08:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Secret account 01:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The actor co-starred in a short-lived television program, Bob Patterson (TV series). Although he was featured in a NYT profile (the article's sole cited source) and mentioned in at least three reviews of Patterson (in the New York Daily News 31 July 2001, South Florida Sun-Sentinel 2 October 2001, and Houston Chronicle 2 October 2001), he does not appear to satisfy WP:Notability (people). Cnilep ( talk) 05:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete both. Secret account 01:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Page fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. PROD contested without reason by page creator. ArsenalFan700 ( talk) 06:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. WP:SNOW The Bushranger One ping only 06:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC) reply
It doesn't seem this woman is notable enough for Wikipedia, the article is very short and many things in it are unsourced. If this page is not deleted, it should probably be merged/redirected to Brady Campaign which is a notable page. GladiusHellfire ( talk) 06:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Snow keep. Had massive notability in the 80s as a gun control advocate. TCO ( talk) 06:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Secret account 01:34, 21 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Original research, and redundant with a few different articles: History of writing, History of computing hardware, and Library science. The original version seems to be a school paper, but the original author removed most of the content after the article was proposed for deletion through WP:PROD. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 03:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete as hoax. ... discospinster talk 02:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Unsourced article (actually a collection of tables) about a television (?) series that doesn't even seem to exist. It may be a hoax, but if not, the article fails WP:NOTDIR and seems completely non-notable based on the absence of verifiable sources. - Mr X 00:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) LlamaAl ( talk) 00:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC) reply
I could find no significant coverage for this article. All of the (report) sources within the article itself appear to be dead links. Nominating article for deletion per WP:NN. Stubble boy 03:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. None of the keep commenters, mostly single-purpose accounts gave no policy based reasoning for deletion, consensus is clear here. Secret account 01:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC) reply
I hate to say it like this, but this article is basically bullshit. ref 1 does not back up his claim to be a entrepreneur or business speaker. This read as an advert. Making the New York Times best selling books on <insert here your speciality> does not make him a best selling author. This article is promotional and not written to be encyclopaedic. Martin451 ( talk) 00:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
and i formative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.132.67.73 ( talk) 23:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE The Bushranger One ping only 07:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Subject is non-notable, apart from being a (former) chief editor of two magazines, and did assorted things for other magazines. Also, the person who created this article is named "Rjannot." Possible conflict of interest? Cbrittain10 ( talk| contribs) 03:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Secret account 20:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC) reply
WP:BLP1E Gtwfan52 ( talk) 07:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
This article was recreated after the deletion discussion for DJ Abrantee, which was deleted and salted ( Abrantee Boateng was also deleted under G4 as a recreation of DJ Abrantee). The user recreated the article again, and its prose is substantially identical to DJ Abrantee, but I wasn't comfortable G4ing it because they did add some references (and lack of those was the problem brought up in the last AFD). Most refs are to random websites for promotion of musicians, or youtube, or other sites with no claim to reliability that I can see. But one goes to the guardian.co.uk and another goes to the London Evening Standard which seems legit. I offered to userfy this for the author and help them work on it but no response in a week and a half. I did a Google search to see if I could turn up any reliable sources to add but no luck there. I think he's got the potential to become notable after a little more coverage but there's not enough written about him yet to have a verifiable article, so delete. delldot ∇. 15:37, 31 January 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Memory debugger. ( non-admin closure) LlamaAl ( talk) 20:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Uncited mention of how the term is used by multiple people. Half of the article's text lists similar terms. Not encyclopedic nor a dictionary definition. – voidxor ( talk | contrib) 09:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wifione Message 07:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC) reply
This subject fails both WP:BASIC (no substantial coverage by independent reliable sources actually about the subject except his own interviews) and WP:CREATIVE, as his works appear only in private collections, none of which are themselves notable, and none of which are permanent or approach any other factor of the alternative criterion. Not surprisingly, this article is a family project by someone who, as best I can tell, is a family member of the subject. The most reliable coverage, that of the LA Times, is about cartoonists, but this subject's place in it is scant, and he is not the actual topic of discussion (he talks about being a cartoonist, just like the several others in the story — cartoons are the actual topic). The WP:LOTSOFSOURCES in previous versions contained trivial mention, and some were even associated with the subject. JFHJr ( ㊟) 23:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. With no prejudice to recreation if more reliable sourcing is created/found. Secret account 01:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Non-notable company. Article is cited entirely to primary or unreliable sources. Article's creator has been blocked for using a promotional username. A search for sources turns up some stuff for another company called Reylon who manufacture furniture. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination due to the low participation. ( non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 ( talk) 02:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC) reply
This is a list of club events, none of which is independently notable. WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE applies here. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 14:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Not one of the keep commentators mentioned any type of policy here, clear consensus it fails WP:V. Secret account 20:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC) reply
No independent coverage or references to be found anywhere - not notable -- nonsense ferret 16:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 07:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Non-notable art movement. No significant improvement in the refs since the PROD was removed two years ago. The French version has been deleted for the same reason. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 13:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Secret account 03:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Non-notable software. No references to assert notability other than state "it exists". Bob Re-born ( talk) 19:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Secret account 03:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Not notable: no evidence this is a notable recipe, being mentioned briefly on a television program. Also doubtful whether it describes one thing or a class ("cheesecake made with Salmon") – a Google search, especially an image search, turns up images almost all very unlike the included one. Probably wikibooks:Cookbook is a better place for it.
De-prodded with the reason "I disagree, the program cited shows the dish is locally well known."; but being locally well known is not enough for notability. JohnBlackburne words deeds 21:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) TBrandley ( what's up) 00:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Whereas there's a popular analogy, there's no "Clockwork universe theory"... Most of the citations fail WP:V and the page has become a POV WP:COATRACK, as evidenced by the TOC: 1 Art; 2 Opposition; 3 World-machine; 4 Objections Due to Free Will; 5 Objections Due to Entropy; 6 Objections Due to Axiomatic Mathematics; 7 Objections Due to Chaos Theory; 8 Objections Due to Quantum Mechanics... A redirection to either Determinism or Mechanism (philosophy) has been proposed.— Machine Elf 1735 19:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Don't really understand the thinking. Clockwork universe has been in vogue as a theory describing the predictibility of the universe coming out of the renassaince since at least the 17th century. It resonates in popular parlance as a metaphore described in the introduction. Recent (mostly last 40+ years) discoveries have sharpened our understanding as the whether the universe is mathematically predictible. If these discoveries are discomforting, don't read about them but don't supress them... Just a thought... this section as you must have noted bears mostly on Newtonian dynamics which was the underpining of the theory... JudgementSummary ( talk) 04:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Just undid a complete deletion of the section on "entropy" by MachineElf which is well supported by the literature. Indeed entropy is so fundamental to physical processes in clockwork universe that it determines both the beginning and end of all physical law. q.v. "heat death" of universe for instance... would appreciate knowing your thinking on the subject before wholesale deletion of major portions of article thanks JudgementSummary ( talk) 08:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC) reply
At the risk of being a little off-topic in responding to a difference of opinion on editorial content in a section devoted to your nomination to remove the entire article, nevertheless appreciate your response. It's probably better to give reasons first rather than to cut out an entire section without comment as I noted. It's a little ironic that my adding an additional citation by Stephen Hawking "All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever... The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang..." which in my experience is well supported science [entropy] and which is the entire point of the first paragraph, sparked your deletion. Also whether time had to logically begin at the "beginning" [at that ill-defined moment] was a pivotal point for Augustine marking a significant departure from the widely accepted Aristotelian philosophy of the time and based purely on reason without experimental evidence. Didn't want to get much beyond the physics vis-a-vis Newton to delve into history of philosophy. Nor is the use of "multiverse" non-scientific... Rather the entire thrust of string theory is the proposal of colliding branes [multidimensional surfaces enclosing higher dimensional spaces] which may generate sequential big-bang explosions... but even these highly speculative [because they are elegant math but unverifiable] objects would not remove entropic considerations, i.e. would still require a begining.... And also this is not a section on the validity of atheism but rather on the consequence of the current science... I had been distracted by removing suggestions of "theory" in favor of "paradigm and metaphor" but will rewrite my section on entropy [very fundamental to the clockwork universe with lots of fast moving new science] and see if I can (sorry) satisfy your objections... hopefully in a different forum... thanks... JudgementSummary ( talk) 06:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Very soft delete; the equivalent of an uncontested PROD. No previously contested PROD and the deletion rationale stands unopposed for over 7 days. NPASR. :) · Salvidrim!· ✉ 05:29, 16 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Possible WP:Notability, no references, looks like an ad. PhantomTech ( talk) 21:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Per the comments below. The article does meet WP:GNG and WP:BAND. ( non-admin closure) Vaca tion 9 00:02, 21 February 2013 (UTC) reply
I am making this nomination on behalf of an IP user who made a speedy-deletion nomination with the following rationale:
This page contains incorrect information and is using the names of popular music industry executives to draw attention to it in searches, this is a verifiability issue and is a breach of Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons. This page is also for a band who has never charted once on any of the billboard charts, The band also isn't around anymore, and hans't sold enough albums to meet the relevant criteria for content of the encyclopedia . Because of these reasons the page fails to meet the relevant notability guidelines required for wikipedia. Over all this page in unsuitable.
The article history shows edit-warring over the last year and more intensely over the last few days. See also arguments on the article talk page. Procedural nomination: I express no view. JohnCD ( talk) 23:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
- hsxeric ( talk), 9:15 15 February, 2013.
The result was delete. Secret account 01:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC) reply
I can't find any evidence that this is a notable salad. Google search comes up with this article and then pages of irrelevant results. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 21:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Secret account 01:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC) reply
This page came up as a "Random article". It was a mess, so I tidied it up, realisng as I went on that there was nothing genuinely notable and it was a suitable case for nomination for deletion. The article was created in June 2006 by MJB12, which is almost certainly the Matt Brown referred to in the article, and probably, by my reading, his age at the time! The article is about an "an independent film making label" (i.e Matt and his mate) who have an impressive selected filmography of 16 films in the space of four years (and that really is selected since the article claims over 50 films to their credit!). This company's high point seems to be not the Venice Film Festival, not Sundance, but the Cherry Creek High School 2006 Film Festival. So, we basically have two 9 - 12yo kids with a camera who knock stuff out an incredible rate with no indication of notability (unless you count 2nd prize in a school contest?) Emeraude ( talk) 20:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) LlamaAl ( talk) 00:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Seems to be a non-notable neologism. The only source cited is a non-reliable website. The author also quotes two Bible passages which he or she thinks are relevant. Needless to say people did not "date" in the time of Saint Paul. Besides that he was talking about marriage in these verses. There is already an article on Marital conversion, which is a related topic. There is really nothing here to merge there, but maybe a redirect would be a good thing. BigJim707 ( talk) 19:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to College Democrats. ( non-admin closure) LlamaAl ( talk) 00:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Single chapter of College Democrats--notability is not inherited from University or national organization ( WP:NOTINHERITED). No evidence of stand-alone notability through WP:GNG or WP:ORG. There's nothing to distinguish this chapter from the hundreds of other chapters ( Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill). GrapedApe ( talk) 13:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Secret account 01:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Test case. Googling didn't find any significant news coverage to meet WP:ORG or WP:WEB. Note that although this is a high school, it is an online high school, and thus many of the local notability reasons that normally cause us to keep small high schools do not, I feel, apply. Ray Talk 15:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. No prejudice towards a merge discussion. Mark Arsten ( talk) 00:04, 22 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Unfinished thing about a local cuisine, but so incomplete that it makes no sense at all. The Banner talk 15:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Secret account 01:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The ship itself existed, but there is no indication that the uprising happened. Kunta Kinte is a fictional character, and all of the events in this article are from the series, not reality. See also this interview with Alex Haley (the author of the book) [1], which does not mention anything about this rebellion. FunkMonk ( talk) 13:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy keep per WP:SK criteria 1 and 2. ( non-admin closure) Storkk ( talk) 16:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Reason SKOPPO ( talk) 13:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. WP:SNOW, WP:PORNBIO and WP:POINT. ( non-admin closure) TBrandley ( what's up) 20:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC) reply
We have been here before. She has now won an industry award that leads to no real world reliable coverage and I personally feel that PORNBIO is not a reliable SNG because it contradicts BLP that requires proper sourcing for biographical articles. I therefore do not feel the AVN = a notable second event and that this remains essentially a BLP1E. Spartaz Humbug! 13:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to College Democrats. Per WP:ORG#Local_units_of_larger_organizations ( non-admin closure) Vaca tion 9 00:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Single chapter of College Democrats--notability is not inherited from University or national organization ( WP:NOTINHERITED). No evidence of stand-alone notability through WP:GNG or WP:ORG. There's nothing to distinguish this chapter from the hundreds of other chapters ( Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill). GrapedApe ( talk) 13:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to College Democrats. Per WP:ORG#Local_units_of_larger_organizations ( non-admin closure) Vaca tion 9 00:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC) reply
State-level arm of the national College Republicans--notability is not inherited ( WP:NOTINHERITED). No evidence of stand-alone notability through WP:GNG or WP:ORG. GrapedApe ( talk) 12:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to College Republicans. Per WP:ORG#Local_units_of_larger_organizations ( non-admin closure) Vaca tion 9 00:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC) reply
State-level arm of the national College Republicans--notability is not inherited ( WP:NOTINHERITED). No evidence of stand-alone notability through WP:GNG or WP:ORG. GrapedApe ( talk) 12:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Secret account 01:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Wikilinked to only one article. Offers non-notable information. Unsourced. WP:NOTDIR. Same rationale for this one and this one. List of shopping malls in the Philippines already sufficient. Xeltran ( talk) 03:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G4 JohnCD ( talk) 18:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Article has been PRODed before. ArsenalFan700 ( talk) 11:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) TBrandley ( what's up) 00:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The original concern of the PROD was "While this is a topic that does exist, the article is full of original research and the only references in use are to show the charting information for the K-On! songs." I'm taking this to AfD since I believe that this PROD could possibly be controversial since there are sources in the article, and also because I want a wider hearing for this article. I have no particular opinion on this article; as such, I abstain and state that my opinion is neutral. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 11:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Kahaani#Sequel. ( non-admin closure) Vaca tion 9 00:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Isn't it too early to talk about K2, as filming has not yet started? -- Plea$ant 1623 ✉ 10:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Secret account 03:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Kickboxer who's appears to never been ranked in the top 10 or fought for a major championship. He has one big upset win, but lost his last fight and has never cracked the top 10. Does not meet WP:MANOTE or any other notability criteria. Mdtemp ( talk) 20:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) — Theopolisme ( talk) 22:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC) reply
non-notable and it is spam. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 08:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Secret account 01:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The actor co-starred in a short-lived television program, Bob Patterson (TV series). Although he was featured in a NYT profile (the article's sole cited source) and mentioned in at least three reviews of Patterson (in the New York Daily News 31 July 2001, South Florida Sun-Sentinel 2 October 2001, and Houston Chronicle 2 October 2001), he does not appear to satisfy WP:Notability (people). Cnilep ( talk) 05:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete both. Secret account 01:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Page fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. PROD contested without reason by page creator. ArsenalFan700 ( talk) 06:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. WP:SNOW The Bushranger One ping only 06:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC) reply
It doesn't seem this woman is notable enough for Wikipedia, the article is very short and many things in it are unsourced. If this page is not deleted, it should probably be merged/redirected to Brady Campaign which is a notable page. GladiusHellfire ( talk) 06:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Snow keep. Had massive notability in the 80s as a gun control advocate. TCO ( talk) 06:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Secret account 01:34, 21 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Original research, and redundant with a few different articles: History of writing, History of computing hardware, and Library science. The original version seems to be a school paper, but the original author removed most of the content after the article was proposed for deletion through WP:PROD. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 03:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete as hoax. ... discospinster talk 02:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Unsourced article (actually a collection of tables) about a television (?) series that doesn't even seem to exist. It may be a hoax, but if not, the article fails WP:NOTDIR and seems completely non-notable based on the absence of verifiable sources. - Mr X 00:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) LlamaAl ( talk) 00:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC) reply
I could find no significant coverage for this article. All of the (report) sources within the article itself appear to be dead links. Nominating article for deletion per WP:NN. Stubble boy 03:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. None of the keep commenters, mostly single-purpose accounts gave no policy based reasoning for deletion, consensus is clear here. Secret account 01:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC) reply
I hate to say it like this, but this article is basically bullshit. ref 1 does not back up his claim to be a entrepreneur or business speaker. This read as an advert. Making the New York Times best selling books on <insert here your speciality> does not make him a best selling author. This article is promotional and not written to be encyclopaedic. Martin451 ( talk) 00:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
and i formative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.132.67.73 ( talk) 23:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE The Bushranger One ping only 07:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Subject is non-notable, apart from being a (former) chief editor of two magazines, and did assorted things for other magazines. Also, the person who created this article is named "Rjannot." Possible conflict of interest? Cbrittain10 ( talk| contribs) 03:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Secret account 20:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC) reply
WP:BLP1E Gtwfan52 ( talk) 07:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
This article was recreated after the deletion discussion for DJ Abrantee, which was deleted and salted ( Abrantee Boateng was also deleted under G4 as a recreation of DJ Abrantee). The user recreated the article again, and its prose is substantially identical to DJ Abrantee, but I wasn't comfortable G4ing it because they did add some references (and lack of those was the problem brought up in the last AFD). Most refs are to random websites for promotion of musicians, or youtube, or other sites with no claim to reliability that I can see. But one goes to the guardian.co.uk and another goes to the London Evening Standard which seems legit. I offered to userfy this for the author and help them work on it but no response in a week and a half. I did a Google search to see if I could turn up any reliable sources to add but no luck there. I think he's got the potential to become notable after a little more coverage but there's not enough written about him yet to have a verifiable article, so delete. delldot ∇. 15:37, 31 January 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Memory debugger. ( non-admin closure) LlamaAl ( talk) 20:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Uncited mention of how the term is used by multiple people. Half of the article's text lists similar terms. Not encyclopedic nor a dictionary definition. – voidxor ( talk | contrib) 09:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wifione Message 07:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC) reply
This subject fails both WP:BASIC (no substantial coverage by independent reliable sources actually about the subject except his own interviews) and WP:CREATIVE, as his works appear only in private collections, none of which are themselves notable, and none of which are permanent or approach any other factor of the alternative criterion. Not surprisingly, this article is a family project by someone who, as best I can tell, is a family member of the subject. The most reliable coverage, that of the LA Times, is about cartoonists, but this subject's place in it is scant, and he is not the actual topic of discussion (he talks about being a cartoonist, just like the several others in the story — cartoons are the actual topic). The WP:LOTSOFSOURCES in previous versions contained trivial mention, and some were even associated with the subject. JFHJr ( ㊟) 23:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. With no prejudice to recreation if more reliable sourcing is created/found. Secret account 01:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Non-notable company. Article is cited entirely to primary or unreliable sources. Article's creator has been blocked for using a promotional username. A search for sources turns up some stuff for another company called Reylon who manufacture furniture. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination due to the low participation. ( non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 ( talk) 02:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC) reply
This is a list of club events, none of which is independently notable. WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE applies here. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 14:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Not one of the keep commentators mentioned any type of policy here, clear consensus it fails WP:V. Secret account 20:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC) reply
No independent coverage or references to be found anywhere - not notable -- nonsense ferret 16:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 07:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Non-notable art movement. No significant improvement in the refs since the PROD was removed two years ago. The French version has been deleted for the same reason. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 13:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Secret account 03:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Non-notable software. No references to assert notability other than state "it exists". Bob Re-born ( talk) 19:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Secret account 03:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Not notable: no evidence this is a notable recipe, being mentioned briefly on a television program. Also doubtful whether it describes one thing or a class ("cheesecake made with Salmon") – a Google search, especially an image search, turns up images almost all very unlike the included one. Probably wikibooks:Cookbook is a better place for it.
De-prodded with the reason "I disagree, the program cited shows the dish is locally well known."; but being locally well known is not enough for notability. JohnBlackburne words deeds 21:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) TBrandley ( what's up) 00:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Whereas there's a popular analogy, there's no "Clockwork universe theory"... Most of the citations fail WP:V and the page has become a POV WP:COATRACK, as evidenced by the TOC: 1 Art; 2 Opposition; 3 World-machine; 4 Objections Due to Free Will; 5 Objections Due to Entropy; 6 Objections Due to Axiomatic Mathematics; 7 Objections Due to Chaos Theory; 8 Objections Due to Quantum Mechanics... A redirection to either Determinism or Mechanism (philosophy) has been proposed.— Machine Elf 1735 19:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Don't really understand the thinking. Clockwork universe has been in vogue as a theory describing the predictibility of the universe coming out of the renassaince since at least the 17th century. It resonates in popular parlance as a metaphore described in the introduction. Recent (mostly last 40+ years) discoveries have sharpened our understanding as the whether the universe is mathematically predictible. If these discoveries are discomforting, don't read about them but don't supress them... Just a thought... this section as you must have noted bears mostly on Newtonian dynamics which was the underpining of the theory... JudgementSummary ( talk) 04:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Just undid a complete deletion of the section on "entropy" by MachineElf which is well supported by the literature. Indeed entropy is so fundamental to physical processes in clockwork universe that it determines both the beginning and end of all physical law. q.v. "heat death" of universe for instance... would appreciate knowing your thinking on the subject before wholesale deletion of major portions of article thanks JudgementSummary ( talk) 08:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC) reply
At the risk of being a little off-topic in responding to a difference of opinion on editorial content in a section devoted to your nomination to remove the entire article, nevertheless appreciate your response. It's probably better to give reasons first rather than to cut out an entire section without comment as I noted. It's a little ironic that my adding an additional citation by Stephen Hawking "All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever... The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang..." which in my experience is well supported science [entropy] and which is the entire point of the first paragraph, sparked your deletion. Also whether time had to logically begin at the "beginning" [at that ill-defined moment] was a pivotal point for Augustine marking a significant departure from the widely accepted Aristotelian philosophy of the time and based purely on reason without experimental evidence. Didn't want to get much beyond the physics vis-a-vis Newton to delve into history of philosophy. Nor is the use of "multiverse" non-scientific... Rather the entire thrust of string theory is the proposal of colliding branes [multidimensional surfaces enclosing higher dimensional spaces] which may generate sequential big-bang explosions... but even these highly speculative [because they are elegant math but unverifiable] objects would not remove entropic considerations, i.e. would still require a begining.... And also this is not a section on the validity of atheism but rather on the consequence of the current science... I had been distracted by removing suggestions of "theory" in favor of "paradigm and metaphor" but will rewrite my section on entropy [very fundamental to the clockwork universe with lots of fast moving new science] and see if I can (sorry) satisfy your objections... hopefully in a different forum... thanks... JudgementSummary ( talk) 06:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Very soft delete; the equivalent of an uncontested PROD. No previously contested PROD and the deletion rationale stands unopposed for over 7 days. NPASR. :) · Salvidrim!· ✉ 05:29, 16 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Possible WP:Notability, no references, looks like an ad. PhantomTech ( talk) 21:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC) reply