![]() |
The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#Applicability #1. The nominator has withdrawn the nomination and no one else recommended that the page be deleted. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 21:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Category:Iranian painters can serves this propuse much better and this doesn't seem provide much more information than that. – ebraminio talk 23:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Drmies ( talk) 20:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Just a man with a job (marketing). Notability unclear as most of the content of the article is irrelevant and promo. The Banner talk 22:52, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#Applicability #1. The nominator has withdrawn the nomination and no one else recommended that the page be deleted. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 21:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Category seems more suitable for this and fortunately it is available already: Category:Caricaturists – ebraminio talk 22:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Drmies ( talk) 20:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. This is a recreate of an article deleted at AFD in 2014. I went through every source, they are all brief mentions in sources that are not WP:RS, including product listings and announcements for training classes. Didn't find any WP:RS coverage in a search. Vrac ( talk) 21:55, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Animalparty's interpretation of LISTN is broadly accepted, and the consensus to delete (in which BLP considerations play a part as well) is clear. Drmies ( talk) 20:07, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Hard to see what function if fills. It will never be exhaustive and falls under WP:Trivia -- CFCF 🍌 ( email) 21:08, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. Drmies ( talk) 20:40, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
No sign of WP:N. ЖunalForYou ☎️ 📝 15:59, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. As Andy Dingley pointed out, no one has presented an argument that the subject of this article is not notable. The crux of the matter is whether the article's content itself, as it currently stands, is duplicative of, or would be better off in the context of the Yokosuka E5Y article. I see editors stating we should merge and others stating we should keep and expand -- but this is an editorial discussion that does not relate to deletion. I would encourage participants to continue the merge discussion on the appropriate talk pages per WP:MERGEPROP. ( non-admin closure) Mz7 ( talk) 02:55, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
The article is inaccurate and very incomplete, apart from the fact that the Kawanishi aircraft were merely variants of the Yokosuka originalsand the Yokosuka E5Y articles covers the subject more accurately and more completely Petebutt ( talk) 16:20, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. While Michig's links establish that the band existed, no evidence is provided of decent coverage per GNG or notability otherwise via BAND. Drmies ( talk) 20:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. The claims to notability aren't backed up by the sources. Seems promotional, also. Has been tagged for notability for over 7 years, unresolved. Boleyn ( talk) 17:14, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 21:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
This author has put out three books, none of which have received a large enough amount of coverage to where LaChance would merit his own article. The only two somewhat decent sources I've added to the article - the first one is only semi-usable since the article isn't about LaChance himself. Most of the sources out there are ones like this one, where he's quoted but isn't the focus of the article itself. There's some mild coverage for the paranormal group, but it all seems to be local and fairly sparse. I don't really think that he passes notability guidelines as a whole, even if we were to try to add in information about his group. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 08:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. If only editors could spend as much time on other subjects as they do on every college's not-yet-played sport seasons. Clear consensus is to keep, since, well, every season in every sport is notable, it seems. Drmies ( talk) 20:43, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Kevin12 x d 02:15, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Um, what? There are dozens and dozens of 2015-16 college basketball team articles already up. Keep. Jhn31 ( talk) 02:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Keep - Though I don't believe that the mere existence of other 2015-16 articles is enough to justify keeping this, I can't say that this article alone should be deleted. I also don't agree with Jhn31's reasoning that the Illinois discussion applies here as that was for a men's team. There seems to be a consensus that all men's seasons now meet notability thresholds given the high level of national coverage that even small conferences now receive in this day and age. For better or worse, women's basketball does not receive this same level of coverage and notability beyond a very few programs (i.e. UConn) is not guaranteed from season to season. Bad teams, even in big conferences rarely receive significant, independent, non-routine coverage outside of a local level and may not need a season article. That being said, given that every single SEC team has an article from the 2014-15 season and none are being challenged on notability merits, I have no reason to challenge a 2016 SEC season article on such merits. Where the Illinois discussion does apply is that is is clearly no longer too soon for such an article. If this were to be a proxy discussion on notability thresholds for women's team season articles in general, I might vote differently, but clearly the lack of discussion means that this isn't the case, so keep. SCMatt33 ( talk) 19:47, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 21:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Doesn't appear to meet
WP:NMUSIC. Sources are either not about him (they're about Disneyland and never mention Presley by name) or are not
independent (his website, sites selling his music, interviews, etc).
Ahecht (
TALK
PAGE)
15:29, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Drmies ( talk) 20:43, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
No sources, I suspect a WP:HOAX Müdigkeit ( talk) 19:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Delete - This seems more like a case of WP:CRYSTAL to me. Racer -Ωmegα 00:06, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
@ Müdigkeit: I could not find any sources other than Wikipedia itself, so it is most certainly obvious speculation. Racer -Ωmegα 21:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. The AfD for this highly promotional article is notable because the keep voters, unfortunately, do not present a single valid policy-based reason to keep the article. What we have left, then, is a consensus of editors pointing out that there are no reliable sources to prove that the subject is notable by our standards. Drmies ( talk) 20:49, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
One eye-donation camp and a candle-light march for earthquake relief. Doesn't pass WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Last AfD was closed as no consensus. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 11:32, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Keep. The article should not be deleted because it is notable for conducting social awareness programmes in colleges of Haryana. It is clear from the sources that it has conducted many such programmes so it should be edited or improved but not deleted because we have many articles on Wikipedia about NGO's working in a particular region and notable in those regions but not even heard of in other regions. Some users seem to don't know "what is notable in Haryana", They tried to delete Sanatan Dharma College for the same notability reasons. Owais Khursheed ( Talk to me) 11:48, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Keep This organisation is working for the welfare of society since 2013. Many programs and camps organised under this society. In Patna we are running a NO HORN CAMPAIGN with cooperation of patna police . Traffic S.P Pranatosh Kumar Das is with us in this campaign. This organisation is new but it notable in many part of india. So NGO NAYI UMEED article should not be deleted from wikipedia. Abh423 ( Talk to me) 12:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC) — Abh423 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Note: User:Abh423 is the creator of this article. Disclosure added per WP:AFDFORMAT.
The result was keep. The consensus here is that the article does meet the notability guidelines. There has been some editing during the discussion to address the advertising concerns and it may need more. Davewild ( talk) 17:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Essentially an advertisement. Direct promotional language: "The acquisition of MakeMeReach has enabled GrowMobile by Perion to expand its position as the industry’s most complete and comprehensive automated mobile marketing platform" ; "GrowMobile by Perion helps mobile marketers acquire and engage users"
Most of the references are press releases; the others are mentions. DGG ( talk ) 04:23, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
The article notes:
Perion, formerly Incredimail, grew as a developer of free apps (mostly smileys) for e-mail users. Over time, mostly through acquisitions, the company has expanded its products line in order to become a leader in the Internet consumer field. So far, Perion seems to be headed down the right road, and the acquisition of SweetPacks should boost the company's revenue to over $100 million next year.
I also don't consider Globes, The Times of Israel, and TechCrunch to be the financial press.
Source #8 ("Perion extends Microsoft deal, ups mobile business") is about a business deal and Perion's mobile business. Is this the kind of article (which is not about stock movements or mergers and acquisitions) you were seeking? Cunard ( talk) 04:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
PR: TEL AVIV, Israel & SAN FRANCISCO--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- Perion Network, PR: Ltd. (NASDAQ: PERI) announced today that it has signed a 3 year PR: agreement with Bing, extending its existing partnership, starting PR: January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2017. TI: Israel’s Perion Networks is extending its agreement TI: with Microsoft’s Bing search service, meaning Bing will keep powering TI: search in Perion products for desktop and mobile platforms. The deal, TI: announced Friday, extends the partnership between the two companies at TI: least through the end of 2017.
PR: Upon mutual agreement, the PR: agreement may be renewed for 2018 as well. The agreement includes PR: desktop and tablet distribution with limited exclusivity in the United PR: States as well as mobile distribution. TI: With the deal, Perion becomes Bing’s prime — and only — partner for TI: search on desktops and tablets in the US, as well as mobile TI: platforms.
PR: In addition to Bing and Google, the Company also has search PR: distribution partnerships with Ask.com and Yahoo. TI: Bing isn’t Perion’s only search partner. The company has deals with Yahoo TI: and Ask.com, and for the past several years has had an arrangement TI: with Google, as well
PR: In parallel, and in conjunction with the fact that revenues from PR: Google are no longer material to Perion, the Company decided to PR: exercise its right to opt-out of its ClientConnect agreement with PR: Google as of August 31, 2014. TI: though Perion said it would opt out of that agreement at the end TI: of August, because “revenues from Google are no longer material to TI: Perion.” Last year Perion acquired Israeli company TI: Conduit’s ClientConnect toolbar business for $660 million.
It is unclear how this topic can be non-notable. There are numerous strong sources that establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.Perion had been chiefly a consumer-oriented software company. IncrediMail is a free program that provides backgrounds, emoticons, signatures, animations, and more for both POP and web mail accounts, and Smilebox lets users share personal media (photos, videos, music) and content types (greetings, invitations, slideshows, scrapbooks, photo albums, collages and more) via any sharing method (email, print, burn to DVD, post to Facebook, blog, Twitter or SMS). Other products include Photojoy, which converts photos into collages, puzzles and screensavers; Molto, a mobile email app, and instant messaging service SweetIM.
The result was no consensus. There is no consensus here on whether the article meets the notability guidelines. Davewild ( talk) 17:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I started to improve the article and, while it could stay like this with now added sources, I'm not sure if it meets the notability guidelines even in the slightest (unless the awards are somewhat significant). My searches (News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary) found nothing else aside from some of the current sources and this. The name "Juliarb" may suggest someone connected to the subject started the article and it has not received ample improvement since then until today. SwisterTwister talk 06:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Drmies ( talk) 21:22, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Probably non-notable. Only a few passing mentions in Google (incl. 1 book with 1-2 sentences). The article also contains non-neutral phrases and needs more sources (esp. for a BLP article). Notability is not inherited from her husband's political offices (some of the information is already copied in her husband's article). GermanJoe ( talk) 19:28, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. Pity the AfD didn't decided whether the medal alone conferred notability: these are important matters. But consensus, buoyed by the sourcing added by Tomsulcer, is to keep. Drmies ( talk) 21:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure if she's notable (she may be somewhat well known and notable at her field) with my searches finding nothing particularly outstanding here, here, here and here. SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Drmies ( talk) 21:28, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I couldn't establish that they meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. Sending WP:APPNOTE to Joe Chill, Michig and Becky Sayles. Boleyn ( talk) 18:48, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Kraxler ( talk) 15:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
While I strongly admire her work, I'm not seeing a credible assertion of notability for this writer/activist. Orange Mike | Talk 18:23, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Gang bang pornography#Gangbang 2000. This is her only claim to an achievement and it is a plausible search item. The subject fails WP:PORNBIO and WP:GNG can not be passed solely by in-trade publications. ( non-admin closure) Kraxler ( talk) 15:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Fails PORNBIO and GNG Spartaz Humbug! 15:53, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Drmies ( talk) 21:36, 2 August 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 the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 15:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. North America 1000 20:15, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Fails PORNBIO and GNG Spartaz Humbug! 15:47, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
* Weak Keep but definitely needs more reliable sources to add.
Katerina dunaway (
talk)
03:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC) —
Katerina dunaway (
talk •
contribs) is a
confirmed sockpuppet of
Sofiamar (
talk •
contribs).
The result was delete. North America 1000 20:13, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Fails GNG and PORNBIO Spartaz Humbug! 15:46, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. North America 1000 20:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Fails PORNBIO and GNG and the only claim to fame is someone tried to crowd source funding of medical bills - not something that is ever likely to move out of BLP1E territory - if it even reaches that level of significance Spartaz Humbug! 15:45, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Comment I created this as a redirect to Jessie Lee Elementary School, but there seems to have been edit warring going on and Rebecca1990 repeatedly created it as the existing article. Whatever is found about her notability, I think the dab ( Jessie Lee (disambiguation)) should be moved to Jessie Lee. Sending WP:APPNOTE to Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Boleyn ( talk) 18:23, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Mz7 ( talk) 02:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Nominating for deletion, as the school does not satisfy WP:GNG, pr WP:ORG with the sources it currently has, and clicking through plenty of Google search results turned up nothing that established notability. I'd also like to, in advance, state that WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is a guideline, and WP:ORG, plus WP:GNG are what we need to use to establish notability. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 15:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. To some extent the discussion hinges on the applicability of NLIST, but Toohoo's comment counters that, to the extent that they argue that this topic does not deserve to stand alone as an article, and claims that this fails NOTDIR support that argument. Drmies ( talk) 21:36, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Inherently incomplete and ever-changing list. Bikefridaywalter said it quite well, What's the point of this list? -- RoySmith (talk) 15:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
When a particular website's use of MFA has been noted by secondary sources, e.g. a news article about Twitter adding it, that may be worth noting- I would agree with a merge if it were only Google, FaceBook, and Dropbox, but there are a whole lot of sites covered by reliable sources. It's pretty easy to find sources for them, since every publication wants to tell its readers how to be safer. There were already several in the list and I just added a bunch more. That there are both news stories about individual services adding it as well as lists of sites that offer it establish notability, so I fail to see what policy-based reason there would be not to keep it. It could indeed be a relatively long list (which isn't a problem as long as we stick to those that are reliably sourced), so why would it be better for it to occupy a big portion of one of those other articles? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:10, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Consensus is that the article does not meet the notability guidelines. Davewild ( talk) 15:40, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Notability tag on this article for 5 years. I see some occasional reference to him in the US Jewish press, but nothing more than a note that he's speaking. No substantial secondary source coverage. Article was deleted in 2007 but recreated at some point after that. Can't speedy because I don't know if the content is the same. agtx 15:12, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
* Weak Keep But the article needs to be improved.
Katerina dunaway (
talk)
03:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC) —
Katerina dunaway (
talk •
contribs) is a
confirmed sockpuppet of
Sofiamar (
talk •
contribs).
The result was delete. Davewild ( talk) 15:38, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Non-notable figure. provided references are not reliable and independet thus not acceptable. Saqib ( talk) 14:53, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was Keep. Ricky81682 ( talk) 01:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Non-notable faux order created by members of a self-appointed Royal House of Georgia. Significant sourcing only to that organization's website. No news hits, no Scholar hits, Google search dominated by Wiki mirrors and heraldry blogs. Fails the GNG going away, despite a blizzard of citations that don't actually discuss this "order" in more than a passing mention, if at all. I've nothing against self-proclaimed "nobles" of a non-existent "kingdom" declaring their right to award an honor defunct nearly a thousand years and getting fanboys running monarchist blogs to include capsule descriptions, but it's the moral equivalent of a WP:NFT violation.
This keeps getting recreated (and AfDed) every couple of years in various iterations, and at this point I think salting the name would be appropriate. Ravenswing 14:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
And so on and so forth. A careful look at this article shows that it's a rambling WP:COATRACK violation, full of facts about two holders who got married and how that purportedly bolstered interest in a constitutional monarchy, about a holder who is allegedly the most trusted man in Georgia, that Prince Jorge was invited to the most recent Spanish coronation, that the Patriarch of Georgia had called for the restoration of the monarchy. These do not pertain to the subject of this article, which is neither the Bagrations, the nation of Georgia, the ambitions of die-hard monarchists, or the blizzard of pretenders name-dropped through this article. That is indeed my personal opinion, but unlike Mr. Romanov's personal opinion, it's founded in Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Ravenswing 07:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
At first, the newly published Armorial of the Order of the Eagle of Georgia, newely added as a source to the article, where the Histry of the Order and the biographies of the current knights and ladies are carefully described. Link to the Editor: http://www.romeditors.com/producto/armorial-de-la-orden-del-aguila-de-georgia-y-la-tunica-inconsutil-de-nuestro-senor-jesucristo/. This book has its ISBN number and has been published by an independent Editor (Romeditors).
On the other hand, this book ( http://www.librosdeheraldica.com/images/historia%20de%20la%20orden%20del%20aguila.jpg), which I own, published by the Spanish Heraldic Society, where the History of the Order is described by Fernando Agudo and José Maria Montells, two reputated authors on herladry and Orders in Spain, shows more evidence of the notablity of the Order of the Eagle of Georgia, what encourages it to be on wikipedia.
Finally, as you quoted some newspapers, I give you again an exlicit article from one of the most read newspapers in Spain, La Razón, where an event of the Order in Valencia is described, quoting the Order as an honourfull decoration (honroso galardón) and as the highest decoration of the Royal House (máxima condecoración de la casa real.). Here you can see the link: http://www.larazon.es/local/comunidad-valenciana/la-casa-real-de-georgia-entrega-sus-condecorac-BH2988047#.Ttt1KwXthLljf7h. Alexeinikolayevichromanov ( talk) 14:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was merge to Biblical astronomy. There is a clear consensus to move/rename/merge this to/to/with Biblical astronomy (which in itself appears to be a redirect. I invited participating voters to make sure that this finds the proper spot. With thanks to all participants, including the nominator. Drmies ( talk) 21:39, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
OK. this is an odd one. I deleted this article as a pretty much straight copy of this web page which has a copyright notice on it, but it was then pointed out to me that the web page itself is a transcript of the "Astronomy in the Bible" entry from The Catholic Encyclopedia of 1907, and is thus out of copyright. My issue is - is this a viable Wikipedia article? Is it a notable topic? And more of an issue, although it's from an encyclopedia, it reads like original research. The original only has a couple of citations (see the web page mentioned above), and the ones added to this article only serve to inform single sentences about a couple of stars, not the subject as a whole. Further, of course, it contains no research done on the subject since 1907, and is therefore over a century out of date. Thoughts? Black Kite (talk) 13:34, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Really only editor argues that there is sufficient in-depth sourcing, but there is no consensus (at all) that this is indeed so. Arguments along the lines of "we know it exists but it just hasn't been written about in depth" go to the heart of what GNG requires, but misses the central point of significant discussion, which excludes brief mentions. Drmies ( talk) 22:07, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
This informal school playground version of football certainly exists as a concept (I remember playing it at junior school back in the 80s) but it has never been the subject of any coverage by reliable sources and is therefore not notable (impressively, the article seems to have existed without any references at all for over 10 years). I briefly considered merging to Glossary of association football terms, but the countless alternate names for the game would render this pretty much impossible (not to mention the total lack of reliable sources to back it up), so deletion is probably best ChrisTheDude ( talk) 20:43, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Who says you have to score once or twice?"pre-determined number of goals";
How many on team?"players playing individually or in pairs".
how long is a game?"The player failing to score in each round is eliminated until there is a winner." If you want an article on a football variation with no rules, see medieval football. Number 5 7 21:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was Speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. Wikic¤l¤gy t@lk to M£ 15:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Subject of the article fails WP:NACTOR. Subject of the article fails the primary inclusion criteria. No significant coverages in multiple independent reliable sources to establish its notability. Wikic¤l¤gy t@lk to M£ 09:56, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Comment: I hereby withdraw my nomination to Keep the article since notability has been established. I'm closing this debate to prevent a waste of time of other editors.
Wikic¤l¤gy
t@lk to M£
15:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Davewild ( talk) 15:36, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Delete: as non-notable child actor/model whose career ended in 2008. Quis separabit? 23:46, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Davewild ( talk) 15:35, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
This article duplicates that information in List of cities by GDP relating to India. List of cities by GDP provides the same ability to see Indian cities ordered by GDP (see Help:Sorting#Secondary key), but with a choice of GDP surveys, PPP and nominal. And clearly List of cities by GDP provides the ability to see how Indian cities compare with others across the world. Batternut ( talk) 09:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Alton Towers. Don't usually close on one !vote but seems the obvious outcome here, No point dragging it on so rediretc it shall be ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 04:34, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
This is a mass-produced ride that is not unique or different. Article fails to shown any notability. Astros4477 ( Talk) 03:56, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Davewild ( talk) 15:35, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
A trivial list of mostly WP:FANCRUFT. Koala15 ( talk) 05:20, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: I strongly disagree with the content of the non-administrative closure, below. I agree that the result of the discussion is keep, but it is not for the reasons given. The consensus of the discussion is explicitly not that the subject passes GNG; the discussion of the sources is quite clear: there is considerable disagreement over how they are to be weighed. In the end, ANYBIO must carry the day: at least one acceptable source verifies the Murrow award, which is significant enough (that it is is not disputed). Drmies ( talk) 22:17, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep (
non-admin closure). The consensus is that, while the article may not meet each specification of
WP:JOURNALIST, Mackenzie meets
WP:GNG. At the end of the day, the Toronto Sun and Etobicoke Guardian articles are independent, reliable sources providing significant coverage of the article subject - ample evidence that the subject meets GNG.
North of Eden (
talk)
21:07, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisting for further consideration following a no-consensus close in February. The core issue is that the article is not based on substantive coverage in properly reliable sources, but is resting entirely on a "local celebrities show off their homes" puff piece in a newspaper's "Homes and Condos" column (#1), a journalism school newsletter (#2) and her own primary source profile on the website of her own employer (#3). While the article asserts an award win that would get her over WP:JOURNALIST if it were properly sourced, as written it's sourced only to that "look at my lovely furniture" advertorial rather than a real news article. As always, a journalist does not get into Wikipedia just because it's possible to verify the fact that she exists — she gets into Wikipedia by being the subject of substantive coverage in reliable sources, but that hasn't been demonstrated here. Still a delete unless it can be salvaged with much better sourcing than this. Bearcat ( talk) 15:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Davewild ( talk) 15:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Absolutely nothing good to suggest independent notability with the best results of my searches here, here and here. At best, out of the linking articles, I think this could be moved to Lewis H. Nash. SwisterTwister talk 06:16, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. Davewild ( talk) 15:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Very badly sourced fancruft Vibhss ( talk) 21:39, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. Davewild ( talk) 15:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Kelo was a big case, but I ultimately don't think it is enough to carry Dana Berliner to notability. She gets mentioned in the press occasionally [38], but that's about it for secondary sources.. Agtx ( talk) 01:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Davewild ( talk) 17:29, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Fails WP:NBOOK: I am unable to find any non-trivial reviews of the novel. The article has been tagged with {{ Notability}} for 5 years and the none of the three references show any notable coverage. — Bilorv (talk) (c) (e) 13:07, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria #2 says that a book is notable if "The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself." Cunard ( talk) 01:00, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. North America 1000 04:43, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
As much information this article has, my searches (News, Books, browser, Newspapers Archive, highbeam and thefreelibrary found nothing) and the only current sources are interviews with family and friends and the blogspot for the Chicago Artist Archives. The article has existed since July 2008 with basically no improvement and I'm not seeing any anytime soon. As usual, I could've PRODded this but I wanted a consensus to compliment it. It's also worth mentioning User:RayAYang mentioned these issues at the talk page the day of the article's inception and I'm not from Chicago so I'm not sure how much about him is stored away in archives (probably not marginally locally notable). SwisterTwister talk 06:53, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Consensus is that the article is promotional (though nominator should be warned: this in itself is not a reason for deletion!) and lacks reliable secondary sources verifying notability. Drmies ( talk) 22:24, 2 August 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}} . |
Promotional. →Enock4seth (talk) 16:32, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. North America 1000 04:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Potentially non-notable software. I dream of horses ( T) @ 01:54, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Consensus is that the article does not meet the notability guidelines. This does not prevent anyone from creating a redirect as suggested. Davewild ( talk) 15:04, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Potentially non-notable app. I dream of horses ( T) @ 01:49, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#Applicability #1. The nominator has withdrawn the nomination and no one else recommended that the page be deleted. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 21:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Category:Iranian painters can serves this propuse much better and this doesn't seem provide much more information than that. – ebraminio talk 23:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Drmies ( talk) 20:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Just a man with a job (marketing). Notability unclear as most of the content of the article is irrelevant and promo. The Banner talk 22:52, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#Applicability #1. The nominator has withdrawn the nomination and no one else recommended that the page be deleted. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 21:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Category seems more suitable for this and fortunately it is available already: Category:Caricaturists – ebraminio talk 22:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Drmies ( talk) 20:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. This is a recreate of an article deleted at AFD in 2014. I went through every source, they are all brief mentions in sources that are not WP:RS, including product listings and announcements for training classes. Didn't find any WP:RS coverage in a search. Vrac ( talk) 21:55, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Animalparty's interpretation of LISTN is broadly accepted, and the consensus to delete (in which BLP considerations play a part as well) is clear. Drmies ( talk) 20:07, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Hard to see what function if fills. It will never be exhaustive and falls under WP:Trivia -- CFCF 🍌 ( email) 21:08, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. Drmies ( talk) 20:40, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
No sign of WP:N. ЖunalForYou ☎️ 📝 15:59, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. As Andy Dingley pointed out, no one has presented an argument that the subject of this article is not notable. The crux of the matter is whether the article's content itself, as it currently stands, is duplicative of, or would be better off in the context of the Yokosuka E5Y article. I see editors stating we should merge and others stating we should keep and expand -- but this is an editorial discussion that does not relate to deletion. I would encourage participants to continue the merge discussion on the appropriate talk pages per WP:MERGEPROP. ( non-admin closure) Mz7 ( talk) 02:55, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
The article is inaccurate and very incomplete, apart from the fact that the Kawanishi aircraft were merely variants of the Yokosuka originalsand the Yokosuka E5Y articles covers the subject more accurately and more completely Petebutt ( talk) 16:20, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. While Michig's links establish that the band existed, no evidence is provided of decent coverage per GNG or notability otherwise via BAND. Drmies ( talk) 20:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. The claims to notability aren't backed up by the sources. Seems promotional, also. Has been tagged for notability for over 7 years, unresolved. Boleyn ( talk) 17:14, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 21:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
This author has put out three books, none of which have received a large enough amount of coverage to where LaChance would merit his own article. The only two somewhat decent sources I've added to the article - the first one is only semi-usable since the article isn't about LaChance himself. Most of the sources out there are ones like this one, where he's quoted but isn't the focus of the article itself. There's some mild coverage for the paranormal group, but it all seems to be local and fairly sparse. I don't really think that he passes notability guidelines as a whole, even if we were to try to add in information about his group. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 08:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. If only editors could spend as much time on other subjects as they do on every college's not-yet-played sport seasons. Clear consensus is to keep, since, well, every season in every sport is notable, it seems. Drmies ( talk) 20:43, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Kevin12 x d 02:15, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Um, what? There are dozens and dozens of 2015-16 college basketball team articles already up. Keep. Jhn31 ( talk) 02:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Keep - Though I don't believe that the mere existence of other 2015-16 articles is enough to justify keeping this, I can't say that this article alone should be deleted. I also don't agree with Jhn31's reasoning that the Illinois discussion applies here as that was for a men's team. There seems to be a consensus that all men's seasons now meet notability thresholds given the high level of national coverage that even small conferences now receive in this day and age. For better or worse, women's basketball does not receive this same level of coverage and notability beyond a very few programs (i.e. UConn) is not guaranteed from season to season. Bad teams, even in big conferences rarely receive significant, independent, non-routine coverage outside of a local level and may not need a season article. That being said, given that every single SEC team has an article from the 2014-15 season and none are being challenged on notability merits, I have no reason to challenge a 2016 SEC season article on such merits. Where the Illinois discussion does apply is that is is clearly no longer too soon for such an article. If this were to be a proxy discussion on notability thresholds for women's team season articles in general, I might vote differently, but clearly the lack of discussion means that this isn't the case, so keep. SCMatt33 ( talk) 19:47, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 21:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Doesn't appear to meet
WP:NMUSIC. Sources are either not about him (they're about Disneyland and never mention Presley by name) or are not
independent (his website, sites selling his music, interviews, etc).
Ahecht (
TALK
PAGE)
15:29, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Drmies ( talk) 20:43, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
No sources, I suspect a WP:HOAX Müdigkeit ( talk) 19:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Delete - This seems more like a case of WP:CRYSTAL to me. Racer -Ωmegα 00:06, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
@ Müdigkeit: I could not find any sources other than Wikipedia itself, so it is most certainly obvious speculation. Racer -Ωmegα 21:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. The AfD for this highly promotional article is notable because the keep voters, unfortunately, do not present a single valid policy-based reason to keep the article. What we have left, then, is a consensus of editors pointing out that there are no reliable sources to prove that the subject is notable by our standards. Drmies ( talk) 20:49, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
One eye-donation camp and a candle-light march for earthquake relief. Doesn't pass WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Last AfD was closed as no consensus. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 11:32, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Keep. The article should not be deleted because it is notable for conducting social awareness programmes in colleges of Haryana. It is clear from the sources that it has conducted many such programmes so it should be edited or improved but not deleted because we have many articles on Wikipedia about NGO's working in a particular region and notable in those regions but not even heard of in other regions. Some users seem to don't know "what is notable in Haryana", They tried to delete Sanatan Dharma College for the same notability reasons. Owais Khursheed ( Talk to me) 11:48, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Keep This organisation is working for the welfare of society since 2013. Many programs and camps organised under this society. In Patna we are running a NO HORN CAMPAIGN with cooperation of patna police . Traffic S.P Pranatosh Kumar Das is with us in this campaign. This organisation is new but it notable in many part of india. So NGO NAYI UMEED article should not be deleted from wikipedia. Abh423 ( Talk to me) 12:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC) — Abh423 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Note: User:Abh423 is the creator of this article. Disclosure added per WP:AFDFORMAT.
The result was keep. The consensus here is that the article does meet the notability guidelines. There has been some editing during the discussion to address the advertising concerns and it may need more. Davewild ( talk) 17:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Essentially an advertisement. Direct promotional language: "The acquisition of MakeMeReach has enabled GrowMobile by Perion to expand its position as the industry’s most complete and comprehensive automated mobile marketing platform" ; "GrowMobile by Perion helps mobile marketers acquire and engage users"
Most of the references are press releases; the others are mentions. DGG ( talk ) 04:23, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
The article notes:
Perion, formerly Incredimail, grew as a developer of free apps (mostly smileys) for e-mail users. Over time, mostly through acquisitions, the company has expanded its products line in order to become a leader in the Internet consumer field. So far, Perion seems to be headed down the right road, and the acquisition of SweetPacks should boost the company's revenue to over $100 million next year.
I also don't consider Globes, The Times of Israel, and TechCrunch to be the financial press.
Source #8 ("Perion extends Microsoft deal, ups mobile business") is about a business deal and Perion's mobile business. Is this the kind of article (which is not about stock movements or mergers and acquisitions) you were seeking? Cunard ( talk) 04:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
PR: TEL AVIV, Israel & SAN FRANCISCO--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- Perion Network, PR: Ltd. (NASDAQ: PERI) announced today that it has signed a 3 year PR: agreement with Bing, extending its existing partnership, starting PR: January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2017. TI: Israel’s Perion Networks is extending its agreement TI: with Microsoft’s Bing search service, meaning Bing will keep powering TI: search in Perion products for desktop and mobile platforms. The deal, TI: announced Friday, extends the partnership between the two companies at TI: least through the end of 2017.
PR: Upon mutual agreement, the PR: agreement may be renewed for 2018 as well. The agreement includes PR: desktop and tablet distribution with limited exclusivity in the United PR: States as well as mobile distribution. TI: With the deal, Perion becomes Bing’s prime — and only — partner for TI: search on desktops and tablets in the US, as well as mobile TI: platforms.
PR: In addition to Bing and Google, the Company also has search PR: distribution partnerships with Ask.com and Yahoo. TI: Bing isn’t Perion’s only search partner. The company has deals with Yahoo TI: and Ask.com, and for the past several years has had an arrangement TI: with Google, as well
PR: In parallel, and in conjunction with the fact that revenues from PR: Google are no longer material to Perion, the Company decided to PR: exercise its right to opt-out of its ClientConnect agreement with PR: Google as of August 31, 2014. TI: though Perion said it would opt out of that agreement at the end TI: of August, because “revenues from Google are no longer material to TI: Perion.” Last year Perion acquired Israeli company TI: Conduit’s ClientConnect toolbar business for $660 million.
It is unclear how this topic can be non-notable. There are numerous strong sources that establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.Perion had been chiefly a consumer-oriented software company. IncrediMail is a free program that provides backgrounds, emoticons, signatures, animations, and more for both POP and web mail accounts, and Smilebox lets users share personal media (photos, videos, music) and content types (greetings, invitations, slideshows, scrapbooks, photo albums, collages and more) via any sharing method (email, print, burn to DVD, post to Facebook, blog, Twitter or SMS). Other products include Photojoy, which converts photos into collages, puzzles and screensavers; Molto, a mobile email app, and instant messaging service SweetIM.
The result was no consensus. There is no consensus here on whether the article meets the notability guidelines. Davewild ( talk) 17:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I started to improve the article and, while it could stay like this with now added sources, I'm not sure if it meets the notability guidelines even in the slightest (unless the awards are somewhat significant). My searches (News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary) found nothing else aside from some of the current sources and this. The name "Juliarb" may suggest someone connected to the subject started the article and it has not received ample improvement since then until today. SwisterTwister talk 06:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Drmies ( talk) 21:22, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Probably non-notable. Only a few passing mentions in Google (incl. 1 book with 1-2 sentences). The article also contains non-neutral phrases and needs more sources (esp. for a BLP article). Notability is not inherited from her husband's political offices (some of the information is already copied in her husband's article). GermanJoe ( talk) 19:28, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. Pity the AfD didn't decided whether the medal alone conferred notability: these are important matters. But consensus, buoyed by the sourcing added by Tomsulcer, is to keep. Drmies ( talk) 21:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure if she's notable (she may be somewhat well known and notable at her field) with my searches finding nothing particularly outstanding here, here, here and here. SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Drmies ( talk) 21:28, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I couldn't establish that they meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. Sending WP:APPNOTE to Joe Chill, Michig and Becky Sayles. Boleyn ( talk) 18:48, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Kraxler ( talk) 15:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
While I strongly admire her work, I'm not seeing a credible assertion of notability for this writer/activist. Orange Mike | Talk 18:23, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Gang bang pornography#Gangbang 2000. This is her only claim to an achievement and it is a plausible search item. The subject fails WP:PORNBIO and WP:GNG can not be passed solely by in-trade publications. ( non-admin closure) Kraxler ( talk) 15:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Fails PORNBIO and GNG Spartaz Humbug! 15:53, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Drmies ( talk) 21:36, 2 August 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 the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 15:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. North America 1000 20:15, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Fails PORNBIO and GNG Spartaz Humbug! 15:47, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
* Weak Keep but definitely needs more reliable sources to add.
Katerina dunaway (
talk)
03:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC) —
Katerina dunaway (
talk •
contribs) is a
confirmed sockpuppet of
Sofiamar (
talk •
contribs).
The result was delete. North America 1000 20:13, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Fails GNG and PORNBIO Spartaz Humbug! 15:46, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. North America 1000 20:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Fails PORNBIO and GNG and the only claim to fame is someone tried to crowd source funding of medical bills - not something that is ever likely to move out of BLP1E territory - if it even reaches that level of significance Spartaz Humbug! 15:45, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Comment I created this as a redirect to Jessie Lee Elementary School, but there seems to have been edit warring going on and Rebecca1990 repeatedly created it as the existing article. Whatever is found about her notability, I think the dab ( Jessie Lee (disambiguation)) should be moved to Jessie Lee. Sending WP:APPNOTE to Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Boleyn ( talk) 18:23, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Mz7 ( talk) 02:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Nominating for deletion, as the school does not satisfy WP:GNG, pr WP:ORG with the sources it currently has, and clicking through plenty of Google search results turned up nothing that established notability. I'd also like to, in advance, state that WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is a guideline, and WP:ORG, plus WP:GNG are what we need to use to establish notability. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 15:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. To some extent the discussion hinges on the applicability of NLIST, but Toohoo's comment counters that, to the extent that they argue that this topic does not deserve to stand alone as an article, and claims that this fails NOTDIR support that argument. Drmies ( talk) 21:36, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Inherently incomplete and ever-changing list. Bikefridaywalter said it quite well, What's the point of this list? -- RoySmith (talk) 15:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
When a particular website's use of MFA has been noted by secondary sources, e.g. a news article about Twitter adding it, that may be worth noting- I would agree with a merge if it were only Google, FaceBook, and Dropbox, but there are a whole lot of sites covered by reliable sources. It's pretty easy to find sources for them, since every publication wants to tell its readers how to be safer. There were already several in the list and I just added a bunch more. That there are both news stories about individual services adding it as well as lists of sites that offer it establish notability, so I fail to see what policy-based reason there would be not to keep it. It could indeed be a relatively long list (which isn't a problem as long as we stick to those that are reliably sourced), so why would it be better for it to occupy a big portion of one of those other articles? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:10, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Consensus is that the article does not meet the notability guidelines. Davewild ( talk) 15:40, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Notability tag on this article for 5 years. I see some occasional reference to him in the US Jewish press, but nothing more than a note that he's speaking. No substantial secondary source coverage. Article was deleted in 2007 but recreated at some point after that. Can't speedy because I don't know if the content is the same. agtx 15:12, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
* Weak Keep But the article needs to be improved.
Katerina dunaway (
talk)
03:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC) —
Katerina dunaway (
talk •
contribs) is a
confirmed sockpuppet of
Sofiamar (
talk •
contribs).
The result was delete. Davewild ( talk) 15:38, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Non-notable figure. provided references are not reliable and independet thus not acceptable. Saqib ( talk) 14:53, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was Keep. Ricky81682 ( talk) 01:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Non-notable faux order created by members of a self-appointed Royal House of Georgia. Significant sourcing only to that organization's website. No news hits, no Scholar hits, Google search dominated by Wiki mirrors and heraldry blogs. Fails the GNG going away, despite a blizzard of citations that don't actually discuss this "order" in more than a passing mention, if at all. I've nothing against self-proclaimed "nobles" of a non-existent "kingdom" declaring their right to award an honor defunct nearly a thousand years and getting fanboys running monarchist blogs to include capsule descriptions, but it's the moral equivalent of a WP:NFT violation.
This keeps getting recreated (and AfDed) every couple of years in various iterations, and at this point I think salting the name would be appropriate. Ravenswing 14:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
And so on and so forth. A careful look at this article shows that it's a rambling WP:COATRACK violation, full of facts about two holders who got married and how that purportedly bolstered interest in a constitutional monarchy, about a holder who is allegedly the most trusted man in Georgia, that Prince Jorge was invited to the most recent Spanish coronation, that the Patriarch of Georgia had called for the restoration of the monarchy. These do not pertain to the subject of this article, which is neither the Bagrations, the nation of Georgia, the ambitions of die-hard monarchists, or the blizzard of pretenders name-dropped through this article. That is indeed my personal opinion, but unlike Mr. Romanov's personal opinion, it's founded in Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Ravenswing 07:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
At first, the newly published Armorial of the Order of the Eagle of Georgia, newely added as a source to the article, where the Histry of the Order and the biographies of the current knights and ladies are carefully described. Link to the Editor: http://www.romeditors.com/producto/armorial-de-la-orden-del-aguila-de-georgia-y-la-tunica-inconsutil-de-nuestro-senor-jesucristo/. This book has its ISBN number and has been published by an independent Editor (Romeditors).
On the other hand, this book ( http://www.librosdeheraldica.com/images/historia%20de%20la%20orden%20del%20aguila.jpg), which I own, published by the Spanish Heraldic Society, where the History of the Order is described by Fernando Agudo and José Maria Montells, two reputated authors on herladry and Orders in Spain, shows more evidence of the notablity of the Order of the Eagle of Georgia, what encourages it to be on wikipedia.
Finally, as you quoted some newspapers, I give you again an exlicit article from one of the most read newspapers in Spain, La Razón, where an event of the Order in Valencia is described, quoting the Order as an honourfull decoration (honroso galardón) and as the highest decoration of the Royal House (máxima condecoración de la casa real.). Here you can see the link: http://www.larazon.es/local/comunidad-valenciana/la-casa-real-de-georgia-entrega-sus-condecorac-BH2988047#.Ttt1KwXthLljf7h. Alexeinikolayevichromanov ( talk) 14:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was merge to Biblical astronomy. There is a clear consensus to move/rename/merge this to/to/with Biblical astronomy (which in itself appears to be a redirect. I invited participating voters to make sure that this finds the proper spot. With thanks to all participants, including the nominator. Drmies ( talk) 21:39, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
OK. this is an odd one. I deleted this article as a pretty much straight copy of this web page which has a copyright notice on it, but it was then pointed out to me that the web page itself is a transcript of the "Astronomy in the Bible" entry from The Catholic Encyclopedia of 1907, and is thus out of copyright. My issue is - is this a viable Wikipedia article? Is it a notable topic? And more of an issue, although it's from an encyclopedia, it reads like original research. The original only has a couple of citations (see the web page mentioned above), and the ones added to this article only serve to inform single sentences about a couple of stars, not the subject as a whole. Further, of course, it contains no research done on the subject since 1907, and is therefore over a century out of date. Thoughts? Black Kite (talk) 13:34, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Really only editor argues that there is sufficient in-depth sourcing, but there is no consensus (at all) that this is indeed so. Arguments along the lines of "we know it exists but it just hasn't been written about in depth" go to the heart of what GNG requires, but misses the central point of significant discussion, which excludes brief mentions. Drmies ( talk) 22:07, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
This informal school playground version of football certainly exists as a concept (I remember playing it at junior school back in the 80s) but it has never been the subject of any coverage by reliable sources and is therefore not notable (impressively, the article seems to have existed without any references at all for over 10 years). I briefly considered merging to Glossary of association football terms, but the countless alternate names for the game would render this pretty much impossible (not to mention the total lack of reliable sources to back it up), so deletion is probably best ChrisTheDude ( talk) 20:43, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Who says you have to score once or twice?"pre-determined number of goals";
How many on team?"players playing individually or in pairs".
how long is a game?"The player failing to score in each round is eliminated until there is a winner." If you want an article on a football variation with no rules, see medieval football. Number 5 7 21:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was Speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. Wikic¤l¤gy t@lk to M£ 15:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Subject of the article fails WP:NACTOR. Subject of the article fails the primary inclusion criteria. No significant coverages in multiple independent reliable sources to establish its notability. Wikic¤l¤gy t@lk to M£ 09:56, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Comment: I hereby withdraw my nomination to Keep the article since notability has been established. I'm closing this debate to prevent a waste of time of other editors.
Wikic¤l¤gy
t@lk to M£
15:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Davewild ( talk) 15:36, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Delete: as non-notable child actor/model whose career ended in 2008. Quis separabit? 23:46, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Davewild ( talk) 15:35, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
This article duplicates that information in List of cities by GDP relating to India. List of cities by GDP provides the same ability to see Indian cities ordered by GDP (see Help:Sorting#Secondary key), but with a choice of GDP surveys, PPP and nominal. And clearly List of cities by GDP provides the ability to see how Indian cities compare with others across the world. Batternut ( talk) 09:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Alton Towers. Don't usually close on one !vote but seems the obvious outcome here, No point dragging it on so rediretc it shall be ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 04:34, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
This is a mass-produced ride that is not unique or different. Article fails to shown any notability. Astros4477 ( Talk) 03:56, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Davewild ( talk) 15:35, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
A trivial list of mostly WP:FANCRUFT. Koala15 ( talk) 05:20, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: I strongly disagree with the content of the non-administrative closure, below. I agree that the result of the discussion is keep, but it is not for the reasons given. The consensus of the discussion is explicitly not that the subject passes GNG; the discussion of the sources is quite clear: there is considerable disagreement over how they are to be weighed. In the end, ANYBIO must carry the day: at least one acceptable source verifies the Murrow award, which is significant enough (that it is is not disputed). Drmies ( talk) 22:17, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep (
non-admin closure). The consensus is that, while the article may not meet each specification of
WP:JOURNALIST, Mackenzie meets
WP:GNG. At the end of the day, the Toronto Sun and Etobicoke Guardian articles are independent, reliable sources providing significant coverage of the article subject - ample evidence that the subject meets GNG.
North of Eden (
talk)
21:07, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisting for further consideration following a no-consensus close in February. The core issue is that the article is not based on substantive coverage in properly reliable sources, but is resting entirely on a "local celebrities show off their homes" puff piece in a newspaper's "Homes and Condos" column (#1), a journalism school newsletter (#2) and her own primary source profile on the website of her own employer (#3). While the article asserts an award win that would get her over WP:JOURNALIST if it were properly sourced, as written it's sourced only to that "look at my lovely furniture" advertorial rather than a real news article. As always, a journalist does not get into Wikipedia just because it's possible to verify the fact that she exists — she gets into Wikipedia by being the subject of substantive coverage in reliable sources, but that hasn't been demonstrated here. Still a delete unless it can be salvaged with much better sourcing than this. Bearcat ( talk) 15:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Davewild ( talk) 15:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Absolutely nothing good to suggest independent notability with the best results of my searches here, here and here. At best, out of the linking articles, I think this could be moved to Lewis H. Nash. SwisterTwister talk 06:16, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. Davewild ( talk) 15:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Very badly sourced fancruft Vibhss ( talk) 21:39, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. Davewild ( talk) 15:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Kelo was a big case, but I ultimately don't think it is enough to carry Dana Berliner to notability. She gets mentioned in the press occasionally [38], but that's about it for secondary sources.. Agtx ( talk) 01:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Davewild ( talk) 17:29, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Fails WP:NBOOK: I am unable to find any non-trivial reviews of the novel. The article has been tagged with {{ Notability}} for 5 years and the none of the three references show any notable coverage. — Bilorv (talk) (c) (e) 13:07, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria #2 says that a book is notable if "The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself." Cunard ( talk) 01:00, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. North America 1000 04:43, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
As much information this article has, my searches (News, Books, browser, Newspapers Archive, highbeam and thefreelibrary found nothing) and the only current sources are interviews with family and friends and the blogspot for the Chicago Artist Archives. The article has existed since July 2008 with basically no improvement and I'm not seeing any anytime soon. As usual, I could've PRODded this but I wanted a consensus to compliment it. It's also worth mentioning User:RayAYang mentioned these issues at the talk page the day of the article's inception and I'm not from Chicago so I'm not sure how much about him is stored away in archives (probably not marginally locally notable). SwisterTwister talk 06:53, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Consensus is that the article is promotional (though nominator should be warned: this in itself is not a reason for deletion!) and lacks reliable secondary sources verifying notability. Drmies ( talk) 22:24, 2 August 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}} . |
Promotional. →Enock4seth (talk) 16:32, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. North America 1000 04:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Potentially non-notable software. I dream of horses ( T) @ 01:54, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Consensus is that the article does not meet the notability guidelines. This does not prevent anyone from creating a redirect as suggested. Davewild ( talk) 15:04, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Potentially non-notable app. I dream of horses ( T) @ 01:49, 26 July 2015 (UTC)