![]() |
The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 00:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
PROD contested by another user. Article fails WP:GNG. – Michael ( talk) 23:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 00:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
someone who is known for a dating blog AND being one of the most eligible singles! (Granted NYC is very huge and being famous there does mean something-but still this does not quite mean a page is needed) Wgolf ( talk) 22:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The result was Keep. ( non-admin closure) czar ♔ 22:16, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Not notable. (Has beeen waiting with a notability tag since several years.) Why should I have a User Name? ( talk) 22:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The result was Keep. ( non-admin closure) czar ♔ 19:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
person lacks major significance
David O. Johnson (
talk) 22:06, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The person lacks major significance ; I think that the primary reason this article was created was because CNN indicated he was the leader of the
Al-Nusra Front, a claim which other sources have since contradicted.
David O. Johnson (
talk) 02:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Changing my vote to keep; It seems as though he is a member of the
Khorasan Group
[4], making him pretty significant.
David O. Johnson (
talk)
19:26, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 00:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
I am unable to verify any of the claims of notability on this BLP anywhere except the subject's website, or find any coverage at all in any reliable sources. J04n( talk page) 21:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete, per author request. Looks like he saw the writing on the wall. Mojo Hand ( talk) 21:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Not notable. The article appears to be self-written, and the only reference is the subject's company bio (a company that is in itself not notable). ubiquity ( talk) 20:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 19:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
There are a lot of sources in the article as it stands, but 90% of them are simply checklists of what Pak has done during his career. The article comes across as slightly promotional ("here are all the things he's done") with very little in the way of significant media coverage or personal information. I cannot at this time determine what makes him stand out from the rest of the graphic designer/developer crowd or makes him notable per Wikipedia's standards. Primefac ( talk) 19:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The reason for AfD nomination should be gone, if not, minimized by the changes until now. Have a look. Also keep in mind that some of the sources look like "front page" with no relation to the person of interest (for instance http://www.madinspain.com/) - do not get tricked by this, just scroll down a bit and you will see big chunks of data about the person of interest. Sadly, single page design is hype right now so it's not possible to link the exact (scroll) location of the single-page-design website to show the perfect reference. Should not be a problem though, since the sources are fitting to WP:GNG. -- Gnihton ( talk) 09:13, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
The result was Keep. ( non-admin closure) czar ♔ 12:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
No indication at all of notability; article is without references. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 18:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 00:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
WP:BLP, relying exclusively on primary sources with not a shred of reliable source coverage in sight, of a rapper whose only substantive claim to passing WP:NMUSIC is an album that peaked #94 on the Billboard hip hop charts. That certainly satisfies the letter of NMUSIC #2, but even NMUSIC still requires the article to be properly sourced — it does not entitle anybody to keep a Wikipedia article that's this badly sourced just because they only barely squeak over one item on its checklist. I'm certainly willing to withdraw this if real, properly reliable sourcing can be added to salvage the article with, but he's not entitled to keep an article on here if this is the best he can do for sourcing. (See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guce, which was about the same person — the claim of notability and the quality of sourcing aren't significantly better here than they were there, but the article is still different enough from the original to not qualify for CSD G4.) Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 18:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Ankaferd BloodStopper . – Juliancolton | Talk 19:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Subject doesn't meet WP:GNG. There are two sentences about him in an independent source (Today's Zalman). The coverage is about Ankaferd BloodStopper and any information here is either already covered in that article, or should be merged into it. RexxS ( talk) 16:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
"Having published does not, in itself, make an academic notable, no matter how many publications there are. Notability depends on the impact the work has had on the field of study.-- RexxS ( talk) 01:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 20:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Recreation of an article mere hours after it was deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a football manager who fails WP:GNG and who has not managed a club in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 15:25, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 00:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON. Also even the summary stats for last year are going to change before the end of this year, so it just adds more work to keep this future stub updated. Frietjes ( talk) 14:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete !votes. ( Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica 1000 18:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Fails
WP:GNG and
WP:NSOFT. Does not receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic.
JMHamo (
talk)
14:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The result was Keep. Nomination withdrawn, no other outstanding "delete" !votes. Randykitty ( talk) 13:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that the subject passes WP:PROF, or even WP:GNG. The only claim I can see that might pass the professor test is the editorial role on Journal of Economic Behaviour..., but even then he's listed as "an" editor rather than the head of the editorial staff. I'm open to withdrawing this if notability can be demonstrated, but at present, it reads like a resume, not the biography of a notable academic. Yunshui 雲 水 14:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 20:17, 6 October 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 because he has played in the Romanian Liga II. Since this league is not confirmed as fully pro playing in it does not confer notability. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 13:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The result was Delete. Randykitty ( talk) 11:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Also nominating similar related article:
There was never any such position as a "royal mistress of Bohemia", so it's not surprising that the table is half-empty, half-inaccurate. Concubines are not mistresses, and the article would hardly meet notability criteria more than the List of Bohemian queens' favourite dishes. Not everything "royal" deserves an article or a list. One can try to put up with articles such as List of consorts of Nevers, but there has to be a limit somewhere. I repeat, this was not an office. It had no "term started date" and no "term ended date". Being a mistress meant many different things to many different couples. Some were one-night adventures that resulted in a child, some were lifetime partners and influential confidantes. Some were not sexual, and some were purely sexual. It makes no sense to put all of these women into the same basket and treat them as office-holders. Surtsicna ( talk) 13:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The result was keep. j⚛e decker talk 15:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
The previous AfD was closed as delete, after a fairly heated debate and subsequent deletion review. The article has been recently recreated, following the release this week of a documentary miniseries [14] about the subject of the article. This additional coverage could address the primary policy-based deletion argument of WP:BLP1E. As nominator, my !vote at this time is neutral. If the result of this discussion is keep, I request that the previous article be temporarily restored as a basis for expanding the new article. VQuakr ( talk) 04:04, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Gaijin42 ( talk) 15:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The result was Keep. ( non-admin closure) czar ♔ 22:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
non-notable ice hockey player. Jacona ( talk) 12:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The result was Delete. Randykitty ( talk) 11:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
This article about a U.S. judge was speedily deleted and restored after discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 September 19. Because some in that discussion voiced concerns about notability, I'm submitting the artice to AfD to decide this. I myself am neutral. Sandstein 12:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
“ | C. Consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted
|
” |
My vote is to keep it, since I'm the contributor of it anyways! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forthe1789usconstitution ( talk • contribs) 12:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 15:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Non-notable boxer - losing record and no major title fights. Fails WP:NBOX. Peter Rehse ( talk) 12:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 15:06, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Non-notable boxer does not meet WP:NBOX. No major title fights. Peter Rehse ( talk) 12:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The result was Delete. Randykitty ( talk) 10:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Autobiographical. Extensively edited by single-purpose-account who appears to also be the subject. Have tried to explain nature of problems and pointed out they mustn't edit or create an article on themselves. They are trying extremely hard to produce references (using copyvio uploads of newspaper scans!) but my own searches aren't producing anything to show independent notability. I can't read the language in the newspaper scans (and won't even try to guess which of the Indian languages it is). This page was nominated for deletion as an unsourced bio - the subject eventually removed the nom at the very last second so I am bringing this for discussion and to try and establish whether this seer is notable. Mabalu ( talk) 09:12, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 00:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty ( talk) 07:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The result was Speedy delete. G3: Obvious hoax. All the IPs geolocate to Burnaby BC, where the school is located. — SMALL JIM 09:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Complete hoax. G3 has been contested by random IPs. No information exists. It's seems to be created by a handful of Canadian school children. Ish dar ian 07:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The result was keep. postdlf ( talk) 22:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
No indication that this event is of lasting importance as outlined at WP:LASTING. VQuakr ( talk) 06:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
“ | I would say hold off on deleting for a brief period of time (2-4 weeks). Any relatively significant disappearance (and or foul play which is likely) can constitute some historical news, at least for the immediate area. I live in the D.C. area this is extremely notable event in the news now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.0.40.66 ( talk) 2014-09-22T11:56:05 | ” |
*Weak Keep for now. It has the intense and widespread coverage similar to other Missing White Female cases which have been found to be notable in AFDs. Obviously one cannot use the time machine to travel to the future and see how lasting the effects and coverage were. We could revisit in a couple of years and delete it if the coverage fades quickly. It should not be added to the Missing White Female Syndrome article unless reliable sources call it an instance of such disproportionate coverage. So far I do not see such linkage in the news coverage.
Edison (
talk)
12:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete !votes. ( Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica 1000 14:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Unsourced. The original link provided to Debretts, reliability of that source nonwithstanding, is no longer valid, nor does a search at that site for anyone by the name of Richard Gibbs produce a person of that name. Unable to find reliable sources which verify the existence of this individual, or provide evidence of notability.
j⚛e decker
talk
07:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The result was keep (non-admin closure) Snuggums ( talk / edits) 20:40, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
It's not clear if she passes WP:ACADEMIC (although in humanities the situation is seldom clear-cut) and there are serious potential WP:BLP violations in the article due to lack of sources combined with mostly negative statements. I've googled around a bit, but couldn't find much in the way of sources about her, so I think it's prudent to delete the whole article. JMP EAX ( talk) 00:43, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Also I found [20], which is an article about Judith Miller suing Élisabeth Roudinesco (the only source cited in this article) for defamation, although the lawsuit/article is about stuff Roudinesco wrote about Lacan, not focused on Judith Miller herself. JMP EAX ( talk) 01:19, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete. Lacks a clear assertion of importance § FreeRangeFrog croak 17:35, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
notability, lacking of sources, style, grammar Owais khursheed ( talk) 06:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted ( G11) by FreeRangeFrog. ( non-admin closure) Jim Carter (from public cyber) 19:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
its sources are unreliable. Muazim Balwan ( talk) 06:14, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. I'm withdrawing the AfD in view of improvements. (I may make some additional ones) DGG ( talk ) 01:36, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
local festival. extensive listing of productions violates WP:NOT. but even if it were removed, there still isn othing for ntoability except routine notices) DGG ( talk ) 05:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
[In Defense of this article] The article is patterned after other similar articles on Wikipedia such as "
Hudson Warehouse", "
Woodward Shakespeare Festival", and "
Pennsylvania Shakespeare Festival" and many other similar articles that speak of a theater or festival performing Shakespeare (see
/info/en/?search=Category:Shakespeare_festivals).
How are all of these other articles that are similar in content and format, OK to remain on WP and this article isn't? All of these other articles on Shakespeare theaters or festivals list the same things that this article does such as
The list of productions has been edited down to only include the last two years. This can be further modified if need be. What is the criteria for a section like this?
As for being notable, (i.e worthy of inclusion on WP) one of WP's criteria is that the group/person/event be recognized by other verifiable sources. The article contains several references to outside publications and city entities that recognize what the group has done such as the "Connecticut Post" and the "Jersey Journal". The company is notable from a historical perspective in that its been operating for nearly 25 years in New Jersey and is affiliated with several communities within New Jersey and also Stratford, CT. The first two companies listed above, "Hudson Warehouse" and "Woodward Shakespeare", have been operating for 10 years. How are these groups MORE notable from a historical perspective then this group that has been around twice as long? How are they MORE notable as they list the same type of content, as this articles does, and again not being questioned for deletion?
Further, there is a section in the article itself which lists "Notable Achievements". They include:
In summary AGAINST deleting this article:
I submit if that these other articles on theater groups are not being questioned for deletion and the "Past Productions" list has been edited down than there is no ground for this article on "Hudson Shakespeare Company" to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbari7057 ( talk • contribs) 14:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
In Defense of this article] The original complaint that got this article listed for possible deletion was an “extensive listing of productions violates WP:NOT” The section has since been shortened to contain only 2 years worth of information. However, there are several live articles on Wikipedia that have extensive production lists and have not been singled out for deletion. The original productions section contained a listing of productions ranging from 1992-2014. As has been stated in a previous posting this article was designed to match up with other similar Wikipedia articles. Each play listing linked to a related Wikipedia page if it was applicable. To illustrate this point of existing Wikipedia articles on Shakespeare festivals having extensive production credits but have not been singled out for deletion, here is a list:
Each of these are live Wikipedia articles that have extensive production listings where some contain links to existing Wikipedia pages. So why the bias against this article Hudson Shakespeare Company? Why are the articles cited above allowed to have extensive production credits and are not being considered for deletion, while the Hudson Shakespeare Company article is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbari7057 ( talk • contribs) 18:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 15:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
rather obvious blp violation DGG ( talk ) 05:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 15:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
unsourced spammy claims Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:40, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 15:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
no evidence for notability DGG ( talk ) 05:28, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 15:08, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Written with a promotional tone, plus not sure if it passes WP:GNG. — GFOLEY FOUR!— 20:37, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 00:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Even with the information in the article it is unclear if this person is notable. But since basically nothing of it is verifiably sourced, I argue for deletion. The subject seems rather elusive, anyways. bender235 ( talk) 15:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
The result was Delete. Per the cogent reasoning of Bearcat. Randykitty ( talk) 10:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Fails WP:MUSICBIO. I can find no reliable sources that would establish notability. Seems like a promo piece, but I think it falls right outside of the G11 scope. Ish dar ian 05:20, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
As per guild-lines Under
WP:MUSICBIO at least only ONE of the criteria must be met:
Works from this artist can be found on notable music distribution sites such as Amazon and iTunes. http://www.amazon.com/Hollywood-Fresh-feat-Dougie/dp/B0037P0CLC https://itunes.apple.com/ca/album/hollywood-fresh-feat.-dougie/id355222015
and notable publications such as (non of which are: self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself) / http://allunsigned.com/keysha-freshh-keyshato-vanity/ http://www.thecaribbeancamera.com/entertainment/5439-keysha-1 https://djmelboogie.wordpress.com/tag/keysha-fresh/ http://www.thecaribbeancamera.com/entertainment/5570-keysha-2 http://elbo.ws/post/2514507/hollywood-fresh-introducing-new-toronto-artist-keysha/ http://www.rapdict.org/Keysha http://bigmouthsonline.com/introducing-keysha-canadas-newest-up-and-coming-female-artist-videobio/ http://chrynews.wordpress.com/tag/keysha-freshh/ http://urbanologymag.com/um/keysha-freshh-coolin/ http://www.rapdict.org/Keysha http://www.cityonmyback.com/?s=keysha
11) Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network: This artist (as mentioned in bio) as been in rotation on major radio stations including, Flow 93.5 in Toronto, http://tunein.com/radio/BoomFM-941-s202795/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaniceRse ( talk • contribs) 05:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Absolutely agreed, as I am PR for the artist I should have posted updated links our apologies on that negligence.
STATION NETWORKS that have had this artist in rotation: Bell Media (Which owned and operated Flow 93.5 at the time, and Virgin radio 99.9, Top 2 urban stations in Toronto playing hip-hop music) Blue Ant Media (Which operates AUX TV where the artist Music video was on rotation)
Articles posted about artist that are neither: non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself:
-Artist covering "Share News": "One of Canada’s largest and most influential ethnic newspapers and by far the largest one serving the Black and Caribbean community in Toronto" - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:KeyshaShare.jpg
-Artist covering "Pride" newspaper: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2index.jpg
As these were published before these news companies integrated to an online format the articles are not available, however I have just contacted both and will have versions of both articles made available for further examination to confirm they fit within the guidelines listed under * WP:MUSICBIO
This is not an artist that you Google and there are suggestions for other artist, as soon as this artist name is entered into web searches, many publications appear solidifying the artist credentials. Allunsigned is a notable publication amongst the hip-hop community, also is http://www.hip-hopvibe.com - which posts the artist's most recent releases but does not "report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories" this is simply a publication that chooses to post the artists' music and give their opinion on the artist and the music. JaniceRse ( talk) 22:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Nothing in this article as written passes WP:NMUSIC, and the sourcing that's been provided so far, either in the article or in this discussion, is purely promotional — not one shred of properly reliable source coverage has actually been provided so far. What JaniceRse is missing is the part of NMUSIC where it specifies that regardless of how many items on the notability checklist an article claims that the subject meets, it's not the assertion that gets her past NMUSIC, but the quality of the sourcing that can be provided to verify the assertion. If you have to rely on marketing/promotional materials to "source" the assertion, and cannot cite coverage in reliable independent sources which supports the claims, then the criterion has not been passed — precisely because marketing/promotional/PR teams tend to inflate claims of notability well beyond the actual reality (e.g. it got played one time on one radio station = it's a worldwide smash megahit!), no musician ever gets over an NMUSIC criterion until the claim that she gets over an NMUSIC criterion is properly sourced. And merely reposting a copy of the newspaper's cover to Commons does not satisfy our inclusion rules, either. And I already noted both the conflict of interest rule, and the reasons why it exists, that if you're her PR agent then you have exactly no business going anywhere near a Wikipedia article about her at all. Delete, without prejudice against recreation, by somebody independent of her marketing team, in the future if and when, and only if and when, she can actually be properly sourced as having passed one or more of the NMUSIC criteria. Bearcat ( talk) 08:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 06:58, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Previously a BLP PROD - I still think it is. The references are his official site and I believe a site that's got some of his scultptures. He does do awesome work, I have to admit - but a google news search reveals nothing. I've expanded to "Devon Dorrity Sculpture" and that seems to only pull his site and some tumblr hits. Dusti *Let's talk!* 18:17, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 15:08, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Non notable; the coverage is just incidental: pictures of her, mentions in an interview, etc. amazing that this was accepted from afc. DGG ( talk ) 05:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The result was keep. j⚛e decker talk 15:09, 6 October 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 based a speculative claim that he would play for SC Telstar in the future. The inadmissibility of notability based potential future appearances remains one of the strongest and longest standing consensuses of the WikiProject football. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 05:02, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and has not played in a fully professional league. Simione001 ( talk) 07:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 15:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
No references for notability, except for press releases. Nor would they be expected: head of a non-notable company. DGG ( talk ) 05:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 15:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
I think this is a hoax. I could find absolutely no support for this term at Google, Google Scholar or Google Books; the only thing that turned up in a search was this article. There apparently really was an Augustine Hay, an obscure Scottish cleric; the article claims he invented this analysis, but I could find nothing connecting him with this subject. Both articles were written by the same editor on the same day. I prodded them both, and a brand-new special-purpose-account editor turned up at this article within the hour, removing the prod and claiming that they could verify the information in the article. I still think it's a hoax. Taking it to the community to decide. MelanieN ( talk) 01:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete-- Ymblanter ( talk) 06:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted PROD on rumored smartphone: per WP:CRYSTAL. — teb728 t c 01:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 00:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete-- Ymblanter ( talk) 06:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Fails WP:BIO - Cwobeel (talk) 01:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete. A11 — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 22:01, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Does not meet GNG. A Google news and book search reveals nothing notable. KJ Discuss? 01:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 00:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
PROD contested by another user. Article fails WP:GNG. – Michael ( talk) 23:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 00:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
someone who is known for a dating blog AND being one of the most eligible singles! (Granted NYC is very huge and being famous there does mean something-but still this does not quite mean a page is needed) Wgolf ( talk) 22:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The result was Keep. ( non-admin closure) czar ♔ 22:16, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Not notable. (Has beeen waiting with a notability tag since several years.) Why should I have a User Name? ( talk) 22:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The result was Keep. ( non-admin closure) czar ♔ 19:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
person lacks major significance
David O. Johnson (
talk) 22:06, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The person lacks major significance ; I think that the primary reason this article was created was because CNN indicated he was the leader of the
Al-Nusra Front, a claim which other sources have since contradicted.
David O. Johnson (
talk) 02:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Changing my vote to keep; It seems as though he is a member of the
Khorasan Group
[4], making him pretty significant.
David O. Johnson (
talk)
19:26, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 00:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
I am unable to verify any of the claims of notability on this BLP anywhere except the subject's website, or find any coverage at all in any reliable sources. J04n( talk page) 21:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete, per author request. Looks like he saw the writing on the wall. Mojo Hand ( talk) 21:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Not notable. The article appears to be self-written, and the only reference is the subject's company bio (a company that is in itself not notable). ubiquity ( talk) 20:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 19:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
There are a lot of sources in the article as it stands, but 90% of them are simply checklists of what Pak has done during his career. The article comes across as slightly promotional ("here are all the things he's done") with very little in the way of significant media coverage or personal information. I cannot at this time determine what makes him stand out from the rest of the graphic designer/developer crowd or makes him notable per Wikipedia's standards. Primefac ( talk) 19:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The reason for AfD nomination should be gone, if not, minimized by the changes until now. Have a look. Also keep in mind that some of the sources look like "front page" with no relation to the person of interest (for instance http://www.madinspain.com/) - do not get tricked by this, just scroll down a bit and you will see big chunks of data about the person of interest. Sadly, single page design is hype right now so it's not possible to link the exact (scroll) location of the single-page-design website to show the perfect reference. Should not be a problem though, since the sources are fitting to WP:GNG. -- Gnihton ( talk) 09:13, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
The result was Keep. ( non-admin closure) czar ♔ 12:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
No indication at all of notability; article is without references. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 18:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 00:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
WP:BLP, relying exclusively on primary sources with not a shred of reliable source coverage in sight, of a rapper whose only substantive claim to passing WP:NMUSIC is an album that peaked #94 on the Billboard hip hop charts. That certainly satisfies the letter of NMUSIC #2, but even NMUSIC still requires the article to be properly sourced — it does not entitle anybody to keep a Wikipedia article that's this badly sourced just because they only barely squeak over one item on its checklist. I'm certainly willing to withdraw this if real, properly reliable sourcing can be added to salvage the article with, but he's not entitled to keep an article on here if this is the best he can do for sourcing. (See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guce, which was about the same person — the claim of notability and the quality of sourcing aren't significantly better here than they were there, but the article is still different enough from the original to not qualify for CSD G4.) Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 18:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Ankaferd BloodStopper . – Juliancolton | Talk 19:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Subject doesn't meet WP:GNG. There are two sentences about him in an independent source (Today's Zalman). The coverage is about Ankaferd BloodStopper and any information here is either already covered in that article, or should be merged into it. RexxS ( talk) 16:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
"Having published does not, in itself, make an academic notable, no matter how many publications there are. Notability depends on the impact the work has had on the field of study.-- RexxS ( talk) 01:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 20:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Recreation of an article mere hours after it was deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a football manager who fails WP:GNG and who has not managed a club in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 15:25, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 00:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON. Also even the summary stats for last year are going to change before the end of this year, so it just adds more work to keep this future stub updated. Frietjes ( talk) 14:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete !votes. ( Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica 1000 18:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Fails
WP:GNG and
WP:NSOFT. Does not receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic.
JMHamo (
talk)
14:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The result was Keep. Nomination withdrawn, no other outstanding "delete" !votes. Randykitty ( talk) 13:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that the subject passes WP:PROF, or even WP:GNG. The only claim I can see that might pass the professor test is the editorial role on Journal of Economic Behaviour..., but even then he's listed as "an" editor rather than the head of the editorial staff. I'm open to withdrawing this if notability can be demonstrated, but at present, it reads like a resume, not the biography of a notable academic. Yunshui 雲 水 14:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 20:17, 6 October 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 because he has played in the Romanian Liga II. Since this league is not confirmed as fully pro playing in it does not confer notability. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 13:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The result was Delete. Randykitty ( talk) 11:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Also nominating similar related article:
There was never any such position as a "royal mistress of Bohemia", so it's not surprising that the table is half-empty, half-inaccurate. Concubines are not mistresses, and the article would hardly meet notability criteria more than the List of Bohemian queens' favourite dishes. Not everything "royal" deserves an article or a list. One can try to put up with articles such as List of consorts of Nevers, but there has to be a limit somewhere. I repeat, this was not an office. It had no "term started date" and no "term ended date". Being a mistress meant many different things to many different couples. Some were one-night adventures that resulted in a child, some were lifetime partners and influential confidantes. Some were not sexual, and some were purely sexual. It makes no sense to put all of these women into the same basket and treat them as office-holders. Surtsicna ( talk) 13:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The result was keep. j⚛e decker talk 15:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
The previous AfD was closed as delete, after a fairly heated debate and subsequent deletion review. The article has been recently recreated, following the release this week of a documentary miniseries [14] about the subject of the article. This additional coverage could address the primary policy-based deletion argument of WP:BLP1E. As nominator, my !vote at this time is neutral. If the result of this discussion is keep, I request that the previous article be temporarily restored as a basis for expanding the new article. VQuakr ( talk) 04:04, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Gaijin42 ( talk) 15:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The result was Keep. ( non-admin closure) czar ♔ 22:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
non-notable ice hockey player. Jacona ( talk) 12:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The result was Delete. Randykitty ( talk) 11:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
This article about a U.S. judge was speedily deleted and restored after discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 September 19. Because some in that discussion voiced concerns about notability, I'm submitting the artice to AfD to decide this. I myself am neutral. Sandstein 12:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
“ | C. Consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted
|
” |
My vote is to keep it, since I'm the contributor of it anyways! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forthe1789usconstitution ( talk • contribs) 12:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 15:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Non-notable boxer - losing record and no major title fights. Fails WP:NBOX. Peter Rehse ( talk) 12:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 15:06, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Non-notable boxer does not meet WP:NBOX. No major title fights. Peter Rehse ( talk) 12:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The result was Delete. Randykitty ( talk) 10:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Autobiographical. Extensively edited by single-purpose-account who appears to also be the subject. Have tried to explain nature of problems and pointed out they mustn't edit or create an article on themselves. They are trying extremely hard to produce references (using copyvio uploads of newspaper scans!) but my own searches aren't producing anything to show independent notability. I can't read the language in the newspaper scans (and won't even try to guess which of the Indian languages it is). This page was nominated for deletion as an unsourced bio - the subject eventually removed the nom at the very last second so I am bringing this for discussion and to try and establish whether this seer is notable. Mabalu ( talk) 09:12, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 00:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty ( talk) 07:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The result was Speedy delete. G3: Obvious hoax. All the IPs geolocate to Burnaby BC, where the school is located. — SMALL JIM 09:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Complete hoax. G3 has been contested by random IPs. No information exists. It's seems to be created by a handful of Canadian school children. Ish dar ian 07:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The result was keep. postdlf ( talk) 22:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
No indication that this event is of lasting importance as outlined at WP:LASTING. VQuakr ( talk) 06:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
“ | I would say hold off on deleting for a brief period of time (2-4 weeks). Any relatively significant disappearance (and or foul play which is likely) can constitute some historical news, at least for the immediate area. I live in the D.C. area this is extremely notable event in the news now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.0.40.66 ( talk) 2014-09-22T11:56:05 | ” |
*Weak Keep for now. It has the intense and widespread coverage similar to other Missing White Female cases which have been found to be notable in AFDs. Obviously one cannot use the time machine to travel to the future and see how lasting the effects and coverage were. We could revisit in a couple of years and delete it if the coverage fades quickly. It should not be added to the Missing White Female Syndrome article unless reliable sources call it an instance of such disproportionate coverage. So far I do not see such linkage in the news coverage.
Edison (
talk)
12:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete !votes. ( Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica 1000 14:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Unsourced. The original link provided to Debretts, reliability of that source nonwithstanding, is no longer valid, nor does a search at that site for anyone by the name of Richard Gibbs produce a person of that name. Unable to find reliable sources which verify the existence of this individual, or provide evidence of notability.
j⚛e decker
talk
07:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The result was keep (non-admin closure) Snuggums ( talk / edits) 20:40, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
It's not clear if she passes WP:ACADEMIC (although in humanities the situation is seldom clear-cut) and there are serious potential WP:BLP violations in the article due to lack of sources combined with mostly negative statements. I've googled around a bit, but couldn't find much in the way of sources about her, so I think it's prudent to delete the whole article. JMP EAX ( talk) 00:43, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Also I found [20], which is an article about Judith Miller suing Élisabeth Roudinesco (the only source cited in this article) for defamation, although the lawsuit/article is about stuff Roudinesco wrote about Lacan, not focused on Judith Miller herself. JMP EAX ( talk) 01:19, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete. Lacks a clear assertion of importance § FreeRangeFrog croak 17:35, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
notability, lacking of sources, style, grammar Owais khursheed ( talk) 06:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted ( G11) by FreeRangeFrog. ( non-admin closure) Jim Carter (from public cyber) 19:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
its sources are unreliable. Muazim Balwan ( talk) 06:14, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. I'm withdrawing the AfD in view of improvements. (I may make some additional ones) DGG ( talk ) 01:36, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
local festival. extensive listing of productions violates WP:NOT. but even if it were removed, there still isn othing for ntoability except routine notices) DGG ( talk ) 05:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
[In Defense of this article] The article is patterned after other similar articles on Wikipedia such as "
Hudson Warehouse", "
Woodward Shakespeare Festival", and "
Pennsylvania Shakespeare Festival" and many other similar articles that speak of a theater or festival performing Shakespeare (see
/info/en/?search=Category:Shakespeare_festivals).
How are all of these other articles that are similar in content and format, OK to remain on WP and this article isn't? All of these other articles on Shakespeare theaters or festivals list the same things that this article does such as
The list of productions has been edited down to only include the last two years. This can be further modified if need be. What is the criteria for a section like this?
As for being notable, (i.e worthy of inclusion on WP) one of WP's criteria is that the group/person/event be recognized by other verifiable sources. The article contains several references to outside publications and city entities that recognize what the group has done such as the "Connecticut Post" and the "Jersey Journal". The company is notable from a historical perspective in that its been operating for nearly 25 years in New Jersey and is affiliated with several communities within New Jersey and also Stratford, CT. The first two companies listed above, "Hudson Warehouse" and "Woodward Shakespeare", have been operating for 10 years. How are these groups MORE notable from a historical perspective then this group that has been around twice as long? How are they MORE notable as they list the same type of content, as this articles does, and again not being questioned for deletion?
Further, there is a section in the article itself which lists "Notable Achievements". They include:
In summary AGAINST deleting this article:
I submit if that these other articles on theater groups are not being questioned for deletion and the "Past Productions" list has been edited down than there is no ground for this article on "Hudson Shakespeare Company" to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbari7057 ( talk • contribs) 14:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
In Defense of this article] The original complaint that got this article listed for possible deletion was an “extensive listing of productions violates WP:NOT” The section has since been shortened to contain only 2 years worth of information. However, there are several live articles on Wikipedia that have extensive production lists and have not been singled out for deletion. The original productions section contained a listing of productions ranging from 1992-2014. As has been stated in a previous posting this article was designed to match up with other similar Wikipedia articles. Each play listing linked to a related Wikipedia page if it was applicable. To illustrate this point of existing Wikipedia articles on Shakespeare festivals having extensive production credits but have not been singled out for deletion, here is a list:
Each of these are live Wikipedia articles that have extensive production listings where some contain links to existing Wikipedia pages. So why the bias against this article Hudson Shakespeare Company? Why are the articles cited above allowed to have extensive production credits and are not being considered for deletion, while the Hudson Shakespeare Company article is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbari7057 ( talk • contribs) 18:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 15:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
rather obvious blp violation DGG ( talk ) 05:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 15:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
unsourced spammy claims Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:40, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 15:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
no evidence for notability DGG ( talk ) 05:28, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 15:08, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Written with a promotional tone, plus not sure if it passes WP:GNG. — GFOLEY FOUR!— 20:37, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 00:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Even with the information in the article it is unclear if this person is notable. But since basically nothing of it is verifiably sourced, I argue for deletion. The subject seems rather elusive, anyways. bender235 ( talk) 15:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
The result was Delete. Per the cogent reasoning of Bearcat. Randykitty ( talk) 10:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Fails WP:MUSICBIO. I can find no reliable sources that would establish notability. Seems like a promo piece, but I think it falls right outside of the G11 scope. Ish dar ian 05:20, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
As per guild-lines Under
WP:MUSICBIO at least only ONE of the criteria must be met:
Works from this artist can be found on notable music distribution sites such as Amazon and iTunes. http://www.amazon.com/Hollywood-Fresh-feat-Dougie/dp/B0037P0CLC https://itunes.apple.com/ca/album/hollywood-fresh-feat.-dougie/id355222015
and notable publications such as (non of which are: self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself) / http://allunsigned.com/keysha-freshh-keyshato-vanity/ http://www.thecaribbeancamera.com/entertainment/5439-keysha-1 https://djmelboogie.wordpress.com/tag/keysha-fresh/ http://www.thecaribbeancamera.com/entertainment/5570-keysha-2 http://elbo.ws/post/2514507/hollywood-fresh-introducing-new-toronto-artist-keysha/ http://www.rapdict.org/Keysha http://bigmouthsonline.com/introducing-keysha-canadas-newest-up-and-coming-female-artist-videobio/ http://chrynews.wordpress.com/tag/keysha-freshh/ http://urbanologymag.com/um/keysha-freshh-coolin/ http://www.rapdict.org/Keysha http://www.cityonmyback.com/?s=keysha
11) Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network: This artist (as mentioned in bio) as been in rotation on major radio stations including, Flow 93.5 in Toronto, http://tunein.com/radio/BoomFM-941-s202795/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaniceRse ( talk • contribs) 05:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Absolutely agreed, as I am PR for the artist I should have posted updated links our apologies on that negligence.
STATION NETWORKS that have had this artist in rotation: Bell Media (Which owned and operated Flow 93.5 at the time, and Virgin radio 99.9, Top 2 urban stations in Toronto playing hip-hop music) Blue Ant Media (Which operates AUX TV where the artist Music video was on rotation)
Articles posted about artist that are neither: non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself:
-Artist covering "Share News": "One of Canada’s largest and most influential ethnic newspapers and by far the largest one serving the Black and Caribbean community in Toronto" - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:KeyshaShare.jpg
-Artist covering "Pride" newspaper: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2index.jpg
As these were published before these news companies integrated to an online format the articles are not available, however I have just contacted both and will have versions of both articles made available for further examination to confirm they fit within the guidelines listed under * WP:MUSICBIO
This is not an artist that you Google and there are suggestions for other artist, as soon as this artist name is entered into web searches, many publications appear solidifying the artist credentials. Allunsigned is a notable publication amongst the hip-hop community, also is http://www.hip-hopvibe.com - which posts the artist's most recent releases but does not "report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories" this is simply a publication that chooses to post the artists' music and give their opinion on the artist and the music. JaniceRse ( talk) 22:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Nothing in this article as written passes WP:NMUSIC, and the sourcing that's been provided so far, either in the article or in this discussion, is purely promotional — not one shred of properly reliable source coverage has actually been provided so far. What JaniceRse is missing is the part of NMUSIC where it specifies that regardless of how many items on the notability checklist an article claims that the subject meets, it's not the assertion that gets her past NMUSIC, but the quality of the sourcing that can be provided to verify the assertion. If you have to rely on marketing/promotional materials to "source" the assertion, and cannot cite coverage in reliable independent sources which supports the claims, then the criterion has not been passed — precisely because marketing/promotional/PR teams tend to inflate claims of notability well beyond the actual reality (e.g. it got played one time on one radio station = it's a worldwide smash megahit!), no musician ever gets over an NMUSIC criterion until the claim that she gets over an NMUSIC criterion is properly sourced. And merely reposting a copy of the newspaper's cover to Commons does not satisfy our inclusion rules, either. And I already noted both the conflict of interest rule, and the reasons why it exists, that if you're her PR agent then you have exactly no business going anywhere near a Wikipedia article about her at all. Delete, without prejudice against recreation, by somebody independent of her marketing team, in the future if and when, and only if and when, she can actually be properly sourced as having passed one or more of the NMUSIC criteria. Bearcat ( talk) 08:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 06:58, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Previously a BLP PROD - I still think it is. The references are his official site and I believe a site that's got some of his scultptures. He does do awesome work, I have to admit - but a google news search reveals nothing. I've expanded to "Devon Dorrity Sculpture" and that seems to only pull his site and some tumblr hits. Dusti *Let's talk!* 18:17, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 15:08, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Non notable; the coverage is just incidental: pictures of her, mentions in an interview, etc. amazing that this was accepted from afc. DGG ( talk ) 05:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The result was keep. j⚛e decker talk 15:09, 6 October 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 based a speculative claim that he would play for SC Telstar in the future. The inadmissibility of notability based potential future appearances remains one of the strongest and longest standing consensuses of the WikiProject football. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 05:02, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and has not played in a fully professional league. Simione001 ( talk) 07:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 15:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
No references for notability, except for press releases. Nor would they be expected: head of a non-notable company. DGG ( talk ) 05:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 15:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
I think this is a hoax. I could find absolutely no support for this term at Google, Google Scholar or Google Books; the only thing that turned up in a search was this article. There apparently really was an Augustine Hay, an obscure Scottish cleric; the article claims he invented this analysis, but I could find nothing connecting him with this subject. Both articles were written by the same editor on the same day. I prodded them both, and a brand-new special-purpose-account editor turned up at this article within the hour, removing the prod and claiming that they could verify the information in the article. I still think it's a hoax. Taking it to the community to decide. MelanieN ( talk) 01:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete-- Ymblanter ( talk) 06:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted PROD on rumored smartphone: per WP:CRYSTAL. — teb728 t c 01:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 00:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete-- Ymblanter ( talk) 06:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Fails WP:BIO - Cwobeel (talk) 01:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete. A11 — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 22:01, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Does not meet GNG. A Google news and book search reveals nothing notable. KJ Discuss? 01:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)