The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 01:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Company fails WP:CORPDEPTH (insufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
The result was keep. j⚛e decker talk 01:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
This short biography seems to utterly fail Wikipedia:Notability (people). Ego Hunter ( talk) 05:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
The result was keep. j⚛e decker talk 01:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Article created by WP:SPA and appears to function as WP:ADVERT and WP:PROMO. — Cirt ( talk) 06:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
The result was Keep. ( non-admin closure) czar ♔ 12:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Article created by WP:SPA, with primary function of WP:ADVERT and WP:PROMO. — Cirt ( talk) 16:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
The result was keep. Yunshui 雲 水 10:20, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Article created by (indef-blocked) WP:SPA RandoxLabs ( talk · contribs), with primary function of WP:ADVERT and WP:PROMO. — Cirt ( talk) 22:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Keep Yes it is badly written and PROMO, but it meets notability: here, here, here. EBY ( talk) 00:41, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
The result was keep. You are more than welcome to have a go at it without it needing to be deleted. There is no consensus to delete at this time. ( non-admin closure) Dusti *Let's talk!* 17:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Unsourced forever, WP:WORLDWIDE americanism, no attempt at refs, extremely US-centric. Delete it and let me have a go at making an article at Bargain basement, which redirects here. But it needs deleting regardless, this is just a personal opinio in the style of an WP:ESSAY, with no RS, no sod all. Si Trew ( talk) 22:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
The result was keep. Although Carrite's additions are impressive, if Bearcat wishes this to be closed as no consensus later on, I can change my close. But procedurally, this is a keep close. Wifione Message 15:58, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Fails
WP:JOURNALIST. Most sourcing is to blogs and self-published material, and the most significant recognition is by a non-notable organization. The only other recognition is from a local specialty publication. The article appears to be maintained by friends of the subject as an inside joke. The article’s subject
apparently edits this page and
encourages vandalism of the page, including adding false/defamatory content. Recommend delete and salt for both this and
Parker Molloy.
BruinsR4eva (
talk)
21:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
• Delete and salt as nominator.
BruinsR4eva (
talk)
21:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
The most significant recognition, Ms. Molloy's inclusion in the Trans 100, is not "non-notable." Trans 100 was covered by
GLAAD,
BuzzFeed, and
The Advocate. Further, it is incorrect to state "most sourcing is to blogs and self-published material" - the lead notes her publication at a variety of sources:
Review of the alleged edits by Ms. Molloy indicate all are negative and refer to Ms. Molloy as a "troll" and vandalism such as: "Molloy also for some reason thinks that she is famous when in reality she writes grade school reading level articles for websites that no one reads. She also has little to no sense of humor and enjoys seeking out reasons to complain about non existent issues. At this point I'd say grow a pair but, too late." As such, it is reasonable to surmise that the individual with the username "ParkerMolloy" is not Ms. Molloy.
As the controversy section indicates, Ms. Molloy is frequently discussed in the LGBT press, including The Advocate, Queerty, Huffington Post, and others. She has been brought in as an expert by Dan Savage on several occasions to discuss transgender issues. As such, she does not fail WP:JOURNALIST; she meets qualifications 1, (maybe) 3, and 4.
Notice of COI: I sometimes Tweet at Ms. Molloy. On occasions she listens.
Emily Esque (
talk)
22:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but
WP:NUKEANDPAVE pertains here. She might certainly qualify for a properly written and properly sourced article, but that's not what this version is — this relies entirely too much on sourcing in which she's the author, not the subject, of the reference, and that kind of sourcing counts for exactly nothing toward demonstrating that she's notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Accordingly, it would be easier to restart from scratch than it would be to repair all the problems with this version. Delete, without prejudice against creation of a better version in the future. I'd also be willing to accept sandboxing in user or draft space so that it can be worked on, but it's not entitled to stay in articlespace in this form with this quality of sourcing.
Bearcat (
talk)
23:40, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to explain the interpretation of notability. From my review of the article, the following sources reference Ms. Molloy as the subject, rather than as an author (COI - I added the Open Letter; I'm also a signatory):
Also, a quick Google turned up this from GLAAD, mentioning Ms. Molloy as a subject:
I understand that it takes more than an author writing about herself to be notable, but there is a rather substantial body of articles dedicated to talking about Ms. Molloy from a variety of LGBT publications. Emily Esque ( talk) 00:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Do you happen to have a good example of what a good WP page for a burgeoning journalist that has attained notability *should* look like? Emily Esque ( talk) 00:55, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Never let it be said that Emily Esque does not beat dead horses into paste. You asked for more sourcing, and by the heavens you shall have it. Additional sources referring to Molloy as subject:
I do believe we can put this nomination for deletion to bed as factually inaccurate (Molloy does not edit this page) and incorrect (Molloy has clearly meets GNG guidelines and WP:JOURNALIST). Emily Esque ( talk) 19:49, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
1. Bylines do not demonstrate notability. As Bearian said, blogging about notable people or for notable publications does not make a journalist notable.
2. Blogs and self-published sources do not demonstrate notability. EmilyEsque's first bulleted list is comprised of special-interest group blogs or publications:
Gay/transgendered
Not gay/transgendered - Parker Marie Molloy is mentioned but not primary subject
3. Passing mentions and references to bylines do not demonstrate notability. EmilyEsque's other bulleted list is comprised of these.
4. All recognition is from non-notable organizations:
5. WP:BLP1E. The blog posts with "Parker Marie Molloy" or variants in the title seem to be about one controversy involving language. Parker Marie Molloy criticized RuPaul's language, but then she resigned from at least two writing jobs because others criticized her own language. Starting a fight with a notable person does not make someone notable.
6. The only time this person has been mentioned in a book is in her autobiography for Thought Catalog, a non-notable publisher. [7] Even Parker Marie Molloy describes Thought Catalog as “an open platform where (virtually) anyone can publish whatever they want.” [8] She seems to have resigned from there as well.
The original nomination has been amended because User:ParkerMolloy got blocked. Articles about people involved in one controversial topic often attract vandalism from detractors, but in this case even Parker Marie Molloy encourages friends to vandalize the page on her behalf. She even posts pictures of the vandalism she requested. This kind of disruption by non-notable people wastes everyone’s time and damages the project. Reiterate delete and salt vote. BruinsR4eva ( talk) 19:58, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. Yunshui 雲 水 10:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Unaired, cancelled television project. Epically fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILMS. Recreated after previous deletion at AfD. Delete and Salt. Safiel ( talk) 20:48, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
The result was keep. Yunshui 雲 水 10:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
The subject fails to meet notability guidelines. While the subject appears to meet sport specific criteria, Wikipedia:Notability_(sports) FAQ#2 states that the subject must still meet the general notability guidelines. The subject lacks "significant coverage". The article was created 6+ years ago and only has one reference, to a broken link, from the subject's University Athletics program and not his former professional team. Searching on Google fails to reveal significant coverage of the subject. Many sources briefly mention the subject, identifying participation in a game or the time at which a goal was scored. But articles with depth on the subject were not found. Additionally, many of those sources lack reliability or independence from the subject. Becky Sayles ( talk) 20:27, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Meeting NFOOTY means it is likely to meet the general notability guidelines, not that it does meet them. Becky Sayles ( talk) 18:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)"This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia. The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below. If the article does meet the criteria set forth below, then it is likely that sufficient sources exist to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Failing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways (e.g. the general notability guideline, or other, topic-specific, notability guidelines). Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb which some editors choose to keep in mind when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is on articles for deletion, along with relevant guidelines such asWikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources.(my emphasis)
While my own brief look into the archive does not support the described local consensus, I assume that GiantSnowman's comments in Spencer Thompson are an accurate reflection of his experience. Unfortunately, here a subset of editors participating in football AfDs are asking to apply local consensus over the broader consensus established in applicable guidelines and policy. [b]"Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. (See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Advice pages.) Wikipedia has a higher standard of participation and consensus for changes to policies and guidelines than to other types of pages. This is because they reflect established consensus, and their stability and consistency are important to the community. As a result, editors often propose substantive changes on the talk page first to permit discussion before implementing the change. Changes may be made without prior discussion, but they are subject to a high level of scrutiny. The community is more likely to accept edits to policy if they are made slowly and conservatively, with active efforts to seek out input and agreement from others."
The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 01:03, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. The article lacks reliable sources. Versace1608 (Talk) 20:18, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. Yunshui 雲 水 10:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. He is not a notable artist. Versace1608 (Talk) 20:10, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Delete: per nominator's reasoning + There is hardly a notable Nigerian entertainer that I will not know. Darreg ( talk) 21:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. Yunshui 雲 水 10:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Apparently non-notable film director, known for a possibly non-notable film. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 11:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. Yunshui 雲 水 10:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Fails WP:PORNBIO and the WP:GNG. No independent reliable sources in the references. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 05:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 00:32, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a newspaper. This doesn't need to be here. It is a news story with little significance except for the higher level of news coverage it has garnered. Ksoth ( talk) 16:50, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. Yunshui 雲 水 10:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Tagged for notability already, I don't believe this artist meets GNG Gbawden ( talk) 07:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
The result was keep. Yunshui 雲 水 10:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
I am not seeing how this person meets Wikipedia:Notability (people). Ego Hunter ( talk) 05:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Keep: Notable alright, co-founder of NGO "Point of View", and "first Indian to be appointed on Wikimedia board of trustees" in 2010 [14] -- Ekabhishek talk 13:51, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Keep — First and most importantly, Datta's work as an filmmaker, journalist, member of the Wikimedia Foundation board, and her work with Point of View feel like, together, they should rise to the WP:N bar. The article does not do as good a good job of establishing notability as it should but we should fix the article, not delete it. The recent additions help enormously.
Second, the nominator seems to have 30 minute total contribution history to Wikipedia that exclusively involved nominating visible Wikimedia leaders' biographies for deletion. That contribution history, the username and user page, seems to me like somebody it might be trying to make a WP:POINT. Full disclosure, I found this because they also nominated the biography about me in the same session. Additionally, I have met Datta but I do not know her well. — mako ๛ 03:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
The result was KEEP. The consensus seems to be that the article, while not necessarily sourced as well as it could be, is worth keeping. I'll tag it with {{Cleanup AfD}} as well. ( non-admin closure) demize ( t · c) 23:58, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I respect BMH a lot, but I am not seeing how he meets Wikipedia:Notability (people)? The references are either his own websites, or websites of organizations he is affiliated with. Hackers and Wikipedians (even WMF members) have no discount policy for meeting this Wikipedia requirement, I believe. Update: considering how nice the article is, formatting and all, perhaps Wikipedia:Userfy would be a solution? Ego Hunter ( talk) 05:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 01:03, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
No hits, no major record deal, no coverage, no nothing. Drmies ( talk) 03:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
there are tons of bands who havent signed with major labels but are significant with the scene. but go ahead and delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zerochuckdude ( talk • contribs) 03:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 01:02, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Non-notable piece of software, as far as I can tell. Finding sources for this is made difficult by its name, which neither Google nor DuckDuckGo will handle properly, but even websites listing PS2 emulators don't list this one. QVVERTYVS ( hm?) 15:05, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. There is no clear consensus regarding if subject meets notability criteria, specifically if meeting the criteria to join the Fellowship of the RGS meets PROF. A number of the comments and !votes are by users who have little or no other contributions to Wikipedia; while all comments were read and considered, counting of votes was not used to reach a decision.. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
This article fails the notability criteria for academics as well as lacks significant coverage in independent sources. Most of references are either self-published or are not reliable. — CutestPenguin Hangout 14:29, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I know one notable award of international reputation given to those who pioneered in Mathematical Morphology and Spatial Analysis is Georges Matheron Lectureship Award. Prof. Daya Sagar is one of those recipients of this prestigious award in 2011. Co-Founder of Mathematical Morphology Prof Jean Serra and an eminent spatial statistician Adrian Baddeley were the recipients of this award in 2006 and 2008. I compare Professor Prof. Daya Sagar against Jean Serra and Adrian Baddeley: that is a huge achievement for someone so young. With many other academic achievements as are evidenced from his webage [26], this page should be of a category Strong Keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramarao.iit ( talk) 06:39, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 01:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Article subject has requested deletion via OTRS ( ticket#2014103110016915, for those with access). Notability would appear to be borderline; in such cases, we have historically tended to respect requests like this. Yunshui 雲 水 14:23, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 01:02, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
This is a notable topic but a useless article whose only nontrivial content is copied from a web resource. It should be deleted per WP:TNT. Sammy1339 ( talk) 14:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC) Also note that the creator is blocked as a sock. This may qualify for G5 deletion. -- Sammy1339 ( talk) 14:15, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. Mojo Hand ( talk) 01:32, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Fails WP:MILNG. Being the last of something doesn't make for notability. Is being a scout for Patton notable? The article on Patton makes one very slight mention of his having scout units. Nothing more. ...William 13:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
The result was Withdrawn by nominator. ( non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 06:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Not notable per
WP:GNG or
WP:BASE/N. Prod removed by an IP editor without any reason given. –
Muboshgu (
talk) 13:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC) I'll withdraw this nomination based on sources found. –
Muboshgu (
talk)
15:57, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
*Delete Fails GNG.--
Yankees10 18:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Probably passes GNG, though he is still pretty run of the mill.--
Yankees10
00:02, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Keep as a WP:GNG pass per Alexsautographs and Ravenswing. Ejgreen77 ( talk) 23:52, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Can these sources actually added to the article so it's not AfD'd a second time for lacking good sources? Wizardman 12:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 01:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Submit for deletion because no sources on the Internet have discussed this topic, and the albums listed here are not verified being R&B.-- Retrohead ( talk) 11:57, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
The result was redirect to D. J. Caruso. ( non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 20:20, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
filming has not yet begun, per WP:TOOSOON and WP:NFF BOVINEBOY 2008 11:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 01:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
May have refs, but no real notability, imho Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 01:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Does not meet requirements for notability in Wikipedia:Notability (people). Also, The author and main contributing editor may have a conflict of interest Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Spellsgood ( talk) 08:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 01:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria, and contains essentially original research that cannot be corroborated with reliable sources. Melt core ( talk) 12:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Someone would have come up with at least some reputable sources on Fekete by now. I think we should move on with the deletion.-- Melt core ( talk) 11:51, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. I could have closed this as NC or keep based on vote count, of course we don't do that. In particular, I discounted one argument which cited an explicit press release as going toward GNG. j⚛e decker talk 18:32, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:MUSICBIO at any point. Redirect to Star Search#Other performers or delete it. Karlhard ( talk) 17:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
From the abstract at http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/24411434/tyler-appear-new-inspector-mom-movie WebCite,
The article reports that actress Karmyn Tyler will be appearing in the "Inspector Mom" movie of the week entitled "Kidnapped in Ten Easy Steps," which will be aired on March 8, 2007 at the Lifetime Movie Network in the U.S.
The result was No consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination ( non-admin closure) czar ♔ 00:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
This one may or may not be notable per
WP:PERSON, but the fact that it was entirely substantially written by
Stanvsmith (
talk ·
contribs)—likely the subject himself—and
68.23.230.62 (
talk ·
contribs ·
WHOIS)—an IP owned by the subject—makes me uneasy. I say delete on the account of
WP:AUTOBIO.
bender235 (
talk)
16:38, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
The result was Speedy Delete. A7. Randykitty ( talk) 11:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Self-promotion by the subject, no notability except a self-published book. Binksternet ( talk) 06:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 00:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Appears to be completely reliant on artist's own Web site and works. Notability appears highly questionable, even though she was mentioned in the South China Morning Post, which is worth something, but only something. Unless notability otherwise established, delete. -- Nlu ( talk) 05:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 00:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is an advertisement or if this is a notable clinic. Many of the sources have text nearly identical to each other and to this article, and known that Indian media often will publish anything for cash, I suspect that the sources were bought and paid for. Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 05:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 00:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 04:25, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Adam's Bridge. Spinning Spark 16:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Not notable, highly POV, and not at all an encyclopedic topic. Clearly violates Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion. I had previously turned this article into a redirect, but an editor disagreed with that, so bringing to AfD for community decision. Jayakumar RG ( talk) 06:09, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Of Machines. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
This article has no reliable sources for this album. In fact, there is no certainty that this album will ever be released. Redirecting seems illogical since there is no confirmation of an actual release or even that the album is in production. Far too speculative. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 19:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. WP:BLPDELETE with a side order of copyvio j⚛e decker talk 06:05, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Subject of much edit warring (and see OTRS 2014102010014189 if you have access) - no inline references to show notability. Additional Citation banner has been there for years. Ronhjones (Talk) 20:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 00:56, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Autobiography with very little sourcing. I see no evidence that the subject is notable. Most of the information I find is content written by the subject, not actually about him, and much of the article appears to be an attempt at notability by association. Kinu t/ c 16:43, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker talk 00:56, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Does not appear to be notable. thisisace ( talk) 01:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
The result was Delete. None of those arguing to keep the article has given any reason that has any weight under Wikipedia's policies. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 13:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Delete, article is unclear on how this person is actually notable. it says alot about the claims and the books he wrote but not sources that show he passes WP:SCHOLAR or WP:AUTHOR Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 01:27, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
–– ellapura ( User talk:ellapura) < Accept! He is contemporary philosopher educationalist on Tamil and Dravidian cultures. I have made use of his findings and published a research paper, see the link at the end. Dr. Loganathan of meykandar yahoo group finds Sumerian language Is archaic form of Tamil and Sanskrit. My hypothesis is a partial off.shoot from that finding, only if they have fluently spoken a language, they would have used it to write down. The edubbaa also praises how the sir.poems were spreading to tur far.off places. If this is true, we could expect sir phrases words in many of languages in use around the world. I also suggest to revise the observation that Sumerian language is dead, but alive in the form of Tamil. Based on Dr. Loganathan research inputs, research paper on e.dub.ba.a is published in reputed journal, please see: abstract: link: http://www.nitttrbhopal.org/journal/volume7/volume7issue2.pdf>
This is a view point to KEEP the article and NOT DELETE: Sumerian is the first civilization that created a script. Its the starting point of writing. Mesopotamian is the cradle of civilizations. Faith of the whole world originated there.
Whole world, thinks that the language spoken by Sumerians is an isolate. Most of the western linguistic scholars, dont know if Sumerian language is living at this point in time.
Dr. LogaNathan is the one giving a new direction to the linguistic world, through his research. His sumerian decipherings provide an actual purpose of religion and faith (as written by sumerians) which is still being followed by Millions of people in India, China and around the world.
He is the only one of the kind, who can reveal the secrets written in Mesopotamia. Humanity needs him. Humans should know about him. World will have to wait thousand of years to produce another Loganathan. If he is not there, humans will continue to live and die, without knowing - the secrets of Sumerian writings, the origin of faith, the purpose of religion in moulding humanity.
Thanks Rathinavel Raj K — Rathinavel Raj K ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Wikipedia has a global appeal and readers from a cross section have in interest in it, with a range of topics,Article on K.Loganathan has a backdrop on his 40 years of involvement in a particular stream of study, that has evinced interest in quite a few scholars.Now what is mainstream research and what is evidence is all very abstract, there can be counter stream an opposite view and evidence is evolving and subject to enlightenment,for instance earth was flat earlier, then round -it revolved round the sun or sun centric now there s recent research that earth spirals around vacuum and follows sun spiral.What is important is the contribution and not how long and how much it is acceptable, acceptance has many circumstances.Dr.K.Loganathan has a point of view and has been addressing these as research articles, internet debates and speeches, for this contribution his place in wikipedia can be secured.Kindly therefore dont propose to delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vraghava ( talk • contribs) 04:54, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Do Not Delete-- Vraghava ( talk) 08:07, 9 November 2014 (UTC)-- Vraghava ( talk) 08:07, 9 November 2014 (UTC) Five research Articles Published in International Institute of Tamil Studies Chennai.See the Link Below, It is a Government Organisation.
034 - December 1988 045 - 072 Sumerian Si-in and Old Tamil Cin : A Study in the Historical Evaluation of Tamil Verbal System
019 - June 1981 087 - 098 'என்று', 'என்பது' ஓர் இயக்கவிலக்கண விளக்கம்
016 - December 1979 084 - 098 இயக்கவிலக்கண கிளவியாக்க விளக்கம்
010 - December 1976 089 - 111 தொல்காப்பிய மரபுவழி மொழிப்புணர்ச்சி இலக்கணம்
008 - December 1975 040 - 061 Sumerian : Tamil of First Cankam
International Institute of Tamil Studies.
Articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vraghava ( talk • contribs) 08:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vraghava ( talk • contribs) 08:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
KEEP / NO_DELETE Dear Editor, Is there any scholars on Sumerian linguistics who have provided comment above (those who say Delete)? I dont see any scholarly comment from people qualified on the specific domain/area of research. No point in voting 'DELETE' without knowing the subject we are talking here. Some of the scholars show their ignorance (dont know Tamil, dont know about dialects of Sumerian). Dr Loganathan has rightly concluded that Sumerian dialects, eme kir and eme sal are same as archaic Tamil.
Kindly refrain from passing comments if you dont know about the subject in discussion. This is not a Voting platform. We are talking about knowledge and making it available for Human Beings. Atleast that was my thought about Wiki. Regards, Rathinavel Raj K (Not a puppet.. i live in Toronto, I have not met or spoke to any of the people here) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rathinavel Raj K ( talk • contribs) 22:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 00:55, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Promotional article in wildly excessive detail about photographer who has won no awards and has work in no museums. Apparent autobiography -- as is the frWP version. DGG ( talk ) 01:03, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete-- Ymblanter ( talk) 08:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Despite the references, this is not of encyclopedic interest. It's the sort of human interest story that belongs in a believe it or not, not an encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 00:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. Spinning Spark 00:49, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Unsourced, promotional article. Can't see any independent sources. Was CSD nominated as copyvio & not notable. CSDs removed by an IP who may or may not be the original author (who hasn't edited since). To be safe, bringing to AfD. Bazj ( talk) 20:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
The result was keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Not notable enough. Has a fan following in the Social Networking sites though! Uncletomwood ( talk) 06:12, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
The result was keep. postdlf ( talk) 15:42, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
This page is never updated and I don't see the reason for it when there is already a list of episodes with each guest. Aqlpswkodejifrhugty ( talk) 08:12, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE per sparse participation. Deor ( talk) 10:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Article about a purported Canadian television series, relying entirely on deadlinked primary sources with not a whit of reliable source coverage to attest that it qualifies for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Searches on both Google and ProQuest both failed to turn up any concrete evidence whatsoever of its existence, to boot — not a good sign for a series that purportedly aired on one of the country's major commercial television networks — meaning that the content here is completely unverifiable. Delete unless some actual sourcing can be located to grant it notability under WP:NMEDIA. Bearcat ( talk) 02:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 01:02, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure that this chef is notable. I've tried to improve the translation and clean up the promotional language, but I'm not sure it meets
WP:GNG.
Ahecht (
TALK
PAGE)
23:15, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. No support for a "keep" outcome following two relistings Philg88 ♦ talk 07:52, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Among other issues, this article is an orphan, tagged for WP:GNG issues since July 2008, and the subject appears to only be notable for one event. In fact, most of the article talks about the event more than the person involved. The article says that Yang is "a famous Chinese actress" yet there doesn't appear to be any notable films that contain the actress. Sounds more and more like a BLP1E to me. Aerospeed ( Talk) 16:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
The result was keep. The nominator has withdrawn their nomination and there are no other recommendations for deletion. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 17:41, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Resubmit after it was a soft delete and challenged. Clearly fails WP:ARTIST. The reference links are weak in terms of even claiming to establish notability. Many go to articles about some other topic, with a quote made by this artist sometimes about somebody elses work. This is not notability. The most perplexing reference link is one to "Over-the-top Super Bowl deals", which somehow vaguely seems to be something from the artists resume? — Gaff ταλκ 22:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 01:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Company fails WP:CORPDEPTH (insufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
The result was keep. j⚛e decker talk 01:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
This short biography seems to utterly fail Wikipedia:Notability (people). Ego Hunter ( talk) 05:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
The result was keep. j⚛e decker talk 01:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Article created by WP:SPA and appears to function as WP:ADVERT and WP:PROMO. — Cirt ( talk) 06:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
The result was Keep. ( non-admin closure) czar ♔ 12:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Article created by WP:SPA, with primary function of WP:ADVERT and WP:PROMO. — Cirt ( talk) 16:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
The result was keep. Yunshui 雲 水 10:20, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Article created by (indef-blocked) WP:SPA RandoxLabs ( talk · contribs), with primary function of WP:ADVERT and WP:PROMO. — Cirt ( talk) 22:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Keep Yes it is badly written and PROMO, but it meets notability: here, here, here. EBY ( talk) 00:41, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
The result was keep. You are more than welcome to have a go at it without it needing to be deleted. There is no consensus to delete at this time. ( non-admin closure) Dusti *Let's talk!* 17:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Unsourced forever, WP:WORLDWIDE americanism, no attempt at refs, extremely US-centric. Delete it and let me have a go at making an article at Bargain basement, which redirects here. But it needs deleting regardless, this is just a personal opinio in the style of an WP:ESSAY, with no RS, no sod all. Si Trew ( talk) 22:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
The result was keep. Although Carrite's additions are impressive, if Bearcat wishes this to be closed as no consensus later on, I can change my close. But procedurally, this is a keep close. Wifione Message 15:58, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Fails
WP:JOURNALIST. Most sourcing is to blogs and self-published material, and the most significant recognition is by a non-notable organization. The only other recognition is from a local specialty publication. The article appears to be maintained by friends of the subject as an inside joke. The article’s subject
apparently edits this page and
encourages vandalism of the page, including adding false/defamatory content. Recommend delete and salt for both this and
Parker Molloy.
BruinsR4eva (
talk)
21:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
• Delete and salt as nominator.
BruinsR4eva (
talk)
21:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
The most significant recognition, Ms. Molloy's inclusion in the Trans 100, is not "non-notable." Trans 100 was covered by
GLAAD,
BuzzFeed, and
The Advocate. Further, it is incorrect to state "most sourcing is to blogs and self-published material" - the lead notes her publication at a variety of sources:
Review of the alleged edits by Ms. Molloy indicate all are negative and refer to Ms. Molloy as a "troll" and vandalism such as: "Molloy also for some reason thinks that she is famous when in reality she writes grade school reading level articles for websites that no one reads. She also has little to no sense of humor and enjoys seeking out reasons to complain about non existent issues. At this point I'd say grow a pair but, too late." As such, it is reasonable to surmise that the individual with the username "ParkerMolloy" is not Ms. Molloy.
As the controversy section indicates, Ms. Molloy is frequently discussed in the LGBT press, including The Advocate, Queerty, Huffington Post, and others. She has been brought in as an expert by Dan Savage on several occasions to discuss transgender issues. As such, she does not fail WP:JOURNALIST; she meets qualifications 1, (maybe) 3, and 4.
Notice of COI: I sometimes Tweet at Ms. Molloy. On occasions she listens.
Emily Esque (
talk)
22:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but
WP:NUKEANDPAVE pertains here. She might certainly qualify for a properly written and properly sourced article, but that's not what this version is — this relies entirely too much on sourcing in which she's the author, not the subject, of the reference, and that kind of sourcing counts for exactly nothing toward demonstrating that she's notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Accordingly, it would be easier to restart from scratch than it would be to repair all the problems with this version. Delete, without prejudice against creation of a better version in the future. I'd also be willing to accept sandboxing in user or draft space so that it can be worked on, but it's not entitled to stay in articlespace in this form with this quality of sourcing.
Bearcat (
talk)
23:40, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to explain the interpretation of notability. From my review of the article, the following sources reference Ms. Molloy as the subject, rather than as an author (COI - I added the Open Letter; I'm also a signatory):
Also, a quick Google turned up this from GLAAD, mentioning Ms. Molloy as a subject:
I understand that it takes more than an author writing about herself to be notable, but there is a rather substantial body of articles dedicated to talking about Ms. Molloy from a variety of LGBT publications. Emily Esque ( talk) 00:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Do you happen to have a good example of what a good WP page for a burgeoning journalist that has attained notability *should* look like? Emily Esque ( talk) 00:55, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Never let it be said that Emily Esque does not beat dead horses into paste. You asked for more sourcing, and by the heavens you shall have it. Additional sources referring to Molloy as subject:
I do believe we can put this nomination for deletion to bed as factually inaccurate (Molloy does not edit this page) and incorrect (Molloy has clearly meets GNG guidelines and WP:JOURNALIST). Emily Esque ( talk) 19:49, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
1. Bylines do not demonstrate notability. As Bearian said, blogging about notable people or for notable publications does not make a journalist notable.
2. Blogs and self-published sources do not demonstrate notability. EmilyEsque's first bulleted list is comprised of special-interest group blogs or publications:
Gay/transgendered
Not gay/transgendered - Parker Marie Molloy is mentioned but not primary subject
3. Passing mentions and references to bylines do not demonstrate notability. EmilyEsque's other bulleted list is comprised of these.
4. All recognition is from non-notable organizations:
5. WP:BLP1E. The blog posts with "Parker Marie Molloy" or variants in the title seem to be about one controversy involving language. Parker Marie Molloy criticized RuPaul's language, but then she resigned from at least two writing jobs because others criticized her own language. Starting a fight with a notable person does not make someone notable.
6. The only time this person has been mentioned in a book is in her autobiography for Thought Catalog, a non-notable publisher. [7] Even Parker Marie Molloy describes Thought Catalog as “an open platform where (virtually) anyone can publish whatever they want.” [8] She seems to have resigned from there as well.
The original nomination has been amended because User:ParkerMolloy got blocked. Articles about people involved in one controversial topic often attract vandalism from detractors, but in this case even Parker Marie Molloy encourages friends to vandalize the page on her behalf. She even posts pictures of the vandalism she requested. This kind of disruption by non-notable people wastes everyone’s time and damages the project. Reiterate delete and salt vote. BruinsR4eva ( talk) 19:58, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. Yunshui 雲 水 10:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Unaired, cancelled television project. Epically fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILMS. Recreated after previous deletion at AfD. Delete and Salt. Safiel ( talk) 20:48, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
The result was keep. Yunshui 雲 水 10:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
The subject fails to meet notability guidelines. While the subject appears to meet sport specific criteria, Wikipedia:Notability_(sports) FAQ#2 states that the subject must still meet the general notability guidelines. The subject lacks "significant coverage". The article was created 6+ years ago and only has one reference, to a broken link, from the subject's University Athletics program and not his former professional team. Searching on Google fails to reveal significant coverage of the subject. Many sources briefly mention the subject, identifying participation in a game or the time at which a goal was scored. But articles with depth on the subject were not found. Additionally, many of those sources lack reliability or independence from the subject. Becky Sayles ( talk) 20:27, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Meeting NFOOTY means it is likely to meet the general notability guidelines, not that it does meet them. Becky Sayles ( talk) 18:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)"This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia. The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below. If the article does meet the criteria set forth below, then it is likely that sufficient sources exist to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Failing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways (e.g. the general notability guideline, or other, topic-specific, notability guidelines). Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb which some editors choose to keep in mind when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is on articles for deletion, along with relevant guidelines such asWikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources.(my emphasis)
While my own brief look into the archive does not support the described local consensus, I assume that GiantSnowman's comments in Spencer Thompson are an accurate reflection of his experience. Unfortunately, here a subset of editors participating in football AfDs are asking to apply local consensus over the broader consensus established in applicable guidelines and policy. [b]"Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. (See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Advice pages.) Wikipedia has a higher standard of participation and consensus for changes to policies and guidelines than to other types of pages. This is because they reflect established consensus, and their stability and consistency are important to the community. As a result, editors often propose substantive changes on the talk page first to permit discussion before implementing the change. Changes may be made without prior discussion, but they are subject to a high level of scrutiny. The community is more likely to accept edits to policy if they are made slowly and conservatively, with active efforts to seek out input and agreement from others."
The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 01:03, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. The article lacks reliable sources. Versace1608 (Talk) 20:18, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. Yunshui 雲 水 10:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. He is not a notable artist. Versace1608 (Talk) 20:10, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Delete: per nominator's reasoning + There is hardly a notable Nigerian entertainer that I will not know. Darreg ( talk) 21:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. Yunshui 雲 水 10:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Apparently non-notable film director, known for a possibly non-notable film. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 11:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. Yunshui 雲 水 10:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Fails WP:PORNBIO and the WP:GNG. No independent reliable sources in the references. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 05:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 00:32, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a newspaper. This doesn't need to be here. It is a news story with little significance except for the higher level of news coverage it has garnered. Ksoth ( talk) 16:50, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. Yunshui 雲 水 10:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Tagged for notability already, I don't believe this artist meets GNG Gbawden ( talk) 07:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
The result was keep. Yunshui 雲 水 10:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
I am not seeing how this person meets Wikipedia:Notability (people). Ego Hunter ( talk) 05:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Keep: Notable alright, co-founder of NGO "Point of View", and "first Indian to be appointed on Wikimedia board of trustees" in 2010 [14] -- Ekabhishek talk 13:51, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Keep — First and most importantly, Datta's work as an filmmaker, journalist, member of the Wikimedia Foundation board, and her work with Point of View feel like, together, they should rise to the WP:N bar. The article does not do as good a good job of establishing notability as it should but we should fix the article, not delete it. The recent additions help enormously.
Second, the nominator seems to have 30 minute total contribution history to Wikipedia that exclusively involved nominating visible Wikimedia leaders' biographies for deletion. That contribution history, the username and user page, seems to me like somebody it might be trying to make a WP:POINT. Full disclosure, I found this because they also nominated the biography about me in the same session. Additionally, I have met Datta but I do not know her well. — mako ๛ 03:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
The result was KEEP. The consensus seems to be that the article, while not necessarily sourced as well as it could be, is worth keeping. I'll tag it with {{Cleanup AfD}} as well. ( non-admin closure) demize ( t · c) 23:58, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I respect BMH a lot, but I am not seeing how he meets Wikipedia:Notability (people)? The references are either his own websites, or websites of organizations he is affiliated with. Hackers and Wikipedians (even WMF members) have no discount policy for meeting this Wikipedia requirement, I believe. Update: considering how nice the article is, formatting and all, perhaps Wikipedia:Userfy would be a solution? Ego Hunter ( talk) 05:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 01:03, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
No hits, no major record deal, no coverage, no nothing. Drmies ( talk) 03:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
there are tons of bands who havent signed with major labels but are significant with the scene. but go ahead and delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zerochuckdude ( talk • contribs) 03:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 01:02, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Non-notable piece of software, as far as I can tell. Finding sources for this is made difficult by its name, which neither Google nor DuckDuckGo will handle properly, but even websites listing PS2 emulators don't list this one. QVVERTYVS ( hm?) 15:05, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. There is no clear consensus regarding if subject meets notability criteria, specifically if meeting the criteria to join the Fellowship of the RGS meets PROF. A number of the comments and !votes are by users who have little or no other contributions to Wikipedia; while all comments were read and considered, counting of votes was not used to reach a decision.. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
This article fails the notability criteria for academics as well as lacks significant coverage in independent sources. Most of references are either self-published or are not reliable. — CutestPenguin Hangout 14:29, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I know one notable award of international reputation given to those who pioneered in Mathematical Morphology and Spatial Analysis is Georges Matheron Lectureship Award. Prof. Daya Sagar is one of those recipients of this prestigious award in 2011. Co-Founder of Mathematical Morphology Prof Jean Serra and an eminent spatial statistician Adrian Baddeley were the recipients of this award in 2006 and 2008. I compare Professor Prof. Daya Sagar against Jean Serra and Adrian Baddeley: that is a huge achievement for someone so young. With many other academic achievements as are evidenced from his webage [26], this page should be of a category Strong Keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramarao.iit ( talk) 06:39, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 01:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Article subject has requested deletion via OTRS ( ticket#2014103110016915, for those with access). Notability would appear to be borderline; in such cases, we have historically tended to respect requests like this. Yunshui 雲 水 14:23, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 01:02, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
This is a notable topic but a useless article whose only nontrivial content is copied from a web resource. It should be deleted per WP:TNT. Sammy1339 ( talk) 14:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC) Also note that the creator is blocked as a sock. This may qualify for G5 deletion. -- Sammy1339 ( talk) 14:15, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. Mojo Hand ( talk) 01:32, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Fails WP:MILNG. Being the last of something doesn't make for notability. Is being a scout for Patton notable? The article on Patton makes one very slight mention of his having scout units. Nothing more. ...William 13:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
The result was Withdrawn by nominator. ( non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 06:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Not notable per
WP:GNG or
WP:BASE/N. Prod removed by an IP editor without any reason given. –
Muboshgu (
talk) 13:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC) I'll withdraw this nomination based on sources found. –
Muboshgu (
talk)
15:57, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
*Delete Fails GNG.--
Yankees10 18:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Probably passes GNG, though he is still pretty run of the mill.--
Yankees10
00:02, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Keep as a WP:GNG pass per Alexsautographs and Ravenswing. Ejgreen77 ( talk) 23:52, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Can these sources actually added to the article so it's not AfD'd a second time for lacking good sources? Wizardman 12:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 01:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Submit for deletion because no sources on the Internet have discussed this topic, and the albums listed here are not verified being R&B.-- Retrohead ( talk) 11:57, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
The result was redirect to D. J. Caruso. ( non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 20:20, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
filming has not yet begun, per WP:TOOSOON and WP:NFF BOVINEBOY 2008 11:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 01:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
May have refs, but no real notability, imho Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 01:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Does not meet requirements for notability in Wikipedia:Notability (people). Also, The author and main contributing editor may have a conflict of interest Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Spellsgood ( talk) 08:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 01:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria, and contains essentially original research that cannot be corroborated with reliable sources. Melt core ( talk) 12:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Someone would have come up with at least some reputable sources on Fekete by now. I think we should move on with the deletion.-- Melt core ( talk) 11:51, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. I could have closed this as NC or keep based on vote count, of course we don't do that. In particular, I discounted one argument which cited an explicit press release as going toward GNG. j⚛e decker talk 18:32, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:MUSICBIO at any point. Redirect to Star Search#Other performers or delete it. Karlhard ( talk) 17:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
From the abstract at http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/24411434/tyler-appear-new-inspector-mom-movie WebCite,
The article reports that actress Karmyn Tyler will be appearing in the "Inspector Mom" movie of the week entitled "Kidnapped in Ten Easy Steps," which will be aired on March 8, 2007 at the Lifetime Movie Network in the U.S.
The result was No consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination ( non-admin closure) czar ♔ 00:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
This one may or may not be notable per
WP:PERSON, but the fact that it was entirely substantially written by
Stanvsmith (
talk ·
contribs)—likely the subject himself—and
68.23.230.62 (
talk ·
contribs ·
WHOIS)—an IP owned by the subject—makes me uneasy. I say delete on the account of
WP:AUTOBIO.
bender235 (
talk)
16:38, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
The result was Speedy Delete. A7. Randykitty ( talk) 11:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Self-promotion by the subject, no notability except a self-published book. Binksternet ( talk) 06:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 00:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Appears to be completely reliant on artist's own Web site and works. Notability appears highly questionable, even though she was mentioned in the South China Morning Post, which is worth something, but only something. Unless notability otherwise established, delete. -- Nlu ( talk) 05:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 00:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is an advertisement or if this is a notable clinic. Many of the sources have text nearly identical to each other and to this article, and known that Indian media often will publish anything for cash, I suspect that the sources were bought and paid for. Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 05:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 00:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 04:25, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Adam's Bridge. Spinning Spark 16:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Not notable, highly POV, and not at all an encyclopedic topic. Clearly violates Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion. I had previously turned this article into a redirect, but an editor disagreed with that, so bringing to AfD for community decision. Jayakumar RG ( talk) 06:09, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Of Machines. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
This article has no reliable sources for this album. In fact, there is no certainty that this album will ever be released. Redirecting seems illogical since there is no confirmation of an actual release or even that the album is in production. Far too speculative. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 19:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. WP:BLPDELETE with a side order of copyvio j⚛e decker talk 06:05, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Subject of much edit warring (and see OTRS 2014102010014189 if you have access) - no inline references to show notability. Additional Citation banner has been there for years. Ronhjones (Talk) 20:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 00:56, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Autobiography with very little sourcing. I see no evidence that the subject is notable. Most of the information I find is content written by the subject, not actually about him, and much of the article appears to be an attempt at notability by association. Kinu t/ c 16:43, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker talk 00:56, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Does not appear to be notable. thisisace ( talk) 01:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
The result was Delete. None of those arguing to keep the article has given any reason that has any weight under Wikipedia's policies. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 13:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Delete, article is unclear on how this person is actually notable. it says alot about the claims and the books he wrote but not sources that show he passes WP:SCHOLAR or WP:AUTHOR Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 01:27, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
–– ellapura ( User talk:ellapura) < Accept! He is contemporary philosopher educationalist on Tamil and Dravidian cultures. I have made use of his findings and published a research paper, see the link at the end. Dr. Loganathan of meykandar yahoo group finds Sumerian language Is archaic form of Tamil and Sanskrit. My hypothesis is a partial off.shoot from that finding, only if they have fluently spoken a language, they would have used it to write down. The edubbaa also praises how the sir.poems were spreading to tur far.off places. If this is true, we could expect sir phrases words in many of languages in use around the world. I also suggest to revise the observation that Sumerian language is dead, but alive in the form of Tamil. Based on Dr. Loganathan research inputs, research paper on e.dub.ba.a is published in reputed journal, please see: abstract: link: http://www.nitttrbhopal.org/journal/volume7/volume7issue2.pdf>
This is a view point to KEEP the article and NOT DELETE: Sumerian is the first civilization that created a script. Its the starting point of writing. Mesopotamian is the cradle of civilizations. Faith of the whole world originated there.
Whole world, thinks that the language spoken by Sumerians is an isolate. Most of the western linguistic scholars, dont know if Sumerian language is living at this point in time.
Dr. LogaNathan is the one giving a new direction to the linguistic world, through his research. His sumerian decipherings provide an actual purpose of religion and faith (as written by sumerians) which is still being followed by Millions of people in India, China and around the world.
He is the only one of the kind, who can reveal the secrets written in Mesopotamia. Humanity needs him. Humans should know about him. World will have to wait thousand of years to produce another Loganathan. If he is not there, humans will continue to live and die, without knowing - the secrets of Sumerian writings, the origin of faith, the purpose of religion in moulding humanity.
Thanks Rathinavel Raj K — Rathinavel Raj K ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Wikipedia has a global appeal and readers from a cross section have in interest in it, with a range of topics,Article on K.Loganathan has a backdrop on his 40 years of involvement in a particular stream of study, that has evinced interest in quite a few scholars.Now what is mainstream research and what is evidence is all very abstract, there can be counter stream an opposite view and evidence is evolving and subject to enlightenment,for instance earth was flat earlier, then round -it revolved round the sun or sun centric now there s recent research that earth spirals around vacuum and follows sun spiral.What is important is the contribution and not how long and how much it is acceptable, acceptance has many circumstances.Dr.K.Loganathan has a point of view and has been addressing these as research articles, internet debates and speeches, for this contribution his place in wikipedia can be secured.Kindly therefore dont propose to delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vraghava ( talk • contribs) 04:54, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Do Not Delete-- Vraghava ( talk) 08:07, 9 November 2014 (UTC)-- Vraghava ( talk) 08:07, 9 November 2014 (UTC) Five research Articles Published in International Institute of Tamil Studies Chennai.See the Link Below, It is a Government Organisation.
034 - December 1988 045 - 072 Sumerian Si-in and Old Tamil Cin : A Study in the Historical Evaluation of Tamil Verbal System
019 - June 1981 087 - 098 'என்று', 'என்பது' ஓர் இயக்கவிலக்கண விளக்கம்
016 - December 1979 084 - 098 இயக்கவிலக்கண கிளவியாக்க விளக்கம்
010 - December 1976 089 - 111 தொல்காப்பிய மரபுவழி மொழிப்புணர்ச்சி இலக்கணம்
008 - December 1975 040 - 061 Sumerian : Tamil of First Cankam
International Institute of Tamil Studies.
Articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vraghava ( talk • contribs) 08:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vraghava ( talk • contribs) 08:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
KEEP / NO_DELETE Dear Editor, Is there any scholars on Sumerian linguistics who have provided comment above (those who say Delete)? I dont see any scholarly comment from people qualified on the specific domain/area of research. No point in voting 'DELETE' without knowing the subject we are talking here. Some of the scholars show their ignorance (dont know Tamil, dont know about dialects of Sumerian). Dr Loganathan has rightly concluded that Sumerian dialects, eme kir and eme sal are same as archaic Tamil.
Kindly refrain from passing comments if you dont know about the subject in discussion. This is not a Voting platform. We are talking about knowledge and making it available for Human Beings. Atleast that was my thought about Wiki. Regards, Rathinavel Raj K (Not a puppet.. i live in Toronto, I have not met or spoke to any of the people here) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rathinavel Raj K ( talk • contribs) 22:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 00:55, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Promotional article in wildly excessive detail about photographer who has won no awards and has work in no museums. Apparent autobiography -- as is the frWP version. DGG ( talk ) 01:03, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete-- Ymblanter ( talk) 08:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Despite the references, this is not of encyclopedic interest. It's the sort of human interest story that belongs in a believe it or not, not an encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 00:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. Spinning Spark 00:49, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Unsourced, promotional article. Can't see any independent sources. Was CSD nominated as copyvio & not notable. CSDs removed by an IP who may or may not be the original author (who hasn't edited since). To be safe, bringing to AfD. Bazj ( talk) 20:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
The result was keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Not notable enough. Has a fan following in the Social Networking sites though! Uncletomwood ( talk) 06:12, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
The result was keep. postdlf ( talk) 15:42, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
This page is never updated and I don't see the reason for it when there is already a list of episodes with each guest. Aqlpswkodejifrhugty ( talk) 08:12, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE per sparse participation. Deor ( talk) 10:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Article about a purported Canadian television series, relying entirely on deadlinked primary sources with not a whit of reliable source coverage to attest that it qualifies for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Searches on both Google and ProQuest both failed to turn up any concrete evidence whatsoever of its existence, to boot — not a good sign for a series that purportedly aired on one of the country's major commercial television networks — meaning that the content here is completely unverifiable. Delete unless some actual sourcing can be located to grant it notability under WP:NMEDIA. Bearcat ( talk) 02:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 01:02, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure that this chef is notable. I've tried to improve the translation and clean up the promotional language, but I'm not sure it meets
WP:GNG.
Ahecht (
TALK
PAGE)
23:15, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. No support for a "keep" outcome following two relistings Philg88 ♦ talk 07:52, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Among other issues, this article is an orphan, tagged for WP:GNG issues since July 2008, and the subject appears to only be notable for one event. In fact, most of the article talks about the event more than the person involved. The article says that Yang is "a famous Chinese actress" yet there doesn't appear to be any notable films that contain the actress. Sounds more and more like a BLP1E to me. Aerospeed ( Talk) 16:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
The result was keep. The nominator has withdrawn their nomination and there are no other recommendations for deletion. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 17:41, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Resubmit after it was a soft delete and challenged. Clearly fails WP:ARTIST. The reference links are weak in terms of even claiming to establish notability. Many go to articles about some other topic, with a quote made by this artist sometimes about somebody elses work. This is not notability. The most perplexing reference link is one to "Over-the-top Super Bowl deals", which somehow vaguely seems to be something from the artists resume? — Gaff ταλκ 22:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)