![]() |
The result was Keep. Chris lk02 Chris Kreider 14:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Article on website fails WP:GNG, there is one reference from a Christian news site from 2000, other coverage in media consists of passing mentions that fail WP:CORPDEPTH. The last AFD attracted some SPA/COI interest but did not generate a quorum from established users. Vrac ( talk) 15:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was Delete Chris lk02 Chris Kreider 14:36, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Actor with only 2 roles it appears and not inherited issue also. (Though more of older brother of someone more famous so he couldn't quite inherit that okay you get my point though!) Wgolf ( talk) 20:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was Delete Clearly a delete per WP:NOTABILITY even with no discussion, WP:IAR Chris lk02 Chris Kreider 14:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
This subject does not pass the WP:General Notability Guideline. Winning a medal at the Asian Para Games is not sufficient for notability for an athlete with disability. SFB 20:41, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Derailroaded: Inside the Mind of Wild Man Fischer. ( non-admin closure) Kraxler ( talk) 17:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Twins with little notability to speak with from what I can tell. Wgolf ( talk) 21:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Not enough coverage in reliable sources to verify or sustain an article. Fails general notability and WP:MUSICBIO. All sources I could find were things like Google+ and Linked-in as well as some blogs for his band. Jbh ( talk) 22:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 13:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
No evidence that this is a generally used term DGG ( talk ) 22:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was merge to child labour. ( non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 00:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
I approved this from AFC because I don't think it's undeniably deletion-worthy, but I think it should be deleted as an essay nonetheless. Calliopejen1 ( talk) 20:49, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was merge to Boy Better Know. MBisanz talk 23:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
The article includes no valid citation of reliable sources nor any evidence of notability. Dwpaul Talk 20:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. North America 1000 22:52, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Director who seems to fall under too soon. Only 2 films so far. (love the note super hit) Wgolf ( talk) 23:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
super hit is true as per the industry we are in. Kannada industry
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
TV presenter who I can't tell if notable or not (looking up google I keep on getting "do you mean Nichole Dixon?" then again seems like they would try to get a spelling like that) Seems like a redirect to the show might be the best! Wgolf ( talk) 20:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Sandstein 15:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Could redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn ( talk) 20:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC) Boleyn ( talk) 20:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Sandstein 15:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000 per NASTRO. Boleyn ( talk) 20:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC) Boleyn ( talk) 20:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. As they say, size doesn't matter, at least not in terms of notability. Sandstein 15:36, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted and/or redirected to List of minor planets: 1001–2000 per NASTRO. Boleyn ( talk) 19:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC) Boleyn ( talk) 19:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 07:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Not notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conspiracy of Credit for his book). duffbeerforme ( talk) 11:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Not notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Has one role in what is probably a notable production, Master of the Game [1], but that's only one. duffbeerforme ( talk) 11:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Not notable. Albums not on important label. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Best is a single short review of RapReviews, not enough. duffbeerforme ( talk) 11:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 13:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
This is just what's in a booklet put out by the museum. A passing mention in the Toronto Star is about all the independent notice it's gotten, [2] if we're being generous (as "iconic objects", not "Iconic Objects"). Clarityfiend ( talk) 21:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Policy allows a closing admin to accede to deletion requests for marginally notable people if they are only barely notable. That is how I read this discussion. Spartaz Humbug! 13:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
The subject of this article has requested via OTRS Ticket that this article be deleted. I have no opinion on the notability of the subject Flat Out let's discuss it 11:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 13:12, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
This seems like a pretty ordinary advertising agency which has achieved only local recognition and non-notable honors ("one of the 50 fastest growing agencies in Austin"?). NawlinWiki ( talk) 18:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. As self promotion, which is not to say that a good faith user without a COI couldn't have a stab at creating this as long as it was possible to do so based on sources without overly dwelling on negative aspects such as the court cases. Spartaz Humbug! 13:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether he is or is not notable, but I am sure that this is an advertisement for him. If an article is needed, it should be started over from scratch. DGG ( talk ) 17:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Delete - Entirely promotional article, created and maintained by SPA accounts. The only possibly "notable" incident, David's video campaign, would fall under WP:BLP1E, if it would be notable in itself. Talkshow appearances, brief "interviews" and other PR-activities do not establish notability, unless they are covered in-depth by independent reliable sources. I couldn't find such significant coverage via Google. GermanJoe ( talk) 00:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Delete this. Who is this guy? He seems to have written his own entry.... shameless self promotion — Preceding unsigned comment added by JakobLouis ( talk • contribs) 04:01, 29 April 2015 (UTC) — JakobLouis ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The result was redirect to Craig_Lancaster#Novels. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 04:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
No coverage in reliable sources to verify or sustain an article WP:NRV. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. Kindle First Selection is not a notable accomplishment. Jbh ( talk) 17:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Since I don't have all day to spend on Wikipedia discussing this with you, I have redirected this page to Craig Lancaster, and move the article to an incubator. I would have preferred to spend the time writing actually writing this article as the template suggested, but you've wasted enough of it on this already.
Suggest again you withdraw your badly timed nomination.- MacRùsgail ( talk) 18:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Once MacRusgail started removing the AfD tag on the article and calling me names I assumed he was just some PR editor not someone with 70,000+ edits and ten years of experience on Wikipedia so my desire to work with him took a bit of a nose dive after that. I guess I could have apologized for the AfD at the outset but it was a good faith nomination with a WP:BEFORE so I figured an offer to withdraw and an apology if my BEFORE was bad was a reasonable way to approach the situation. Oh yeah... no objection to the speedy close and thank you for taking the time to go over things here. I guess this article just tripped my spam trigger so I did not engage the author as I should have. I will endeavour to do better in the future. Jbh ( talk) 04:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Yunshui 雲 水 11:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Original research. The article explicitly states this was a study undertaken by five students at Ball State University that is being published primarily here on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original research. Publish elsewhere first. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 16:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 13:12, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Article is about an awards mill. The organization has been the subject of no significant media coverage I could find. Article still has no references after more than two years, nothing shows up in a Google Books search (Google web shows lots of people saying they got such an award, could find nothing on the award proper, e.g., who the judges are or what credentials they have, etc.). Failing the appearance of some reliable non-trivial sources about the competition, I propose this article be deleted as non-notable. KDS4444 Talk 16:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Yunshui 雲 水 11:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Kept in 2008, but many of the rationales would certainly not pass muster now. Of the sources cited, none actually establishes notability per WP:GNG - listings, blogs posts , a how-to, that kind of thing. The software itself is generic in nature and there is no evidence of widespread use (I am unsurprised by this, I have personally seen software lists from tens of thousands of computers all over the globe in the last ten years and have never once encountered it). Guy ( Help!) 12:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Lodz University of Technology. Can be merged from the history as may be desired. Consensus is that it's not notable enough for an article. Sandstein 12:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Does not pass WP:GNG on its own. No independent sources in article. Delete or merge with Lodz University of Technology. Jbh ( talk) 11:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
By "undue weight" I mean that this article would represent more than half of Lodz University of Technology after a merge. If other faculties don't have articles, it's not because they're not notable. Many articles for American universities have separate articles for parts of the institution.
If it's not clear, "Faculty of Chemistry" does not mean the academics themselves. It is a subdivision equivalent to a department at a U.S. university, and the word "department" is used for a group of related researchers, which is not normally a formal group at American schools. In the U.S., "faculty" is the next higher level above a department, as in "Faculty of Arts and Science". Roches ( talk) 17:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I added some relevant details to List of Universities in Poland, definitions of what are called "academies" (for arts) and "technical universities" (which are like universities that only teach physical sciences and engineering). It's nothing whatsoever like a technical school in the U.S.
If any editor here can read Polish or wants to machine-translate, the website almost certainly has a media or press page that will list recent mentions of the faculty in secondary sources. The English version seems to be missing one. Roches ( talk) 04:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Nakon 22:52, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Little to no reliable secondary source coverage. Also per WP:CRYSTAL, as an upcoming film with no backing of reliable sources. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 09:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. the arguing around the redirect hasn't overshadowed the fact that the arguments about the sourcing not cutting the mustard have not been refuted Spartaz Humbug! 13:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Up-and-coming creative ensemble generating some momentum, but Wikipedia:Too soon to meet inclusion per WP:BAND. Sources found are mostly WP:UGC. The review by Eden 2014 is independent in an online magazine, but I'm not sure that is sufficient. They have a respectable Facebook following and may be appropriate for Wikipedia soon, but... WP:CRYSTAL. Gaff ( talk) 02:47, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 08:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Contested prod, so wasting everyone's time doing this the hard way even though nothing has been done to address the issues raised in the proposed deletion. (Nor could it be, since this is a patently non-notable self-published e-book.) The original rationale - "Non-notable e-book, written by a non-notable author and published by a non-notable publisher. Only one actual source (the second source doesn't mention this book, and in any case appears to be to a blog), and that "source" is the publisher's website." - has not changed. – iridescent 07:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) — Yash! (Y) 11:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Zero evidence for notability. Prod was removed, but no information added. DGG ( talk ) 06:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 13:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
No notability besides a single composition. The composition itself doesn't seem notable after a cursory glance. At best, it should just be a page about the composition. References are very slim and from what I saw, the only one used is the only one out there. I prodded it a bit ago and the author simply removed it without improving the article. Jcmcc ( Talk) 06:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 08:08, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Nominating after WP:PROD was contested 12 days later. Article fails WP:GNG with lack of significant coverage from independent sources. The list is a product of a made-for-TV special. I can't find any sources after the event to indicate enduring notability. The most significant coverage is archived here from SI.com. However it is not independent. From the source: "I've been asked to offer my opinion on who should join the NBA's original 50 greatest players for SI.com (TNT's corporate partner)." Seems to have been written for cross-promotional purposes. — Bagumba ( talk) 06:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was Speedy Deleted G4 by Tokyogirl79 NAC – Davey2010 Talk 17:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
The article's subject does not appear to meet notability requirements. The only sources I could find for Fameboy Pyro were either owned by the subject or consisted of suspicious looking websites that brought up security warnings when I tried to open them. Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 05:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Davewild ( talk) 21:08, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Even though this was previously deleted in an AfD, a prod was declined. The prod rationale was: "made up, unsourced, not noteworthy." I don't think she meets the WP:GNG and it currently reads like advertisement. Tavix Talk 04:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) — Yash! (Y) 11:18, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Procedural nomination on behalf on an IP editor. The deletion rationale is "resumé" Reyk YO! 11:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. The keep arguments are almost a poster child of how not to refute a well argued case for deletion based on a lack of sourcing. They therefore did not prevail. Spartaz Humbug! 13:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Unresolved notability tag for 2 years. Entire article fails GNG. Article is about an online single proprietorship company with no RS provided in article and none easily discoverable following a cursory search (note, that there are a smattering of references discoverable, but these are primarily from blogs and message boards and the websites of heraldry clubs, not RS). BlueSalix ( talk) 02:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Reputation management. Since there is currently no target for the consensus redirect, I have redirected it to the closest I can find. This can of course be tweaked when/if the suggested list is created. Black Kite (talk) 22:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NOTABILITY but it is not my area of expertise. Prod removed by Mr. Guye. This has been tagged for notability for 7 years; hopefully we can now find some resolution. Tagged by Bfigura. Boleyn ( talk) 08:08, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 08:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Three of the four sources in the article are unreliable. The leadership source doesn't mention the subject. Versace1608 (Talk) 03:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. G5 already refused. This smacks of asking the other parent Spartaz Humbug! 13:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Contested Prod Fails WP:GNG and Declined AFC submission and a paid article created in violation of block and ban and thus eligible under WP:G5.Please refer to this Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Seeknikkihi. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 03:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. Consensus is that the articles meets WP:NBAND and is no longer completely unsourced Davewild ( talk) 21:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Article I couldn't quite make out of. It was up for a AFD in 2008 with 1 merge, 1 delete and 1 keep. It has apparently been inactive and nothing has ever happened with it either. Wgolf ( talk) 01:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 07:56, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Unencyclopedic linkfarm. Prod contested by article creator. -- Finngall talk 01:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 15:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
fails WP:ORG. purely a directory listing showing name of ambassador and address. LibStar ( talk) 08:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. ( WP:NPASR). North America 1000 00:28, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Two references included, neither of which has more than a fleeting mention of the subject. Dweller ( talk) 09:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 13:12, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
The concept of "XML-Enabled Networking" is a marketing/technical buzzword that does not really reflect anything in reality. There are no sources discussing the concept except as a marketing phrase by a company called Reactivity (who themselves don't have an article) that for a brief while sold hardware and services that claimed to provide "XML-Enabled Networking" (see this as a representative example).
I have found no other use for the phrase that is not within the marketing copy of Reactivity who were bought by Cisco in 2007. It seems likely that the concept was dreamed up at the height of XML fever in enterprise software simply as a marketing phrase to sell hardware firewalls with some protection against XML parser vulnerabilities (like the billion laughs attack etc.) to big corporate IT departments. It doesn't really make much sense as a phrase because it violates the layering principle, as you can see in the article: it isn't a protocol, it's a very vaguely defined "abstration layer".
Pretty clear failure of WP:GNG (and WP:B2B is applicable too). If someone wanted to write an article on Reactivity Inc. then it might be worth a brief mention in that article (and a redirect), but it isn't notable in and of itself. — Tom Morris ( talk) 10:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Keep opinions do not address the delete opinions that demonstrate that the article does not meet the notability guidelines. Davewild ( talk) 21:12, 3 May 2015 (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}} . |
Article's subject appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR. References consist mostly of the subject's own publications, links to listings of his publications, or summary reviews of these publications with no in-depth coverage of the subject himself. Other references are insider magazine announcements and a youtube video, neither of which constitute reliable evidence of notability. Subject has won no national awards or received any particular merit for his accomplishments. I do not see coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. KDS4444 Talk 09:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. ( WP:NPASR). North America 1000 00:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Non-notable individual. Unable to find any sources outside of the ones listed on the page, and they are minor mentions at best. Primefac ( talk) 14:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. ( WP:NPASR). North America 1000 00:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
I see no announcement at all for this album, no support from the artist, nothing promotional from the record company. It appears to be somebody's collection of Inna songs hosted on this or that torrent server, with various track listings depending on where it's hosted. The album looks like it was never released by Inna or her label. There are no reliable sources discussing it. Binksternet ( talk) 14:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. ( WP:NPASR). North America 1000 00:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
BLP, doesn't seem to be notable. Kavdiamanju ( talk) 16:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Pinoy Big Brother (season 6). Spartaz Humbug! 13:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
A bio about an artist that was speedied repeatedly under the title Maris Racal and eventually salted. Submited through two different drafts, both of which were rejected twice (this title and User:Inajane/sandbox/Maris Racal), until it was moved unilaterally by the submitter to article space. Blatant promotional tone aside, subject's claim to fame is finishing second in a competition. It seems to me that aside from some routine coverage of her short career (1 year?), she does not meet WP:GNG either, but given the history I feel an AFD should decide once and for all if the article is kept. § FreeRangeFrog croak 16:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 22:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Looks to fail WP:NACADEMICS Dolescum ( talk) 17:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Based on the independent source provided by Wikicology, that vaguely mentions him as VC in the article. I'd prefer to be nuetral on this one. Isakaba ( talk) 21:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Comment: – "Prominent tenured professors tend to be kept" per
WP:PEOPLEOUTCOMES.
Wikic¤l¤gy
t@lk to M£
22:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. ( WP:NPASR). North America 1000 00:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Record label that has been tagged for notability since 2008. Looking up slowdance I get expected stuff like "slow dancing with records" (Seriously I got this) The only source that I could find for a news story actually appeared right below this wiki article which was that they called it quits. Wgolf ( talk) 18:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. ( WP:NPASR). North America 1000 00:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Another record label I'm trying to find sources for-though the only refs I really can find are from either Facebook or blogs. Wgolf ( talk) 18:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. ( WP:NPASR). North America 1000 00:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Obscure game show that was previously up for a AFD that only got delete and keep and that's it. Not sure how this is notable enough as the keep vote said. At best a redirect to the host or the channel. Wgolf ( talk) 19:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 12:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Very obscure band who only released 2 rather obscure spoof songs. I would say redirect to Charlie Drake but it says it was not him then. Can't find any notability or reliable sources. Wgolf ( talk) 19:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Dartz!. Davewild ( talk) 21:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
A EP that I can't find much notability for (as a note I did change Dartz Demo into a redirect) has been unreferenced for years Wgolf ( talk) 19:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. ( WP:NPASR). North America 1000 23:57, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Notability is the big problem here. Although there are several releases listed as a musician he fails WP:MUSICBIO as they are all self-released or on tiny labels with no coverage in any notable publications. Several reviews are admittedly included in the external links section but none are on any sort of major website. He also fails WP:AUTHOR as his listed books (all of which are actually pamphlets despite the articles claim) are entirely insignificant, published by tiny printers or self-published. Finally he fails WP:NPOL as he was a failed candidate in a single election and, according the article, was merely a paper candidate at that and the environmentalist group he is supposed to be involved with is so minor that it doesn't even have a website of its own, much less a Wikipedia article.. Keresaspa ( talk) 19:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. The notability issues haven't been addressed by the one "keep" opinion. Sandstein 15:47, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Once-off show sourced only to the network's website. No indication of notability. Previously closed as NPASR after 1 month due to lack of participation. Greykit ( talk) 20:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 22:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Once-off documentary sourced only to the network's website (the one possibly independent source refers to an event that happened in the 1970s, not the documentary itself). The incidents discussed, if notable, can easily be covered in the relevant articles. Previously closed as NPASR after 1 month due to lack of participation. Greykit ( talk) 20:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 22:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Once-off documentary sourced only to the network's website (and a cursory mention once elsewhere). The incidents discussed, if notable, can easily be covered in the relevant articles. Previously closed as NPASR after 1 month due to lack of participation. Greykit ( talk) 20:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. ( WP:NPASR). North America 1000 23:55, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Unsourced article about a non-notable club. Was declined for speedy deletion because "winning a county club title is a credible indication of importance", however no such assertion exists in the article (unless I missed it). Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. - Mr X 21:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 08:10, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Non-notable technology; declined PROD. Research papers describing it have low citation scores on GScholar, and I haven't been able to find other reliable sources that discuss it in-depth. QVVERTYVS ( hm?) 21:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. ( WP:NPASR). North America 1000 23:55, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Unsourced article about a non-notable club. The only sources that I could find were some very brief mentions in local newspapers. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. - Mr X 23:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 15:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
WP: NOTJARGON. Unreferenced, evidently self-published (see User talk:Nguyen Si Phuoc). Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) may the force be with you 02:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was Keep. Michig ( talk) 07:50, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Indiscriminate list of banks with no distinguishing characteristics. WP:NOTCATALOG. Natg 19 ( talk) 00:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
The only real question is then whether there is value to having a master list of all bank articles in one place rather than just sublists split by country or by type (e.g., central banks, investment banks). Clarityfiend is the only commenter to address that, and raises a valid concern about the work needed to maintain it given that its only real value would be if it were an accurate and complete conglomerate of all the sublists. One way to do that would be to convert all the by country lists into standardized sortable tables, enclose everything but the lists' entries in <noinclude> tags (to exclude the headers and categories), and then transclude all the separate pages to this list (which you can do with mainspace pages no less than with templates, just add a colon after the first curly brackets). This would then combine all the entries from every separate list in one table that could be sorted alphabetically. In theory that should work, though I don't know that I've ever seen a master list constructed in that way, and any structural changes to any of the individual pages could break the effect (and I can't think right now of how this list would then identify the country, given that the sublists by country would obviously not restate that within their own tables...could a table column be enclosed in <includeonly> without breaking the table formatting? the mind reels...). But really that's the only solution I can see to making sure such a master list has no updating lags or discrepancies from sublists. postdlf ( talk) 17:39, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Nakon 22:46, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
This is a medical product. No sources that satisfy MEDRS, so not NOTABLE Jytdog ( talk) 19:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Additional commentary.
|
---|
|
The result was redirect to Theory of the Absolute Individual -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 12:44, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Book with questionable notability that has had no references in over 8 years. Interesting its not on the template on the bottom as well (I also tagged a couple other books by this guy as a prod) Wgolf ( talk) 19:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was merge to Paul Bowles. Nakon 22:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Should be deleted or merged into the author's page. Jerod Lycett ( talk) 01:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 07:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Part neologism (the Lea person described in the article--the article's author?--has trademarked the term), part dictionary definition. I accepted this from AFC because I don't think it qualifies for speedy deletion, but I don't think it's a valid encyclopedia article. Calliopejen1 ( talk) 01:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. This has had as long as it can reasonably have to achieve a consensus but it didn't reach one. Michig ( talk) 08:06, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
The last AfD was closed as no consensus, but only attracted one comment. I'm hopeful it can be better resolved this time. It is hard when sources are not in English. Although this looks like it has a lot of references, they essentially go to the same source. I couldn't prove that this meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. As it has been tagged for WP:NOTABILITY for over seven years without resolution, it needs a good discussion. Boleyn ( talk) 10:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Can be userfied if desired, but it's all unsourced, so of limited usefulness. Sandstein 12:58, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Tram controls are irrelevant. Why isn't there such a thing as train controls or bus controls? <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> ( talk) 01:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Cornol. Additionally merge from history as may be required. Sandstein 09:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't see that this meets WP:NOTABILITY. It has been tagged for notability for 7 years; hopefully we can now resolve it. It's possibly worth a merge to Cornol, where it is not currently mentioned. Boleyn ( talk) 18:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC) Boleyn ( talk) 18:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was merge to Andrea Casiraghi. Black Kite (talk) 22:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
notability is not inherited and wikipedia is not a repository for every information. The two years old boy is an heir of the Monegasque not yet a king (who may probably have a page here). Anyone can be an heir to a thrown and that has not make that person notable. When the baby becomes an adult and assumed his father's thrown, we may consider an article but certainly not now. Wikic¤l¤gy t@lk to M£ 18:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Comment. Prince George of Cambridge is one young heir that has a wiki article of their own. To use Wikicology's logic, this article and probably a huge percentage of other royal heirs would need to be deleted. To be consistent Wikicology, please seek them out and nominate them for deletion. Keep them all or delete them all. Please do not cherry pick whic heirs should be kept and which shouldn't. Why would Prince George be any more notable than this heir, other than press coverage? Postcard Cathy ( talk) 02:34, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Optical Transport Network. MBisanz talk 23:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I looked at this as it has been tagged for notability for 7 years ( Wheelchair Epidemic), and I hoped to be able to resolve it, one way or the other. Unfortunately, it's goobledegook to me. I would tag it for expert help, but it has already been tagged for that for 6 years, without help coming. My investigations showed I couldn't verify notability. Boleyn ( talk) 06:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
'Comment'I would like to suggest that this article is kept on wikipedia as it is something which does exist. I have limited knowledge of it as I have only read about it in various manuals and books, never implemented it as it is not my field. If it has been nominated as something which doesn't exist I can inform you that it does exist, however it is just a standard and therefore a niche thing which is just definition at best. Even if you ask an expert he will be able to give you small paragraphs here and there which define the term(Just as it has been already defined in the article). The basic purport is that it is a term meant for people who have advanced knowledge so the books which mention this will not explain it at length as they think that the guy reading them already knows about an ONE and OTN. If what I wrote is confusing, do forgive me and leave a msg on my TP, i'll try to explain further but basically if you are looking for a book which describes this standard with a definition spanning more than one paragraph, I am not sure that if such a book exists . Have a good day, I just saw the nomination and came to give my two cents FreeatlastChitchat ( talk) 07:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Davewild ( talk) 21:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I couldn't establish that she meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Last AfD had a delete, an on the fence and a keep. Hopefull, with greater participation, we can resolve this. Pinging those involved in looking at its notability previously: Tomwsulcer, Раціональне анархіст, Diagear. Boleyn ( talk) 06:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC) Boleyn ( talk) 06:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Davewild ( talk) 21:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Insufficient coverage for notability. ← scribbleink talk 06:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete, WP:SOFTDELETE-- Ymblanter ( talk) 06:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
The duo is not notable as they only competed in the Ukrainian national selection for the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2014 and only came in eighth place. The article relies on one source and is poorly organised. Fails WP:GNG { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 12:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete-- Ymblanter ( talk) 06:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
None of the companies that this individual has been associated with are notable; only sources that looks like it would pass WP:RS is an article by a local Utah paper focusing on a Utah company he is president of. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Audrey Horne (band). North America 1000 23:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Album I can't find any notability or refs for. Of course looking up Confessions and Alcohol I seem to only get the obvious stuff like Alcohol anonymous groups. Wgolf ( talk) 15:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. ( WP:NPASR). North America 1000 23:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Non-notable orienteering organization. Natg 19 ( talk) 16:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Also bundling the following pages as non-notable orienteering organizations:
The result was no consensus. ( WP:NPASR). North America 1000 23:43, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Prod that was removed-now while he does have refs it seems he is more of a local celebrity-yes Chicago is a huge city, but still does not seem to make it here. Wgolf ( talk) 18:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Response: Charles Grippo has had his plays produced in Chicago, Illinois, New York, and California and is not just local. Somebody doesn't have to be a celebrity to be important on the earth. Also, his publications have been used by many in the American theater community who are starting or maintaining their own theater companies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loganave2002 ( talk • contribs)
Response: I am in Brooklyn, New York, and I have seen Charles Grippo's plays here in NYC, so he is not simply local to Chicago, as you suggest. When I went to research his works to find more references to cite, I was struck by the number of national, reputable publications that have written about his works, as well as the books by major publishers that have cited him. The publishers Thompson Gale thought he was notable enough for a biography in their Contemporary Authors Series. Even Wikipedia thought one his plays WHEN ANGELS WEPT was notable enough to give it its own page. And Wikipedia cites him in several other articles. He is not simply local to Chicago. (I hope I am doing this correctly. I am new to Wikipedia and not sure how to add to deletion discussions. Chrislatoya ( talk) 20:33, 12 April 2015 (UTC)chrislatoya.
The result was no consensus. ( WP:NPASR). North America 1000 23:44, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Fictional character that also basically seems to have a in universe style of writing. Not sure about notability either (There are tons of these from this British soap opera it appears-if I could I would just merge them into a AFD for several of these) Wgolf ( talk) 18:57, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. ( WP:NPASR). North America 1000 23:45, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Another character from some soap opera with no notability mentioned and basically all universe. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Taylor (Family Affairs) Wgolf ( talk) 18:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. ( WP:NPASR). North America 1000 23:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Prod was removed by a ip (it was about to be deleted today the page it appears) anyway the article comes across as a advertisement. Wgolf ( talk) 19:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Really quite clear from the discussion that that this is an OR/SYNTH cruftfest; the only "keep" opinion makes as little sense as the article. Editorially redirected to Prospective memory. Sandstein 15:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
The topic of this article , "Memory for the future", is not a phrase which is anywhere discernible in any of the sources cited. Nor does it seem to exist as a term on a Google search (except in the present WP article), and the topic therefore cannot qualify under WP:NOTABILITY, being not verifiable. See also WP:ARTN - Article content does not determine notability. The article itself is long and rambling, extending to a variety of issues including evolution, burial of goods by the ancient Egyptians, and extensive other irrelevant matter, and reads more like an essay of the sort ruled out by WP standards. It would seem that this is a non-topic or fraudulent topic invented by the original editor, and it is indeed difficult to discern from the article exactly what the topic may even mean. Insofar as it means anything, it contains in some parts speculations about the nature of forecasting (which is nowhere referred to by the sources cited as 'memory for the future'). Very little or anything seems to link to the article save via the Human Memory template in which the topic is included. Therefore delete as non-notable, pseudo-scientific rambling or hoax. Smerus ( talk) 20:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. Most of the keep arguments were non-policy (i.e. being on primetime isn't enough to establish notability by our rules), but the two refs cited by Richfife seem sufficient. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:09, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Sourced mainly to the network. Shown only once, with no long-term significance indicated. Of the sources which might be independent, one doesn't work and one is not even about the show but about a "previously claimed notion" that was mentioned in it. Previously closed as NPASR after 1 month due to lack of participation. Greykit ( talk) 21:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. ( WP:NPASR). North America 1000 23:40, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
No sources indicate notability under WP:MUSICBIO or WP:BASIC. We have a blog post; a couple of interviews in dubious magazines; another interview in a less dubious outlet, but still one that presents no particular claims of notability; and something that attests her participation in the Eurovision selection, something that has never been held to constitute notability by itself (as opposed to actually being selected). In short, there's no credible reason to ascribe notability to this figure. - Biruitorul Talk 22:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Nakon 22:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Non-notable suburban neighborhood, with no independent sources on the article. Conifer ( talk) 00:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I am Jlfarm03, the creator of Windermere Community. I have provided very limited evidence for this page because I currently LIVE in Windermere Community. I have lived here since this community has first opened and I feel that my article has enough factual evidence that I feel this article should not be in deletion. Thanks, Jlfarm03, The Creator of Windermere Community — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlfarm03 ( talk • contribs) 19:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 07:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Non-notable stub sourced only to the network for more than 10 years. That link is no longer working. Google gives unrelated links to Apple. Greykit ( talk) 17:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Westwood One (current). North America 1000 23:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I couldn't establish that it meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. This has been tagged for notability for seven years. A previous AfD ended with 1 keep, 1 delete, 1 merge. I think a thorough discussion is needed, with hopefully more than 3 people, to finally resolve this. Pinging those who were involved in looking at its notability before: Mrschimpf, DGG, Levdr1lostpassword, Erechtheus. Boleyn ( talk) 11:28, 30 March 2015 (UTC) Boleyn ( talk) 11:28, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Michig ( talk) 08:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I couldn't find the reliable sources to back up that this meets WP:NOTABILITY. It has been tagged for notability for 7 years ( Bradv). It has articles in several other languages, so there may be something I'm missing. Boleyn ( talk) 07:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. ( WP:NPASR). North America 1000 23:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Neither of these two entities shows evidence of passing WP:ORG. Let's look at the sources to see why, although you'll forgive me if I don't bother analyzing links from riseproject.ro or rise.md. For RISE Project, we have:
For RISE Moldova, there's this:
I think the level of coverage pretty much speaks for itself. Biruitorul Talk 23:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
I am also nominating the following related page:
The result was redirect to Venus Palermo. MBisanz talk 23:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This is not harassment, it is merely a statement of truth, in order to keep Wikipedia up with required notability within the rules. Note: Wikipedia article "Margaret Palermo" was created by herself, Margaret Palermo" (check article history for alias, matched with her D.O.B.) Please also note that most of the text is written about another character (daughter of Margaret, Venus Palermo) than the article's subject, as well as the resources on the bottom are not relevant to the article's character at all They are, in fact, about her daughter, who also helped create this article. All resources on the bottom is irrelevant to the character, and most of it is hosted on unofficial domains (i.e. Facebook photos). A lot of it is deemed non-qualified for sources, in forms of being random photos and links to YouTube videos that has no show for the subject in the article. A source needs to be a direct source, not hosted on a secondary domain.
Article does not contain any "independent of the subject". There are no press releases or advertisement about Margaret herself. Anything to do with her daughter is not appropriate for this article, as her daughter Venus Palermo has her own Wikipedia page. This article, Margaret Palermo, is not an independent article. ALL sources on the bottom point to Venus, and not Margaret. It is merely a secondary-article about Venus Palermo. Unlike Venus Palermo's article, this article does not hold ground for being credible, notable or relevant. Wikipedia article is nothing but a unambiguous advertising or promotional page for her daughter Venus Palermo (please see the bottom sources of the main article.) Dekikaki ( talk) 07:58, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
The user brags about how she tries to delete the Wikipedia article about Margaret Palermo, also giving her and her minor daughter nasty names. The person writes this or agrees with other about writing this
I would suggest that the page be merged with the Venus Palermo page. The only fix that could possibly make this page more relevant is if there is more information based specifically on Margaret Palermo such as her early life and education. As the current information is all about Venus Palermo, whom already has a separate page, and it is not giving any further information as a page than the Venus Palermo page. The references are not particularly solid with most of them pertaining to be hearsay as opposed to solid research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kittykat28 ( talk • contribs)
Delete no independent notability. Staszek Lem ( talk) 22:36, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
The result was Keep. Chris lk02 Chris Kreider 14:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Article on website fails WP:GNG, there is one reference from a Christian news site from 2000, other coverage in media consists of passing mentions that fail WP:CORPDEPTH. The last AFD attracted some SPA/COI interest but did not generate a quorum from established users. Vrac ( talk) 15:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was Delete Chris lk02 Chris Kreider 14:36, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Actor with only 2 roles it appears and not inherited issue also. (Though more of older brother of someone more famous so he couldn't quite inherit that okay you get my point though!) Wgolf ( talk) 20:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was Delete Clearly a delete per WP:NOTABILITY even with no discussion, WP:IAR Chris lk02 Chris Kreider 14:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
This subject does not pass the WP:General Notability Guideline. Winning a medal at the Asian Para Games is not sufficient for notability for an athlete with disability. SFB 20:41, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Derailroaded: Inside the Mind of Wild Man Fischer. ( non-admin closure) Kraxler ( talk) 17:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Twins with little notability to speak with from what I can tell. Wgolf ( talk) 21:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Not enough coverage in reliable sources to verify or sustain an article. Fails general notability and WP:MUSICBIO. All sources I could find were things like Google+ and Linked-in as well as some blogs for his band. Jbh ( talk) 22:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 13:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
No evidence that this is a generally used term DGG ( talk ) 22:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was merge to child labour. ( non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 00:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
I approved this from AFC because I don't think it's undeniably deletion-worthy, but I think it should be deleted as an essay nonetheless. Calliopejen1 ( talk) 20:49, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was merge to Boy Better Know. MBisanz talk 23:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
The article includes no valid citation of reliable sources nor any evidence of notability. Dwpaul Talk 20:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. North America 1000 22:52, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Director who seems to fall under too soon. Only 2 films so far. (love the note super hit) Wgolf ( talk) 23:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
super hit is true as per the industry we are in. Kannada industry
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
TV presenter who I can't tell if notable or not (looking up google I keep on getting "do you mean Nichole Dixon?" then again seems like they would try to get a spelling like that) Seems like a redirect to the show might be the best! Wgolf ( talk) 20:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Sandstein 15:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Could redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn ( talk) 20:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC) Boleyn ( talk) 20:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Sandstein 15:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000 per NASTRO. Boleyn ( talk) 20:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC) Boleyn ( talk) 20:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. As they say, size doesn't matter, at least not in terms of notability. Sandstein 15:36, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted and/or redirected to List of minor planets: 1001–2000 per NASTRO. Boleyn ( talk) 19:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC) Boleyn ( talk) 19:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 07:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Not notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conspiracy of Credit for his book). duffbeerforme ( talk) 11:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Not notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Has one role in what is probably a notable production, Master of the Game [1], but that's only one. duffbeerforme ( talk) 11:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Not notable. Albums not on important label. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Best is a single short review of RapReviews, not enough. duffbeerforme ( talk) 11:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 13:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
This is just what's in a booklet put out by the museum. A passing mention in the Toronto Star is about all the independent notice it's gotten, [2] if we're being generous (as "iconic objects", not "Iconic Objects"). Clarityfiend ( talk) 21:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Policy allows a closing admin to accede to deletion requests for marginally notable people if they are only barely notable. That is how I read this discussion. Spartaz Humbug! 13:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
The subject of this article has requested via OTRS Ticket that this article be deleted. I have no opinion on the notability of the subject Flat Out let's discuss it 11:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 13:12, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
This seems like a pretty ordinary advertising agency which has achieved only local recognition and non-notable honors ("one of the 50 fastest growing agencies in Austin"?). NawlinWiki ( talk) 18:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. As self promotion, which is not to say that a good faith user without a COI couldn't have a stab at creating this as long as it was possible to do so based on sources without overly dwelling on negative aspects such as the court cases. Spartaz Humbug! 13:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether he is or is not notable, but I am sure that this is an advertisement for him. If an article is needed, it should be started over from scratch. DGG ( talk ) 17:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Delete - Entirely promotional article, created and maintained by SPA accounts. The only possibly "notable" incident, David's video campaign, would fall under WP:BLP1E, if it would be notable in itself. Talkshow appearances, brief "interviews" and other PR-activities do not establish notability, unless they are covered in-depth by independent reliable sources. I couldn't find such significant coverage via Google. GermanJoe ( talk) 00:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Delete this. Who is this guy? He seems to have written his own entry.... shameless self promotion — Preceding unsigned comment added by JakobLouis ( talk • contribs) 04:01, 29 April 2015 (UTC) — JakobLouis ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The result was redirect to Craig_Lancaster#Novels. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 04:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
No coverage in reliable sources to verify or sustain an article WP:NRV. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. Kindle First Selection is not a notable accomplishment. Jbh ( talk) 17:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Since I don't have all day to spend on Wikipedia discussing this with you, I have redirected this page to Craig Lancaster, and move the article to an incubator. I would have preferred to spend the time writing actually writing this article as the template suggested, but you've wasted enough of it on this already.
Suggest again you withdraw your badly timed nomination.- MacRùsgail ( talk) 18:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Once MacRusgail started removing the AfD tag on the article and calling me names I assumed he was just some PR editor not someone with 70,000+ edits and ten years of experience on Wikipedia so my desire to work with him took a bit of a nose dive after that. I guess I could have apologized for the AfD at the outset but it was a good faith nomination with a WP:BEFORE so I figured an offer to withdraw and an apology if my BEFORE was bad was a reasonable way to approach the situation. Oh yeah... no objection to the speedy close and thank you for taking the time to go over things here. I guess this article just tripped my spam trigger so I did not engage the author as I should have. I will endeavour to do better in the future. Jbh ( talk) 04:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Yunshui 雲 水 11:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Original research. The article explicitly states this was a study undertaken by five students at Ball State University that is being published primarily here on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original research. Publish elsewhere first. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 16:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 13:12, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Article is about an awards mill. The organization has been the subject of no significant media coverage I could find. Article still has no references after more than two years, nothing shows up in a Google Books search (Google web shows lots of people saying they got such an award, could find nothing on the award proper, e.g., who the judges are or what credentials they have, etc.). Failing the appearance of some reliable non-trivial sources about the competition, I propose this article be deleted as non-notable. KDS4444 Talk 16:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Yunshui 雲 水 11:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Kept in 2008, but many of the rationales would certainly not pass muster now. Of the sources cited, none actually establishes notability per WP:GNG - listings, blogs posts , a how-to, that kind of thing. The software itself is generic in nature and there is no evidence of widespread use (I am unsurprised by this, I have personally seen software lists from tens of thousands of computers all over the globe in the last ten years and have never once encountered it). Guy ( Help!) 12:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Lodz University of Technology. Can be merged from the history as may be desired. Consensus is that it's not notable enough for an article. Sandstein 12:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Does not pass WP:GNG on its own. No independent sources in article. Delete or merge with Lodz University of Technology. Jbh ( talk) 11:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
By "undue weight" I mean that this article would represent more than half of Lodz University of Technology after a merge. If other faculties don't have articles, it's not because they're not notable. Many articles for American universities have separate articles for parts of the institution.
If it's not clear, "Faculty of Chemistry" does not mean the academics themselves. It is a subdivision equivalent to a department at a U.S. university, and the word "department" is used for a group of related researchers, which is not normally a formal group at American schools. In the U.S., "faculty" is the next higher level above a department, as in "Faculty of Arts and Science". Roches ( talk) 17:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I added some relevant details to List of Universities in Poland, definitions of what are called "academies" (for arts) and "technical universities" (which are like universities that only teach physical sciences and engineering). It's nothing whatsoever like a technical school in the U.S.
If any editor here can read Polish or wants to machine-translate, the website almost certainly has a media or press page that will list recent mentions of the faculty in secondary sources. The English version seems to be missing one. Roches ( talk) 04:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Nakon 22:52, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Little to no reliable secondary source coverage. Also per WP:CRYSTAL, as an upcoming film with no backing of reliable sources. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 09:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. the arguing around the redirect hasn't overshadowed the fact that the arguments about the sourcing not cutting the mustard have not been refuted Spartaz Humbug! 13:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Up-and-coming creative ensemble generating some momentum, but Wikipedia:Too soon to meet inclusion per WP:BAND. Sources found are mostly WP:UGC. The review by Eden 2014 is independent in an online magazine, but I'm not sure that is sufficient. They have a respectable Facebook following and may be appropriate for Wikipedia soon, but... WP:CRYSTAL. Gaff ( talk) 02:47, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 08:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Contested prod, so wasting everyone's time doing this the hard way even though nothing has been done to address the issues raised in the proposed deletion. (Nor could it be, since this is a patently non-notable self-published e-book.) The original rationale - "Non-notable e-book, written by a non-notable author and published by a non-notable publisher. Only one actual source (the second source doesn't mention this book, and in any case appears to be to a blog), and that "source" is the publisher's website." - has not changed. – iridescent 07:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) — Yash! (Y) 11:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Zero evidence for notability. Prod was removed, but no information added. DGG ( talk ) 06:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 13:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
No notability besides a single composition. The composition itself doesn't seem notable after a cursory glance. At best, it should just be a page about the composition. References are very slim and from what I saw, the only one used is the only one out there. I prodded it a bit ago and the author simply removed it without improving the article. Jcmcc ( Talk) 06:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 08:08, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Nominating after WP:PROD was contested 12 days later. Article fails WP:GNG with lack of significant coverage from independent sources. The list is a product of a made-for-TV special. I can't find any sources after the event to indicate enduring notability. The most significant coverage is archived here from SI.com. However it is not independent. From the source: "I've been asked to offer my opinion on who should join the NBA's original 50 greatest players for SI.com (TNT's corporate partner)." Seems to have been written for cross-promotional purposes. — Bagumba ( talk) 06:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was Speedy Deleted G4 by Tokyogirl79 NAC – Davey2010 Talk 17:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
The article's subject does not appear to meet notability requirements. The only sources I could find for Fameboy Pyro were either owned by the subject or consisted of suspicious looking websites that brought up security warnings when I tried to open them. Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 05:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Davewild ( talk) 21:08, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Even though this was previously deleted in an AfD, a prod was declined. The prod rationale was: "made up, unsourced, not noteworthy." I don't think she meets the WP:GNG and it currently reads like advertisement. Tavix Talk 04:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) — Yash! (Y) 11:18, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Procedural nomination on behalf on an IP editor. The deletion rationale is "resumé" Reyk YO! 11:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. The keep arguments are almost a poster child of how not to refute a well argued case for deletion based on a lack of sourcing. They therefore did not prevail. Spartaz Humbug! 13:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Unresolved notability tag for 2 years. Entire article fails GNG. Article is about an online single proprietorship company with no RS provided in article and none easily discoverable following a cursory search (note, that there are a smattering of references discoverable, but these are primarily from blogs and message boards and the websites of heraldry clubs, not RS). BlueSalix ( talk) 02:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Reputation management. Since there is currently no target for the consensus redirect, I have redirected it to the closest I can find. This can of course be tweaked when/if the suggested list is created. Black Kite (talk) 22:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NOTABILITY but it is not my area of expertise. Prod removed by Mr. Guye. This has been tagged for notability for 7 years; hopefully we can now find some resolution. Tagged by Bfigura. Boleyn ( talk) 08:08, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 08:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Three of the four sources in the article are unreliable. The leadership source doesn't mention the subject. Versace1608 (Talk) 03:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. G5 already refused. This smacks of asking the other parent Spartaz Humbug! 13:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Contested Prod Fails WP:GNG and Declined AFC submission and a paid article created in violation of block and ban and thus eligible under WP:G5.Please refer to this Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Seeknikkihi. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 03:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. Consensus is that the articles meets WP:NBAND and is no longer completely unsourced Davewild ( talk) 21:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Article I couldn't quite make out of. It was up for a AFD in 2008 with 1 merge, 1 delete and 1 keep. It has apparently been inactive and nothing has ever happened with it either. Wgolf ( talk) 01:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 07:56, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Unencyclopedic linkfarm. Prod contested by article creator. -- Finngall talk 01:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 15:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
fails WP:ORG. purely a directory listing showing name of ambassador and address. LibStar ( talk) 08:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. ( WP:NPASR). North America 1000 00:28, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Two references included, neither of which has more than a fleeting mention of the subject. Dweller ( talk) 09:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 13:12, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
The concept of "XML-Enabled Networking" is a marketing/technical buzzword that does not really reflect anything in reality. There are no sources discussing the concept except as a marketing phrase by a company called Reactivity (who themselves don't have an article) that for a brief while sold hardware and services that claimed to provide "XML-Enabled Networking" (see this as a representative example).
I have found no other use for the phrase that is not within the marketing copy of Reactivity who were bought by Cisco in 2007. It seems likely that the concept was dreamed up at the height of XML fever in enterprise software simply as a marketing phrase to sell hardware firewalls with some protection against XML parser vulnerabilities (like the billion laughs attack etc.) to big corporate IT departments. It doesn't really make much sense as a phrase because it violates the layering principle, as you can see in the article: it isn't a protocol, it's a very vaguely defined "abstration layer".
Pretty clear failure of WP:GNG (and WP:B2B is applicable too). If someone wanted to write an article on Reactivity Inc. then it might be worth a brief mention in that article (and a redirect), but it isn't notable in and of itself. — Tom Morris ( talk) 10:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Keep opinions do not address the delete opinions that demonstrate that the article does not meet the notability guidelines. Davewild ( talk) 21:12, 3 May 2015 (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}} . |
Article's subject appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR. References consist mostly of the subject's own publications, links to listings of his publications, or summary reviews of these publications with no in-depth coverage of the subject himself. Other references are insider magazine announcements and a youtube video, neither of which constitute reliable evidence of notability. Subject has won no national awards or received any particular merit for his accomplishments. I do not see coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. KDS4444 Talk 09:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. ( WP:NPASR). North America 1000 00:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Non-notable individual. Unable to find any sources outside of the ones listed on the page, and they are minor mentions at best. Primefac ( talk) 14:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. ( WP:NPASR). North America 1000 00:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
I see no announcement at all for this album, no support from the artist, nothing promotional from the record company. It appears to be somebody's collection of Inna songs hosted on this or that torrent server, with various track listings depending on where it's hosted. The album looks like it was never released by Inna or her label. There are no reliable sources discussing it. Binksternet ( talk) 14:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. ( WP:NPASR). North America 1000 00:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
BLP, doesn't seem to be notable. Kavdiamanju ( talk) 16:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Pinoy Big Brother (season 6). Spartaz Humbug! 13:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
A bio about an artist that was speedied repeatedly under the title Maris Racal and eventually salted. Submited through two different drafts, both of which were rejected twice (this title and User:Inajane/sandbox/Maris Racal), until it was moved unilaterally by the submitter to article space. Blatant promotional tone aside, subject's claim to fame is finishing second in a competition. It seems to me that aside from some routine coverage of her short career (1 year?), she does not meet WP:GNG either, but given the history I feel an AFD should decide once and for all if the article is kept. § FreeRangeFrog croak 16:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 22:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Looks to fail WP:NACADEMICS Dolescum ( talk) 17:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Based on the independent source provided by Wikicology, that vaguely mentions him as VC in the article. I'd prefer to be nuetral on this one. Isakaba ( talk) 21:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Comment: – "Prominent tenured professors tend to be kept" per
WP:PEOPLEOUTCOMES.
Wikic¤l¤gy
t@lk to M£
22:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. ( WP:NPASR). North America 1000 00:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Record label that has been tagged for notability since 2008. Looking up slowdance I get expected stuff like "slow dancing with records" (Seriously I got this) The only source that I could find for a news story actually appeared right below this wiki article which was that they called it quits. Wgolf ( talk) 18:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. ( WP:NPASR). North America 1000 00:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Another record label I'm trying to find sources for-though the only refs I really can find are from either Facebook or blogs. Wgolf ( talk) 18:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. ( WP:NPASR). North America 1000 00:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Obscure game show that was previously up for a AFD that only got delete and keep and that's it. Not sure how this is notable enough as the keep vote said. At best a redirect to the host or the channel. Wgolf ( talk) 19:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 12:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Very obscure band who only released 2 rather obscure spoof songs. I would say redirect to Charlie Drake but it says it was not him then. Can't find any notability or reliable sources. Wgolf ( talk) 19:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Dartz!. Davewild ( talk) 21:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
A EP that I can't find much notability for (as a note I did change Dartz Demo into a redirect) has been unreferenced for years Wgolf ( talk) 19:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. ( WP:NPASR). North America 1000 23:57, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Notability is the big problem here. Although there are several releases listed as a musician he fails WP:MUSICBIO as they are all self-released or on tiny labels with no coverage in any notable publications. Several reviews are admittedly included in the external links section but none are on any sort of major website. He also fails WP:AUTHOR as his listed books (all of which are actually pamphlets despite the articles claim) are entirely insignificant, published by tiny printers or self-published. Finally he fails WP:NPOL as he was a failed candidate in a single election and, according the article, was merely a paper candidate at that and the environmentalist group he is supposed to be involved with is so minor that it doesn't even have a website of its own, much less a Wikipedia article.. Keresaspa ( talk) 19:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. The notability issues haven't been addressed by the one "keep" opinion. Sandstein 15:47, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Once-off show sourced only to the network's website. No indication of notability. Previously closed as NPASR after 1 month due to lack of participation. Greykit ( talk) 20:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 22:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Once-off documentary sourced only to the network's website (the one possibly independent source refers to an event that happened in the 1970s, not the documentary itself). The incidents discussed, if notable, can easily be covered in the relevant articles. Previously closed as NPASR after 1 month due to lack of participation. Greykit ( talk) 20:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 22:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Once-off documentary sourced only to the network's website (and a cursory mention once elsewhere). The incidents discussed, if notable, can easily be covered in the relevant articles. Previously closed as NPASR after 1 month due to lack of participation. Greykit ( talk) 20:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. ( WP:NPASR). North America 1000 23:55, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Unsourced article about a non-notable club. Was declined for speedy deletion because "winning a county club title is a credible indication of importance", however no such assertion exists in the article (unless I missed it). Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. - Mr X 21:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 08:10, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Non-notable technology; declined PROD. Research papers describing it have low citation scores on GScholar, and I haven't been able to find other reliable sources that discuss it in-depth. QVVERTYVS ( hm?) 21:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. ( WP:NPASR). North America 1000 23:55, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Unsourced article about a non-notable club. The only sources that I could find were some very brief mentions in local newspapers. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. - Mr X 23:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 15:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
WP: NOTJARGON. Unreferenced, evidently self-published (see User talk:Nguyen Si Phuoc). Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) may the force be with you 02:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was Keep. Michig ( talk) 07:50, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Indiscriminate list of banks with no distinguishing characteristics. WP:NOTCATALOG. Natg 19 ( talk) 00:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
The only real question is then whether there is value to having a master list of all bank articles in one place rather than just sublists split by country or by type (e.g., central banks, investment banks). Clarityfiend is the only commenter to address that, and raises a valid concern about the work needed to maintain it given that its only real value would be if it were an accurate and complete conglomerate of all the sublists. One way to do that would be to convert all the by country lists into standardized sortable tables, enclose everything but the lists' entries in <noinclude> tags (to exclude the headers and categories), and then transclude all the separate pages to this list (which you can do with mainspace pages no less than with templates, just add a colon after the first curly brackets). This would then combine all the entries from every separate list in one table that could be sorted alphabetically. In theory that should work, though I don't know that I've ever seen a master list constructed in that way, and any structural changes to any of the individual pages could break the effect (and I can't think right now of how this list would then identify the country, given that the sublists by country would obviously not restate that within their own tables...could a table column be enclosed in <includeonly> without breaking the table formatting? the mind reels...). But really that's the only solution I can see to making sure such a master list has no updating lags or discrepancies from sublists. postdlf ( talk) 17:39, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Nakon 22:46, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
This is a medical product. No sources that satisfy MEDRS, so not NOTABLE Jytdog ( talk) 19:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Additional commentary.
|
---|
|
The result was redirect to Theory of the Absolute Individual -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 12:44, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Book with questionable notability that has had no references in over 8 years. Interesting its not on the template on the bottom as well (I also tagged a couple other books by this guy as a prod) Wgolf ( talk) 19:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was merge to Paul Bowles. Nakon 22:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Should be deleted or merged into the author's page. Jerod Lycett ( talk) 01:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 07:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Part neologism (the Lea person described in the article--the article's author?--has trademarked the term), part dictionary definition. I accepted this from AFC because I don't think it qualifies for speedy deletion, but I don't think it's a valid encyclopedia article. Calliopejen1 ( talk) 01:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. This has had as long as it can reasonably have to achieve a consensus but it didn't reach one. Michig ( talk) 08:06, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
The last AfD was closed as no consensus, but only attracted one comment. I'm hopeful it can be better resolved this time. It is hard when sources are not in English. Although this looks like it has a lot of references, they essentially go to the same source. I couldn't prove that this meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. As it has been tagged for WP:NOTABILITY for over seven years without resolution, it needs a good discussion. Boleyn ( talk) 10:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Can be userfied if desired, but it's all unsourced, so of limited usefulness. Sandstein 12:58, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Tram controls are irrelevant. Why isn't there such a thing as train controls or bus controls? <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> ( talk) 01:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Cornol. Additionally merge from history as may be required. Sandstein 09:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't see that this meets WP:NOTABILITY. It has been tagged for notability for 7 years; hopefully we can now resolve it. It's possibly worth a merge to Cornol, where it is not currently mentioned. Boleyn ( talk) 18:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC) Boleyn ( talk) 18:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was merge to Andrea Casiraghi. Black Kite (talk) 22:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
notability is not inherited and wikipedia is not a repository for every information. The two years old boy is an heir of the Monegasque not yet a king (who may probably have a page here). Anyone can be an heir to a thrown and that has not make that person notable. When the baby becomes an adult and assumed his father's thrown, we may consider an article but certainly not now. Wikic¤l¤gy t@lk to M£ 18:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Comment. Prince George of Cambridge is one young heir that has a wiki article of their own. To use Wikicology's logic, this article and probably a huge percentage of other royal heirs would need to be deleted. To be consistent Wikicology, please seek them out and nominate them for deletion. Keep them all or delete them all. Please do not cherry pick whic heirs should be kept and which shouldn't. Why would Prince George be any more notable than this heir, other than press coverage? Postcard Cathy ( talk) 02:34, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Optical Transport Network. MBisanz talk 23:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I looked at this as it has been tagged for notability for 7 years ( Wheelchair Epidemic), and I hoped to be able to resolve it, one way or the other. Unfortunately, it's goobledegook to me. I would tag it for expert help, but it has already been tagged for that for 6 years, without help coming. My investigations showed I couldn't verify notability. Boleyn ( talk) 06:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
'Comment'I would like to suggest that this article is kept on wikipedia as it is something which does exist. I have limited knowledge of it as I have only read about it in various manuals and books, never implemented it as it is not my field. If it has been nominated as something which doesn't exist I can inform you that it does exist, however it is just a standard and therefore a niche thing which is just definition at best. Even if you ask an expert he will be able to give you small paragraphs here and there which define the term(Just as it has been already defined in the article). The basic purport is that it is a term meant for people who have advanced knowledge so the books which mention this will not explain it at length as they think that the guy reading them already knows about an ONE and OTN. If what I wrote is confusing, do forgive me and leave a msg on my TP, i'll try to explain further but basically if you are looking for a book which describes this standard with a definition spanning more than one paragraph, I am not sure that if such a book exists . Have a good day, I just saw the nomination and came to give my two cents FreeatlastChitchat ( talk) 07:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Davewild ( talk) 21:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I couldn't establish that she meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Last AfD had a delete, an on the fence and a keep. Hopefull, with greater participation, we can resolve this. Pinging those involved in looking at its notability previously: Tomwsulcer, Раціональне анархіст, Diagear. Boleyn ( talk) 06:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC) Boleyn ( talk) 06:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Davewild ( talk) 21:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Insufficient coverage for notability. ← scribbleink talk 06:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete, WP:SOFTDELETE-- Ymblanter ( talk) 06:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
The duo is not notable as they only competed in the Ukrainian national selection for the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2014 and only came in eighth place. The article relies on one source and is poorly organised. Fails WP:GNG { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 12:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete-- Ymblanter ( talk) 06:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
None of the companies that this individual has been associated with are notable; only sources that looks like it would pass WP:RS is an article by a local Utah paper focusing on a Utah company he is president of. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Audrey Horne (band). North America 1000 23:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Album I can't find any notability or refs for. Of course looking up Confessions and Alcohol I seem to only get the obvious stuff like Alcohol anonymous groups. Wgolf ( talk) 15:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. ( WP:NPASR). North America 1000 23:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Non-notable orienteering organization. Natg 19 ( talk) 16:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Also bundling the following pages as non-notable orienteering organizations:
The result was no consensus. ( WP:NPASR). North America 1000 23:43, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Prod that was removed-now while he does have refs it seems he is more of a local celebrity-yes Chicago is a huge city, but still does not seem to make it here. Wgolf ( talk) 18:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Response: Charles Grippo has had his plays produced in Chicago, Illinois, New York, and California and is not just local. Somebody doesn't have to be a celebrity to be important on the earth. Also, his publications have been used by many in the American theater community who are starting or maintaining their own theater companies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loganave2002 ( talk • contribs)
Response: I am in Brooklyn, New York, and I have seen Charles Grippo's plays here in NYC, so he is not simply local to Chicago, as you suggest. When I went to research his works to find more references to cite, I was struck by the number of national, reputable publications that have written about his works, as well as the books by major publishers that have cited him. The publishers Thompson Gale thought he was notable enough for a biography in their Contemporary Authors Series. Even Wikipedia thought one his plays WHEN ANGELS WEPT was notable enough to give it its own page. And Wikipedia cites him in several other articles. He is not simply local to Chicago. (I hope I am doing this correctly. I am new to Wikipedia and not sure how to add to deletion discussions. Chrislatoya ( talk) 20:33, 12 April 2015 (UTC)chrislatoya.
The result was no consensus. ( WP:NPASR). North America 1000 23:44, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Fictional character that also basically seems to have a in universe style of writing. Not sure about notability either (There are tons of these from this British soap opera it appears-if I could I would just merge them into a AFD for several of these) Wgolf ( talk) 18:57, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. ( WP:NPASR). North America 1000 23:45, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Another character from some soap opera with no notability mentioned and basically all universe. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Taylor (Family Affairs) Wgolf ( talk) 18:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. ( WP:NPASR). North America 1000 23:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Prod was removed by a ip (it was about to be deleted today the page it appears) anyway the article comes across as a advertisement. Wgolf ( talk) 19:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Really quite clear from the discussion that that this is an OR/SYNTH cruftfest; the only "keep" opinion makes as little sense as the article. Editorially redirected to Prospective memory. Sandstein 15:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
The topic of this article , "Memory for the future", is not a phrase which is anywhere discernible in any of the sources cited. Nor does it seem to exist as a term on a Google search (except in the present WP article), and the topic therefore cannot qualify under WP:NOTABILITY, being not verifiable. See also WP:ARTN - Article content does not determine notability. The article itself is long and rambling, extending to a variety of issues including evolution, burial of goods by the ancient Egyptians, and extensive other irrelevant matter, and reads more like an essay of the sort ruled out by WP standards. It would seem that this is a non-topic or fraudulent topic invented by the original editor, and it is indeed difficult to discern from the article exactly what the topic may even mean. Insofar as it means anything, it contains in some parts speculations about the nature of forecasting (which is nowhere referred to by the sources cited as 'memory for the future'). Very little or anything seems to link to the article save via the Human Memory template in which the topic is included. Therefore delete as non-notable, pseudo-scientific rambling or hoax. Smerus ( talk) 20:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. Most of the keep arguments were non-policy (i.e. being on primetime isn't enough to establish notability by our rules), but the two refs cited by Richfife seem sufficient. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:09, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Sourced mainly to the network. Shown only once, with no long-term significance indicated. Of the sources which might be independent, one doesn't work and one is not even about the show but about a "previously claimed notion" that was mentioned in it. Previously closed as NPASR after 1 month due to lack of participation. Greykit ( talk) 21:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. ( WP:NPASR). North America 1000 23:40, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
No sources indicate notability under WP:MUSICBIO or WP:BASIC. We have a blog post; a couple of interviews in dubious magazines; another interview in a less dubious outlet, but still one that presents no particular claims of notability; and something that attests her participation in the Eurovision selection, something that has never been held to constitute notability by itself (as opposed to actually being selected). In short, there's no credible reason to ascribe notability to this figure. - Biruitorul Talk 22:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Nakon 22:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Non-notable suburban neighborhood, with no independent sources on the article. Conifer ( talk) 00:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I am Jlfarm03, the creator of Windermere Community. I have provided very limited evidence for this page because I currently LIVE in Windermere Community. I have lived here since this community has first opened and I feel that my article has enough factual evidence that I feel this article should not be in deletion. Thanks, Jlfarm03, The Creator of Windermere Community — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlfarm03 ( talk • contribs) 19:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 07:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Non-notable stub sourced only to the network for more than 10 years. That link is no longer working. Google gives unrelated links to Apple. Greykit ( talk) 17:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Westwood One (current). North America 1000 23:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I couldn't establish that it meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. This has been tagged for notability for seven years. A previous AfD ended with 1 keep, 1 delete, 1 merge. I think a thorough discussion is needed, with hopefully more than 3 people, to finally resolve this. Pinging those who were involved in looking at its notability before: Mrschimpf, DGG, Levdr1lostpassword, Erechtheus. Boleyn ( talk) 11:28, 30 March 2015 (UTC) Boleyn ( talk) 11:28, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Michig ( talk) 08:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I couldn't find the reliable sources to back up that this meets WP:NOTABILITY. It has been tagged for notability for 7 years ( Bradv). It has articles in several other languages, so there may be something I'm missing. Boleyn ( talk) 07:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. ( WP:NPASR). North America 1000 23:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Neither of these two entities shows evidence of passing WP:ORG. Let's look at the sources to see why, although you'll forgive me if I don't bother analyzing links from riseproject.ro or rise.md. For RISE Project, we have:
For RISE Moldova, there's this:
I think the level of coverage pretty much speaks for itself. Biruitorul Talk 23:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
I am also nominating the following related page:
The result was redirect to Venus Palermo. MBisanz talk 23:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This is not harassment, it is merely a statement of truth, in order to keep Wikipedia up with required notability within the rules. Note: Wikipedia article "Margaret Palermo" was created by herself, Margaret Palermo" (check article history for alias, matched with her D.O.B.) Please also note that most of the text is written about another character (daughter of Margaret, Venus Palermo) than the article's subject, as well as the resources on the bottom are not relevant to the article's character at all They are, in fact, about her daughter, who also helped create this article. All resources on the bottom is irrelevant to the character, and most of it is hosted on unofficial domains (i.e. Facebook photos). A lot of it is deemed non-qualified for sources, in forms of being random photos and links to YouTube videos that has no show for the subject in the article. A source needs to be a direct source, not hosted on a secondary domain.
Article does not contain any "independent of the subject". There are no press releases or advertisement about Margaret herself. Anything to do with her daughter is not appropriate for this article, as her daughter Venus Palermo has her own Wikipedia page. This article, Margaret Palermo, is not an independent article. ALL sources on the bottom point to Venus, and not Margaret. It is merely a secondary-article about Venus Palermo. Unlike Venus Palermo's article, this article does not hold ground for being credible, notable or relevant. Wikipedia article is nothing but a unambiguous advertising or promotional page for her daughter Venus Palermo (please see the bottom sources of the main article.) Dekikaki ( talk) 07:58, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
The user brags about how she tries to delete the Wikipedia article about Margaret Palermo, also giving her and her minor daughter nasty names. The person writes this or agrees with other about writing this
I would suggest that the page be merged with the Venus Palermo page. The only fix that could possibly make this page more relevant is if there is more information based specifically on Margaret Palermo such as her early life and education. As the current information is all about Venus Palermo, whom already has a separate page, and it is not giving any further information as a page than the Venus Palermo page. The references are not particularly solid with most of them pertaining to be hearsay as opposed to solid research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kittykat28 ( talk • contribs)
Delete no independent notability. Staszek Lem ( talk) 22:36, 1 May 2015 (UTC)