The result was keep. postdlf ( talk) 00:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was nomination withdrawn.
Doesn't seem to be a notable band; outside of the two given external links, i couldn't find any reliable sources. The only news I found about them was on blogs and based on speculation on their MySpace page.
TKK
bark ! 23:48, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
User:Carrite found numerous sources that I wasn't aware of; on that ground I withdraw my nomination. --
TKK
bark !
14:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
reply
The result was G7 speedy-deletion (non-admin closure) AllyD ( talk) 05:45, 9 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:GNG. Article created solely to make the creation of a template possible. The Banner talk 22:53, 8 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. SarahStierch ( talk) 16:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC) reply
I have attempted to locate significant independent reliable source coverage for her. All coverage I can turn up with searches such as this [1] show her being quoted, but not being a focus of the coverage. It seems her organization may be notable (but it already has its own article), but that she individually is not. And since notability is not inherited it seems too early to have a standalone article for her. ConcernedVancouverite ( talk) 20:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep (withdrawn by nominator). ( non-admin closure) — Mike moral ♪♫ 23:16, 8 June 2013 (UTC) reply
This is an improperly titled article containing a list of One Piece characters. There is already a full
One Piece article and a
List of One Piece characters. Additionally, some of the characters have their own individual pages. I was initially going to redirect, but it seems pointless with the non-standard title. More like a test page....or something.
Taroaldo (
talk)
20:23, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
reply
Withdrawn by nominator. Not enough coffee today, obviously. I moved too quickly on that. Taroaldo ( talk) 20:32, 8 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete and redirect. There doesn't appear to be any salvageable content. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 17:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The article is an unsalvageable mess of POV, irrelevant information and WP:SYN from a single (blocked) user. Kolbasz ( talk) 19:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. SarahStierch ( talk) 16:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:GNG. Unable to find reliable sources about this academic project. The references of the article are mostly academic newsletters. Farhikht ( talk) 19:42, 8 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. postdlf ( talk) 00:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Delete: I am sorry but there is no way this meets notability. Someone inserted it and I just came across it. If this stands then I guess every 9/11 victim and many more survivors get their own pages. Quis separabit? 18:44, 8 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. SarahStierch ( talk) 16:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Non-notable designer; seems to be an ad for him and his company. Orange Mike | Talk 17:41, 8 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. The article really looks a lot better than it did when the AfD began. It is no longer a "POV rant". Perhaps a merge is still advisable. -- Y not? 20:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Without citations, the bulk of this article can only be treated as original research. If it can't be supported by reliable sources, it should be deleted. The Anome ( talk) 16:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC) reply
What? There are countless articles that use the term Forced Adoption to describe the practice, many linked to from the page, there are also books that use the term. There's even a book called 'Forced Adoption' that covers the topic raised. What are you talking about? Do some real research! If you think the article is biased then make changes. It seems like there is a concerted effort to censor the topic. It is no good just saying it is biased, make specific allegations not just generalisations. What aspect of the page do you think is biased? The allegations here are baseless and biased. You are free to edit the page if you think it should be written in a different way, provide a justification of the practice is you like. Maybe a section on the history of forced adoption in the UK should be added. It should include the fact that in the 1970s tens of thousands of children were forcible removed from their mothers in the UK because they were born out of wedlock. Deleting the page is extreme. Rework the article. Newuser2111 ( talk) 09:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- BDD ( talk) 07:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Non-notable film. Looking at the production company's website, it seems like the film was never released [4] [5]. jonkerz ♠talk 16:11, 8 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- BDD ( talk) 07:46, 15 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The two entries on this disambiguation page can easily be included on Wide Awake. In fact, Wide Awakes already was. Raykyogrou0 ( Talk) 16:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. postdlf ( talk) 00:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Appears to be a non-notable neologism. No relevant hits in Google News, Google Books, JSTOR, Google News Archive, or Google Scholar. General web search shows only self published sources using the term. Also, it's unclear what makes this different from Semi-vegetarianism. Brainy J (previously Atlantima) ~✿~ ( talk) 14:06, 8 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Titanium (band) . SarahStierch ( talk) 16:17, 15 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Advertisement for the s=song (link to itunes) not notable, author removed my request for a speedy tag. Tyros1972 Talk 13:11, 8 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. SarahStierch ( talk) 16:17, 15 June 2013 (UTC) reply
No RS, seems like an advertisement to get page traffic and generate revenue via Google AdSense. Not notable. Tyros1972 Talk 13:01, 8 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy deleted by admin RHaworth ( non-admin closure). Stalwart 111 15:11, 8 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Not notable can't find any RS on this artist. Tyros1972 Talk 12:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 17:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Article does not establish notability per WP:BAND. All the article's references are either self-published, press releases, or passing notices of live performances supporting notable bands. Articles on this band were previously deleted and speedied; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human Factors Lab and deletion log. Muchness ( talk) 12:31, 8 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Band does meet requirement. As you've already stated there are noted press releases. The guideline states
" 1.Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself.[note 1] This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries[note 2] except for the following: Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves, and all advertising that mentions the musician or ensemble, including manufacturers' advertising.[note 3] Works consisting merely of trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories. Articles in a school or university newspaper (or similar), in most cases. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.10.254.215 ( talk) 16:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC) reply
should not be deleted. Meets guideline number 4 under tour coverage
4.Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.[note 4] — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
99.10.254.215 (
talk)
16:32, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
reply
Looking over the link you provided on the previously deleted page,it's obvious that that page was the victim of a malicious vandalism and in my opinion should not have been deleted. But that page being deleted is irrelevant because weather they meet the notability guidelines or not a couple years ago when that other article was written, they do meet them now and there is a large amount of press especially regarding their new album and their recent work with Chris Vrenna. As well as their tour with Kmfdm. Yes they were one of 3 bands on the tour but that was a international tour that they were billed as being a part of.
should not be deleted as per number 1.on notability guidelines the statement saying their press in only about bands that supported on tour is incorrect. Our of the 22 listed press releases on their site 21 mention there name as a main part if an article. References 1,9,10,11,12,13 and 20 on their page are independent press release ONLY about human factors lab. They meet the notability guidelines
66.87.149.168 (
talk)
17:09, 8 June 2013 (UTC)mike
reply
Deletion of previous article is irrelevant to the claim that the band does not currently meet notability guidelines. Reading over the article for deletion discussion and statements from names like "bring them down" it's obvious these were fake names created to maliciously attack the bands wiki page. Also that page was deleted in 2010. Even if someone agreed that they were not notable then. The references provided showing notability are all recent in the past couple years 66.87.149.168 ( talk) 17:23, 8 June 2013 (UTC)mike reply
I disagree with the statement that coverage international tours in grade a venues is not relevant to them brig notable. If they weren't notable they would be on those tours. Also the coverage is buy die of the biggest online music magazine like blabber mouth and the gauntlet. But even if that were correct. There are articles that have nothing to do with them touring. There are articles about them producing albums with Chris Vrenna of none inch nails. And about the band in general. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
66.87.148.135 (
talk)
06:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
reply
In addition to being direct support on major national tours the band has also redivided press from regen magazine. Another large online music publication regarding their own headlong tours. The first thing in the notability guidelines states press is relevant to them being notable. They had provided sources for multiple tour related and other no tour rested press releases. They meet the guidelines — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.148.135 ( talk) 07:04, 9 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The fact that you yourself posted different links from different new sources should show the band obviously meets notability requirements. The links you provided were regarding one of MANY tours If that in itself isn't enough them the link you mistakenly provided as well as the regen magazine links, and the other 20+ sources should show they meet requirement 1. In the guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.10.254.215 ( talk) 03:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The gauntlet is one of the largest and most reliable online news sources there is. The fact that the gauntlet ran an article on them seems to show notability almost in itself. Given their reputation it isn't uncommon for other online magazine to also run stories that te gauntlet runs. Sometimes word for word. I dot think this take away from the notability of the band though. But just to provide information here is a link to a different magazine that is covering the same topic. But not taken from the gauntlet
http://regenmag.com/news/human-factors-lab-to-release-new-album-in-four-parts/
66.87.149.168 (
talk)
15:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)mike
reply
There are over 20 references and examples given from INDEPENDANT media sources. How could you possible make a statement saying delete when it's so obvious — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.10.254.215 ( talk) 08:11, 15 June 2013 (UTC) reply
KEEP, they meet the 1st part of guidelines with 1.Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable,".. Just because something is covered by the press doesn't mean it should be disregarded. I don't see 1 single self published article listed, all are from independent notable news sources, on varies subjects.. its not like they were just mentioned once in a passing article.. they have been mentioned for multiple different things, at multiple times, by multiple news organizations. ... news organizations that have done stricles just based off them, because they are notable enough to be news worthy in the opinion of the writers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.10.254.215 ( talk) 18:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The Gauntet,Regen magazine,fabrika magazine,and blabber mouth are all very well established notable music related news sites. All of these have run Varies articles — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
99.10.254.215 (
talk)
17:19, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
reply
The result was redirect to Black Joy. SarahStierch ( talk) 16:18, 15 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 12:19, 8 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Psychic TV. It's also a copyvio as it's just text from the CD. I have the album ;) SarahStierch ( talk) 16:19, 15 June 2013 (UTC) reply
looks like copyvio from "CD inlay card" and WP:OR. No sources to back up claims The Banner talk 12:18, 8 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. SarahStierch ( talk) 16:19, 15 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Very short, unsourced article about a non-notable subcaste. The article makes dubious claims. - Mr X 11:51, 8 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy deleted by admin RHaworth ( non-admin closure). — Mike moral ♪♫ 23:31, 8 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Article lacks any RS and notability. Unable to find anything on the artist in Google. Tyros1972 Talk 11:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. postdlf ( talk) 00:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC) reply
This stamp issue is not notable in itself. Philafrenzy ( talk) 10:16, 8 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. postdlf ( talk) 00:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Non-notable politician ( ✉→ BWilkins ←✎) 10:00, 8 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. L Faraone 01:03, 17 June 2013 (UTC) reply
References of the article are mostly blogs or news article that mention him very briefly among others. I've found nothing else after a search in Persian. Noted that both of the articles in Persian and English Wiki have been created by two different SPA users. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ACTOR. Farhikht ( talk) 08:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC) reply
Among these sources, Mehr News Agency is a good source I think. Farhikht ( talk) 20:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination ( non-admin closure) czar · · 11:14, 15 June 2013 (UTC) reply
I deleted this page as a result of Afd earlier this month. Now it was recreated by the same user in a different form. There is no copyvio anymore, however, notability is not demonstrated. Ymblanter ( talk) 14:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#A9 JohnCD ( talk) 10:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC) reply
No RS, looks like a promotion for this artist. Tyros1972 Talk 07:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Sponge Cola. ( non-admin closure) czar · · 11:19, 15 June 2013 (UTC) reply
No RS just YouTube, Facebook etc. does not seem notable just promotion. Tyros1972 Talk 07:05, 8 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. postdlf ( talk) 00:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC) reply
This article was created by an author who has since been banned. The resulting major cleanup left this a two-sentence stub that has little hope of being expanded. Chris Troutman ( talk) 06:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to SpongeBob SquarePants (season 7). ( non-admin closure) czar · · 11:21, 15 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. Episode fails WP:GNG. Has only few sources, including IMDb and TV.com are not reliable failing WP:RS, nothing but fancruft. JJ98 ( Talk) 04:35, 8 June 2013 (UTC) reply
JJ98 ( Talk) 04:49, 8 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Hammerhead (band). ( non-admin closure) czar · · 11:30, 15 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Non-notable EP. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 03:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Tom Morris ( talk) 15:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Time to put this one to rest: speedied twice already, and no more notable now than it was a few days ago. There's nothing but some vague claims to fame and a bunch of hits on mixtape websites: not a notable outfit. Perhaps SALT will go well with deletion. Drmies ( talk) 02:35, 8 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination ( non-admin closure) czar · · 11:34, 15 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Non notable musician. Koala15 ( talk) 04:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. postdlf ( talk) 00:42, 14 June 2013 (UTC) reply
"Private university" with no reliable secondary sources. Looks like this has been speedied a couple of times as unambiguous advertising; I prodded it earlier today after seeing it spammed across See-Also sections, but a new editor opposed it by adding a Blogspot blog source. McGeddon ( talk) 12:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC) reply
I was the one who added this page's link in multiple wikipedia pages (which are relevant to Market research and management). My intention was not to advertise but to spread market research in developing countries like India, Indonesia, Nigeria etc. I was not aware that my actions would be considered as advertising. Even I do not have any direct relationship with this University. But have to admit one thing, this institute is doing a great job in above mentioned countries where awareness about market research is very minimum. I tried to contribute some thing to the Bottom of Pyramid Youth population in developing counties by spreading market research (since market research has high employment generation capacity). I can remove those unnecessary links of this page in other wiki pages since it is seen as advertising. I am collecting the secondary sources right now and could add dome more sources soon. Believe you can understand. Thank you. Lincolnlatest123 ( Lincolnlatest123|talk)
The result was no consensus to delete -- Y not? 18:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Interesting contradiction here: normally this would be NOT MEMORIAL or NOT NEWS, but he was awarded a national medal, apparently the "2nd highest medal for people without higher education" DGG ( talk ) 14:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. There seems to be consensus that this is not a thing. Happy to provide the content to people if it is after all a thing and better sources are found. -- Y not? 14:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Disguised SPAM for a veterinary clinic over several Wikipedia (including the Dutch) with an assistant. The Banner talk 21:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC) reply
a b van de Veen, EA; de Vet HC, Pool JJ, Schuller W, de Zoete A, Bouter LM (February 2005). "Variance in manual treatment of nonspecific low back pain between orthomanual physicians, manual therapists, and chiropractors". Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics 28 (2): 108–16. But maybe the Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics is not good enough for you? But if you still don't believe me, why don't you look at this: http://www.vomtech.com/whatis.htm Or: http://corebalancetherapy.com/manual-therapy/ If this is a new method of treating certain types of injuries affecting dogs, I don't see why it can't be included. We do have a "Canine physical therapy" article in Wikipedia. I don't quite see what is the difference between these two, as this is a type of canine physical therapy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoranBar ( talk • contribs) 13:10, 28 May 2013 (UTC) reply
Userify - If this is worth a standalone article then I would expect more coverage and independent coverage; Wikipedia should not be publishing or pushing practices that are not peer-reviewed and promotional. The sources in the article are largely statements unrelated to the development, practice and standing amongst academic and practicing peers. Userifying is better than deleting at this point. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 03:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The actual policy-based arguments weigh as delete ( ✉→ BWilkins ←✎) 10:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Tragic but WP:NOTNEWS. ...William 18:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Near East University. I think there's enough consensus to merge. DGG ( talk ) 06:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Non-notable institution; article created (and then prod removed) by COI-afflicted editor who is creating a number of articles on topics that should be covered (if at all) in the main article on Near East University. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 18:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to David Crowder Band. ( non-admin closure) czar · · 11:45, 15 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Non-notable early release from a notable band. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 18:09, 25 May 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. postdlf ( talk) 00:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was nomination withdrawn.
Doesn't seem to be a notable band; outside of the two given external links, i couldn't find any reliable sources. The only news I found about them was on blogs and based on speculation on their MySpace page.
TKK
bark ! 23:48, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
User:Carrite found numerous sources that I wasn't aware of; on that ground I withdraw my nomination. --
TKK
bark !
14:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
reply
The result was G7 speedy-deletion (non-admin closure) AllyD ( talk) 05:45, 9 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:GNG. Article created solely to make the creation of a template possible. The Banner talk 22:53, 8 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. SarahStierch ( talk) 16:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC) reply
I have attempted to locate significant independent reliable source coverage for her. All coverage I can turn up with searches such as this [1] show her being quoted, but not being a focus of the coverage. It seems her organization may be notable (but it already has its own article), but that she individually is not. And since notability is not inherited it seems too early to have a standalone article for her. ConcernedVancouverite ( talk) 20:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep (withdrawn by nominator). ( non-admin closure) — Mike moral ♪♫ 23:16, 8 June 2013 (UTC) reply
This is an improperly titled article containing a list of One Piece characters. There is already a full
One Piece article and a
List of One Piece characters. Additionally, some of the characters have their own individual pages. I was initially going to redirect, but it seems pointless with the non-standard title. More like a test page....or something.
Taroaldo (
talk)
20:23, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
reply
Withdrawn by nominator. Not enough coffee today, obviously. I moved too quickly on that. Taroaldo ( talk) 20:32, 8 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete and redirect. There doesn't appear to be any salvageable content. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 17:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The article is an unsalvageable mess of POV, irrelevant information and WP:SYN from a single (blocked) user. Kolbasz ( talk) 19:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. SarahStierch ( talk) 16:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:GNG. Unable to find reliable sources about this academic project. The references of the article are mostly academic newsletters. Farhikht ( talk) 19:42, 8 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. postdlf ( talk) 00:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Delete: I am sorry but there is no way this meets notability. Someone inserted it and I just came across it. If this stands then I guess every 9/11 victim and many more survivors get their own pages. Quis separabit? 18:44, 8 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. SarahStierch ( talk) 16:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Non-notable designer; seems to be an ad for him and his company. Orange Mike | Talk 17:41, 8 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. The article really looks a lot better than it did when the AfD began. It is no longer a "POV rant". Perhaps a merge is still advisable. -- Y not? 20:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Without citations, the bulk of this article can only be treated as original research. If it can't be supported by reliable sources, it should be deleted. The Anome ( talk) 16:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC) reply
What? There are countless articles that use the term Forced Adoption to describe the practice, many linked to from the page, there are also books that use the term. There's even a book called 'Forced Adoption' that covers the topic raised. What are you talking about? Do some real research! If you think the article is biased then make changes. It seems like there is a concerted effort to censor the topic. It is no good just saying it is biased, make specific allegations not just generalisations. What aspect of the page do you think is biased? The allegations here are baseless and biased. You are free to edit the page if you think it should be written in a different way, provide a justification of the practice is you like. Maybe a section on the history of forced adoption in the UK should be added. It should include the fact that in the 1970s tens of thousands of children were forcible removed from their mothers in the UK because they were born out of wedlock. Deleting the page is extreme. Rework the article. Newuser2111 ( talk) 09:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- BDD ( talk) 07:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Non-notable film. Looking at the production company's website, it seems like the film was never released [4] [5]. jonkerz ♠talk 16:11, 8 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- BDD ( talk) 07:46, 15 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The two entries on this disambiguation page can easily be included on Wide Awake. In fact, Wide Awakes already was. Raykyogrou0 ( Talk) 16:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. postdlf ( talk) 00:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Appears to be a non-notable neologism. No relevant hits in Google News, Google Books, JSTOR, Google News Archive, or Google Scholar. General web search shows only self published sources using the term. Also, it's unclear what makes this different from Semi-vegetarianism. Brainy J (previously Atlantima) ~✿~ ( talk) 14:06, 8 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Titanium (band) . SarahStierch ( talk) 16:17, 15 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Advertisement for the s=song (link to itunes) not notable, author removed my request for a speedy tag. Tyros1972 Talk 13:11, 8 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. SarahStierch ( talk) 16:17, 15 June 2013 (UTC) reply
No RS, seems like an advertisement to get page traffic and generate revenue via Google AdSense. Not notable. Tyros1972 Talk 13:01, 8 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy deleted by admin RHaworth ( non-admin closure). Stalwart 111 15:11, 8 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Not notable can't find any RS on this artist. Tyros1972 Talk 12:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 17:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Article does not establish notability per WP:BAND. All the article's references are either self-published, press releases, or passing notices of live performances supporting notable bands. Articles on this band were previously deleted and speedied; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human Factors Lab and deletion log. Muchness ( talk) 12:31, 8 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Band does meet requirement. As you've already stated there are noted press releases. The guideline states
" 1.Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself.[note 1] This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries[note 2] except for the following: Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves, and all advertising that mentions the musician or ensemble, including manufacturers' advertising.[note 3] Works consisting merely of trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories. Articles in a school or university newspaper (or similar), in most cases. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.10.254.215 ( talk) 16:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC) reply
should not be deleted. Meets guideline number 4 under tour coverage
4.Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.[note 4] — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
99.10.254.215 (
talk)
16:32, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
reply
Looking over the link you provided on the previously deleted page,it's obvious that that page was the victim of a malicious vandalism and in my opinion should not have been deleted. But that page being deleted is irrelevant because weather they meet the notability guidelines or not a couple years ago when that other article was written, they do meet them now and there is a large amount of press especially regarding their new album and their recent work with Chris Vrenna. As well as their tour with Kmfdm. Yes they were one of 3 bands on the tour but that was a international tour that they were billed as being a part of.
should not be deleted as per number 1.on notability guidelines the statement saying their press in only about bands that supported on tour is incorrect. Our of the 22 listed press releases on their site 21 mention there name as a main part if an article. References 1,9,10,11,12,13 and 20 on their page are independent press release ONLY about human factors lab. They meet the notability guidelines
66.87.149.168 (
talk)
17:09, 8 June 2013 (UTC)mike
reply
Deletion of previous article is irrelevant to the claim that the band does not currently meet notability guidelines. Reading over the article for deletion discussion and statements from names like "bring them down" it's obvious these were fake names created to maliciously attack the bands wiki page. Also that page was deleted in 2010. Even if someone agreed that they were not notable then. The references provided showing notability are all recent in the past couple years 66.87.149.168 ( talk) 17:23, 8 June 2013 (UTC)mike reply
I disagree with the statement that coverage international tours in grade a venues is not relevant to them brig notable. If they weren't notable they would be on those tours. Also the coverage is buy die of the biggest online music magazine like blabber mouth and the gauntlet. But even if that were correct. There are articles that have nothing to do with them touring. There are articles about them producing albums with Chris Vrenna of none inch nails. And about the band in general. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
66.87.148.135 (
talk)
06:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
reply
In addition to being direct support on major national tours the band has also redivided press from regen magazine. Another large online music publication regarding their own headlong tours. The first thing in the notability guidelines states press is relevant to them being notable. They had provided sources for multiple tour related and other no tour rested press releases. They meet the guidelines — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.148.135 ( talk) 07:04, 9 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The fact that you yourself posted different links from different new sources should show the band obviously meets notability requirements. The links you provided were regarding one of MANY tours If that in itself isn't enough them the link you mistakenly provided as well as the regen magazine links, and the other 20+ sources should show they meet requirement 1. In the guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.10.254.215 ( talk) 03:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The gauntlet is one of the largest and most reliable online news sources there is. The fact that the gauntlet ran an article on them seems to show notability almost in itself. Given their reputation it isn't uncommon for other online magazine to also run stories that te gauntlet runs. Sometimes word for word. I dot think this take away from the notability of the band though. But just to provide information here is a link to a different magazine that is covering the same topic. But not taken from the gauntlet
http://regenmag.com/news/human-factors-lab-to-release-new-album-in-four-parts/
66.87.149.168 (
talk)
15:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)mike
reply
There are over 20 references and examples given from INDEPENDANT media sources. How could you possible make a statement saying delete when it's so obvious — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.10.254.215 ( talk) 08:11, 15 June 2013 (UTC) reply
KEEP, they meet the 1st part of guidelines with 1.Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable,".. Just because something is covered by the press doesn't mean it should be disregarded. I don't see 1 single self published article listed, all are from independent notable news sources, on varies subjects.. its not like they were just mentioned once in a passing article.. they have been mentioned for multiple different things, at multiple times, by multiple news organizations. ... news organizations that have done stricles just based off them, because they are notable enough to be news worthy in the opinion of the writers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.10.254.215 ( talk) 18:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The Gauntet,Regen magazine,fabrika magazine,and blabber mouth are all very well established notable music related news sites. All of these have run Varies articles — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
99.10.254.215 (
talk)
17:19, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
reply
The result was redirect to Black Joy. SarahStierch ( talk) 16:18, 15 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 12:19, 8 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Psychic TV. It's also a copyvio as it's just text from the CD. I have the album ;) SarahStierch ( talk) 16:19, 15 June 2013 (UTC) reply
looks like copyvio from "CD inlay card" and WP:OR. No sources to back up claims The Banner talk 12:18, 8 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. SarahStierch ( talk) 16:19, 15 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Very short, unsourced article about a non-notable subcaste. The article makes dubious claims. - Mr X 11:51, 8 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy deleted by admin RHaworth ( non-admin closure). — Mike moral ♪♫ 23:31, 8 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Article lacks any RS and notability. Unable to find anything on the artist in Google. Tyros1972 Talk 11:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. postdlf ( talk) 00:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC) reply
This stamp issue is not notable in itself. Philafrenzy ( talk) 10:16, 8 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. postdlf ( talk) 00:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Non-notable politician ( ✉→ BWilkins ←✎) 10:00, 8 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. L Faraone 01:03, 17 June 2013 (UTC) reply
References of the article are mostly blogs or news article that mention him very briefly among others. I've found nothing else after a search in Persian. Noted that both of the articles in Persian and English Wiki have been created by two different SPA users. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ACTOR. Farhikht ( talk) 08:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC) reply
Among these sources, Mehr News Agency is a good source I think. Farhikht ( talk) 20:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination ( non-admin closure) czar · · 11:14, 15 June 2013 (UTC) reply
I deleted this page as a result of Afd earlier this month. Now it was recreated by the same user in a different form. There is no copyvio anymore, however, notability is not demonstrated. Ymblanter ( talk) 14:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#A9 JohnCD ( talk) 10:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC) reply
No RS, looks like a promotion for this artist. Tyros1972 Talk 07:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Sponge Cola. ( non-admin closure) czar · · 11:19, 15 June 2013 (UTC) reply
No RS just YouTube, Facebook etc. does not seem notable just promotion. Tyros1972 Talk 07:05, 8 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. postdlf ( talk) 00:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC) reply
This article was created by an author who has since been banned. The resulting major cleanup left this a two-sentence stub that has little hope of being expanded. Chris Troutman ( talk) 06:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to SpongeBob SquarePants (season 7). ( non-admin closure) czar · · 11:21, 15 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. Episode fails WP:GNG. Has only few sources, including IMDb and TV.com are not reliable failing WP:RS, nothing but fancruft. JJ98 ( Talk) 04:35, 8 June 2013 (UTC) reply
JJ98 ( Talk) 04:49, 8 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Hammerhead (band). ( non-admin closure) czar · · 11:30, 15 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Non-notable EP. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 03:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Tom Morris ( talk) 15:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Time to put this one to rest: speedied twice already, and no more notable now than it was a few days ago. There's nothing but some vague claims to fame and a bunch of hits on mixtape websites: not a notable outfit. Perhaps SALT will go well with deletion. Drmies ( talk) 02:35, 8 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination ( non-admin closure) czar · · 11:34, 15 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Non notable musician. Koala15 ( talk) 04:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. postdlf ( talk) 00:42, 14 June 2013 (UTC) reply
"Private university" with no reliable secondary sources. Looks like this has been speedied a couple of times as unambiguous advertising; I prodded it earlier today after seeing it spammed across See-Also sections, but a new editor opposed it by adding a Blogspot blog source. McGeddon ( talk) 12:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC) reply
I was the one who added this page's link in multiple wikipedia pages (which are relevant to Market research and management). My intention was not to advertise but to spread market research in developing countries like India, Indonesia, Nigeria etc. I was not aware that my actions would be considered as advertising. Even I do not have any direct relationship with this University. But have to admit one thing, this institute is doing a great job in above mentioned countries where awareness about market research is very minimum. I tried to contribute some thing to the Bottom of Pyramid Youth population in developing counties by spreading market research (since market research has high employment generation capacity). I can remove those unnecessary links of this page in other wiki pages since it is seen as advertising. I am collecting the secondary sources right now and could add dome more sources soon. Believe you can understand. Thank you. Lincolnlatest123 ( Lincolnlatest123|talk)
The result was no consensus to delete -- Y not? 18:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Interesting contradiction here: normally this would be NOT MEMORIAL or NOT NEWS, but he was awarded a national medal, apparently the "2nd highest medal for people without higher education" DGG ( talk ) 14:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. There seems to be consensus that this is not a thing. Happy to provide the content to people if it is after all a thing and better sources are found. -- Y not? 14:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Disguised SPAM for a veterinary clinic over several Wikipedia (including the Dutch) with an assistant. The Banner talk 21:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC) reply
a b van de Veen, EA; de Vet HC, Pool JJ, Schuller W, de Zoete A, Bouter LM (February 2005). "Variance in manual treatment of nonspecific low back pain between orthomanual physicians, manual therapists, and chiropractors". Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics 28 (2): 108–16. But maybe the Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics is not good enough for you? But if you still don't believe me, why don't you look at this: http://www.vomtech.com/whatis.htm Or: http://corebalancetherapy.com/manual-therapy/ If this is a new method of treating certain types of injuries affecting dogs, I don't see why it can't be included. We do have a "Canine physical therapy" article in Wikipedia. I don't quite see what is the difference between these two, as this is a type of canine physical therapy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoranBar ( talk • contribs) 13:10, 28 May 2013 (UTC) reply
Userify - If this is worth a standalone article then I would expect more coverage and independent coverage; Wikipedia should not be publishing or pushing practices that are not peer-reviewed and promotional. The sources in the article are largely statements unrelated to the development, practice and standing amongst academic and practicing peers. Userifying is better than deleting at this point. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 03:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The actual policy-based arguments weigh as delete ( ✉→ BWilkins ←✎) 10:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Tragic but WP:NOTNEWS. ...William 18:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Near East University. I think there's enough consensus to merge. DGG ( talk ) 06:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Non-notable institution; article created (and then prod removed) by COI-afflicted editor who is creating a number of articles on topics that should be covered (if at all) in the main article on Near East University. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 18:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to David Crowder Band. ( non-admin closure) czar · · 11:45, 15 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Non-notable early release from a notable band. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 18:09, 25 May 2013 (UTC) reply