![]() |
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 07:41, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
This footballer fails WP:NFOOTBALL as a player that has not played in any WP:FPL (fully proffessional league). First PROD but it was removed without explanation. Qed237 (talk) 23:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 07:40, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
This mathematician fails WP:BIO1E and WP:PROF. He created a bit of a media splash a few weeks ago when the Nigerian newspapers reported that he had proved the Riemann hypothesis and won the million-dollar Millennium Prize, based only on a talk abstract at a non-prestigious conference, and the international media then picked up the story. These reports were either substance-free (no proof has emerged, and what can be found online under his name inspires no confidence) or outright falsehoods (he has not won the Millennium Prize, and cannot even be considered eligible for winning the prize until publishing a proof). There is little to say about him other than this non-story. If we have an article, we are compelled by WP:NPOV to point out that he has no proof and that some have called the story a hoax, but I think per WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE and WP:BLP it's better to have no article at all than to have a negative (but accurate) article about a non-public-figure. — David Eppstein ( talk) 22:45, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 16:17, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Searches found nothing better at all than a few passing mentions at Highbeam and browsers including also links for an apparently unrelated professor Ali Akbar Alizad. It's also worth noting this was started by the subject himself apparently and not only was this PRODded shortly after (which is why we're here at AfD), I was going to PROD until I noticed it, here's my PROD: "Seemingly questionably notable and improvable enough as my searches found nothing better than a few passing mentions and I should also note I also found links for an unrelated professor with this name.". SwisterTwister talk 07:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Blind Guardian. MBisanz talk 00:23, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Contested PROD. Unsourced, fails WP:NALBUMS, it's only a short sentence, an infobox and a tracklist. Less than half the bands are apparently notable. Victão Lopes Fala! 21:08, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Merge As it has 4 notable bands and is a tribute album to Blind Guardian it can be merged into the Blind Guardian article. 81.131.211.59 ( talk) 14:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 07:40, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:Bio. I can't find that evidence of notability. She is only doing her job to make ends meet. Wikic¤l¤gy t@lk to M£ 22:07, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 07:39, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. I can't find that evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gy t@lk to M£ 21:14, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 07:39, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
No evidence of notability. This Google search shows a couple brief mentions (likely from press releases) in very minor newspapers, a Natural News mention, and nothing else besides some off-topic articles. Box Office Mojo shows no theatrical release. Rotten Tomatoes [7] knows of no reviews.
And to note, it's not that there aren't movies on similar subject, that clearly are notable: Fat, Sick and Nearly Dead and Forks Over Knives, say, both have widespread reviews and coverage. This does not, that, and that alone, is why I'm nominating it. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 20:45, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was speedy deleted by Bbb23, CSD G5: Created by a banned or blocked user -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 04:37, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. I can't find that evidence of notability Wikic¤l¤gy t@lk to M£ 20:28, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 07:38, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Dictionary article Rathfelder ( talk) 20:23, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 07:38, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
A season specific article for a league that is way below the professional level in Algeria.
I am also nominating the following related page:
The result was no consensus. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Allegedly G11, but I think it could be salvaged...after we determine if the article should stay. TomStar81 ( Talk) 10:36, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. Sandstein 14:03, 30 December 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}} . |
Lacks notabilty. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. No notability independent of his band. duffbeerforme ( talk) 10:57, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
References
This perst....
The article notes:
"I bring joy to people who otherwise couldn't afford to see the Stones," says Glen Carroll, the band's Mick Jagger doppelganger.
...
Carroll is an interesting case study among rock-and-roll tribute actors. Never mind that he looks the part (right down the pouty lips and handsome wrinkles), or that he moves and sings like Jagger, nailing the singer's preeny poses and transatlantic bray. It's that he seems to be living somebody else's rock-and-roll lifestyle. He guzzles beer and smokes where no smoking is allowed and hits on just about every woman he encounters. He also talks himself up as a man of wealth and taste. Something about Sticky Fingers being paid as much as $10,000, though that kind of payday usually only comes overseas, Carroll says.
"I have a house on the water in Florida," he says. "I have a Mercedes convertible that's paid for. I have a gold Presidential Rolex. I have women to die for from one end of the country to the next -- girls you just wouldn't believe." Later, he says: "It's sex, drugs and rock-and-roll." Is he joking? Acting for the sake of the notebook? Drunk?
In his previous life, Carroll says, he was a military pilot. He's in his mid-40s now and says he's attending law school. But this rock- and-roll thing: He likes it. "I live for this," he says. "I do this because I see a beautiful woman smiling at me when I'm onstage, and it's . . . "
The article quotes from Steven Kurutz's book Like a Rolling Stone, which was published by Broadway Books according to this review in The New York Times and this review in Kirkus Reviews:
That a book provided significant biographical material about Glen Carroll strongly establishes that he is notable.When Glen Carroll travels for work, he takes a pair of black stage pants, a studded belt, and a few shirts, usually in splashy colors like bright red or banana yellow. If he wants to make a more noticeable impression, he might take something flashier, like a cape fashioned from an American flag and a British flag tied together, or a T-shirt imprinted with the Greek omega symbol and paired with a silk scarf, or white football pants with blue knee pads and Capezio dance shoes — an outfit very similar, as it happens, to the one Mick Jagger wore on the Rolling Stones' 1981 tour. For Glen, verisimilitude in dress is part of the job. As the singer of Sticky Fingers, which bills itself as "the leading international Rolling Stones tribute show," he is a kind of rock star proxy, a substitute Mick. And considering that the Rolling Stones tour only once every few years, and that Sticky Fingers has toured every year for the past eighteen years, it's likely that he has sung "Start Me Up," and "Brown Sugar," and "(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction" more times than Mick Jagger himself.
Glen is slim and snake-hipped, with heavy-lidded eyes and a prominent, almost coltish mouth. At forty-seven, he resembles a slightly younger Mick Jagger — the Jagger of, say, Steel Wheels — and wears his brown hair in the same style: short in front, longer and feathery on the sides. Offstage, he favors blue jeans, a blazer, and scuffed loafers, or a T-shirt and motorcycle boots. At all times, he wears a gold Rolex "President" watch. In person, he has a sociable nature and a roguish charm and comes across like the kind of guy you might encounter late at night in a barroom, jive-talking one of the waitresses. As a bandleader, however, he is mercurial and governs by mood. He once threatened to fire the rhythm guitarist because his hair had grown beyond appropriate Ron Wood length. On the other hand, when he's having a good time, and particularly when he's been drinking, he will climb behind the drum kit, to the frustration of more authentic-minded band members. "Who ever heard of Mick Jagger playing the drums?" the drummer once remarked, exasperated. Glen is equally contradictory in appraising his own talents, swinging between modesty and extreme boastfulness. "I know what it's like to walk in Mick's shoes — with lift supports, mind you," he once told me. He has also told me, "If you want me to go out and front a band, I'll do it as good as maybe ten other guys in the world can do it."
Glen Carroll received significant coverage in The Washington Post. He received significant coverage in the Broadway Books–published book Like a Rolling Stone. He clearly passes WP:MUSICBIO. It does not matter whether the sources cover him in the context of the band he founded, Sticky Fingers (tribute band). It matters only that the sources cover him in substantial detail and are independent of him.Musicians or ensembles (this category includes bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theatre groups, instrumentalists, etc.) may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria:
1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.
This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries, [except for trivial coverage or non-independent material]
There is enough material specifically about Glen Carroll in the reliable sources to justify a separate article about him.
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 00:25, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Topic about a future concept where lack of information lies; should not exist yet. EnigmaLord515 ( talk) 03:40, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was Keep, shenanigans with the nominator aside. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:38, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
This is a vanity article of Non notable writer, part of a walled garden of cruft created by same editor, does not meet WP:GNG. Doesn't meet WP:BIO's standards. Hassan Rebell ( talk) 11:38, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:41, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Subject does not meet the WP:NFILM criteria. No significant reliable coverage under either the name "Terminal Voyage" or "Starquest" at Google/Google News/Newspaper Archive, JSTOR, Highbeam. Any coverage appears to be from unreliable blogs. /wia🎄 /tlk 15:13, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was Delete per nom, given the lack of coverage. WP:USUAL may apply, however. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:48, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Can't find significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 15:29, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
@Roscelese can you kindly write what exactly is wrong with the article? Or suggest a way to improve it? You mentioned the notability clause and references have been added for verification... You also cited lack of relevant or reliable sources and those have been added as well. You stayed that the state of Georgia "Local" recognition is meaningless and other recognitions have been cited such as the award of an honorary doctorate by the Abbey college London... Up until you mentioned socks I did not know that existed on Wikipedia being a world class encyclopedia, however I stand corrected. And you seem like an expert so I'm seeking your opinion as I sought the opinions of others where my actions are now reffered to as canvassing.. What can I do to improve the article @Roscelese in your expert opinion?
Bomabenjy2 (
talk)
21:51, 17 December 2015 (UTC)Blocked as a sock puppet. Please see
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bomabenjy2.
I not an SPA - I am new to Wikipedia and I just needed clarification. However I will allow the due processes to be followed and whatever decisions are reached would be respected. I just thought the page was worthy to be created on Wikipedia
Bomabenjy2 (
talk)
06:30, 18 December 2015 (UTC)Blocked as a sock puppet. Please see
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bomabenjy2.
* The conferment of honorary citizenship by the state of Georgia is a notable recognition as stated here the recognition was due to his roles in promoting trade development between Africa and .....
http://africanleadership.co.uk/about/advisory-board/
* @Roscelese The Ken Giami article has been edited with references since you nominated it for deletion under notability clause. It has been referenced accordingly with verifiable facts by different users and according to Wikipedia deletion criteria, it does not violate any of the clauses listed. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Bomabenjy2 (
talk •
contribs)
17:47, 17 December 2015 (UTC) —
Bomabenjy2 (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic. Blocked as a sock puppet. Please see
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bomabenjy2.
The result was keep -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Doesn't appear to be notable. Chevvin ( talk) 22:56, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was Keep (NAC) The argument that the subject has inherent notability because of the senior civil service position he holds is convincing. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 18:01, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Fails WP:BIO JMHamo ( talk) 23:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Comment:
Ditto a permanent secretary by status and context in Nigeria is same as that of British Government (highest civil service rank).
Seems the person is also of native traditional institution and recently deceased, notable to me
Ibrahimmb (
talk)
20:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)ibrahimmb
*Delete Sadly, no evidence of
notability.
Wikic¤l¤gy
t@lk to M£
20:33, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Keep: per comments 197.211.52.25 ( talk) 21:36, 7 December 2015 (UTC)Ibrahimmb
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:25, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for advice, I will refresh page with more detailed information and active links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagafan ( talk • contribs) 16:06, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Doing some copy editing here and the more I looked the fewer good refs that appeared to exist. I am no expert on Asian languages but those refs that I can translate and/or understand seem to give glancing refs or promises of great things yet to come. I can't see anything that hints at notability. Rather the whole thing hints at paid promotional editing to get a page here. Appears to fail WP:GNG Velella Velella Talk 16:36, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was Userfy. Moving this to User:3family6/Helvete (journal) -- RoySmith (talk) 22:33, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Non-notable, relatively new journal. A handful of articles/blogposts, some of which mentioning the journal in passing, are listed in the article but otherwise there are no independent sources. Not indexed in any selective databases. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty ( talk) 21:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Oppose Changing my vote to userfy as creator.
WP:NJournals is an essay. Before creating this article, I looked for the notability criteria for academic journals, and could not find any guidelines listed (which I now know is because NJournals is an essay, not a guideline). However, I was able to find the notability standards for
academic books, which state the following: "...most of the standards for mainstream books are inapplicable to the academic field because they would be too restrictive and would exclude articles on books that are worthy of notice." They then give some thresholds of notability criteria, of which the following the Helvete article meets: Cited by academic publications; influential in its specialty area. Below I will list the other sources that cite this journal:
That's seven citations to a barely four-year-old journal which has released only two issues so far, in a highly specialized, esoteric-leaning sub-sub-field. In addition to those seven citations, it has also seen an article from it featured on Medievalists.net, and has received significant coverage in an independent, reliable source, and a brief mention in a different reliable source, and another brief mention in yet another reliable source (all four of these examples I had not encountered before now, and I will work to include these in the article). So, my contention is that while this journal may not have much significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, a highly specialized journal does not need such coverage. While WP:NJournal says that it does need general notability coverage, this is an essay, and thus WP:TEXTBOOK, which is a guideline reflecting community consensus, holds more weight. Going from impact within a field, this journal is highly notable. I encountered it yesterday incidental to other research, and as I looked into it I was surprised at the impact, which is what led me to create the article.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:23, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
I do not think this biography meets the criteria for in inclusion in Wikipedia. The guidelines WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:NACTOR are relevant here.
In particular, I question the references given to support the notability of this person. I count at least five that do not mention the subject of this article.
@ Dctheatrefollower, Bwayfan2001, 12345hbot, Roh9876h, Linecrosser42, Yomomma47, Soonerorlater101, Soonerorlater101, Dream Catching, JoinUs341995ChildrenWillListen, Letitgooo, and PhantomBroadway: you appear to be in Wikipedia jargon " Single purpose accounts" dedicatated to writing about the subject of the article. Shirt58 ( talk) 10:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. No valid deletion reason proposed by the nominator (who is banned anyways). (non-admin closure) clpo13( talk) 16:48, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
The news sources talk mostly about the videos uploaded. Anyway let other editors take decision on this.
The
Avengers
09:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC) Reverted as per
WP:BANREVERT. 03:56, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) clpo13( talk) 16:47, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
PROD removed by Michig and I still confirm and echo my PROD: "Seemingly non-notable all in all perhaps as my searches actually found mostly passing mentions including as examples of bands their studio recorded with. WP:TNT at best if ever more acceptable.". There's nothing to suggest obvious better notability and improvement. SwisterTwister talk 08:03, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:23, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
If it wasn't for the removed PROD from February 2011, I would've kept my added PROD with which I said: "Questionably notable and improvable article for a photographer for which I only found passing mentions at Books and browsers, nothing to suggest better sourcing and notability which this article would need to be kept.". Notifying the only still noticeably active past user Hoary. SwisterTwister talk 08:04, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 00:24, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
This page is 100% unsourced. I thought surely the sponsoring organization would be a good source for all the detail about hometowns, ages, subsequent wins etc but no, they don't even find that detail important enough to track. They just offer a list of names and years, along side a list of Miss Rhode Island USA winners. That leaves us with a copyvio list of names and unverified details to go with the names. If the company does not even care enough to give the past winner list its own page with basic bio details, how can this be important enough for an article here? Perhaps a mention at the Miss Teen USA page is enough. http://www.missrhodeislandusa.com/rhodeisland_fame.html Legacypac ( talk) 01:49, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Compare to their major competition where one article covers all the states: Miss America's Outstanding Teen state pageants Legacypac ( talk) 03:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:17, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Ah the author happened to remove this at the 7 day period so here we are and I still confirm and echo my PROD: "Seemingly questionably notable and improvable band article as my searches found nothing better than a few passing mentions, other Wikis have no considerable improvement and all in all, there's simply nothing to suggest better improvement.". SwisterTwister talk 23:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE. The Bushranger One ping only 07:36, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
I was actually going to speedy and/or PROD considering the current article's state and my searches only found unusable mentions for solid notability at News, Books and browsers but then I noticed the CLIO Award which is listed as one of the best awards for advertisers so here we are for better consensus and insight. Frankly, I still feel this is easily speedy material and is an example of WP:TNT at best. I also suggest looking at the history which has seemingly had several contributors since being started by Kylehoedl in May 2010. Notifying author Kylehoedl. SwisterTwister talk 20:56, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:17, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
My PROD was removed Valfontis as this had actually been PRODed before here by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and speaking of the history, you'll notice this article has had quite a noticeable one with both the subject (??) removing and questioning its accuracy as well as vandalism (see talk page as well). I note I still confirm and echo my PROD: Seemingly questionably notable and improvable biography as my searches only found a few passing mentions at News and browsers, hardly much to improve sourcing, notability and improvement overall here. 2009 history also suggests the subject questions the accuracy of this article as well (is that was her?? Things here aren't certain one side or another at all) and there has also been other BLP vandalism and troubles so this also contributes to this simply being best deleted for now.". SwisterTwister talk 19:34, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:16, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
I can see nothing in the sources given that conveys any notability. I am aware that establishing notability for Pakistan nationals isn't always easy but this falls well short of any real sense of notability. Velella Velella Talk 17:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Strongly Keep This person is a well-known writer and poet throughout Gilgit-Baltistan and Chitral and has written much on Khowar Language. He has written a poetry book of his own. Must be keep. Ghizeri ( talk) 09:27, 23 December 2015 (UTC) — Ghizeri ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The result was redirect to University of Exeter#Student life. MBisanz talk 00:16, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Article fails to meet notability criteria under WP:CLUB or WP:ORG. Few mentions in independent sources and mostly based around who spoke there. Created by a COI editor Aloneinthewild ( talk) 01:07, 6 December 2015 (UTC) Aloneinthewild ( talk) 01:07, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
KEEP Please do not delete. Thank you for pointing out the shortcomings of the page which I think I have now corrected. There are a number of significant, non-trivial, reliable and independent news sources covering events at the Exeter University Debating Society which I think satisfy the notability criteria ( WP:GNG). Previously, there were three independent sources quoted on the page: the Exeter University Student paper Exepose (perhaps not sufficient for WP:AUD?); "TheNationalStudent.com" whose reputation, audience and reliability is unclear but most persuasively on a Mail Online blog by Peter Hitchens who spoke at the Society. This article in the Mail Online alone could be sufficient for notability ( WP:GNG) as it reports on the Society in a non-trivial way which seemingly satisfies an array of rules such as WP:AUD, WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. However it could be argued that the Hitchens blog was more about the topic of debate (legalizing Cannabis) rather than the Society itself which merely provided the platform. So for good measure I have added two additional significant, reliable and independent sources. First is the coverage of the controversial visit of Enoch Powell in 1968. Clearly this is nearly 50 years ago which I guess shouldn't matter ( WP:NOTTEMPORARY). This visit caused a significant demonstration by the students which was covered in a non-trivial way at the time by The Daily Telegraph and Exeter Express & Echo; there is also a video on the reference from a film archive. Second, I have also added coverage in The Independent of a debate on student fees, but again the Society merely provided the platform and so may fail WP:SIGCOV although the journalist does describe the Society as "infamous". Clearly just having notable speakers isn't sufficient for notability WP:INHERITORG. However, having the events at the Society independently reported in a non-trivial, verifiable ( WP:NRV) way in reputable local and national newspapers which appear to satisfy WP:AUD, WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:ORGIND should be sufficient, surely?
Do not MERGE or REDIRECT. The Society does have a long history which is distinct and separate from Exeter University - so I don't feel it should be MERGED with or REDIRECTED to the Exeter University page, if I have interpreted WP:BRANCH and WP:MERGEREASON correctly? Any thoughts from others? Alphaomega111 ( talk) 12:34, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Many thanks for your comments SwisterTwister. I have attempted to make the article more interesting, more structured, add more coverage from appropriate sources and cut out superfluous content. I do think the article is now significantly better (in content, structure and references) due to this process and continue to think it should be a separate article from University of Exeter#Student life for three reasons. First the Society (1893) predates the University (Royal Charter in 1955) and has references to pre 1955 events making it slightly incongruent and not meshing well with University of Exeter#Student life. Second including the University of Exeter Debating Society content in the University of Exeter#Student life page may make the combined article too unwieldy and too wide ranging. Lastly I think there is sufficient notable, non-trivial and interesting content to justify a distinct Wikipedia entry for the University of Exeter Debating Society. Any more thoughts and contributions from others would be excellent? Alphaomega111 ( talk) 16:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for all the comments and help. I have a historic knowledge of the Society but no contact with the current Society - as such I am entirely disinterested whether the article is kept, redirected or deleted. My interest for putting the case to keep the article comes from a natural curiosity over the editorial mechanism of Wikipedia. For what its worth, I continue to vote for KEEP. You are right Szzuk that many of the references don't establish notability - those references are for background and context. However, surely the Enoch Powell reference is valid? It is independent (written by the Institute of Historical Research). It has been edited and references checked by professional historians and I think does cover the Society in a non-Trivial way. The demonstration would not have occurred but for the existence of the Society and the incident directly led to a dedicated article in the Daily Telegraph at that time, not a trivial mention. Also thanks to Aloneinthewild for the help - there are many documents in the Archive at Exeter University - a weekly report on the debates was included in the annual summary of events at the University and preceding institutions back to 1893 and more recently (from the 1990's on) they do have copies of the year books published by the Society listing the Patrons, Presidents etc. Sadly I only have a couple of year books (which I could scan, it would help?) but haven't really got the time or in reality the ability to travel to Exeter and dig around in the University Archives. As I say, I'm interested in the process rather than the outcome. Alphaomega111 ( talk) 10:39, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of supercentenarians who died in 2007. MBisanz talk 00:16, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Being the oldest German person (for one day) is not notable when the only sources are three WP:ROUTINE obituaries. Ricky81682 ( talk) 21:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
^^^Lacks sense of humor. Legacypac ( talk) 06:54, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 07:34, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Previously deleted article about a person who has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. Only significant coverage has come from press releases from organizations he has worked for and routine news coverage of his hiring (which borrows greatly from the organization's press release) and his political campaign. Hirolovesswords ( talk) 03:09, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Dat Guy Talk Contribs 15:53, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
This is a clear case of WP:CRYSTALBALL, when users create a military conflict page, based solely on a single declaration. So far, not even a single German soldier or ship or airplane has participated in the effort against ISIL. It is not even clear if there will be. So Germany announced it will join Operation Inherent Resolve, so what? Nothing happened so far to justify such a page. GreyShark ( dibra) 17:01, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Not promotional and also WP:SK 3 (non-admin closure) Dat Guy Talk Contribs 15:53, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion -- Mr.Luther34-- 16:49, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 07:32, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Movie does not appear on either IMDB or Box office mojo, meaning this is pretty much just an internet release. That's dodgy with regards to notability. The one cite in the article appears to be the sum total of coverage - and was pre-release. See [33]. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 16:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 07:31, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Doesn't meet notability criteria. Can't find substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Citobun ( talk) 16:14, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Clear consensus heading towards deleted. Due to the SPI and that no good will come of this discussion being left open further, I am closing it a number of hours early. Mkdw talk 02:14, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support. References are listing or lack independence. Per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alwayssmileguys it appears editor was assigned to create this article by article subject. reddogsix ( talk) 15:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was Withdrawn — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:33, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warren Chaney for the complexities of this walled garden. This biography was written by the same sock puppets, with all the same problems as the Chaney article (and the others). I had gone through the article to remove the poor sources and try to see what was underneath and found insufficient evidence of notability, which when considering all of the other issues associated with these articles (again, see the Chaney AfD), led me to PROD it. It wasn't deleted after 7 days, and on the 8th was deprodded by an IP requesting discussion based on a role in Kotch. To be clear, unlike some of the other articles there is evidence Winters exists and that she has been in some films -- there are a few brief mentions on e.g. rogerebert.com, but not enough to pass WP:GNG. It seems worth emphasizing that a symptom of all of these articles is that they rely on big claims and tons of credits that exist almost exclusively in primary and user-generated sources. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:39, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 16:19, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Fails notability for music articles. Entirely self-released output through Bandcamp. Semitransgenic talk. 14:27, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Miss Alaska Teen USA#Winners. (non-admin closure) sst✈ discuss 11:42, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
As pointed out at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Degen Kasper this article suffers from the same problems as that one - she won a teen pageant at the state level that is not really notable. Generally teen pageant winners do not get articles based only on that 1 event. Her further career does not suggest any reason for notability. Delete it. The only "source" is mostly behind a paywall but seems to be about someone or something else. Legacypac ( talk) 14:11, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Corbeil-Essonnes. MBisanz talk 00:14, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
I can't find any reliable source coverage of this company besides press releases, no evidence of notability. Sam Walton ( talk) 14:10, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. WP:SNOW. If this becomes more notable later than it can be recreated, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The Bushranger One ping only 22:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Might have been events are not particularly notable for a stand-alone articles MilborneOne ( talk) 13:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 07:31, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
The only coverage I can find of this company is about its acquisition by Thomson Reuters (i.e. [39]), otherwise not notable. Sam Walton ( talk) 13:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 11:25, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Example of WP:BLP1E. No coverage outside of that one single event. Delete. JudgeJason ( talk) 12:49, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 07:30, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
AfD rather than PROD as I believe that it will be contested. Delete as per WP:NOTSTATS Spiderone 11:28, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
I am also nominating the following related page:
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 07:29, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
This appears to be a purported
Kollywood film.
As such, I would have expected to find at least some English language mentions in sources, reliable or perhaps not so reliable.
As you can see from the default "(Find sources: "Kathiravanin Kodai Mazhai" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)" links added when an
WP:AFD is started, I have failed to find any.
Maybe this is a film student project or a show reel by up and coming Kollywood young film makers? If so, my best wishes to them.
Shirt58 (
talk)
10:55, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Miss Earth Guam#Titleholders. (non-admin closure) sst✈ discuss 12:20, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG, WP:ONEEVENT (just a preliminary round and the main event of the same cycle) The Banner talk 10:15, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:14, 28 December 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}} . |
suggesting self-promotion. Perhaps this imdb page is a little clearer about her filmography.Pinging User:Wikimandia User:SwisterTwister who seem experienced judging these pages. Timmyshin ( talk) 09:56, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SK 1 (non-admin closure) Dat Guy Talk Contribs 15:58, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
A notable organisation but the tone of the article is written like an advertisement. Ayub407 talk 09:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Education in Ghana#Structure of formal education. MBisanz talk 00:12, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. I can't see the evidence of notability required for a stand-alone article. Wikic¤l¤gy t@lk to M£ 08:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 16:20, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Aside from the one currently listed review from an unfamiliar website "The Phantom Tollbooth", my searches certainly found nothing obviously better than 3 pages of browsers results including a metal-underground.com link which apparently never actually appears but from the preview, it said that they had signed a record label deal with Ironclad, and my only other successful searches were a sputnikmusic.com page and one article at blabbermouth.net (I'll note terrorizer.com and metalhammer.com also found nothing apparently). Although there is an Allmusic biography and one review there, I'm simply not sure if all this is enough for a better solidly notable and improvable article. Overall there's simply nothing to suggest a better notable and improvable article and that's not surprising, considering it seems they're not considerably active and otherwise outstandingly known. SwisterTwister talk 08:17, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
@SwisterTwister, their drummer Travis Turner has a podcast where he brings up his band multiple times, and I'm sure there are more references to be found. Metalworker14 ( Yo) 4:02, December 20, 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. I discount the !vote by CatcherStorm, which does not present any argument for deletion. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 01:01, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Non-notable album ColinFine ( talk) 21:48, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 00:11, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Does not appear to meet
WP:NFILM criteria. No significant reliable coverage on Google/News/Archive/Books, and nothing in JSTOR or Highbeam. There are
some
fan-blog
reviews
of the film, but not
reliable sources. (Update: Tokyogirl79 has pointed out that
this DVD Verdict page is indeed a reliable source!) This
This Cinemagazine description is better but not enough to stand on its own. Finally, as this was a direct-to-DVD release, Death Toll was likely not a significant part of DMX's or Lou Diamond Phillips' careers, and thus does not attract notability that way.
/wia🎄
/tlk
15:37, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete. unsourced about very local children's team, obviously non-notable Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Looks pretty bad, weird, unwikified. 333 -blue 06:26, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Swmrs. There seems to be rough consensus for a redirect. The redirect should also be locked if needed. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 06:25, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Band may be notable. Subject is not. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 05:12, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was Keep. Wikic¤l¤gy t@lk to M£ 17:43, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Non-notable; only indication of even slight coverage is that the subject founded a notable pizza company, which does not confer notability per se. Only a few sources cover the subject; most in relation to tax evasion by a person related to him. Delete or merge into Pizza Pizza. Esquivalience t 05:07, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 04:53, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
The concept/software described here doesn't seem notable; in fact it seems to be a neologism of almost no use, probably some short lived and un-notable marketing buzzword. If anyone can find any reliable sources, go ahead, I couldn't even find this phrase described in the sources present in the article, through it doesn't help that it supposedly is known under several different terms, sigh. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:58, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 04:52, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Article appears to be a part of a class project. I recommend userfying the article back to Kjacks48 with an admonition about original research. Also recommend that Wikimedia Foundation remind Kent State University of article guidelines. — Jkudlick t c s 03:26, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus-- Ymblanter ( talk) 09:28, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Unremarkable person fails WP:NN Jab843 ( talk) 01:11, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
The argument for deletion is that the article is an essay, that is, a piece of original research trying to make a point, and that it is a content fork of material already covered elsewhere, for instance in Muhammad in Islam, as well as an aggregation of quotations with little in the way of context. These are persuasive arguments that touch on several of Wikipedia's important content policies. The "keep" opinions would have had to address these arguments and make a case for why they do not apply. Almost all of them do not do so.
Leaving out the opinions by sockpuppets and by people simply expressing their own appreciation for the topic, most "keep" opinions consider this article to be a counterweight to Criticism of Muhammad. I can't give this argument weight, for two reasons: While Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view, this applies to each individual article: we don't write "pro" articles to counterbalance "anti" articles. Also, each article is considered on its own merits; if Criticism of Muhammad is deemed problematic (possibly for some of the same reasons as this one; and there are valid arguments to be made that all "Criticism of ..." articles are inherently non-neutral), then that would have to be discussed in a deletion discussion about that article.
Based on strength of arguments, therefore, we have a consensus to delete the article. Editors interested in improving the neutrality of the coverage of Muhammad should focus on improving the existing articles with material based on reliable sources, and consider whether some of these can be spun out into subarticles that allow more detailed coverage of some aspects, without having a built-in "pro" or "anti" slant defined by the title. Sandstein 11:09, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Looks like a overtly positive article and made as response to Criticism of Islam and Criticism of Muhammad. Muhammad#Legacy was by far enough for including any positive impacts. Article actually contradicts WP:FANPAGE. Capitals00 ( talk) 04:12, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
::I have removed the side-quotes and it actually has less quotes than
Criticism_of_Islam#Nineteenth_and_twentieth_century or
Criticism_of_Muhammad. I disagree with the assertion that it is a "cherry-picked synthesis". The article is of encyclopedic value and contains valuable insight into the interesting perspectives of prominent Muslim personalities throughout history.
142.109.127.36 (
talk)
15:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC) (
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xtremedood Xtremedood's sock)
::Please see my previous comment, I disagree with these assertions. I have removed the excess quotes and it contains less quotes than articles such as
Criticism_of_Islam#Nineteenth_and_twentieth_century or
Criticism_of_Muhammad.
142.109.127.36 (
talk)
15:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)(
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xtremedood Xtremedood's sock)
::::Thanks for stating that you disagree with the criticisms articles as well, because I think it goes to the core of whether or not perspectives (whether positive or negative) should be included in the WP encyclopedia. Both the criticisms articles and this one consists of persuasive statements, which are not reflective of impartial or neutral stances, but however, have been expressed by notable personalities throughout history. The issue therefore goes far deeper than this particular article. I think for the time being it is best to leave this article as it is, and perhaps discuss (as
user:Arashtitan has suggested) whether or not to merge the criticisms article with this one while giving it a new title such as "Perspectives about Muhammad" or something like that.
142.109.127.36 (
talk)
04:31, 23 December 2015 (UTC)(
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xtremedood Xtremedood's sock)
*Keep. The article gives a historical analysis from the 7th to 20th century of predominantly Muslim perspectives of Muhammad. The following sections are especially important
Praise_and_veneration_of_Muhammad#Contemporaries_of_Muhammad,
Praise_and_veneration_of_Muhammad#Early_History,
Praise_and_veneration_of_Muhammad#Islamic_Golden_Age,
Praise_and_veneration_of_Muhammad#Ottoman_and_Mughal_Empires,
Praise_and_veneration_of_Muhammad#18th-19th_Century,
Praise_and_veneration_of_Muhammad#20th_Century as they give chronological details on trends within Muslim societies on the topic of praise and veneration of Muhammad. This topic has been the focus of prominent papers and books, including Annemarie Schimmel’s ‘’And Muhammad is his Messenger’’, Carl Ernst’s ‘’Muhammad as pole of existence’’
[45], as well as Ali S. Asani’s and Kamal Abdel-Malek’s ‘’Celebrating Muhammad’’
[46], all of which are referenced in the article. The article appears to be a historical piece and not so much a biographical piece. Just as the article
Criticism of Muhammad gives an array of prominent figures in Judeo-Christian Civilization from the 7th century to the modern era on negative perspectives of Muhammad, I do not see why an article like this, which gives detailed accounts by prominent Muslim personalities of Muhammad which happen to be positive should be neglected. I think it is a valuable addition to the content available on Wikipedia.
69.165.152.170 (
talk)
12:49, 22 December 2015 (UTC)(
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xtremedood Xtremedood's sock)
::The tone of the article is rather impartial, however the statements by the Muslims specified within the article are quite devout and may be seen as persuasive. Similarly the quotes by various Western scholars pertaining to criticisms, seen here
[47],
[48], and here
[49] are also in a persuasive tone. If
Martin Luther can say "a devil and first-born child of Satan" over here
Criticism_of_Muhammad#Martin_Luther, then I do not see why
Saadi Shirazi can not say "God made your praise and uttered your glorification" over here
Praise_and_veneration_of_Muhammad#Saadi_Shirazi.
142.109.127.36 (
talk)
15:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)(
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xtremedood Xtremedood's sock)
::I disagree, criticisms are encyclopedic because they provide insight into negative opinions on a matter or personality. The opposite therefore should be allowed. This article is in regards to perspectives of various influencial Muslim personalities. I do not think allowing for negative opinions while removing positive opinions adheres with
WP:OSE. To add, I have removed the excess quotes, which does not constitute
WP:QUOTEFARM.
142.109.127.36 (
talk) 15:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)(
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xtremedood Xtremedood's sock)
*Keep as it is an article that is of encyclopedic value and of significant importance. As per
WP:OSE it is important to allow for the diverse opinions on such a personality to be shared in an encyclopedic format. The nature of the article is not much different from articles such as
Criticism of Muhammad or
Criticism of Islam. I have removed the excess quotes and what remains is an article that is about 80% quote-free and straight to the point, which are less quotes than many other articles, such as the ones mentioned previously. It could use improvements, however, deletion is contrary to
WP:NPOV, since criticism articles have flourished on WP for some time now. An article aimed at praise and veneration is therefore of value. Articles such as
Muhammad in Islam,
Muhammad#Legacy, and
Muhammad_in_Islam#Muslim_veneration_for_Muhammad do not properly address the historical perspectives of Muslim personalities, but rather focus on Islamic beliefs pertaining to Muhammad. I do not see any point in comparing the two articles. Similarly
Muhammad#Medieval_Christian_views does not provide as much insight into the matter of negative perspectives as compared to
Criticism of Muhammad.
142.109.127.36 (
talk)
15:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)(
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xtremedood Xtremedood's sock)
:::You could use the same reasoning on articles such as
Criticism of Jesus or
Criticism of Muhammad. As I have stated, I do not believe that this article violates
WP:NPOV since it details the the perspectives of historical personalities in a neutral and impartial way. No where does it explicitly say that "Saadi Shirazi is without a doubt right," rather it states Saadi Shirazi's views and statements in regards to Muhammad. The same is done in the criticisms article. As for
WP:SYNTH I think that the nature of the article is such that it is an analysis, compilation and resource for various positive perspectives about Muhammad. Like I said, it is no different in principal from the analysis, compilation and resources provided in the criticisms articles provided above. As for
WP:NOR, I do not see any original research here. It is a well sourced article and the statements are verifiable. No where are conclusions implied or drawn. It simply consists of sourced and referenced views of a variety of notable personalities. I think
WP:OSE should definitely be taken into consideration here.
142.109.127.36 (
talk)
04:39, 23 December 2015 (UTC)(
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xtremedood Xtremedood's sock)
::Depends what you mean by "opposing views". That's not so much an opposing view to criticisms, but rather it may be seen as a reevaluation by certain Western scholars on the topic of a particular criticism made by Martin Luther. Oussani is simply saying that Martin Luther went overboard, he is not praising Muhammad in the passage you have quoted. Similarly we see a similar point given in this article under
Praise_and_veneration_of_Muhammad#20th_Century, where it states "movements such as Wahhabism, Salafism and Deobandism opposed what they deemed as the "shirk" or polytheism in the praise and veneration of Muhammad". Clearly this is an opposing view that is given within the article that is against much of the praise and veneration of Muhammad expressed. It may be further elaborated upon. The statement you have quoted in regards to the
Islamic Golden Age is totally unrelated to the perspectives of notable personalities that this article focuses on. It seems to be a introductory sentence which may be replaced or rethought out or kept. You are free to challenge any unsourced materials, but this is not an excuse for deletion of the entire article, which is well-sourced and encyclopedic overall. It is also well documented that by 750 AD Muslim communities existed from
Al-Andalus in the Iberian Peninsula to China, see here
History_of_Islam_in_China. As far as Hart's quote, I am fine with removing it. It doesn't appear to have been in the original version of this article and was added later. I do not find any use in including Hart's ranking, however, this is another topic of discussion and is irrelevant to the majority of the article, which focuses on Muslim perspectives. Therefore it is not an excuse for deletion of the article. Once again, none of the points you have mentioned indicate a valid reason to delete the article. Much of what you have stated is a diversion from what is relevant to the issue of deletion.
142.109.127.36 (
talk)
08:21, 23 December 2015 (UTC)(
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xtremedood Xtremedood's sock)
::Interesting question. I think that since Wikipedia English is often the standard bearer of articles and categories, since it consists of more articles than any other language group, is a great place to start such topics. I disagree, however, with the assertion that the articles in the praise category have direct relation to this article. If you look at the praise section, it simply consists of religious practices and does not detail perspectives or views of notable personalities in regards to Muhammad. It simply consists of three articles,
Mawlid,
Durood, and
Naat, which are simply explanations of practices, but do not give proper insight into historical perspectives of prominent personalities in either Muslim traditions or non-Muslim traditions. I also have no problem with articles for other religious figures such as
Praise and veneration of Jesus,
Praise and veneration of Moses, etc. since articles such as
Criticism of Jesus and
Moses#Criticism_of_Moses do indeed exist.
142.109.127.36 (
talk)
04:31, 23 December 2015 (UTC)(
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xtremedood Xtremedood's sock)
God is indeed saluting the Prophet Muhammad and his angels are doing so. Oh you have believed! Salute him and greet him with greetings of peace.
— Qur'an 33:56
And indeed, you are O Muhammad of a sublime moral character.
— Qur'an 68:4
Keep : it is a subject in its own right. Books have been written specifically on this subject such as Annemarie Schimmel. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Muhammad-His-Messenger-Veneration-Religion/dp/0807841285/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8
The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE The Bushranger One ping only 04:51, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Too soon. Sources have single mention, no significant coverage, searching found lots of social media. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:26, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 04:50, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Not finding sources that they are notable Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 03:30, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
* Delete no reliable sources.
Doc James (
talk ·
contribs ·
email) 00:39, 21 December 2015 (UTC) This is actually the nominator himself.
SwisterTwister
talk
05:56, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Dat Guy Talk Contribs 16:01, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Delere: as non-notable entertainer. Quis separabit? 03:07, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 04:49, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 02:35, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 07:41, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
This footballer fails WP:NFOOTBALL as a player that has not played in any WP:FPL (fully proffessional league). First PROD but it was removed without explanation. Qed237 (talk) 23:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 07:40, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
This mathematician fails WP:BIO1E and WP:PROF. He created a bit of a media splash a few weeks ago when the Nigerian newspapers reported that he had proved the Riemann hypothesis and won the million-dollar Millennium Prize, based only on a talk abstract at a non-prestigious conference, and the international media then picked up the story. These reports were either substance-free (no proof has emerged, and what can be found online under his name inspires no confidence) or outright falsehoods (he has not won the Millennium Prize, and cannot even be considered eligible for winning the prize until publishing a proof). There is little to say about him other than this non-story. If we have an article, we are compelled by WP:NPOV to point out that he has no proof and that some have called the story a hoax, but I think per WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE and WP:BLP it's better to have no article at all than to have a negative (but accurate) article about a non-public-figure. — David Eppstein ( talk) 22:45, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 16:17, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Searches found nothing better at all than a few passing mentions at Highbeam and browsers including also links for an apparently unrelated professor Ali Akbar Alizad. It's also worth noting this was started by the subject himself apparently and not only was this PRODded shortly after (which is why we're here at AfD), I was going to PROD until I noticed it, here's my PROD: "Seemingly questionably notable and improvable enough as my searches found nothing better than a few passing mentions and I should also note I also found links for an unrelated professor with this name.". SwisterTwister talk 07:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Blind Guardian. MBisanz talk 00:23, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Contested PROD. Unsourced, fails WP:NALBUMS, it's only a short sentence, an infobox and a tracklist. Less than half the bands are apparently notable. Victão Lopes Fala! 21:08, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Merge As it has 4 notable bands and is a tribute album to Blind Guardian it can be merged into the Blind Guardian article. 81.131.211.59 ( talk) 14:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 07:40, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:Bio. I can't find that evidence of notability. She is only doing her job to make ends meet. Wikic¤l¤gy t@lk to M£ 22:07, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 07:39, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. I can't find that evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gy t@lk to M£ 21:14, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 07:39, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
No evidence of notability. This Google search shows a couple brief mentions (likely from press releases) in very minor newspapers, a Natural News mention, and nothing else besides some off-topic articles. Box Office Mojo shows no theatrical release. Rotten Tomatoes [7] knows of no reviews.
And to note, it's not that there aren't movies on similar subject, that clearly are notable: Fat, Sick and Nearly Dead and Forks Over Knives, say, both have widespread reviews and coverage. This does not, that, and that alone, is why I'm nominating it. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 20:45, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was speedy deleted by Bbb23, CSD G5: Created by a banned or blocked user -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 04:37, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. I can't find that evidence of notability Wikic¤l¤gy t@lk to M£ 20:28, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 07:38, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Dictionary article Rathfelder ( talk) 20:23, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 07:38, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
A season specific article for a league that is way below the professional level in Algeria.
I am also nominating the following related page:
The result was no consensus. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Allegedly G11, but I think it could be salvaged...after we determine if the article should stay. TomStar81 ( Talk) 10:36, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. Sandstein 14:03, 30 December 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}} . |
Lacks notabilty. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. No notability independent of his band. duffbeerforme ( talk) 10:57, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
References
This perst....
The article notes:
"I bring joy to people who otherwise couldn't afford to see the Stones," says Glen Carroll, the band's Mick Jagger doppelganger.
...
Carroll is an interesting case study among rock-and-roll tribute actors. Never mind that he looks the part (right down the pouty lips and handsome wrinkles), or that he moves and sings like Jagger, nailing the singer's preeny poses and transatlantic bray. It's that he seems to be living somebody else's rock-and-roll lifestyle. He guzzles beer and smokes where no smoking is allowed and hits on just about every woman he encounters. He also talks himself up as a man of wealth and taste. Something about Sticky Fingers being paid as much as $10,000, though that kind of payday usually only comes overseas, Carroll says.
"I have a house on the water in Florida," he says. "I have a Mercedes convertible that's paid for. I have a gold Presidential Rolex. I have women to die for from one end of the country to the next -- girls you just wouldn't believe." Later, he says: "It's sex, drugs and rock-and-roll." Is he joking? Acting for the sake of the notebook? Drunk?
In his previous life, Carroll says, he was a military pilot. He's in his mid-40s now and says he's attending law school. But this rock- and-roll thing: He likes it. "I live for this," he says. "I do this because I see a beautiful woman smiling at me when I'm onstage, and it's . . . "
The article quotes from Steven Kurutz's book Like a Rolling Stone, which was published by Broadway Books according to this review in The New York Times and this review in Kirkus Reviews:
That a book provided significant biographical material about Glen Carroll strongly establishes that he is notable.When Glen Carroll travels for work, he takes a pair of black stage pants, a studded belt, and a few shirts, usually in splashy colors like bright red or banana yellow. If he wants to make a more noticeable impression, he might take something flashier, like a cape fashioned from an American flag and a British flag tied together, or a T-shirt imprinted with the Greek omega symbol and paired with a silk scarf, or white football pants with blue knee pads and Capezio dance shoes — an outfit very similar, as it happens, to the one Mick Jagger wore on the Rolling Stones' 1981 tour. For Glen, verisimilitude in dress is part of the job. As the singer of Sticky Fingers, which bills itself as "the leading international Rolling Stones tribute show," he is a kind of rock star proxy, a substitute Mick. And considering that the Rolling Stones tour only once every few years, and that Sticky Fingers has toured every year for the past eighteen years, it's likely that he has sung "Start Me Up," and "Brown Sugar," and "(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction" more times than Mick Jagger himself.
Glen is slim and snake-hipped, with heavy-lidded eyes and a prominent, almost coltish mouth. At forty-seven, he resembles a slightly younger Mick Jagger — the Jagger of, say, Steel Wheels — and wears his brown hair in the same style: short in front, longer and feathery on the sides. Offstage, he favors blue jeans, a blazer, and scuffed loafers, or a T-shirt and motorcycle boots. At all times, he wears a gold Rolex "President" watch. In person, he has a sociable nature and a roguish charm and comes across like the kind of guy you might encounter late at night in a barroom, jive-talking one of the waitresses. As a bandleader, however, he is mercurial and governs by mood. He once threatened to fire the rhythm guitarist because his hair had grown beyond appropriate Ron Wood length. On the other hand, when he's having a good time, and particularly when he's been drinking, he will climb behind the drum kit, to the frustration of more authentic-minded band members. "Who ever heard of Mick Jagger playing the drums?" the drummer once remarked, exasperated. Glen is equally contradictory in appraising his own talents, swinging between modesty and extreme boastfulness. "I know what it's like to walk in Mick's shoes — with lift supports, mind you," he once told me. He has also told me, "If you want me to go out and front a band, I'll do it as good as maybe ten other guys in the world can do it."
Glen Carroll received significant coverage in The Washington Post. He received significant coverage in the Broadway Books–published book Like a Rolling Stone. He clearly passes WP:MUSICBIO. It does not matter whether the sources cover him in the context of the band he founded, Sticky Fingers (tribute band). It matters only that the sources cover him in substantial detail and are independent of him.Musicians or ensembles (this category includes bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theatre groups, instrumentalists, etc.) may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria:
1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.
This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries, [except for trivial coverage or non-independent material]
There is enough material specifically about Glen Carroll in the reliable sources to justify a separate article about him.
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 00:25, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Topic about a future concept where lack of information lies; should not exist yet. EnigmaLord515 ( talk) 03:40, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was Keep, shenanigans with the nominator aside. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:38, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
This is a vanity article of Non notable writer, part of a walled garden of cruft created by same editor, does not meet WP:GNG. Doesn't meet WP:BIO's standards. Hassan Rebell ( talk) 11:38, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:41, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Subject does not meet the WP:NFILM criteria. No significant reliable coverage under either the name "Terminal Voyage" or "Starquest" at Google/Google News/Newspaper Archive, JSTOR, Highbeam. Any coverage appears to be from unreliable blogs. /wia🎄 /tlk 15:13, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was Delete per nom, given the lack of coverage. WP:USUAL may apply, however. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:48, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Can't find significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 15:29, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
@Roscelese can you kindly write what exactly is wrong with the article? Or suggest a way to improve it? You mentioned the notability clause and references have been added for verification... You also cited lack of relevant or reliable sources and those have been added as well. You stayed that the state of Georgia "Local" recognition is meaningless and other recognitions have been cited such as the award of an honorary doctorate by the Abbey college London... Up until you mentioned socks I did not know that existed on Wikipedia being a world class encyclopedia, however I stand corrected. And you seem like an expert so I'm seeking your opinion as I sought the opinions of others where my actions are now reffered to as canvassing.. What can I do to improve the article @Roscelese in your expert opinion?
Bomabenjy2 (
talk)
21:51, 17 December 2015 (UTC)Blocked as a sock puppet. Please see
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bomabenjy2.
I not an SPA - I am new to Wikipedia and I just needed clarification. However I will allow the due processes to be followed and whatever decisions are reached would be respected. I just thought the page was worthy to be created on Wikipedia
Bomabenjy2 (
talk)
06:30, 18 December 2015 (UTC)Blocked as a sock puppet. Please see
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bomabenjy2.
* The conferment of honorary citizenship by the state of Georgia is a notable recognition as stated here the recognition was due to his roles in promoting trade development between Africa and .....
http://africanleadership.co.uk/about/advisory-board/
* @Roscelese The Ken Giami article has been edited with references since you nominated it for deletion under notability clause. It has been referenced accordingly with verifiable facts by different users and according to Wikipedia deletion criteria, it does not violate any of the clauses listed. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Bomabenjy2 (
talk •
contribs)
17:47, 17 December 2015 (UTC) —
Bomabenjy2 (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic. Blocked as a sock puppet. Please see
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bomabenjy2.
The result was keep -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Doesn't appear to be notable. Chevvin ( talk) 22:56, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was Keep (NAC) The argument that the subject has inherent notability because of the senior civil service position he holds is convincing. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 18:01, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Fails WP:BIO JMHamo ( talk) 23:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Comment:
Ditto a permanent secretary by status and context in Nigeria is same as that of British Government (highest civil service rank).
Seems the person is also of native traditional institution and recently deceased, notable to me
Ibrahimmb (
talk)
20:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)ibrahimmb
*Delete Sadly, no evidence of
notability.
Wikic¤l¤gy
t@lk to M£
20:33, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Keep: per comments 197.211.52.25 ( talk) 21:36, 7 December 2015 (UTC)Ibrahimmb
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:25, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for advice, I will refresh page with more detailed information and active links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagafan ( talk • contribs) 16:06, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Doing some copy editing here and the more I looked the fewer good refs that appeared to exist. I am no expert on Asian languages but those refs that I can translate and/or understand seem to give glancing refs or promises of great things yet to come. I can't see anything that hints at notability. Rather the whole thing hints at paid promotional editing to get a page here. Appears to fail WP:GNG Velella Velella Talk 16:36, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was Userfy. Moving this to User:3family6/Helvete (journal) -- RoySmith (talk) 22:33, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Non-notable, relatively new journal. A handful of articles/blogposts, some of which mentioning the journal in passing, are listed in the article but otherwise there are no independent sources. Not indexed in any selective databases. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty ( talk) 21:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Oppose Changing my vote to userfy as creator.
WP:NJournals is an essay. Before creating this article, I looked for the notability criteria for academic journals, and could not find any guidelines listed (which I now know is because NJournals is an essay, not a guideline). However, I was able to find the notability standards for
academic books, which state the following: "...most of the standards for mainstream books are inapplicable to the academic field because they would be too restrictive and would exclude articles on books that are worthy of notice." They then give some thresholds of notability criteria, of which the following the Helvete article meets: Cited by academic publications; influential in its specialty area. Below I will list the other sources that cite this journal:
That's seven citations to a barely four-year-old journal which has released only two issues so far, in a highly specialized, esoteric-leaning sub-sub-field. In addition to those seven citations, it has also seen an article from it featured on Medievalists.net, and has received significant coverage in an independent, reliable source, and a brief mention in a different reliable source, and another brief mention in yet another reliable source (all four of these examples I had not encountered before now, and I will work to include these in the article). So, my contention is that while this journal may not have much significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, a highly specialized journal does not need such coverage. While WP:NJournal says that it does need general notability coverage, this is an essay, and thus WP:TEXTBOOK, which is a guideline reflecting community consensus, holds more weight. Going from impact within a field, this journal is highly notable. I encountered it yesterday incidental to other research, and as I looked into it I was surprised at the impact, which is what led me to create the article.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:23, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
I do not think this biography meets the criteria for in inclusion in Wikipedia. The guidelines WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:NACTOR are relevant here.
In particular, I question the references given to support the notability of this person. I count at least five that do not mention the subject of this article.
@ Dctheatrefollower, Bwayfan2001, 12345hbot, Roh9876h, Linecrosser42, Yomomma47, Soonerorlater101, Soonerorlater101, Dream Catching, JoinUs341995ChildrenWillListen, Letitgooo, and PhantomBroadway: you appear to be in Wikipedia jargon " Single purpose accounts" dedicatated to writing about the subject of the article. Shirt58 ( talk) 10:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. No valid deletion reason proposed by the nominator (who is banned anyways). (non-admin closure) clpo13( talk) 16:48, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
The news sources talk mostly about the videos uploaded. Anyway let other editors take decision on this.
The
Avengers
09:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC) Reverted as per
WP:BANREVERT. 03:56, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) clpo13( talk) 16:47, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
PROD removed by Michig and I still confirm and echo my PROD: "Seemingly non-notable all in all perhaps as my searches actually found mostly passing mentions including as examples of bands their studio recorded with. WP:TNT at best if ever more acceptable.". There's nothing to suggest obvious better notability and improvement. SwisterTwister talk 08:03, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:23, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
If it wasn't for the removed PROD from February 2011, I would've kept my added PROD with which I said: "Questionably notable and improvable article for a photographer for which I only found passing mentions at Books and browsers, nothing to suggest better sourcing and notability which this article would need to be kept.". Notifying the only still noticeably active past user Hoary. SwisterTwister talk 08:04, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 00:24, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
This page is 100% unsourced. I thought surely the sponsoring organization would be a good source for all the detail about hometowns, ages, subsequent wins etc but no, they don't even find that detail important enough to track. They just offer a list of names and years, along side a list of Miss Rhode Island USA winners. That leaves us with a copyvio list of names and unverified details to go with the names. If the company does not even care enough to give the past winner list its own page with basic bio details, how can this be important enough for an article here? Perhaps a mention at the Miss Teen USA page is enough. http://www.missrhodeislandusa.com/rhodeisland_fame.html Legacypac ( talk) 01:49, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Compare to their major competition where one article covers all the states: Miss America's Outstanding Teen state pageants Legacypac ( talk) 03:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:17, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Ah the author happened to remove this at the 7 day period so here we are and I still confirm and echo my PROD: "Seemingly questionably notable and improvable band article as my searches found nothing better than a few passing mentions, other Wikis have no considerable improvement and all in all, there's simply nothing to suggest better improvement.". SwisterTwister talk 23:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE. The Bushranger One ping only 07:36, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
I was actually going to speedy and/or PROD considering the current article's state and my searches only found unusable mentions for solid notability at News, Books and browsers but then I noticed the CLIO Award which is listed as one of the best awards for advertisers so here we are for better consensus and insight. Frankly, I still feel this is easily speedy material and is an example of WP:TNT at best. I also suggest looking at the history which has seemingly had several contributors since being started by Kylehoedl in May 2010. Notifying author Kylehoedl. SwisterTwister talk 20:56, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:17, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
My PROD was removed Valfontis as this had actually been PRODed before here by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and speaking of the history, you'll notice this article has had quite a noticeable one with both the subject (??) removing and questioning its accuracy as well as vandalism (see talk page as well). I note I still confirm and echo my PROD: Seemingly questionably notable and improvable biography as my searches only found a few passing mentions at News and browsers, hardly much to improve sourcing, notability and improvement overall here. 2009 history also suggests the subject questions the accuracy of this article as well (is that was her?? Things here aren't certain one side or another at all) and there has also been other BLP vandalism and troubles so this also contributes to this simply being best deleted for now.". SwisterTwister talk 19:34, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:16, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
I can see nothing in the sources given that conveys any notability. I am aware that establishing notability for Pakistan nationals isn't always easy but this falls well short of any real sense of notability. Velella Velella Talk 17:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Strongly Keep This person is a well-known writer and poet throughout Gilgit-Baltistan and Chitral and has written much on Khowar Language. He has written a poetry book of his own. Must be keep. Ghizeri ( talk) 09:27, 23 December 2015 (UTC) — Ghizeri ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The result was redirect to University of Exeter#Student life. MBisanz talk 00:16, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Article fails to meet notability criteria under WP:CLUB or WP:ORG. Few mentions in independent sources and mostly based around who spoke there. Created by a COI editor Aloneinthewild ( talk) 01:07, 6 December 2015 (UTC) Aloneinthewild ( talk) 01:07, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
KEEP Please do not delete. Thank you for pointing out the shortcomings of the page which I think I have now corrected. There are a number of significant, non-trivial, reliable and independent news sources covering events at the Exeter University Debating Society which I think satisfy the notability criteria ( WP:GNG). Previously, there were three independent sources quoted on the page: the Exeter University Student paper Exepose (perhaps not sufficient for WP:AUD?); "TheNationalStudent.com" whose reputation, audience and reliability is unclear but most persuasively on a Mail Online blog by Peter Hitchens who spoke at the Society. This article in the Mail Online alone could be sufficient for notability ( WP:GNG) as it reports on the Society in a non-trivial way which seemingly satisfies an array of rules such as WP:AUD, WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. However it could be argued that the Hitchens blog was more about the topic of debate (legalizing Cannabis) rather than the Society itself which merely provided the platform. So for good measure I have added two additional significant, reliable and independent sources. First is the coverage of the controversial visit of Enoch Powell in 1968. Clearly this is nearly 50 years ago which I guess shouldn't matter ( WP:NOTTEMPORARY). This visit caused a significant demonstration by the students which was covered in a non-trivial way at the time by The Daily Telegraph and Exeter Express & Echo; there is also a video on the reference from a film archive. Second, I have also added coverage in The Independent of a debate on student fees, but again the Society merely provided the platform and so may fail WP:SIGCOV although the journalist does describe the Society as "infamous". Clearly just having notable speakers isn't sufficient for notability WP:INHERITORG. However, having the events at the Society independently reported in a non-trivial, verifiable ( WP:NRV) way in reputable local and national newspapers which appear to satisfy WP:AUD, WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:ORGIND should be sufficient, surely?
Do not MERGE or REDIRECT. The Society does have a long history which is distinct and separate from Exeter University - so I don't feel it should be MERGED with or REDIRECTED to the Exeter University page, if I have interpreted WP:BRANCH and WP:MERGEREASON correctly? Any thoughts from others? Alphaomega111 ( talk) 12:34, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Many thanks for your comments SwisterTwister. I have attempted to make the article more interesting, more structured, add more coverage from appropriate sources and cut out superfluous content. I do think the article is now significantly better (in content, structure and references) due to this process and continue to think it should be a separate article from University of Exeter#Student life for three reasons. First the Society (1893) predates the University (Royal Charter in 1955) and has references to pre 1955 events making it slightly incongruent and not meshing well with University of Exeter#Student life. Second including the University of Exeter Debating Society content in the University of Exeter#Student life page may make the combined article too unwieldy and too wide ranging. Lastly I think there is sufficient notable, non-trivial and interesting content to justify a distinct Wikipedia entry for the University of Exeter Debating Society. Any more thoughts and contributions from others would be excellent? Alphaomega111 ( talk) 16:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for all the comments and help. I have a historic knowledge of the Society but no contact with the current Society - as such I am entirely disinterested whether the article is kept, redirected or deleted. My interest for putting the case to keep the article comes from a natural curiosity over the editorial mechanism of Wikipedia. For what its worth, I continue to vote for KEEP. You are right Szzuk that many of the references don't establish notability - those references are for background and context. However, surely the Enoch Powell reference is valid? It is independent (written by the Institute of Historical Research). It has been edited and references checked by professional historians and I think does cover the Society in a non-Trivial way. The demonstration would not have occurred but for the existence of the Society and the incident directly led to a dedicated article in the Daily Telegraph at that time, not a trivial mention. Also thanks to Aloneinthewild for the help - there are many documents in the Archive at Exeter University - a weekly report on the debates was included in the annual summary of events at the University and preceding institutions back to 1893 and more recently (from the 1990's on) they do have copies of the year books published by the Society listing the Patrons, Presidents etc. Sadly I only have a couple of year books (which I could scan, it would help?) but haven't really got the time or in reality the ability to travel to Exeter and dig around in the University Archives. As I say, I'm interested in the process rather than the outcome. Alphaomega111 ( talk) 10:39, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of supercentenarians who died in 2007. MBisanz talk 00:16, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Being the oldest German person (for one day) is not notable when the only sources are three WP:ROUTINE obituaries. Ricky81682 ( talk) 21:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
^^^Lacks sense of humor. Legacypac ( talk) 06:54, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 07:34, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Previously deleted article about a person who has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. Only significant coverage has come from press releases from organizations he has worked for and routine news coverage of his hiring (which borrows greatly from the organization's press release) and his political campaign. Hirolovesswords ( talk) 03:09, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Dat Guy Talk Contribs 15:53, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
This is a clear case of WP:CRYSTALBALL, when users create a military conflict page, based solely on a single declaration. So far, not even a single German soldier or ship or airplane has participated in the effort against ISIL. It is not even clear if there will be. So Germany announced it will join Operation Inherent Resolve, so what? Nothing happened so far to justify such a page. GreyShark ( dibra) 17:01, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Not promotional and also WP:SK 3 (non-admin closure) Dat Guy Talk Contribs 15:53, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion -- Mr.Luther34-- 16:49, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 07:32, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Movie does not appear on either IMDB or Box office mojo, meaning this is pretty much just an internet release. That's dodgy with regards to notability. The one cite in the article appears to be the sum total of coverage - and was pre-release. See [33]. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 16:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 07:31, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Doesn't meet notability criteria. Can't find substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Citobun ( talk) 16:14, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Clear consensus heading towards deleted. Due to the SPI and that no good will come of this discussion being left open further, I am closing it a number of hours early. Mkdw talk 02:14, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support. References are listing or lack independence. Per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alwayssmileguys it appears editor was assigned to create this article by article subject. reddogsix ( talk) 15:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was Withdrawn — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:33, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warren Chaney for the complexities of this walled garden. This biography was written by the same sock puppets, with all the same problems as the Chaney article (and the others). I had gone through the article to remove the poor sources and try to see what was underneath and found insufficient evidence of notability, which when considering all of the other issues associated with these articles (again, see the Chaney AfD), led me to PROD it. It wasn't deleted after 7 days, and on the 8th was deprodded by an IP requesting discussion based on a role in Kotch. To be clear, unlike some of the other articles there is evidence Winters exists and that she has been in some films -- there are a few brief mentions on e.g. rogerebert.com, but not enough to pass WP:GNG. It seems worth emphasizing that a symptom of all of these articles is that they rely on big claims and tons of credits that exist almost exclusively in primary and user-generated sources. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:39, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 16:19, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Fails notability for music articles. Entirely self-released output through Bandcamp. Semitransgenic talk. 14:27, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Miss Alaska Teen USA#Winners. (non-admin closure) sst✈ discuss 11:42, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
As pointed out at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Degen Kasper this article suffers from the same problems as that one - she won a teen pageant at the state level that is not really notable. Generally teen pageant winners do not get articles based only on that 1 event. Her further career does not suggest any reason for notability. Delete it. The only "source" is mostly behind a paywall but seems to be about someone or something else. Legacypac ( talk) 14:11, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Corbeil-Essonnes. MBisanz talk 00:14, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
I can't find any reliable source coverage of this company besides press releases, no evidence of notability. Sam Walton ( talk) 14:10, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. WP:SNOW. If this becomes more notable later than it can be recreated, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The Bushranger One ping only 22:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Might have been events are not particularly notable for a stand-alone articles MilborneOne ( talk) 13:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 07:31, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
The only coverage I can find of this company is about its acquisition by Thomson Reuters (i.e. [39]), otherwise not notable. Sam Walton ( talk) 13:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 11:25, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Example of WP:BLP1E. No coverage outside of that one single event. Delete. JudgeJason ( talk) 12:49, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 07:30, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
AfD rather than PROD as I believe that it will be contested. Delete as per WP:NOTSTATS Spiderone 11:28, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
I am also nominating the following related page:
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 07:29, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
This appears to be a purported
Kollywood film.
As such, I would have expected to find at least some English language mentions in sources, reliable or perhaps not so reliable.
As you can see from the default "(Find sources: "Kathiravanin Kodai Mazhai" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)" links added when an
WP:AFD is started, I have failed to find any.
Maybe this is a film student project or a show reel by up and coming Kollywood young film makers? If so, my best wishes to them.
Shirt58 (
talk)
10:55, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Miss Earth Guam#Titleholders. (non-admin closure) sst✈ discuss 12:20, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG, WP:ONEEVENT (just a preliminary round and the main event of the same cycle) The Banner talk 10:15, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:14, 28 December 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}} . |
suggesting self-promotion. Perhaps this imdb page is a little clearer about her filmography.Pinging User:Wikimandia User:SwisterTwister who seem experienced judging these pages. Timmyshin ( talk) 09:56, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SK 1 (non-admin closure) Dat Guy Talk Contribs 15:58, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
A notable organisation but the tone of the article is written like an advertisement. Ayub407 talk 09:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Education in Ghana#Structure of formal education. MBisanz talk 00:12, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. I can't see the evidence of notability required for a stand-alone article. Wikic¤l¤gy t@lk to M£ 08:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 16:20, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Aside from the one currently listed review from an unfamiliar website "The Phantom Tollbooth", my searches certainly found nothing obviously better than 3 pages of browsers results including a metal-underground.com link which apparently never actually appears but from the preview, it said that they had signed a record label deal with Ironclad, and my only other successful searches were a sputnikmusic.com page and one article at blabbermouth.net (I'll note terrorizer.com and metalhammer.com also found nothing apparently). Although there is an Allmusic biography and one review there, I'm simply not sure if all this is enough for a better solidly notable and improvable article. Overall there's simply nothing to suggest a better notable and improvable article and that's not surprising, considering it seems they're not considerably active and otherwise outstandingly known. SwisterTwister talk 08:17, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
@SwisterTwister, their drummer Travis Turner has a podcast where he brings up his band multiple times, and I'm sure there are more references to be found. Metalworker14 ( Yo) 4:02, December 20, 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. I discount the !vote by CatcherStorm, which does not present any argument for deletion. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 01:01, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Non-notable album ColinFine ( talk) 21:48, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 00:11, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Does not appear to meet
WP:NFILM criteria. No significant reliable coverage on Google/News/Archive/Books, and nothing in JSTOR or Highbeam. There are
some
fan-blog
reviews
of the film, but not
reliable sources. (Update: Tokyogirl79 has pointed out that
this DVD Verdict page is indeed a reliable source!) This
This Cinemagazine description is better but not enough to stand on its own. Finally, as this was a direct-to-DVD release, Death Toll was likely not a significant part of DMX's or Lou Diamond Phillips' careers, and thus does not attract notability that way.
/wia🎄
/tlk
15:37, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete. unsourced about very local children's team, obviously non-notable Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Looks pretty bad, weird, unwikified. 333 -blue 06:26, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Swmrs. There seems to be rough consensus for a redirect. The redirect should also be locked if needed. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 06:25, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Band may be notable. Subject is not. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 05:12, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was Keep. Wikic¤l¤gy t@lk to M£ 17:43, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Non-notable; only indication of even slight coverage is that the subject founded a notable pizza company, which does not confer notability per se. Only a few sources cover the subject; most in relation to tax evasion by a person related to him. Delete or merge into Pizza Pizza. Esquivalience t 05:07, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 04:53, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
The concept/software described here doesn't seem notable; in fact it seems to be a neologism of almost no use, probably some short lived and un-notable marketing buzzword. If anyone can find any reliable sources, go ahead, I couldn't even find this phrase described in the sources present in the article, through it doesn't help that it supposedly is known under several different terms, sigh. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:58, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 04:52, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Article appears to be a part of a class project. I recommend userfying the article back to Kjacks48 with an admonition about original research. Also recommend that Wikimedia Foundation remind Kent State University of article guidelines. — Jkudlick t c s 03:26, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus-- Ymblanter ( talk) 09:28, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Unremarkable person fails WP:NN Jab843 ( talk) 01:11, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
The argument for deletion is that the article is an essay, that is, a piece of original research trying to make a point, and that it is a content fork of material already covered elsewhere, for instance in Muhammad in Islam, as well as an aggregation of quotations with little in the way of context. These are persuasive arguments that touch on several of Wikipedia's important content policies. The "keep" opinions would have had to address these arguments and make a case for why they do not apply. Almost all of them do not do so.
Leaving out the opinions by sockpuppets and by people simply expressing their own appreciation for the topic, most "keep" opinions consider this article to be a counterweight to Criticism of Muhammad. I can't give this argument weight, for two reasons: While Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view, this applies to each individual article: we don't write "pro" articles to counterbalance "anti" articles. Also, each article is considered on its own merits; if Criticism of Muhammad is deemed problematic (possibly for some of the same reasons as this one; and there are valid arguments to be made that all "Criticism of ..." articles are inherently non-neutral), then that would have to be discussed in a deletion discussion about that article.
Based on strength of arguments, therefore, we have a consensus to delete the article. Editors interested in improving the neutrality of the coverage of Muhammad should focus on improving the existing articles with material based on reliable sources, and consider whether some of these can be spun out into subarticles that allow more detailed coverage of some aspects, without having a built-in "pro" or "anti" slant defined by the title. Sandstein 11:09, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Looks like a overtly positive article and made as response to Criticism of Islam and Criticism of Muhammad. Muhammad#Legacy was by far enough for including any positive impacts. Article actually contradicts WP:FANPAGE. Capitals00 ( talk) 04:12, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
::I have removed the side-quotes and it actually has less quotes than
Criticism_of_Islam#Nineteenth_and_twentieth_century or
Criticism_of_Muhammad. I disagree with the assertion that it is a "cherry-picked synthesis". The article is of encyclopedic value and contains valuable insight into the interesting perspectives of prominent Muslim personalities throughout history.
142.109.127.36 (
talk)
15:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC) (
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xtremedood Xtremedood's sock)
::Please see my previous comment, I disagree with these assertions. I have removed the excess quotes and it contains less quotes than articles such as
Criticism_of_Islam#Nineteenth_and_twentieth_century or
Criticism_of_Muhammad.
142.109.127.36 (
talk)
15:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)(
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xtremedood Xtremedood's sock)
::::Thanks for stating that you disagree with the criticisms articles as well, because I think it goes to the core of whether or not perspectives (whether positive or negative) should be included in the WP encyclopedia. Both the criticisms articles and this one consists of persuasive statements, which are not reflective of impartial or neutral stances, but however, have been expressed by notable personalities throughout history. The issue therefore goes far deeper than this particular article. I think for the time being it is best to leave this article as it is, and perhaps discuss (as
user:Arashtitan has suggested) whether or not to merge the criticisms article with this one while giving it a new title such as "Perspectives about Muhammad" or something like that.
142.109.127.36 (
talk)
04:31, 23 December 2015 (UTC)(
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xtremedood Xtremedood's sock)
*Keep. The article gives a historical analysis from the 7th to 20th century of predominantly Muslim perspectives of Muhammad. The following sections are especially important
Praise_and_veneration_of_Muhammad#Contemporaries_of_Muhammad,
Praise_and_veneration_of_Muhammad#Early_History,
Praise_and_veneration_of_Muhammad#Islamic_Golden_Age,
Praise_and_veneration_of_Muhammad#Ottoman_and_Mughal_Empires,
Praise_and_veneration_of_Muhammad#18th-19th_Century,
Praise_and_veneration_of_Muhammad#20th_Century as they give chronological details on trends within Muslim societies on the topic of praise and veneration of Muhammad. This topic has been the focus of prominent papers and books, including Annemarie Schimmel’s ‘’And Muhammad is his Messenger’’, Carl Ernst’s ‘’Muhammad as pole of existence’’
[45], as well as Ali S. Asani’s and Kamal Abdel-Malek’s ‘’Celebrating Muhammad’’
[46], all of which are referenced in the article. The article appears to be a historical piece and not so much a biographical piece. Just as the article
Criticism of Muhammad gives an array of prominent figures in Judeo-Christian Civilization from the 7th century to the modern era on negative perspectives of Muhammad, I do not see why an article like this, which gives detailed accounts by prominent Muslim personalities of Muhammad which happen to be positive should be neglected. I think it is a valuable addition to the content available on Wikipedia.
69.165.152.170 (
talk)
12:49, 22 December 2015 (UTC)(
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xtremedood Xtremedood's sock)
::The tone of the article is rather impartial, however the statements by the Muslims specified within the article are quite devout and may be seen as persuasive. Similarly the quotes by various Western scholars pertaining to criticisms, seen here
[47],
[48], and here
[49] are also in a persuasive tone. If
Martin Luther can say "a devil and first-born child of Satan" over here
Criticism_of_Muhammad#Martin_Luther, then I do not see why
Saadi Shirazi can not say "God made your praise and uttered your glorification" over here
Praise_and_veneration_of_Muhammad#Saadi_Shirazi.
142.109.127.36 (
talk)
15:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)(
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xtremedood Xtremedood's sock)
::I disagree, criticisms are encyclopedic because they provide insight into negative opinions on a matter or personality. The opposite therefore should be allowed. This article is in regards to perspectives of various influencial Muslim personalities. I do not think allowing for negative opinions while removing positive opinions adheres with
WP:OSE. To add, I have removed the excess quotes, which does not constitute
WP:QUOTEFARM.
142.109.127.36 (
talk) 15:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)(
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xtremedood Xtremedood's sock)
*Keep as it is an article that is of encyclopedic value and of significant importance. As per
WP:OSE it is important to allow for the diverse opinions on such a personality to be shared in an encyclopedic format. The nature of the article is not much different from articles such as
Criticism of Muhammad or
Criticism of Islam. I have removed the excess quotes and what remains is an article that is about 80% quote-free and straight to the point, which are less quotes than many other articles, such as the ones mentioned previously. It could use improvements, however, deletion is contrary to
WP:NPOV, since criticism articles have flourished on WP for some time now. An article aimed at praise and veneration is therefore of value. Articles such as
Muhammad in Islam,
Muhammad#Legacy, and
Muhammad_in_Islam#Muslim_veneration_for_Muhammad do not properly address the historical perspectives of Muslim personalities, but rather focus on Islamic beliefs pertaining to Muhammad. I do not see any point in comparing the two articles. Similarly
Muhammad#Medieval_Christian_views does not provide as much insight into the matter of negative perspectives as compared to
Criticism of Muhammad.
142.109.127.36 (
talk)
15:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)(
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xtremedood Xtremedood's sock)
:::You could use the same reasoning on articles such as
Criticism of Jesus or
Criticism of Muhammad. As I have stated, I do not believe that this article violates
WP:NPOV since it details the the perspectives of historical personalities in a neutral and impartial way. No where does it explicitly say that "Saadi Shirazi is without a doubt right," rather it states Saadi Shirazi's views and statements in regards to Muhammad. The same is done in the criticisms article. As for
WP:SYNTH I think that the nature of the article is such that it is an analysis, compilation and resource for various positive perspectives about Muhammad. Like I said, it is no different in principal from the analysis, compilation and resources provided in the criticisms articles provided above. As for
WP:NOR, I do not see any original research here. It is a well sourced article and the statements are verifiable. No where are conclusions implied or drawn. It simply consists of sourced and referenced views of a variety of notable personalities. I think
WP:OSE should definitely be taken into consideration here.
142.109.127.36 (
talk)
04:39, 23 December 2015 (UTC)(
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xtremedood Xtremedood's sock)
::Depends what you mean by "opposing views". That's not so much an opposing view to criticisms, but rather it may be seen as a reevaluation by certain Western scholars on the topic of a particular criticism made by Martin Luther. Oussani is simply saying that Martin Luther went overboard, he is not praising Muhammad in the passage you have quoted. Similarly we see a similar point given in this article under
Praise_and_veneration_of_Muhammad#20th_Century, where it states "movements such as Wahhabism, Salafism and Deobandism opposed what they deemed as the "shirk" or polytheism in the praise and veneration of Muhammad". Clearly this is an opposing view that is given within the article that is against much of the praise and veneration of Muhammad expressed. It may be further elaborated upon. The statement you have quoted in regards to the
Islamic Golden Age is totally unrelated to the perspectives of notable personalities that this article focuses on. It seems to be a introductory sentence which may be replaced or rethought out or kept. You are free to challenge any unsourced materials, but this is not an excuse for deletion of the entire article, which is well-sourced and encyclopedic overall. It is also well documented that by 750 AD Muslim communities existed from
Al-Andalus in the Iberian Peninsula to China, see here
History_of_Islam_in_China. As far as Hart's quote, I am fine with removing it. It doesn't appear to have been in the original version of this article and was added later. I do not find any use in including Hart's ranking, however, this is another topic of discussion and is irrelevant to the majority of the article, which focuses on Muslim perspectives. Therefore it is not an excuse for deletion of the article. Once again, none of the points you have mentioned indicate a valid reason to delete the article. Much of what you have stated is a diversion from what is relevant to the issue of deletion.
142.109.127.36 (
talk)
08:21, 23 December 2015 (UTC)(
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xtremedood Xtremedood's sock)
::Interesting question. I think that since Wikipedia English is often the standard bearer of articles and categories, since it consists of more articles than any other language group, is a great place to start such topics. I disagree, however, with the assertion that the articles in the praise category have direct relation to this article. If you look at the praise section, it simply consists of religious practices and does not detail perspectives or views of notable personalities in regards to Muhammad. It simply consists of three articles,
Mawlid,
Durood, and
Naat, which are simply explanations of practices, but do not give proper insight into historical perspectives of prominent personalities in either Muslim traditions or non-Muslim traditions. I also have no problem with articles for other religious figures such as
Praise and veneration of Jesus,
Praise and veneration of Moses, etc. since articles such as
Criticism of Jesus and
Moses#Criticism_of_Moses do indeed exist.
142.109.127.36 (
talk)
04:31, 23 December 2015 (UTC)(
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xtremedood Xtremedood's sock)
God is indeed saluting the Prophet Muhammad and his angels are doing so. Oh you have believed! Salute him and greet him with greetings of peace.
— Qur'an 33:56
And indeed, you are O Muhammad of a sublime moral character.
— Qur'an 68:4
Keep : it is a subject in its own right. Books have been written specifically on this subject such as Annemarie Schimmel. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Muhammad-His-Messenger-Veneration-Religion/dp/0807841285/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8
The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE The Bushranger One ping only 04:51, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Too soon. Sources have single mention, no significant coverage, searching found lots of social media. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:26, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 04:50, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Not finding sources that they are notable Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 03:30, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
* Delete no reliable sources.
Doc James (
talk ·
contribs ·
email) 00:39, 21 December 2015 (UTC) This is actually the nominator himself.
SwisterTwister
talk
05:56, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Dat Guy Talk Contribs 16:01, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Delere: as non-notable entertainer. Quis separabit? 03:07, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 04:49, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 02:35, 20 December 2015 (UTC)