The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I am bringing this article to AfD in hopes of stopping the edit war on whether the article should be speedied under G11. (Being written from a neutral point of view, G11 clearly does not apply.) Subject is probably not notable and just misses being eligible for speedy deletion under A7. — teb728 t c 22:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:08, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Completely unsourced article that's written far more like an essay, or more accurately like the outline for an essay, than like a real encyclopedia article. An actual encyclopedia article about this topic might certainly be possible, which is why I'm not just speedying it outright, but it would have to be written and sourced much better, and titled differently, than this. Delete, or sandbox to allow creator further opportunity for improvement — but it is definitely not ready for prime time in this form. Bearcat ( talk) 22:29, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. North America 1000 00:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
fails GNG — OluwaCurtis »» ( talk to me) 22:18, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. North America 1000 00:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Notabiity: fails WP:ARTIST. TheLongTone ( talk) 13:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
:Comment I think he probably is an artist, and worth of inclusion if he is going to that length to get his work and other folks work on scaffolding. He is clearly driven. Make mine a Keep scope_creep 14:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Rodney Durso to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
The result was keep. Consensus is for article retention. North America 1000 00:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Again, this is questionably notable and improvable as the best I found was only this and there's simply no signs of obvious improvement. It's also worth noting two accounts with "SimoneSheffield222" and "SimoneSheffield2222" have considerably interacted with this article. Pinging MichaelQSchmidt, Eusebeus, Crowsnest, Krano, S Marshall, Dan Murphy and Louisprandtl. SwisterTwister talk 17:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
"If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability", and in understanding that the wished-for WP:SUBSTANTIAL is not a guideline, we do have many reliable sources quoting her, or using her as a source for their statements in a more-than-trivial fashion. And, as reflected in the article new bluelinks, she has (co)produced several notable film projects, satisfying WP:CREATIVE even in the lack of the wished for WP:SIGCOV. She does meet WP:BASIC and that kind of sits above the other SNGs in the notability pecking order I should think, specially as one does not over-rule or supplant the other... they work together, not separately. Perhaps Crowsnest might use some of these to assist in further article improvements? Schmidt, Michael Q. 09:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. There are valid arguments for deletion as well as inclusion. However, there is no clear consensus to support either. The article can always be renominated in the future. ( non-admin closure) Ya sh ! 02:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Seemingly non-notable and unimprovable article with my searches finding nothing better than this and there aren't even any signs confirming this label still exists and lastly this article has existed the same since starting in February 2007 (hardly changed much since then too). Pinging interested users Michig, Walter Görlitz and Chubbles. SwisterTwister talk 06:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Non notable per consensus Philg88 ♦ talk 06:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Per WP:BEFORE, nothing at Google News or Books. No indication of notability per WP:GNG or WP:GEOFEAT. No references. PROD was removed without explanation. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 22:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was Keep CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 08:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
This article reads mostly like a dictionary definition, with a bunch of random trivia added on the end (including various TV shows that happen to have included the term). In 10 years, this is all we have managed to come up with; it suggests to me that this article could never pass WP:GNG. — This, that and the other (talk) 00:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was Delete CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 08:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
This article does not display notability as provided by secondary reliable sources. (Take a look at [10]--all trivial mentions by sources or blog comments.) Izno ( talk) 21:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Some links to secondary source:
IJK_Principle ( talk) 23:15, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
A few more:
IJK_Principle ( talk) 00:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
The article was effectively unsourced. I had to rewrite it. Digged a bit to find some quality sources even though that is not easy on the topic of game engine recreations. Matthias M. ( talk) 14:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
I added academic sources and software metrics. Being featured on GitHub Showcase, the Mono project and Microsoft Developer Network should prove notability. The SEO optimized articles you found via your search engine are mostly download page click bait. The independent LWN.net and Phoronix are really valuable sources. I left Rock Paper Shotgun and Kotaku in for reference although they are very light-hearted and superficial. Matthias M. ( talk) 07:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Note: The page was moved to
http://content.gpwiki.org/OpenRA
wikia:opensource:OpenRA instead.
Matthias M. (
talk)
09:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
The result was Redirect to English rugby union system#History until such time as merge is done or notability requirements change. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 08:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I have looked at Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union/Notability and the levels at English rugby union system but do not feel meet they notability requirements for Rugby competition articles (or WP:GNG — Rod talk 10:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because they do not meet the notability requirement:
Keep. The guidelines are far too narrow and need rewriting. If such strict guidelines were followed on other subjects we would be having thousands of discussions, like this, on Wikipedia. Jowaninpensans ( talk) 23:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Delete or at best Merge, including the others listed by the nominator. It clearly doesn't meet any current guidelines, or the spirit of GNG. To be fair I think that more of an effort could have been made to get wider consensus when the competition guidelines were suggested at WP:RU/N, but that is the place to be having that discussion, not here. Where one draws the line I don't know, but it certainly isn't level 11. Many other arguments made above in favour of keeping this article are fallacious; notability is generally accepted as not being inheritable WP:INHERITED; likewise WP:OTHERSTUFF in relation to the comments about soccer; and WP:ATA#CRYSTAL deals with the argument that a team 'might' make it to the championships. Derek Andrews ( talk) 17:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Weak Keep Topic is notable but sources should be improved
Wikienglish123 (
talk) 16:12, 2 November 2015 (UTC) Block evasion -
Supdiop (
T🔹
C)
08:06, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Delete Agree with the points raised by User:Derek Andrews and the nominator. The leagues do not pass WP:GNG as they have not had "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Del♉sion23 (talk) 19:51, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was Delete CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 09:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Article didn't meet WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Also her Film 'Action Hero Biju' is not yet released, its on the post-production process. So i need some editors suggestions whether it should be encyclopedic on Wikipedia or not. Josu4u ( talk) 19:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
References
The result was Delete CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 09:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. The sources in this article fail BIO badly; the only in-depth source is a YouTube interview, all other sources are either mention in passing, niche trade journals (which have trouble with neutrality, and are not "mainstream coverage"), or clearly COI sources tied to the subject or businesses/organizations he is involved in. I reviewed argument at Talk:Robert J. Ivanhoe and I am not impressed; let me shot it down pre-emptively before it re-appears here: "He consistently makes the power 100 list of real estate businesspeople in New York." - so what? WP:ITSIMPORTANT is not a valid argument, and being in the Top 100 of biggest random-type-of-profession-listing in a city, even in the Big Apple, is not a criteria of notability. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete. WP:G5 /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Alex9777777 NeilN talk to me 21:37, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Non-notable radio provider. Doesn't pass WP:GNG. See also WP:BCAST. clpo13( talk) 20:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. Thanks to Cordless Larry and Checkingfax for adding sources. ( non-admin closure) Sam Sailor Talk! 00:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Because this article has no references or sources, there is no evidence of organizational notability. If multiple independent reliable sources can be added, this article may qualify to be kept. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
{{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
01:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)The result was delete. sufficient consensus to delete DGG ( talk ) 04:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Dubious clains of notability, Google search turned up almost nothing about this person that wasn't promotional (e. g. Facebook etc.). davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 18:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 20:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Entirely promotional, comprising a miscellaneous listing of random events. I tried cleaning it up, but in my opinion it's hopeless. Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason. Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encycopedia DGG ( talk ) 20:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was Delete CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 09:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Entirely promotional, comprised of minor events, and the firm's own praise of itself. Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason. Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encyclopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encyclopedia DGG ( talk ) 20:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was Redirect to K3 (band) CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 09:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
fails WP:MUSICBIO; most material I found online is Dutch yet there is no be-wiki article. I don't think there's a case for GNG here. This is one of three articles created by an apparent fan-account. Chris Troutman ( talk) 21:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was Delete CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 09:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Seems like a run of the mill Univ Prof, except for being part of a panel that discussed the She Has a Name play, which is likely why Neelix created the whole article. Basically a coatrack for the play he promoted all over the site Legacypac ( talk) 23:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of The Smurfs episodes#Season 5 (1985). ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Uncertain notability / genuine? Oscarthecat ( talk) 22:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was redirect to K3 (band). Philg88 ♦ talk 06:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
The common outcomes (listed on
WP:MusicOutcomes
WP:MUSICOUTCOMES) states that band members, unless they're spectacular in achievements) do not deserve their own article. This may not even pass
WP:GNG. // Posted by larsona (
Talk) //
22:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was Delete CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 09:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
This small company (10-15 employees) does not appear to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. The references do not support a claim of notability - they are routine articles that seem like they were just copied from press releases (one is press release itself). There also appears to be an aggressive bit of crosswiki promotion going on - the main contributors to the article are single-purpose accounts and the page has been repeatedly deleted on other language projects ( w:es:emaze and w:pt:emaze for example). Deli nk ( talk) 12:38, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 04:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
BLP article about a CEO who seems to have no references for article that has been on the go since mid 2008. Can't find any sources, or any verifiable info on why he is notable. Being given a tech entrepreneur prize does not denote notability. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. scope_creep 11:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Delete per nom and AllyD. Ceosad ( talk) 21:37, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Per consensus Philg88 ♦ talk 06:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Article fails to credibly assert notability of the subject. The main source used in the article appears to be a CV from a genealogy website, and is the only support for personal information in the article. A second source confirms only that Dorman Long & Co were contractors for the Sydney Harbour Bridge. The third source only supports use of Radium bombs as treatment for cancerous growths. Other than the CV, which is a primary source, there is no support for the claim of his involvement in the construction of the Sydney Harbour Bridge, which seems the main "claim to fame". Internet and other searches find other Plunketts, but not this one, indicating that the subject fails to pass WP:GNG. AussieLegend ( ✉) 10:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 20:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
seems to fail WP:ANYBIO thanks in part to all of the "Citations" failing WP:RS Chris Troutman ( talk) 21:15, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was Delete CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 09:19, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Not sure about notability. Claims to be a Canadian website Galaxy Kid ( talk) 17:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. consensus is clear enough after relisting DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
There is a fatal lack of spectacular coverage on this man; he appears to be just another lawyer. He is not mentioned NOR linked in any of the WIkipedia pages for the organizations he supposedly had an impact on. This page is mainly nominated for deletion via WP:ANYBIO. // Posted by larsona ( Talk) // 16:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 20:25, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
This article does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for notability. Simply being a technology journalist or having one trade association award does not make one notable, and the article appears self-promotional in nature. Rhombus ( talk) 15:59, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was Delete -- GB fan 11:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
This is an article about a specialty trade paperback that contains nothing more than a table of contents and hasn't had significant activity since it was created in 2007. It looks suspiciously spammy in nature. Remember that Wikipedia is not for self-promotion, nor is it a catalog. Rhombus ( talk) 15:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Sam Sailor Talk! 00:18, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
This article mainly relies on primary sources, and seems to be a compilation of data that resembles original research. Furthermore, it lacks inline citations, and seems to be an indiscriminate collection of information. It also contains a quite a few peacock phrases, making me wonder about WP:NPOV.
It is possible that a legitimate article could be written on this topic, but this article isn't it. RGloucester — ☎ 03:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 20:34, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Company received routine listing in corp directories, "nth fastest growing" in 2009, and some local "best places to work" award; even the details of foundation and leadership are self-cited. Fails WP:CORP notability requirement. Brianhe ( talk) 01:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Ya sh ! 02:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
A highlights show, not notable in its' own right. RealDealBillMcNeal ( talk) 16:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) clpo13( talk) 00:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
A highlights show, not notable in its' own right. RealDealBillMcNeal ( talk) 16:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. Potential future success is no guarantee of an article, but it doesn't appear to be a hoax and references have been improved. ( non-admin closure) clpo13( talk) 00:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Unreferenced, maybe hoax, probably without notablity guides. 333 -blue 10:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. North America 1000 00:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Non-notable Internet meme, only local (Hong Kong) coverage. sst✈ discuss 09:58, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
The page is unnecessary to be deleted. Although it is not notable worldwide yet, its significance demonstrated on YouTube and in the city( it is now a very popular slang among Hong Kongers) prove that the article certainly worth existing.
Also, other pages related to culture or phenomenon only yet viral in Hong Kong are kept as well, such as the Bus Uncle page, the Kong Boys and Kong Girls, Hong Kong Cyclothon , Swimming shed and so on. The Come On, James article should be treated the same way. Besides, local notability is still notability.
And one of the main functions of Wikipedia is to get new knowledge, regardless of its popularity, known internationally. Or else, Wiki won't feature articles and news on its front page to spread the the knowledge to its readers. And the other name of Wiki is literally the Free Encyclopedia. A REAL encyclopedia contains every kind of knowledge, has no boundaries and does not cut out any kind of new knowledge that is not "notable" internationally yet. The Wikipedia should be the same.
Most importantly, the article is being testified to be included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Hong Kong. If it's not for the representation of social, cultural phenomenon of the city from the article, it would not have been considered. Hence, there's genuinely no need for deletion of the article.
Terenceterenceterence1402 ( talk) 14:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was Delete CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 09:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Subject does not appear to have attracted the attention of media sources outside of his Montana home region (the Montana Kaimen, etc.). Refs to the Seattle Times do not actually mention the subject but rather projects he was involved with. I don't see evidence of broader public interest via independent reliable sources. KDS4444 Talk 06:50, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Should more sources be added from his work in California and Seattle? Wasn't sure how many sources needed but his resume boasts many notable collaborations/shows etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rapthatgavelup ( talk • contribs) 01:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was Keep CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
At the present The entire article is an atrociuos mix of OR and SYNTH which looks like a POV essay, rather than an article of an encyclopedia. Furthermore (as far as I can see) the subject is not notable enough as I can only find 7-8 books which make passing mentions of this, nothing more. I think that in its present state(without a complete rewrite, which is akin to deletion ofc) the article is not wiki material. FreeatlastChitchat ( talk) 07:00, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Comment - I am doing some basic cleanup on the article to remove some POV and make it less of an essay. Thparkth ( talk) 20:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was Delete CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
WP:NOTMEMORIAL,and does not meet Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Notability guide. Certainly reach of the Tuskegee Airmen deserved to be commemorated. But not necessarily in an encycopedia . DGG ( talk ) 06:10, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Delete: Searches turned up numerous books which reference this man, but upon closer examination, none provided more detail than his rank and other superficial military designations. I had hoped that a look at the pdf cited in the article would direct me to something more substantial, but the link seems to now be broken. Given the lack of substantial sourcing and the fact that much of the content on the page is, as DGG suggests, of personal memorial nature, rather than speaking to general notability, I'm afraid I must agree that WP:GNG is not satisfied. Snow let's rap 07:48, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Keep Bolden was one of the first African American military pilots and upon searching, while some of the results (as said by Snow Rise) detail exclusively his name and/or rank, Bolden alone has had much coverage from sources from Portland to Virginia. MB298 ( talk) 01:51, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Delete Does meet WP:SIGCOV or WP:SOLDIER, and also WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Peacemaker67 ( crack... thump) 10:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Comment I've replaced the article's single reference pdf with an archive link--remember that most deadlinks aren't really dead. It's here: https://web.archive.org/web/20080517183436/http://www.tuskegeeairmen.org/uploads/EdgarBolden.pdf Valfontis ( talk) 03:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Delete. Per a newspaper article of September of this year, "All black military pilots who trained in the United States during World War II trained in Tuskegee. In all, almost a thousand black pilots trained there from 1941 to 1946. Of that number, 450 were deployed overseas and 150 lost their lives, including 66 killed in action. Of the roughly 450 who went overseas with the 332nd Fighter Group, about 32 are still alive, said Brian Smith, president of the Tuskegee Airmen National History Museum in Detroit." It appears that Mr. Bolden was one of the longer-lived Tuskegee Airmen, but that alone does not make him notable by Wikipedia standards. The group as a whole is notable, of course, but judging by the numbers cited in the news article, being one of 450 alone doesn't confer notability as notability is not inherited. I checked carefully for more sources including using his middle initial (I've added that to the "find sources" templates above) than the obituary cited in the article and could only find a few, including a reference to his being shot down (which isn't cited in the article, and one of several similar brief book mentions), and brief mentions: U.S. Rep mention, transcript of D.C. obit, Oregonian death notice, and obit, note about his death, plus a civil court matter and brief mention of his 2nd marriage in Jet magazine. He served with honor, but Wikipedia is not a memorial and he doesn't pass WP:SOLDIER (collective award to the Airmen of the Congressional Gold Medal, a civilian honor, isn't enough) or WP:GNG with multiple, reliable, independent, substantive sources about him. Valfontis ( talk) 04:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jenks24 ( talk) 09:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
The album is an unofficial bootleg. Koala15 ( talk) 06:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 20:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Reads, in its entirety:
Zero sources. EEng ( talk) 19:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC) EEng ( talk) 19:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Ya sh ! 01:58, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Does not seem to meet WP:notability Arthistorian1977 ( talk) 19:28, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was obvious snow keep. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Notability not independent of November 2015 Paris attacks and WP:NOT#NEWS (just a current status of a city). Scope too narrow, anything else is WP:CRYSTAL. Widefox; talk 19:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Comment - Let's Close this Now There is no way this is getting deleted, so let's close the AfD and get on to building an article about this event. Legacypac ( talk) 02:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Propose New Name. This is so unprecedented that Brussels lockdown without the 2015 would work fine. Legacypac ( talk) 00:14, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was Delete CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Promotional article for relatively minor site. Beyond my abilities to clean. Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason. Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encyclopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encyclopedia
Most of the material on the page is isolated mentions, or the company's own announcement of features, or readership rankings. The admitted coi editor who removed my prod has "asked our comms dept to bring this page up to date as there are a number of additional notable mentions..." DGG ( talk ) 19:08, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Promotional language isn't the issue here. That IS an issue, but a separate one. One that can be fixed. And once this debate is settled, if the result is keep, the article will have to be brought in line with standards. It's only survived in its current state for this long because it has flown under the radar, however from now on I'm sure a number of editors will be aware of it and tone it down considerably. The only issue being discussed here with regards to deletion is notability. Highlighting websites that appear less notable isn't a valid argument in support of your page. If you think they fail notability, you can nominate it whilst putting forward your case based on notability guidelines (although I wouldn't suggest doing it as a purely retaliatory move). Number of references again is not an appropriate manner in which to judge an article. Tyson Fury's page has half the number of references of Skiddle, but it's not going to be deleted because that's not part of the criteria eligibility and notability is measured on. Technically, if we're whipping out Alexa ranks, RA is a more global site and ranks higher than skiddle. It also has 4 times as many FB likes and genuine engagement. And a Webby Award. Issues such as you considering it being a sad day that PR generated drives wiki qualification is a personal view, as there are published guidelines against which these debates are considered. Similarly, vouching for a website on your first contribution does not sway the discussion because the ways these things are assessed is pre-agreed, not influenced by personal opinion, no matter how passionate they are. Rayman60 ( talk) 01:21, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 20:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Does not seem to meet WP:notability. Sources are all directly linked to the subject (the CNN link is the unverified blog site anyone can edit). Appears to be promotion. JamesG5 ( talk) 18:56, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was Keep CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
The article contains minimal content. The subject does not pass notability. The References only make passing mention of the article subject and do not infer notability directly upon the article subject. Ref 4 refers to the subject being one of a number of people who won an award - however winning an award does not by itself infer notability. There does not appear to be wide coverage of this individual. isfutile:P ( talk) 15:33, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. North America 1000 01:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
The article contains minimal content. The subject does not pass notability. The References only make passing mention of the article subject and do not infer notability directly upon the article subject. There does not appear to be wide third party coverage of this individual. isfutile:P ( talk) 15:33, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. North America 1000 01:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
The article contains minimal content. The subject does not pass notability. The References only make passing mention of the article subject and do not infer notability directly upon the article subject. isfutile:P ( talk) 15:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. North America 1000 01:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
The article contains minimal content is the subject is not notable. isfutile:P ( talk) 15:27, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was Keep CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
The article contains minimal content is the subject is not notable. isfutile:P ( talk) 15:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was Delete CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Seems to fail the notability guideline at WP:CORP. The spammy corporatese could be eliminated with a rewrite, but sourced to what? Existing sources are not intellectually independent of the subject, but still are trivial and tangential in their coverage. I was unable to find anything better online. VQuakr ( talk) 19:44, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Ya sh ! 01:53, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Film of no note. KDS4444 Talk 09:57, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was Delete CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
The article contains minimal content and the subject is not notable. isfutile:P ( talk) 15:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was 'tagged and deleted as A7 as I saw and tagged this as an obvious A7 (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 05:59, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
This appears to fail to show references, has minimal to no content, and appears to have a severe COI issue based on the author username. Rarkenin ( talk) 18:22, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was Keep. Non-admin closure: withdrawing nomination. QVVERTYVS ( hm?) 12:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Article has no independent secondary sources to corroborate its notability, and hasn't had any since it was written back. Kept after a 2005 AfD that featured mostly WP:ITSPOPULAR-style arguments. QVVERTYVS ( hm?) 16:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was Deleted. as a G8 speedy deletion by User:Sergecross73. Michig ( talk) 20:47, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Non-notable fan-made video game, but does not appear to be a hoax. However, it might still be made up, as so far all I can find is art. Adam9007 ( talk) 16:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. Outcome for B5470 road only, all other listed roads were not tagged properly. It's not obvious that they could be WP:BUNDLED neither. ( non-admin closure) Sam Sailor Talk! 00:47, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Non notable roads, No evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –
Davey2010
Talk
15:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Also nominating
B4347 road,
B1108 road,
B1110 road,
B1120 road,
B1436 road,
B1145 road,
B1149 road,
B1159 road,
B1354 road,
B2177 road. –
Davey2010
Talk
15:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 20:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Application for detection of third-party libraries in Android applications, no third-party references or evidence of notability. Proposed deletion removed by creator. - Mike Rosoft ( talk) 15:06, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 20:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Image viewing software that fails the notability requirements of WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. Pichpich ( talk) 14:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. Per the improvements. ( non-admin closure) Ya sh ! 01:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
I think this is a hoax because none of the cited sources mention the Kingdom of Ce ( [30], [31], [32]), nor does Kingdom of CE show up in a Google search (the only results I'm seeing when searching with quotation marks are Wikipedia mirrors or sources that appear to have got their information from Wikipedia, and without quote marks, Wikipedia is the only relevant source that comes up). Also, there was only one author who added information rather than formatting, rewording, linking to other pages, adding categories, stub sorting, adding pictures, or, of course, adding maintence tags. I also find it hard to believe that a kingdom this minor would last 900 years.-- Proud User ( talk) 13:24, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Speedy Keep - The sources do mention it, but the article could use more sources and rewriting... How about this or this? It is a real kingdom or tribe, and I remember hearing about it. Keep in mind that San Marino has survived for over 1700 years. Liechtenstein is a true survivor too. Ceosad ( talk) 16:13, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. It's snowing. ( non-admin closure) Sam Sailor Talk! 00:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
This was deleted in an AfD which was brought to deletion review. The result of that review was to re-list the article for a new AfD. My listing here is an administrative action; I offer no opinion on the outcome of this discussion. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:15, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was procedural close. Article was already speedily deleted. ( non-admin closure) — Jkudlick t c s 16:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
We don't need a Wikipedia page summarizing the deaths of hip hop artists separate from the articles which have already covered the subjects. Wikipedia is not a directory. Optakeover (Talk) 12:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Withdrawn by nominator. Apparently this page is a duplicate of List of deceased hip hop artists, and I now understand the rationale of the speedy tag. Optakeover (Talk) 12:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. consensus is clear DGG ( talk ) 04:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Youtube based series sourced to a couple blogs. Can't see any claim of significance here. Legacypac ( talk) 11:41, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Ya sh ! 01:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
One of those low-fatality helicopter crashes without notable victims, WP:NOTNEWS. Already mentioned in Eurocopter_AS350_Écureuil#Notable_accidents_and_incidents Brandmeister talk 10:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was Deleted by User:RHaworth (G3 vandalism). ( non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 23:27, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
No indication of the significance of this number. Proposed deletion from another user, and endorsed by myself, was contested. └ UkPaolo/ talk┐ 10:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Per consensus Philg88 ♦ talk 06:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
This page is at this point nothing more than a content fork of the main page at bicycle kick. It should be deleted. MarshalN20 Talk 09:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 11:07, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
The article only exists because the subject is the daughter of Malcolm X and Betty Shabazz. There is no indication that she has ever done anything notable in her life.
The article is basically a mix of trivia, and one criminal incident where she was convicted of identity theft. The trivia is totally incidental to the actual subject: her mother and father, and fails
WP:BASIC: "received significant coverage in multiple published sources"
.
The identity theft part seems to have been covered in many sources. But WP:1E applies here. I see nothing special in this incident to warrant an article.
Basically the article is a mixture of irrelevant trivia and a barely disguised attack article. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 08:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete. "Commonly refered to in group chats by 17 yr olds" says it all Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
WP:Notability is major issue here, majority block is redundant to Toyota 4Runner. No sources. Looks like it should be part of an article on the Australian car scene rather than a catch phrase related to it. JamesG5 ( talk) 05:09, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was speedily deleted by User:RHaworth under criterion A1. (Non-admin closure) " Pepper" @ 16:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Test page ; Unambiguous advertising Biplab Anand (Talk with me) 05:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was Withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Melonkelon ( talk) 04:10, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
No secondary sources. Only references are to IMDb. He was given a "thanks" for The Bling Ring, according to this, but other than that I can't find sources that establish notability. Melonkelon ( talk) 04:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. Looking at the rationales on both side of the argument, consensus is keep. ( non-admin closure) Onel5969 TT me 14:09, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Certainly questionably notable and improvable with its current state and I found some links here, here and here but there's simply nothing better aside from that fact she had 39 episodes of Holby City (best known basically it seems). It's also interesting to note that although this hasn't changed much since starting in November 2009, an SPA account added this version and then simply blanked the entire page (not sure if it was the subject or not, although if it was, I'm not sure why the article actually says she was born in both Brooklyn, New York and London, England). Notifying past taggers Airplaneman, Joe Decker and also Onel5969 and MichaelQSchmidt who may have some insight with this, although this seems certainly seems non-notable. SwisterTwister talk 03:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
@ SwisterTwister: Well... that SPA had copied information from an Vanessa Ferlito so his striking was proper. But in my following guideline instructions and diregarding current state and actually looking at Ginny's career it seems more than likely that WP:NACTOR is met. Did you look first, or simply judge a poor stub? Schmidt, Michael Q. 04:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) — JJMC89 ( T· C) 06:07, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
How it currently looks, this is unlikely better notable and improvable as the best links I found were only this and this but the first link (Books) has some 1980s coverage that suggests there may be more archived coverage if they exist therefore I'm uncertain regarding the article's future. Notifying author Yorkshiresky and past user Michig. SwisterTwister talk 03:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
References
Champion Doug Veitch On the face of it, Champion Doug Veitch and his Clydeside Rebels wouldn't appear to be tailor-made for the attentions of BM readers. But appearances can be deceptive. Mr Veitch 's opus "Lumiere Urban", a bizarre ...
Champion Doug VEITCH Born: Hawick, Borders. Dubbing himself "The King Of Caledonian Cajun Swing", this otherwise reclusive full-time painter and decorator was a bit of an oddball who fused Celtic dub/reggae with country and cajun.
Closer to home we find Champion Doug Veitch, the undisputed King of Caledonian Cajun Swing. Doug plays an intriguing blend of Country, Reggae, Cajun, Soul and Soca. All combine to make a music that effortlessly transcends the sum of ...
The Pogues kick-started a new "rogue folk" movement, and the biggest rogue of them all was Scottish wild- man Champion Doug Veitch, billed as "the undisputed king of Caledonian cajun swing". He managed to upset country purists from the ...
"You'll like this one," he'd say, handing me everything from elegant, wood-paneled jazz like this, to the infamous Champion Doug Veitch and his Scottish-cajun-country-boogie (three or four Fanfares ago.) A lot of the time he's right. Certainly, in ...
Both ; on DiscAfrique, whose frontman, Champion Doug Veitch, has just released a 7" reworking of Mighty Sparrow's "Margarita". • A gathering of some of London's hottest talent takes place i at the Africa Centre on 20th September. African ...
The result was delete. Jenks24 ( talk) 09:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
My searches simply found nothing at all and I managed to find her IMDb page but there's hardly much as is with this Wikipedia article. I would've honestly speedied or PRODed if it wasn't there's information about national singing contests thus there may be some Swedish sources. SwisterTwister talk 03:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was Speedy delete. Speedy deleted as a hoax ( non-admin closure) JMHamo ( talk) 04:28, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is a hoax, or if he's just not notable. Adam9007 ( talk) 03:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 11:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Non-notable author lacking non-trivial support. Article appears to have been created by the article subject. Verges on advertisement. reddogsix ( talk) 02:31, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. I personally think we should include people in this position, but clear consensus has been consistently otherwise. DGG ( talk ) 04:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Municipal politician not inherently notable just for being in politics, who is not notable just for being the first Liberal Democrat Mayor of Camden. She is also not notable by way of simply being a Camden borough councillor, also standing for election and being a losing candidate for a general election does not confer notability. Taken together these do not make her a notable individual as none of the individual events are notable and nor is the sum of the events. Sport and politics ( talk) 02:27, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 22:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Unreferenced list of commercial products built around antiquated standard. Ends up being a catalog of old products. The large majority of items on this list don't have their own Wikipedia articles. Mikeblas ( talk) 16:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 04:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Notability unclear. Adam9007 ( talk) 01:58, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete-- Ymblanter ( talk) 10:23, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Abysmally written and completely unsourced WP:BLP of a person notable only as a local councillor. This doesn't constitute an inclusion freebie on Wikipedia, and neither do subjective assertions of how he is or was the "best" practitioner of any given occupation — but there's no reliable sourcing here to suggest that he would qualify for a Wikipedia article for anything. Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 19:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. No prejudice against recreation as a redirect. Jenks24 ( talk) 09:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Non notable compilation album. Koala15 ( talk) 19:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
RETAIN. fresh background added. (MACWILMSLO) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MACWILMSLO ( talk • contribs) 07:27, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. consensus seems to have been reached DGG ( talk ) 04:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Fails WP:ORG. I tagged it for speedy deletion based on A7 and G11, but the tag was removed. G11, of course, is no longer relevant at AfD. There is a lot of verbiage to read through, but it's obviously a puff piece. I didn't look at all the external links, but I did look at the refs. Most of them don't even mention the organization at all. They mention youth conferences, but not the organization itself. I think there's one that does mention the organization, but it's not really about the organization. It's about a nobel prize winner. I have not done any other research into the organization to see if there are other sources out there. I leave that to the community. To review the article, you're going to have to look at the revision before the copyright notice. Bbb23 ( talk) 01:38, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete per WP:SNOW. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 04:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
This appears to be an essay (disallowed as per WP:NOTESSAY) and may additionally represent potential copyright infringement. Rarkenin ( talk) 00:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. North America 1000 01:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Doesn't meet GNG. Article creator has a history of inserting sources which don't back up GNG claims. isfutile:P ( talk) 00:24, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
what the dead link used to look like does not feature any mention of Karen Arnold, in the past or present. How is it relevant? isfutile:P ( talk) 20:13, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
( talk) 21:24, 25 November 2015 (UTC) (redacted -- Andreas Philopater ( talk) 11:59, 27 November 2015 (UTC))
:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Human3015 TALK 20:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was Delete CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
My personal opinion is that an article for every single song of this rappers upcoming album '88' (for which no article exists yet), plus two songs from compilation albums, is not needed and unencyclopedic. rayukk | talk 00:24, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I am bringing this article to AfD in hopes of stopping the edit war on whether the article should be speedied under G11. (Being written from a neutral point of view, G11 clearly does not apply.) Subject is probably not notable and just misses being eligible for speedy deletion under A7. — teb728 t c 22:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:08, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Completely unsourced article that's written far more like an essay, or more accurately like the outline for an essay, than like a real encyclopedia article. An actual encyclopedia article about this topic might certainly be possible, which is why I'm not just speedying it outright, but it would have to be written and sourced much better, and titled differently, than this. Delete, or sandbox to allow creator further opportunity for improvement — but it is definitely not ready for prime time in this form. Bearcat ( talk) 22:29, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. North America 1000 00:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
fails GNG — OluwaCurtis »» ( talk to me) 22:18, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. North America 1000 00:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Notabiity: fails WP:ARTIST. TheLongTone ( talk) 13:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
:Comment I think he probably is an artist, and worth of inclusion if he is going to that length to get his work and other folks work on scaffolding. He is clearly driven. Make mine a Keep scope_creep 14:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Rodney Durso to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
The result was keep. Consensus is for article retention. North America 1000 00:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Again, this is questionably notable and improvable as the best I found was only this and there's simply no signs of obvious improvement. It's also worth noting two accounts with "SimoneSheffield222" and "SimoneSheffield2222" have considerably interacted with this article. Pinging MichaelQSchmidt, Eusebeus, Crowsnest, Krano, S Marshall, Dan Murphy and Louisprandtl. SwisterTwister talk 17:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
"If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability", and in understanding that the wished-for WP:SUBSTANTIAL is not a guideline, we do have many reliable sources quoting her, or using her as a source for their statements in a more-than-trivial fashion. And, as reflected in the article new bluelinks, she has (co)produced several notable film projects, satisfying WP:CREATIVE even in the lack of the wished for WP:SIGCOV. She does meet WP:BASIC and that kind of sits above the other SNGs in the notability pecking order I should think, specially as one does not over-rule or supplant the other... they work together, not separately. Perhaps Crowsnest might use some of these to assist in further article improvements? Schmidt, Michael Q. 09:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. There are valid arguments for deletion as well as inclusion. However, there is no clear consensus to support either. The article can always be renominated in the future. ( non-admin closure) Ya sh ! 02:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Seemingly non-notable and unimprovable article with my searches finding nothing better than this and there aren't even any signs confirming this label still exists and lastly this article has existed the same since starting in February 2007 (hardly changed much since then too). Pinging interested users Michig, Walter Görlitz and Chubbles. SwisterTwister talk 06:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Non notable per consensus Philg88 ♦ talk 06:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Per WP:BEFORE, nothing at Google News or Books. No indication of notability per WP:GNG or WP:GEOFEAT. No references. PROD was removed without explanation. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 22:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was Keep CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 08:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
This article reads mostly like a dictionary definition, with a bunch of random trivia added on the end (including various TV shows that happen to have included the term). In 10 years, this is all we have managed to come up with; it suggests to me that this article could never pass WP:GNG. — This, that and the other (talk) 00:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was Delete CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 08:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
This article does not display notability as provided by secondary reliable sources. (Take a look at [10]--all trivial mentions by sources or blog comments.) Izno ( talk) 21:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Some links to secondary source:
IJK_Principle ( talk) 23:15, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
A few more:
IJK_Principle ( talk) 00:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
The article was effectively unsourced. I had to rewrite it. Digged a bit to find some quality sources even though that is not easy on the topic of game engine recreations. Matthias M. ( talk) 14:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
I added academic sources and software metrics. Being featured on GitHub Showcase, the Mono project and Microsoft Developer Network should prove notability. The SEO optimized articles you found via your search engine are mostly download page click bait. The independent LWN.net and Phoronix are really valuable sources. I left Rock Paper Shotgun and Kotaku in for reference although they are very light-hearted and superficial. Matthias M. ( talk) 07:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Note: The page was moved to
http://content.gpwiki.org/OpenRA
wikia:opensource:OpenRA instead.
Matthias M. (
talk)
09:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
The result was Redirect to English rugby union system#History until such time as merge is done or notability requirements change. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 08:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I have looked at Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union/Notability and the levels at English rugby union system but do not feel meet they notability requirements for Rugby competition articles (or WP:GNG — Rod talk 10:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because they do not meet the notability requirement:
Keep. The guidelines are far too narrow and need rewriting. If such strict guidelines were followed on other subjects we would be having thousands of discussions, like this, on Wikipedia. Jowaninpensans ( talk) 23:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Delete or at best Merge, including the others listed by the nominator. It clearly doesn't meet any current guidelines, or the spirit of GNG. To be fair I think that more of an effort could have been made to get wider consensus when the competition guidelines were suggested at WP:RU/N, but that is the place to be having that discussion, not here. Where one draws the line I don't know, but it certainly isn't level 11. Many other arguments made above in favour of keeping this article are fallacious; notability is generally accepted as not being inheritable WP:INHERITED; likewise WP:OTHERSTUFF in relation to the comments about soccer; and WP:ATA#CRYSTAL deals with the argument that a team 'might' make it to the championships. Derek Andrews ( talk) 17:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Weak Keep Topic is notable but sources should be improved
Wikienglish123 (
talk) 16:12, 2 November 2015 (UTC) Block evasion -
Supdiop (
T🔹
C)
08:06, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Delete Agree with the points raised by User:Derek Andrews and the nominator. The leagues do not pass WP:GNG as they have not had "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Del♉sion23 (talk) 19:51, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was Delete CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 09:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Article didn't meet WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Also her Film 'Action Hero Biju' is not yet released, its on the post-production process. So i need some editors suggestions whether it should be encyclopedic on Wikipedia or not. Josu4u ( talk) 19:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
References
The result was Delete CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 09:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. The sources in this article fail BIO badly; the only in-depth source is a YouTube interview, all other sources are either mention in passing, niche trade journals (which have trouble with neutrality, and are not "mainstream coverage"), or clearly COI sources tied to the subject or businesses/organizations he is involved in. I reviewed argument at Talk:Robert J. Ivanhoe and I am not impressed; let me shot it down pre-emptively before it re-appears here: "He consistently makes the power 100 list of real estate businesspeople in New York." - so what? WP:ITSIMPORTANT is not a valid argument, and being in the Top 100 of biggest random-type-of-profession-listing in a city, even in the Big Apple, is not a criteria of notability. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete. WP:G5 /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Alex9777777 NeilN talk to me 21:37, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Non-notable radio provider. Doesn't pass WP:GNG. See also WP:BCAST. clpo13( talk) 20:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. Thanks to Cordless Larry and Checkingfax for adding sources. ( non-admin closure) Sam Sailor Talk! 00:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Because this article has no references or sources, there is no evidence of organizational notability. If multiple independent reliable sources can be added, this article may qualify to be kept. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
{{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
01:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)The result was delete. sufficient consensus to delete DGG ( talk ) 04:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Dubious clains of notability, Google search turned up almost nothing about this person that wasn't promotional (e. g. Facebook etc.). davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 18:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 20:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Entirely promotional, comprising a miscellaneous listing of random events. I tried cleaning it up, but in my opinion it's hopeless. Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason. Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encycopedia DGG ( talk ) 20:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was Delete CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 09:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Entirely promotional, comprised of minor events, and the firm's own praise of itself. Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason. Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encyclopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encyclopedia DGG ( talk ) 20:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was Redirect to K3 (band) CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 09:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
fails WP:MUSICBIO; most material I found online is Dutch yet there is no be-wiki article. I don't think there's a case for GNG here. This is one of three articles created by an apparent fan-account. Chris Troutman ( talk) 21:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was Delete CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 09:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Seems like a run of the mill Univ Prof, except for being part of a panel that discussed the She Has a Name play, which is likely why Neelix created the whole article. Basically a coatrack for the play he promoted all over the site Legacypac ( talk) 23:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of The Smurfs episodes#Season 5 (1985). ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Uncertain notability / genuine? Oscarthecat ( talk) 22:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was redirect to K3 (band). Philg88 ♦ talk 06:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
The common outcomes (listed on
WP:MusicOutcomes
WP:MUSICOUTCOMES) states that band members, unless they're spectacular in achievements) do not deserve their own article. This may not even pass
WP:GNG. // Posted by larsona (
Talk) //
22:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was Delete CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 09:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
This small company (10-15 employees) does not appear to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. The references do not support a claim of notability - they are routine articles that seem like they were just copied from press releases (one is press release itself). There also appears to be an aggressive bit of crosswiki promotion going on - the main contributors to the article are single-purpose accounts and the page has been repeatedly deleted on other language projects ( w:es:emaze and w:pt:emaze for example). Deli nk ( talk) 12:38, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 04:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
BLP article about a CEO who seems to have no references for article that has been on the go since mid 2008. Can't find any sources, or any verifiable info on why he is notable. Being given a tech entrepreneur prize does not denote notability. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. scope_creep 11:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Delete per nom and AllyD. Ceosad ( talk) 21:37, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Per consensus Philg88 ♦ talk 06:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Article fails to credibly assert notability of the subject. The main source used in the article appears to be a CV from a genealogy website, and is the only support for personal information in the article. A second source confirms only that Dorman Long & Co were contractors for the Sydney Harbour Bridge. The third source only supports use of Radium bombs as treatment for cancerous growths. Other than the CV, which is a primary source, there is no support for the claim of his involvement in the construction of the Sydney Harbour Bridge, which seems the main "claim to fame". Internet and other searches find other Plunketts, but not this one, indicating that the subject fails to pass WP:GNG. AussieLegend ( ✉) 10:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 20:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
seems to fail WP:ANYBIO thanks in part to all of the "Citations" failing WP:RS Chris Troutman ( talk) 21:15, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was Delete CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 09:19, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Not sure about notability. Claims to be a Canadian website Galaxy Kid ( talk) 17:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. consensus is clear enough after relisting DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
There is a fatal lack of spectacular coverage on this man; he appears to be just another lawyer. He is not mentioned NOR linked in any of the WIkipedia pages for the organizations he supposedly had an impact on. This page is mainly nominated for deletion via WP:ANYBIO. // Posted by larsona ( Talk) // 16:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 20:25, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
This article does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for notability. Simply being a technology journalist or having one trade association award does not make one notable, and the article appears self-promotional in nature. Rhombus ( talk) 15:59, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was Delete -- GB fan 11:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
This is an article about a specialty trade paperback that contains nothing more than a table of contents and hasn't had significant activity since it was created in 2007. It looks suspiciously spammy in nature. Remember that Wikipedia is not for self-promotion, nor is it a catalog. Rhombus ( talk) 15:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Sam Sailor Talk! 00:18, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
This article mainly relies on primary sources, and seems to be a compilation of data that resembles original research. Furthermore, it lacks inline citations, and seems to be an indiscriminate collection of information. It also contains a quite a few peacock phrases, making me wonder about WP:NPOV.
It is possible that a legitimate article could be written on this topic, but this article isn't it. RGloucester — ☎ 03:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 20:34, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Company received routine listing in corp directories, "nth fastest growing" in 2009, and some local "best places to work" award; even the details of foundation and leadership are self-cited. Fails WP:CORP notability requirement. Brianhe ( talk) 01:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Ya sh ! 02:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
A highlights show, not notable in its' own right. RealDealBillMcNeal ( talk) 16:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) clpo13( talk) 00:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
A highlights show, not notable in its' own right. RealDealBillMcNeal ( talk) 16:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. Potential future success is no guarantee of an article, but it doesn't appear to be a hoax and references have been improved. ( non-admin closure) clpo13( talk) 00:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Unreferenced, maybe hoax, probably without notablity guides. 333 -blue 10:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. North America 1000 00:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Non-notable Internet meme, only local (Hong Kong) coverage. sst✈ discuss 09:58, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
The page is unnecessary to be deleted. Although it is not notable worldwide yet, its significance demonstrated on YouTube and in the city( it is now a very popular slang among Hong Kongers) prove that the article certainly worth existing.
Also, other pages related to culture or phenomenon only yet viral in Hong Kong are kept as well, such as the Bus Uncle page, the Kong Boys and Kong Girls, Hong Kong Cyclothon , Swimming shed and so on. The Come On, James article should be treated the same way. Besides, local notability is still notability.
And one of the main functions of Wikipedia is to get new knowledge, regardless of its popularity, known internationally. Or else, Wiki won't feature articles and news on its front page to spread the the knowledge to its readers. And the other name of Wiki is literally the Free Encyclopedia. A REAL encyclopedia contains every kind of knowledge, has no boundaries and does not cut out any kind of new knowledge that is not "notable" internationally yet. The Wikipedia should be the same.
Most importantly, the article is being testified to be included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Hong Kong. If it's not for the representation of social, cultural phenomenon of the city from the article, it would not have been considered. Hence, there's genuinely no need for deletion of the article.
Terenceterenceterence1402 ( talk) 14:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was Delete CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 09:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Subject does not appear to have attracted the attention of media sources outside of his Montana home region (the Montana Kaimen, etc.). Refs to the Seattle Times do not actually mention the subject but rather projects he was involved with. I don't see evidence of broader public interest via independent reliable sources. KDS4444 Talk 06:50, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Should more sources be added from his work in California and Seattle? Wasn't sure how many sources needed but his resume boasts many notable collaborations/shows etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rapthatgavelup ( talk • contribs) 01:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was Keep CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
At the present The entire article is an atrociuos mix of OR and SYNTH which looks like a POV essay, rather than an article of an encyclopedia. Furthermore (as far as I can see) the subject is not notable enough as I can only find 7-8 books which make passing mentions of this, nothing more. I think that in its present state(without a complete rewrite, which is akin to deletion ofc) the article is not wiki material. FreeatlastChitchat ( talk) 07:00, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Comment - I am doing some basic cleanup on the article to remove some POV and make it less of an essay. Thparkth ( talk) 20:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was Delete CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
WP:NOTMEMORIAL,and does not meet Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Notability guide. Certainly reach of the Tuskegee Airmen deserved to be commemorated. But not necessarily in an encycopedia . DGG ( talk ) 06:10, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Delete: Searches turned up numerous books which reference this man, but upon closer examination, none provided more detail than his rank and other superficial military designations. I had hoped that a look at the pdf cited in the article would direct me to something more substantial, but the link seems to now be broken. Given the lack of substantial sourcing and the fact that much of the content on the page is, as DGG suggests, of personal memorial nature, rather than speaking to general notability, I'm afraid I must agree that WP:GNG is not satisfied. Snow let's rap 07:48, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Keep Bolden was one of the first African American military pilots and upon searching, while some of the results (as said by Snow Rise) detail exclusively his name and/or rank, Bolden alone has had much coverage from sources from Portland to Virginia. MB298 ( talk) 01:51, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Delete Does meet WP:SIGCOV or WP:SOLDIER, and also WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Peacemaker67 ( crack... thump) 10:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Comment I've replaced the article's single reference pdf with an archive link--remember that most deadlinks aren't really dead. It's here: https://web.archive.org/web/20080517183436/http://www.tuskegeeairmen.org/uploads/EdgarBolden.pdf Valfontis ( talk) 03:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Delete. Per a newspaper article of September of this year, "All black military pilots who trained in the United States during World War II trained in Tuskegee. In all, almost a thousand black pilots trained there from 1941 to 1946. Of that number, 450 were deployed overseas and 150 lost their lives, including 66 killed in action. Of the roughly 450 who went overseas with the 332nd Fighter Group, about 32 are still alive, said Brian Smith, president of the Tuskegee Airmen National History Museum in Detroit." It appears that Mr. Bolden was one of the longer-lived Tuskegee Airmen, but that alone does not make him notable by Wikipedia standards. The group as a whole is notable, of course, but judging by the numbers cited in the news article, being one of 450 alone doesn't confer notability as notability is not inherited. I checked carefully for more sources including using his middle initial (I've added that to the "find sources" templates above) than the obituary cited in the article and could only find a few, including a reference to his being shot down (which isn't cited in the article, and one of several similar brief book mentions), and brief mentions: U.S. Rep mention, transcript of D.C. obit, Oregonian death notice, and obit, note about his death, plus a civil court matter and brief mention of his 2nd marriage in Jet magazine. He served with honor, but Wikipedia is not a memorial and he doesn't pass WP:SOLDIER (collective award to the Airmen of the Congressional Gold Medal, a civilian honor, isn't enough) or WP:GNG with multiple, reliable, independent, substantive sources about him. Valfontis ( talk) 04:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jenks24 ( talk) 09:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
The album is an unofficial bootleg. Koala15 ( talk) 06:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 20:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Reads, in its entirety:
Zero sources. EEng ( talk) 19:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC) EEng ( talk) 19:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Ya sh ! 01:58, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Does not seem to meet WP:notability Arthistorian1977 ( talk) 19:28, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was obvious snow keep. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Notability not independent of November 2015 Paris attacks and WP:NOT#NEWS (just a current status of a city). Scope too narrow, anything else is WP:CRYSTAL. Widefox; talk 19:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Comment - Let's Close this Now There is no way this is getting deleted, so let's close the AfD and get on to building an article about this event. Legacypac ( talk) 02:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Propose New Name. This is so unprecedented that Brussels lockdown without the 2015 would work fine. Legacypac ( talk) 00:14, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was Delete CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Promotional article for relatively minor site. Beyond my abilities to clean. Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason. Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encyclopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encyclopedia
Most of the material on the page is isolated mentions, or the company's own announcement of features, or readership rankings. The admitted coi editor who removed my prod has "asked our comms dept to bring this page up to date as there are a number of additional notable mentions..." DGG ( talk ) 19:08, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Promotional language isn't the issue here. That IS an issue, but a separate one. One that can be fixed. And once this debate is settled, if the result is keep, the article will have to be brought in line with standards. It's only survived in its current state for this long because it has flown under the radar, however from now on I'm sure a number of editors will be aware of it and tone it down considerably. The only issue being discussed here with regards to deletion is notability. Highlighting websites that appear less notable isn't a valid argument in support of your page. If you think they fail notability, you can nominate it whilst putting forward your case based on notability guidelines (although I wouldn't suggest doing it as a purely retaliatory move). Number of references again is not an appropriate manner in which to judge an article. Tyson Fury's page has half the number of references of Skiddle, but it's not going to be deleted because that's not part of the criteria eligibility and notability is measured on. Technically, if we're whipping out Alexa ranks, RA is a more global site and ranks higher than skiddle. It also has 4 times as many FB likes and genuine engagement. And a Webby Award. Issues such as you considering it being a sad day that PR generated drives wiki qualification is a personal view, as there are published guidelines against which these debates are considered. Similarly, vouching for a website on your first contribution does not sway the discussion because the ways these things are assessed is pre-agreed, not influenced by personal opinion, no matter how passionate they are. Rayman60 ( talk) 01:21, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 20:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Does not seem to meet WP:notability. Sources are all directly linked to the subject (the CNN link is the unverified blog site anyone can edit). Appears to be promotion. JamesG5 ( talk) 18:56, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was Keep CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
The article contains minimal content. The subject does not pass notability. The References only make passing mention of the article subject and do not infer notability directly upon the article subject. Ref 4 refers to the subject being one of a number of people who won an award - however winning an award does not by itself infer notability. There does not appear to be wide coverage of this individual. isfutile:P ( talk) 15:33, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. North America 1000 01:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
The article contains minimal content. The subject does not pass notability. The References only make passing mention of the article subject and do not infer notability directly upon the article subject. There does not appear to be wide third party coverage of this individual. isfutile:P ( talk) 15:33, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. North America 1000 01:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
The article contains minimal content. The subject does not pass notability. The References only make passing mention of the article subject and do not infer notability directly upon the article subject. isfutile:P ( talk) 15:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. North America 1000 01:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
The article contains minimal content is the subject is not notable. isfutile:P ( talk) 15:27, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was Keep CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
The article contains minimal content is the subject is not notable. isfutile:P ( talk) 15:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was Delete CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Seems to fail the notability guideline at WP:CORP. The spammy corporatese could be eliminated with a rewrite, but sourced to what? Existing sources are not intellectually independent of the subject, but still are trivial and tangential in their coverage. I was unable to find anything better online. VQuakr ( talk) 19:44, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Ya sh ! 01:53, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Film of no note. KDS4444 Talk 09:57, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was Delete CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
The article contains minimal content and the subject is not notable. isfutile:P ( talk) 15:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was 'tagged and deleted as A7 as I saw and tagged this as an obvious A7 (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 05:59, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
This appears to fail to show references, has minimal to no content, and appears to have a severe COI issue based on the author username. Rarkenin ( talk) 18:22, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was Keep. Non-admin closure: withdrawing nomination. QVVERTYVS ( hm?) 12:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Article has no independent secondary sources to corroborate its notability, and hasn't had any since it was written back. Kept after a 2005 AfD that featured mostly WP:ITSPOPULAR-style arguments. QVVERTYVS ( hm?) 16:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was Deleted. as a G8 speedy deletion by User:Sergecross73. Michig ( talk) 20:47, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Non-notable fan-made video game, but does not appear to be a hoax. However, it might still be made up, as so far all I can find is art. Adam9007 ( talk) 16:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. Outcome for B5470 road only, all other listed roads were not tagged properly. It's not obvious that they could be WP:BUNDLED neither. ( non-admin closure) Sam Sailor Talk! 00:47, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Non notable roads, No evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –
Davey2010
Talk
15:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Also nominating
B4347 road,
B1108 road,
B1110 road,
B1120 road,
B1436 road,
B1145 road,
B1149 road,
B1159 road,
B1354 road,
B2177 road. –
Davey2010
Talk
15:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 20:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Application for detection of third-party libraries in Android applications, no third-party references or evidence of notability. Proposed deletion removed by creator. - Mike Rosoft ( talk) 15:06, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 20:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Image viewing software that fails the notability requirements of WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. Pichpich ( talk) 14:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. Per the improvements. ( non-admin closure) Ya sh ! 01:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
I think this is a hoax because none of the cited sources mention the Kingdom of Ce ( [30], [31], [32]), nor does Kingdom of CE show up in a Google search (the only results I'm seeing when searching with quotation marks are Wikipedia mirrors or sources that appear to have got their information from Wikipedia, and without quote marks, Wikipedia is the only relevant source that comes up). Also, there was only one author who added information rather than formatting, rewording, linking to other pages, adding categories, stub sorting, adding pictures, or, of course, adding maintence tags. I also find it hard to believe that a kingdom this minor would last 900 years.-- Proud User ( talk) 13:24, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Speedy Keep - The sources do mention it, but the article could use more sources and rewriting... How about this or this? It is a real kingdom or tribe, and I remember hearing about it. Keep in mind that San Marino has survived for over 1700 years. Liechtenstein is a true survivor too. Ceosad ( talk) 16:13, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. It's snowing. ( non-admin closure) Sam Sailor Talk! 00:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
This was deleted in an AfD which was brought to deletion review. The result of that review was to re-list the article for a new AfD. My listing here is an administrative action; I offer no opinion on the outcome of this discussion. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:15, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was procedural close. Article was already speedily deleted. ( non-admin closure) — Jkudlick t c s 16:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
We don't need a Wikipedia page summarizing the deaths of hip hop artists separate from the articles which have already covered the subjects. Wikipedia is not a directory. Optakeover (Talk) 12:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Withdrawn by nominator. Apparently this page is a duplicate of List of deceased hip hop artists, and I now understand the rationale of the speedy tag. Optakeover (Talk) 12:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. consensus is clear DGG ( talk ) 04:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Youtube based series sourced to a couple blogs. Can't see any claim of significance here. Legacypac ( talk) 11:41, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Ya sh ! 01:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
One of those low-fatality helicopter crashes without notable victims, WP:NOTNEWS. Already mentioned in Eurocopter_AS350_Écureuil#Notable_accidents_and_incidents Brandmeister talk 10:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was Deleted by User:RHaworth (G3 vandalism). ( non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 23:27, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
No indication of the significance of this number. Proposed deletion from another user, and endorsed by myself, was contested. └ UkPaolo/ talk┐ 10:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Per consensus Philg88 ♦ talk 06:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
This page is at this point nothing more than a content fork of the main page at bicycle kick. It should be deleted. MarshalN20 Talk 09:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 11:07, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
The article only exists because the subject is the daughter of Malcolm X and Betty Shabazz. There is no indication that she has ever done anything notable in her life.
The article is basically a mix of trivia, and one criminal incident where she was convicted of identity theft. The trivia is totally incidental to the actual subject: her mother and father, and fails
WP:BASIC: "received significant coverage in multiple published sources"
.
The identity theft part seems to have been covered in many sources. But WP:1E applies here. I see nothing special in this incident to warrant an article.
Basically the article is a mixture of irrelevant trivia and a barely disguised attack article. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 08:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete. "Commonly refered to in group chats by 17 yr olds" says it all Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
WP:Notability is major issue here, majority block is redundant to Toyota 4Runner. No sources. Looks like it should be part of an article on the Australian car scene rather than a catch phrase related to it. JamesG5 ( talk) 05:09, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was speedily deleted by User:RHaworth under criterion A1. (Non-admin closure) " Pepper" @ 16:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Test page ; Unambiguous advertising Biplab Anand (Talk with me) 05:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was Withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Melonkelon ( talk) 04:10, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
No secondary sources. Only references are to IMDb. He was given a "thanks" for The Bling Ring, according to this, but other than that I can't find sources that establish notability. Melonkelon ( talk) 04:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. Looking at the rationales on both side of the argument, consensus is keep. ( non-admin closure) Onel5969 TT me 14:09, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Certainly questionably notable and improvable with its current state and I found some links here, here and here but there's simply nothing better aside from that fact she had 39 episodes of Holby City (best known basically it seems). It's also interesting to note that although this hasn't changed much since starting in November 2009, an SPA account added this version and then simply blanked the entire page (not sure if it was the subject or not, although if it was, I'm not sure why the article actually says she was born in both Brooklyn, New York and London, England). Notifying past taggers Airplaneman, Joe Decker and also Onel5969 and MichaelQSchmidt who may have some insight with this, although this seems certainly seems non-notable. SwisterTwister talk 03:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
@ SwisterTwister: Well... that SPA had copied information from an Vanessa Ferlito so his striking was proper. But in my following guideline instructions and diregarding current state and actually looking at Ginny's career it seems more than likely that WP:NACTOR is met. Did you look first, or simply judge a poor stub? Schmidt, Michael Q. 04:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) — JJMC89 ( T· C) 06:07, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
How it currently looks, this is unlikely better notable and improvable as the best links I found were only this and this but the first link (Books) has some 1980s coverage that suggests there may be more archived coverage if they exist therefore I'm uncertain regarding the article's future. Notifying author Yorkshiresky and past user Michig. SwisterTwister talk 03:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
References
Champion Doug Veitch On the face of it, Champion Doug Veitch and his Clydeside Rebels wouldn't appear to be tailor-made for the attentions of BM readers. But appearances can be deceptive. Mr Veitch 's opus "Lumiere Urban", a bizarre ...
Champion Doug VEITCH Born: Hawick, Borders. Dubbing himself "The King Of Caledonian Cajun Swing", this otherwise reclusive full-time painter and decorator was a bit of an oddball who fused Celtic dub/reggae with country and cajun.
Closer to home we find Champion Doug Veitch, the undisputed King of Caledonian Cajun Swing. Doug plays an intriguing blend of Country, Reggae, Cajun, Soul and Soca. All combine to make a music that effortlessly transcends the sum of ...
The Pogues kick-started a new "rogue folk" movement, and the biggest rogue of them all was Scottish wild- man Champion Doug Veitch, billed as "the undisputed king of Caledonian cajun swing". He managed to upset country purists from the ...
"You'll like this one," he'd say, handing me everything from elegant, wood-paneled jazz like this, to the infamous Champion Doug Veitch and his Scottish-cajun-country-boogie (three or four Fanfares ago.) A lot of the time he's right. Certainly, in ...
Both ; on DiscAfrique, whose frontman, Champion Doug Veitch, has just released a 7" reworking of Mighty Sparrow's "Margarita". • A gathering of some of London's hottest talent takes place i at the Africa Centre on 20th September. African ...
The result was delete. Jenks24 ( talk) 09:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
My searches simply found nothing at all and I managed to find her IMDb page but there's hardly much as is with this Wikipedia article. I would've honestly speedied or PRODed if it wasn't there's information about national singing contests thus there may be some Swedish sources. SwisterTwister talk 03:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was Speedy delete. Speedy deleted as a hoax ( non-admin closure) JMHamo ( talk) 04:28, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is a hoax, or if he's just not notable. Adam9007 ( talk) 03:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 11:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Non-notable author lacking non-trivial support. Article appears to have been created by the article subject. Verges on advertisement. reddogsix ( talk) 02:31, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. I personally think we should include people in this position, but clear consensus has been consistently otherwise. DGG ( talk ) 04:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Municipal politician not inherently notable just for being in politics, who is not notable just for being the first Liberal Democrat Mayor of Camden. She is also not notable by way of simply being a Camden borough councillor, also standing for election and being a losing candidate for a general election does not confer notability. Taken together these do not make her a notable individual as none of the individual events are notable and nor is the sum of the events. Sport and politics ( talk) 02:27, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 22:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Unreferenced list of commercial products built around antiquated standard. Ends up being a catalog of old products. The large majority of items on this list don't have their own Wikipedia articles. Mikeblas ( talk) 16:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 04:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Notability unclear. Adam9007 ( talk) 01:58, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete-- Ymblanter ( talk) 10:23, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Abysmally written and completely unsourced WP:BLP of a person notable only as a local councillor. This doesn't constitute an inclusion freebie on Wikipedia, and neither do subjective assertions of how he is or was the "best" practitioner of any given occupation — but there's no reliable sourcing here to suggest that he would qualify for a Wikipedia article for anything. Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 19:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. No prejudice against recreation as a redirect. Jenks24 ( talk) 09:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Non notable compilation album. Koala15 ( talk) 19:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
RETAIN. fresh background added. (MACWILMSLO) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MACWILMSLO ( talk • contribs) 07:27, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. consensus seems to have been reached DGG ( talk ) 04:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Fails WP:ORG. I tagged it for speedy deletion based on A7 and G11, but the tag was removed. G11, of course, is no longer relevant at AfD. There is a lot of verbiage to read through, but it's obviously a puff piece. I didn't look at all the external links, but I did look at the refs. Most of them don't even mention the organization at all. They mention youth conferences, but not the organization itself. I think there's one that does mention the organization, but it's not really about the organization. It's about a nobel prize winner. I have not done any other research into the organization to see if there are other sources out there. I leave that to the community. To review the article, you're going to have to look at the revision before the copyright notice. Bbb23 ( talk) 01:38, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete per WP:SNOW. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 04:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
This appears to be an essay (disallowed as per WP:NOTESSAY) and may additionally represent potential copyright infringement. Rarkenin ( talk) 00:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. North America 1000 01:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Doesn't meet GNG. Article creator has a history of inserting sources which don't back up GNG claims. isfutile:P ( talk) 00:24, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
what the dead link used to look like does not feature any mention of Karen Arnold, in the past or present. How is it relevant? isfutile:P ( talk) 20:13, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
( talk) 21:24, 25 November 2015 (UTC) (redacted -- Andreas Philopater ( talk) 11:59, 27 November 2015 (UTC))
:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Human3015 TALK 20:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was Delete CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
My personal opinion is that an article for every single song of this rappers upcoming album '88' (for which no article exists yet), plus two songs from compilation albums, is not needed and unencyclopedic. rayukk | talk 00:24, 22 November 2015 (UTC)