The result was delete. I'm really tempted to not close this, so I can !vote Merge with List of articles with absurdly long titles, but duty calls. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
This is a meta-list article synthesizing other lists, but there's no indication that these lists (film awards for acting) should be combined at all. Unlike, say, EGOT, this meta-list has been given no basis off wikipedia. In fact, the reason it wasn't deleted last time (besides no consensus) was that a source gave it such a basis — but it didn't. This article is asserting that the five most prestigious acting awards are the Academy, Golden Globe, BAFTA, SAG, and Critics' Choice Awards. The source does not support this assertion. It does mentions seven awards— Academy, Golden Globe, BAFTA, Guild Awards, the National Board of Review award, Independent Spirit and assorted "Critics Awards". Guild Awards when applied to acting obviously means the SAG, and you can reasonably take out independent spirit by clarifying it's non-independent film. But conveniently ignoring the NBR is unjustified, in fact the source gives far more weight to the NBR than it does to the Critics Choice.
It mentioned the latter as one of several critics' awards— "The key groups in the US include the National Society of Film Critics, made up of 55 writers across the country, the LA Film Critics Association and the New York Film Critics Circle. The London Film Critics' Circle, comprising more than 80 members, issues awards recognizing British and international film talent. In recent years, the Broadcast Film Critics Association has aspired to usurp the status of the Golden Globes, with a televised ceremony of the unashamedly populist Critics' Choice Awards." If you interpret this text literally then the key groups in the US include NSFC, LAFC, and NYFCC. Then it mentions London as a key Critics' group out of the US. But it reserves a different clause for the Critics' Choice—separating it from other critics awards by noting its "unashamed populism" (critics awards are noted for not being populist and for being impartial to commercialism unlike academy-style awards) and saying it wants to usurp the golden globes. A more lenient interpretation is that all the groups are key Critics' groups— but therefore by the source there's no reason to just include the Critics' Choice and not all the groups it mentioned.
Now I didn't want to delete this article, so I changed it to conform to the source it used— I included the NBR and all the Critics' Awards it mentioned, and noted that those six awards were the more prestigious awards for contemporary English non-independent cinema, so as to not generalize unfairly. This change (and here's the most recent version of the page in the same vein by @ Heisenberg0893:) was admittedly awkward but at least it was based on substance.
My edits got reverted. The reasons for reverting my edit was basically that, if I may quote comments on the talk page, it "overcomplicated [the page] and made [the page] too exclusive" and that "NBR isn't a significant award". That's all good and well, but we can't have a preconceived list of performances in our minds, pick criteria around our mind-list, and then say lists that happen to omit performances on our mind-list are "too exclusive". I understand the article's purpose- to note the most acclaimed performances in contemporary cinema with objective criteria, but the criteria isn't objective if it's selected subjectively. This feels like a cruft list, not to mention SYNTH. Time to ping those involved in the original deletion discussion. @ Feedback: @ Jaxsonjo: @ SummerPhD: @ Postdlf: @ Edison:. I'll put in a request for comment on this on related wikiprojects as @ Lapadite77: recommended. -- Monochrome_ Monitor 08:56, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 01:47, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Non-notable organization lacking non-trivial, independent support. reddogsix ( talk) 15:55, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 01:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
No indication of passing WP:BIO or any of its included lower standards of notability John from Idegon ( talk) 21:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. joe decker talk 03:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Non-notable media outlet. Does not meet GNG. Sixth o f March 19:53, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. joe decker talk 03:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Fails WP:MUSBIO and non notable musician. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 18:34, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. Areas/villages are alwyas kept per GEOLAND ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 03:18, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
There is no notability. ~ Moheen ( talk) 18:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. joe decker talk 03:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. ( ?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. czar 17:40, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. After 3 relists there's still no consensus to Keep or Delete. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 03:19, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Recently created article about a non-notable author whose only claim to fame seems to be a self-published book. Briefly mentioned by Iranian TV when he died, but still a long way from established notability. A quick Internet search did not yield any further indicators of notability. Jeppiz ( talk) 02:00, 7 November 2015 (UTC) I am also nominating the self-published book, added yesterday by the same user, failing notability :
The result was no consensus, with no prejudice against speedy renomination. ( non-admin closure) — Jkudlick t c s 01:56, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Declined speedy on the grounds that he is the founder of a notable organisation; however I doubt if he is independently notable. I would favour a redierect to Fully Informed Jury Association TheLongTone ( talk) 14:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Applying WP:SKCRIT criterion one and three. There's no policy-based argument advanced here. ( non-admin closure) clpo13( talk) 00:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
There no need to have article of every person mentioned in Forbes. Musa Talk 16:02, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Applying WP:SKCRIT criterion one and three. There's no policy-based argument advanced here. ( non-admin closure) clpo13( talk) 00:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
No need of biography of every billionaire of the world. Musa Talk 16:00, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 03:20, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
not a notable wrestling championship RealDealBillMcNeal ( talk) 15:44, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was Deleted as G11 (non-admin closure) Vulcan's Forge ( talk) 17:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Unreferenced, looks like advertisement, fails WP:N. Musa Talk 15:38, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 02:22, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Not a notable book. Seven pages of Google hits found lots of publisher and Goodreads hits, but nothing reliable or substantial. The best hits are a sentence in USA Today, a mention in EW, and some mention in an interview with Cosmopolitan. I found no reviews, no discussion, nothing of the kind that makes books notable by our standards. Drmies ( talk) 18:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Coolabahapple, nothing is easily met here. A one-paragraph review in Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books, that's something, sure, but that's it. I don't see why a listing on Common Sense Media would make a book notable: their job is precisely to rate all books, so there's no selection made--and making selections is the essence of matter. (Noteworthy books get real reviews.) Likewise, a review by a librarian for a local library, that's not a review in a reliable source that adds notability to a book.
No, with the review from The Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books we have one review, albeit a very short one, which counts towards notability. All other sources that have been brought up here aren't reviews, just mentions, or they're not real reviews in reliable sources. Drmies ( talk) 14:51, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was Speedy delete and salted per SwisterTwister Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:08, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Article created by single-purpose account with probable COI. Subject does not appear to be notable - zero Google Scholar results, Google Search results mainly social media, PR pieces, and otherwise non-RS. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Citobun ( talk) 14:03, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. joe decker talk 03:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Classic A7. Has been created and speedied at least once before already. Created in the first person as spam (still has the sentence "we also provide..."). Only sources are primary, i.e. the subject's own website. The other "sources" are only describing OCR technology and don't establish notability for the company. Thought about speedy again but since some work has been attempted, a discussion might find a more powerful consensus. Recommend salting as well if deleted. William Thweatt Talk Contribs 12:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:43, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Reason: mysterious article - even location is not mentioned —Loginnigol ( talk) 12:43, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) clpo13( talk) 17:10, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Tagged for CSD G11, however the awards section suggests that there may be just enough notability here to let the article stay - with a major rewrite. Before we get there though we need to determine if the article should stay. TomStar81 ( Talk) 11:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) ansh 666 22:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Does not seem to have done anything notable. A quick Google search does not turn up anything obvious. The article is totally unsourced. Fails WP:GNG Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 10:52, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Keep 1) The article is not unsourced, there are 3 links at the bottom. 2) Not done anything notable: he is correctly stated to be the author of the (controversial) Priest's Declaration (against homosexual partnerships) of 2005, as well as a leading traditionalist and chair of a Swedish national church organization. 3) He received coverage in Swedish national newspapers such as Svenska Dagbladet as well as church sources. 4) Notability depends on external sources, not on how well or badly an article is documented with such sources. In this case Nom failed even to notice the sources listed in the article, let alone look for others, most of which are in Swedish. The general point is that it is essential before nominating to see whether the topic can be sourced; it is not enough to assume that a poorly-sourced article is not notable. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 11:38, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
I have left a comment at Wikiproject Sweden regarding this. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 12:13, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 01:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Almost all coverage about her relates to the BME only student union event she organised and subsequent fall out. The recent story about a likely spoofed email to Pamela Geller has had minimal reliable source coverage. [16]. The article used Breitbart and Huffpo Young Voices as sources for this controversy. General consensus is that Breitbart is not reliable. Huffpo Young Voices, seems to be a blogging platform for student writers and is described as a blog on its twitter account. [17] Brustopher ( talk) 08:52, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was snow keep. The challenge was made that this person is not notable. Gene93k has linked sources that conclusively prove otherwise, and there is no need for anyone else to pile on.— S Marshall T/ C 21:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
A very short Unnoticeable BLP, and poorly sourced with no value to be included in an encyclopedia. having no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, a recently created article with no significant history page written by article subject. DaeafcMnnC ( talk) 08:17, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was speedy deleted as copyvio of walkthrough material. - Barek ( talk • contribs) - 17:02, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
This is a video game walkthrough, not an article. BeowulfBrower ( talk) 07:22, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 02:21, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Speedy was removed by Feezo so here we are and I echo my comments before for this being questionably notable and improvable as the best links I found was only here, here, here and here but none of it seems convincing enough of a better article. It's worth noting the two products (listed at the side) were also deleted at separately timed AfDs (2009 and 2012) so I'm not entirely sure if this one is solidly keepable. Notifying past users and taggers Widefox, SarekOfVulcan and Richhoncho SwisterTwister talk 07:11, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was nomination withdrawn. Upon further investigation, it appears that I'm the guilty party here, who pulled this out of a candidates list and spun it off to a standalone article for some mystifying reason I have no recollection of — but I remain the only substantive author since that time, so I'm going to just speedy it G7. (The original redirect also appears to be blocking a potentially more notable person of the same name, so just recreating that isn't suitable.) Bearcat ( talk) 06:29, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
WP:BLP of a politician notable as a small-town (2K) mayor and as a non-winning candidate for higher office. While there is sourcing here, there's not nearly enough of it to claim WP:GNG — rather, it's WP:ROUTINE local coverage of the type that all mayors and all candidates for office always get, and fails to adequately demonstrate that he's more notable than the norm. Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 06:21, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SK#1, nomination withdrawn and no outstanding delete !votes. ( non-admin closure) Sam Sailor Talk! 23:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Contested PROD. The subject fails notability guidelines. His band is well-known, but he is not. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 05:35, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was withdrawn by nominator. Non-admin closure. Safiel ( talk) 07:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Notability questionable, outside recentism. True CRaysball | #RaysUp 05:28, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Of the people arguing to keep, two are WP:SPA, whose input I discounted, and the third failed to make any policy-based arguments why this should be kept. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Fails WP:GNG. Practically unsourced. Argument for keeping on the talk page was based on the two sources currently cited as "References" in the article. The first is a book I have that, as far as I can tell, doesn't talk about the subject at all. The page number given is the references list page that lists the one citation (of the article on Wikipedia). The other citation curiously cites page 241, but according to GBooks it's only 190 pages long. A search through GBooks reveals it in a list and that's all. Likewise I did not turn up any significant coverage in reliable sources elsewhere. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. ( non-admin closure) sst✈ (discuss) 16:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Delete: non-notable paramilitary. No more entitled to an article than any of the hundreds of paramilitaries killed in The Troubles. Quis separabit? 02:53, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was merge to Ezekiel Ox. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 03:21, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Reason Dalamani ( talk) 02:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) clpo13( talk) 17:15, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Total OR and POV. no scholarly sources give "lists of hanafis". People are not put into lists according to their religion the last time I checked. Yes there can be lists of Hanafi authors or Hanafi clergy, if sources are found for that, but a list of hanafis? no please. We are not in nazi germany. FreeatlastChitchat ( talk) 07:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Some topics (e.g. a list of all people from a particular country who have Wikipedia articles) are so broad that a list would be unmanageably long and effectively unmaintainable.- HyperGaruda ( talk) 06:57, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR ( non-admin closure) clpo13( talk) 17:16, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
The only two references given for this event lack independence from it. The Spanish Wikipedia had nothing on it. I am not seeing enough to support a notability claim. KDS4444 Talk 08:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 06:19, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Per WP:NPASR. ( non-admin closure) — UY Scuti Talk 19:01, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
We already have Wieden+Kennedy AND Old Spice in Wikipedia. Why this, with bunch of YouTube links? MarkYabloko 09:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. Mark Arsten ( talk) 01:49, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Not sure how reliable the source is. WikiEditCrunch ( talk) 09:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 01:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
It seems like the article is a auto-biography. Plus it needs more reliable sources WikiEditCrunch ( talk) 09:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR ( non-admin closure) — Jkudlick t c s 03:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
This appears to be an outgrowth of this article /info/en/?search=Gerry_Georgatos which also has issues. Information on this page should be merged in to the "Homeless" section of the main article rather than having its own page. JamesG5 ( talk) 09:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) clpo13( talk) 17:17, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:GNG or any of the lesser qualifications for athletes. Article does not make any assertion of any claim that would reach automatic notability either. Can't imagine why being named to an ethnic hall of fame would qualify one as notable. John from Idegon ( talk) 16:56, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. joe decker talk 02:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
May not fit notability criteria, the project only has 400-some likes on Facebook and most sources on a Google search are by the organization itself. smileguy91 talk - contribs 02:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. This is a weak enough 'keep', based on the strength - or, I should say, lack thereof - of the !votes that I seriously considered closing this as "no consensus". But the fact remains that it's a unanimous 'keep' (aside from the nominator, of course), so the weakest of keep conclusions this is. Because of that I'll note that for this one there isn't the usual "this would be disruptive" if a second nomination is considered desirable. The Bushranger One ping only 10:37, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Article appears to be sourced only from publications associated with his position in the Mormon church. Neither a quick Google search nor a quick Google Books search turned up a lick of coverage that wasn't published by the LDS Church, which can't be considered an independent source in the context of an LDS official p b p 14:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. ( WP:NPASR). North America 1000 05:46, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Article appears to be sourced only from publications associated with her position in the Mormon church. Neither a quick Google search nor a quick Google Books search turned up a lick of coverage that wasn't published by the LDS Church, which can't be considered an independent source in the context of an LDS official p b p 14:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete-- Ymblanter ( talk) 08:24, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Non-notable local politician. An upazila is an administrative region three levels below national. Being a sub-regional political party president does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. The first two cites mention the subject only tangentially. The third cite is a dead link, but I doubt very much that it contained significant coverage of the subject, as extensive searches for this Abdus Sobhan Chowdhury have found nothing but passing mentions: [24], [25], [26], [27] (mostly of the "was in attendance" variety) and one brief quote. Without significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, subject does not meet WP:GNG. Worldbruce ( talk) 04:50, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 01:51, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Promotion from blocked sock on not notable individual. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Current bombardment of sources is passing mentions and PR. duffbeerforme ( talk) 04:26, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. ( WP:NPASR). North America 1000 05:43, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Sourcing doesn't establish notability per WP:BIO. Kelly hi! 10:53, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. The Bushranger One ping only 11:33, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Other than a few website links, there are no significant sources for this subject. Recommend entry deletion. WikiWatcher987 ( talk) 14:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
References
The result was merge to Racism in the United States. North America 1000 05:40, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Content already covered in article 'Racism in the United States.' Thereppy ( talk) 01:50, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Post-medieval archaeology. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 03:22, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
"Post Medieval" can be used in many contexts, not just archaeology. The archaeological usage is already discussed at Post-medieval archaeology. In Western history, the Renaissance comes to mind as "post-medieval". As a WP:DICDEF of an adjective, I don't see this as worth holding on to. BDD ( talk) 20:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 01:52, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Fails GNG, the current article is in shambles and seems to have been copy pasted from her website to boot. CSD as removed by the creator(who is SPA as far as I can see), so I took this route instead of renominating. FreeatlastChitchat ( talk) 07:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. No !votes outside the nominator after two relists. ( non-admin closure) clpo13( talk) 17:21, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Does not meet notability for WP:CRIMINAL ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 03:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was Delete. -- MelanieN ( talk) 02:02, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Considering that there are over a dozen contestants every season, I don't think there is an assertion of notability at all. There isn't a Wiki page for every winner and runners-up of Masterchef for every country Smarter1 ( talk) 15:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 03:23, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Seemingly clear non-notable locally known entertainer as my searches at Books, News, browsers and Highbeam found nothing better than a few expected links and certainly nothing for better notability and improvement. This is even borderline speedy and PROD material but I always like AfD comments anyway. Notifying speedy decliner DESiegel in case he had any input. SwisterTwister talk 22:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
The article notes:
Junior Simpson is one of Britain's most successful stand-ups. He is not at Edinburgh this year; he hasn't been since 1998. "Black performers," he says, "look at Edinburgh and at the people who go there, and we feel in the back of our minds that we won't be able to find an audience."
That is partly because Edinburgh has a tiny black population. "When I was there in 1998," says Simpson, "the black population had increased by 50% - because I was there." But even "at regular comedy nights in London, Manchester, Birmingham or wherever, it's still unusual to see a black performer on the bill."
The article discusses his beginning as a comedian:
The article covers his career:In his previous calling as a salesman, stand-up comic Junior Simpson would have never believed that a routine trip to the toilet would launch his career in comedy.
"I went along to a wedding with a girlfriend; she knew the bride and groom, but I didn't. The master of ceremonies got up and said: 'Does anyone else want to say anything on behalf of the bride and groom?' I had got up to go to the toilet, the guy assumed I wanted to say something, and I couldn't really say 'I don't know these people I have to go to the toilet'.
"I made some stuff up, talked about the day, and the whole place was laughing," said Simpson from London earlier this week.
His television debut was on the BBC's The Real McCoy in 1994, before going on to Sunday Selection, a variety show in London's Hackney Empire theatre, BBC's The Stand Up Show and Channel 5's Comedy Store. This year he will perform for the third time at the renowned Edinburgh Fringe Festival, a three-week celebration of theatre, comedy, dance and music.
In addition, the "over 21, under 99"-year-old comic hosts a game show, In The Dark, on Channel 5. The programme has three couples performing a variety of everyday tasks in total darkness. Special cameras allow the studio audience to witness the contestants doing things such as putting make-up on their partner, swapping clothes or bandaging their partner's head.
The article notes:
Junior honed his material and performance skills on the British black comedy circuit. Soon word started to spread about this bright, young comedian, dubbed "the new Lenny Henry", and within a few years he had become a mainstream success.
Junior's style is hard to categorise. This, he says, is deliberate. He doesn't want to be stereotyped or confined to a niche market, and it's his desire and ability to metamorphosise that makes him a hit with such a wide range of audiences.
...
Junior's ease at adapting his material means he is also a favourite with producers booking guests for TV shows, from Blankety Blank to Never Mind The Buzzcocks.
The talented all-rounder has also done some acting work. His TV credits include Holby City and Casualty, while his film appearances include High Heels And Low Lifes, and the hit Brit flick Love Actually, playing the world's worst wedding DJ.
The article notes:
From wedding speeches to Love Actually, Junior Simpson talks to Natalie Hale about his comedy career Since appearing on the comedy scene, Luton's lapsed choirboy Junior Simpson has quickly established himself as a true "tour de force" live performer.
...
Junior's highest profile role was as the world's worst wedding DJ in British blockbuster Love Actually. But despite the attention he received from appearing in the award-winning, worldwide hit, it's stand-up that still gives the comedian the biggest buzz of all.
The article notes:
JUNIOR Simpson says it is difficult to make a comedian laugh.
"The series The Office always makes me howl with laughter, but otherwise it's not that easy to make me laugh," the English funnyman says.
...
Junior says his material is more global comedy and is not specific to a certain area.
...
The article notes:
Junior Simpson got into comedy by accident. The Luton-born comic was walking out of a wedding reception to use the loo, when the MC thought he wanted to make a speech and invited him on to the stage.
"The only person I knew there was my girlfriend," said the Hackney comedian. "I was just going to say a few things, like best wishes for the future, but then I started talking about relationships and my parents. I went into this stand-up routine. And people were laughing."
The happy accident has seen the 41-year-old delivering his humourous observations on life on TV and in clubs for the last 11 years.
The article notes:
Simpson's irresistible energy and evangelical delivery can engage the most jaded of rooms - which is even more of an achievement when you consider the sheer paucity of his material.
His topics seem stuck in a timewarp, covering such hoary chestnuts as the deep-voiced guy who does cinema ad voiceovers, and he does so with little insight or originality.
Though his infectious stage manner carries him a long way, it can't overcome the dreary lack of invention that lies where the soul of act should be.
There is the very occasional funny line, but it all seems like woefully inadequate papering over the gaping holes in his creativity.
The article notes:
The former salesman, now 50, joked: "If I had had better bladder control we wouldn’t be having this conversation."
Junior looks for humour in everyday life and shares stories of his travels.
...
The dad of one, who lives in south Yorkshire, has had many highs and lows in his performing career.
...
A particular highlight was performing to British troops in Iraq alongside Jim Jeffries.
His lowest point was a show at the Edinburgh Festival, which he completed but was heckled so badly that he left without picking up his coat or the money he was owed.
The article notes:
With his infectious energy and huge stage presence, it is easy to see why Junior is a circuit favourite.
He has a boundless joy and exuberance that has audiences hooked with hilarity.
A true observational comic, Junior finds his humour in the everyday and humdrum with anecdotes of his world travels as a comedian adding a personal originality to his set.
Junior is a regular headliner at clubs all over the UK and is also in great demand in South Africa and Australia.
The result was speedy delete. NAC WWGB ( talk) 04:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
article already present Twomcvms ( talk) 00:44, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete-- Ymblanter ( talk) 08:15, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Barely notable website. Most of the sources found on Google only mentions the subject. Sixth o f March 00:40, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was Deleted (speedy) as G4, recreation of previously discussed deletion (non-admin closure) Vulcan's Forge ( talk) 18:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Future event with no venue, no date and no reliable sources, failing WP:CRYSTAL. Also yet another attempt to recreate Miss Universe 2016, which was redirected and protected. This pageant was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The 65th Miss Universe Pageant three weeks ago. G4 speedy was contested, saying it should go to AfD. So here we are again. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:30, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. I'm really tempted to not close this, so I can !vote Merge with List of articles with absurdly long titles, but duty calls. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
This is a meta-list article synthesizing other lists, but there's no indication that these lists (film awards for acting) should be combined at all. Unlike, say, EGOT, this meta-list has been given no basis off wikipedia. In fact, the reason it wasn't deleted last time (besides no consensus) was that a source gave it such a basis — but it didn't. This article is asserting that the five most prestigious acting awards are the Academy, Golden Globe, BAFTA, SAG, and Critics' Choice Awards. The source does not support this assertion. It does mentions seven awards— Academy, Golden Globe, BAFTA, Guild Awards, the National Board of Review award, Independent Spirit and assorted "Critics Awards". Guild Awards when applied to acting obviously means the SAG, and you can reasonably take out independent spirit by clarifying it's non-independent film. But conveniently ignoring the NBR is unjustified, in fact the source gives far more weight to the NBR than it does to the Critics Choice.
It mentioned the latter as one of several critics' awards— "The key groups in the US include the National Society of Film Critics, made up of 55 writers across the country, the LA Film Critics Association and the New York Film Critics Circle. The London Film Critics' Circle, comprising more than 80 members, issues awards recognizing British and international film talent. In recent years, the Broadcast Film Critics Association has aspired to usurp the status of the Golden Globes, with a televised ceremony of the unashamedly populist Critics' Choice Awards." If you interpret this text literally then the key groups in the US include NSFC, LAFC, and NYFCC. Then it mentions London as a key Critics' group out of the US. But it reserves a different clause for the Critics' Choice—separating it from other critics awards by noting its "unashamed populism" (critics awards are noted for not being populist and for being impartial to commercialism unlike academy-style awards) and saying it wants to usurp the golden globes. A more lenient interpretation is that all the groups are key Critics' groups— but therefore by the source there's no reason to just include the Critics' Choice and not all the groups it mentioned.
Now I didn't want to delete this article, so I changed it to conform to the source it used— I included the NBR and all the Critics' Awards it mentioned, and noted that those six awards were the more prestigious awards for contemporary English non-independent cinema, so as to not generalize unfairly. This change (and here's the most recent version of the page in the same vein by @ Heisenberg0893:) was admittedly awkward but at least it was based on substance.
My edits got reverted. The reasons for reverting my edit was basically that, if I may quote comments on the talk page, it "overcomplicated [the page] and made [the page] too exclusive" and that "NBR isn't a significant award". That's all good and well, but we can't have a preconceived list of performances in our minds, pick criteria around our mind-list, and then say lists that happen to omit performances on our mind-list are "too exclusive". I understand the article's purpose- to note the most acclaimed performances in contemporary cinema with objective criteria, but the criteria isn't objective if it's selected subjectively. This feels like a cruft list, not to mention SYNTH. Time to ping those involved in the original deletion discussion. @ Feedback: @ Jaxsonjo: @ SummerPhD: @ Postdlf: @ Edison:. I'll put in a request for comment on this on related wikiprojects as @ Lapadite77: recommended. -- Monochrome_ Monitor 08:56, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 01:47, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Non-notable organization lacking non-trivial, independent support. reddogsix ( talk) 15:55, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 01:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
No indication of passing WP:BIO or any of its included lower standards of notability John from Idegon ( talk) 21:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. joe decker talk 03:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Non-notable media outlet. Does not meet GNG. Sixth o f March 19:53, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. joe decker talk 03:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Fails WP:MUSBIO and non notable musician. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 18:34, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. Areas/villages are alwyas kept per GEOLAND ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 03:18, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
There is no notability. ~ Moheen ( talk) 18:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. joe decker talk 03:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. ( ?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. czar 17:40, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. After 3 relists there's still no consensus to Keep or Delete. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 03:19, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Recently created article about a non-notable author whose only claim to fame seems to be a self-published book. Briefly mentioned by Iranian TV when he died, but still a long way from established notability. A quick Internet search did not yield any further indicators of notability. Jeppiz ( talk) 02:00, 7 November 2015 (UTC) I am also nominating the self-published book, added yesterday by the same user, failing notability :
The result was no consensus, with no prejudice against speedy renomination. ( non-admin closure) — Jkudlick t c s 01:56, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Declined speedy on the grounds that he is the founder of a notable organisation; however I doubt if he is independently notable. I would favour a redierect to Fully Informed Jury Association TheLongTone ( talk) 14:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Applying WP:SKCRIT criterion one and three. There's no policy-based argument advanced here. ( non-admin closure) clpo13( talk) 00:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
There no need to have article of every person mentioned in Forbes. Musa Talk 16:02, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Applying WP:SKCRIT criterion one and three. There's no policy-based argument advanced here. ( non-admin closure) clpo13( talk) 00:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
No need of biography of every billionaire of the world. Musa Talk 16:00, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 03:20, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
not a notable wrestling championship RealDealBillMcNeal ( talk) 15:44, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was Deleted as G11 (non-admin closure) Vulcan's Forge ( talk) 17:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Unreferenced, looks like advertisement, fails WP:N. Musa Talk 15:38, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 02:22, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Not a notable book. Seven pages of Google hits found lots of publisher and Goodreads hits, but nothing reliable or substantial. The best hits are a sentence in USA Today, a mention in EW, and some mention in an interview with Cosmopolitan. I found no reviews, no discussion, nothing of the kind that makes books notable by our standards. Drmies ( talk) 18:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Coolabahapple, nothing is easily met here. A one-paragraph review in Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books, that's something, sure, but that's it. I don't see why a listing on Common Sense Media would make a book notable: their job is precisely to rate all books, so there's no selection made--and making selections is the essence of matter. (Noteworthy books get real reviews.) Likewise, a review by a librarian for a local library, that's not a review in a reliable source that adds notability to a book.
No, with the review from The Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books we have one review, albeit a very short one, which counts towards notability. All other sources that have been brought up here aren't reviews, just mentions, or they're not real reviews in reliable sources. Drmies ( talk) 14:51, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was Speedy delete and salted per SwisterTwister Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:08, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Article created by single-purpose account with probable COI. Subject does not appear to be notable - zero Google Scholar results, Google Search results mainly social media, PR pieces, and otherwise non-RS. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Citobun ( talk) 14:03, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. joe decker talk 03:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Classic A7. Has been created and speedied at least once before already. Created in the first person as spam (still has the sentence "we also provide..."). Only sources are primary, i.e. the subject's own website. The other "sources" are only describing OCR technology and don't establish notability for the company. Thought about speedy again but since some work has been attempted, a discussion might find a more powerful consensus. Recommend salting as well if deleted. William Thweatt Talk Contribs 12:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:43, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Reason: mysterious article - even location is not mentioned —Loginnigol ( talk) 12:43, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) clpo13( talk) 17:10, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Tagged for CSD G11, however the awards section suggests that there may be just enough notability here to let the article stay - with a major rewrite. Before we get there though we need to determine if the article should stay. TomStar81 ( Talk) 11:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) ansh 666 22:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Does not seem to have done anything notable. A quick Google search does not turn up anything obvious. The article is totally unsourced. Fails WP:GNG Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 10:52, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Keep 1) The article is not unsourced, there are 3 links at the bottom. 2) Not done anything notable: he is correctly stated to be the author of the (controversial) Priest's Declaration (against homosexual partnerships) of 2005, as well as a leading traditionalist and chair of a Swedish national church organization. 3) He received coverage in Swedish national newspapers such as Svenska Dagbladet as well as church sources. 4) Notability depends on external sources, not on how well or badly an article is documented with such sources. In this case Nom failed even to notice the sources listed in the article, let alone look for others, most of which are in Swedish. The general point is that it is essential before nominating to see whether the topic can be sourced; it is not enough to assume that a poorly-sourced article is not notable. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 11:38, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
I have left a comment at Wikiproject Sweden regarding this. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 12:13, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 01:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Almost all coverage about her relates to the BME only student union event she organised and subsequent fall out. The recent story about a likely spoofed email to Pamela Geller has had minimal reliable source coverage. [16]. The article used Breitbart and Huffpo Young Voices as sources for this controversy. General consensus is that Breitbart is not reliable. Huffpo Young Voices, seems to be a blogging platform for student writers and is described as a blog on its twitter account. [17] Brustopher ( talk) 08:52, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was snow keep. The challenge was made that this person is not notable. Gene93k has linked sources that conclusively prove otherwise, and there is no need for anyone else to pile on.— S Marshall T/ C 21:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
A very short Unnoticeable BLP, and poorly sourced with no value to be included in an encyclopedia. having no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, a recently created article with no significant history page written by article subject. DaeafcMnnC ( talk) 08:17, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was speedy deleted as copyvio of walkthrough material. - Barek ( talk • contribs) - 17:02, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
This is a video game walkthrough, not an article. BeowulfBrower ( talk) 07:22, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 02:21, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Speedy was removed by Feezo so here we are and I echo my comments before for this being questionably notable and improvable as the best links I found was only here, here, here and here but none of it seems convincing enough of a better article. It's worth noting the two products (listed at the side) were also deleted at separately timed AfDs (2009 and 2012) so I'm not entirely sure if this one is solidly keepable. Notifying past users and taggers Widefox, SarekOfVulcan and Richhoncho SwisterTwister talk 07:11, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was nomination withdrawn. Upon further investigation, it appears that I'm the guilty party here, who pulled this out of a candidates list and spun it off to a standalone article for some mystifying reason I have no recollection of — but I remain the only substantive author since that time, so I'm going to just speedy it G7. (The original redirect also appears to be blocking a potentially more notable person of the same name, so just recreating that isn't suitable.) Bearcat ( talk) 06:29, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
WP:BLP of a politician notable as a small-town (2K) mayor and as a non-winning candidate for higher office. While there is sourcing here, there's not nearly enough of it to claim WP:GNG — rather, it's WP:ROUTINE local coverage of the type that all mayors and all candidates for office always get, and fails to adequately demonstrate that he's more notable than the norm. Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 06:21, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SK#1, nomination withdrawn and no outstanding delete !votes. ( non-admin closure) Sam Sailor Talk! 23:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Contested PROD. The subject fails notability guidelines. His band is well-known, but he is not. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 05:35, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was withdrawn by nominator. Non-admin closure. Safiel ( talk) 07:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Notability questionable, outside recentism. True CRaysball | #RaysUp 05:28, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Of the people arguing to keep, two are WP:SPA, whose input I discounted, and the third failed to make any policy-based arguments why this should be kept. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Fails WP:GNG. Practically unsourced. Argument for keeping on the talk page was based on the two sources currently cited as "References" in the article. The first is a book I have that, as far as I can tell, doesn't talk about the subject at all. The page number given is the references list page that lists the one citation (of the article on Wikipedia). The other citation curiously cites page 241, but according to GBooks it's only 190 pages long. A search through GBooks reveals it in a list and that's all. Likewise I did not turn up any significant coverage in reliable sources elsewhere. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. ( non-admin closure) sst✈ (discuss) 16:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Delete: non-notable paramilitary. No more entitled to an article than any of the hundreds of paramilitaries killed in The Troubles. Quis separabit? 02:53, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was merge to Ezekiel Ox. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 03:21, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Reason Dalamani ( talk) 02:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) clpo13( talk) 17:15, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Total OR and POV. no scholarly sources give "lists of hanafis". People are not put into lists according to their religion the last time I checked. Yes there can be lists of Hanafi authors or Hanafi clergy, if sources are found for that, but a list of hanafis? no please. We are not in nazi germany. FreeatlastChitchat ( talk) 07:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Some topics (e.g. a list of all people from a particular country who have Wikipedia articles) are so broad that a list would be unmanageably long and effectively unmaintainable.- HyperGaruda ( talk) 06:57, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR ( non-admin closure) clpo13( talk) 17:16, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
The only two references given for this event lack independence from it. The Spanish Wikipedia had nothing on it. I am not seeing enough to support a notability claim. KDS4444 Talk 08:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 06:19, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Per WP:NPASR. ( non-admin closure) — UY Scuti Talk 19:01, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
We already have Wieden+Kennedy AND Old Spice in Wikipedia. Why this, with bunch of YouTube links? MarkYabloko 09:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. Mark Arsten ( talk) 01:49, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Not sure how reliable the source is. WikiEditCrunch ( talk) 09:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 01:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
It seems like the article is a auto-biography. Plus it needs more reliable sources WikiEditCrunch ( talk) 09:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR ( non-admin closure) — Jkudlick t c s 03:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
This appears to be an outgrowth of this article /info/en/?search=Gerry_Georgatos which also has issues. Information on this page should be merged in to the "Homeless" section of the main article rather than having its own page. JamesG5 ( talk) 09:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) clpo13( talk) 17:17, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:GNG or any of the lesser qualifications for athletes. Article does not make any assertion of any claim that would reach automatic notability either. Can't imagine why being named to an ethnic hall of fame would qualify one as notable. John from Idegon ( talk) 16:56, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. joe decker talk 02:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
May not fit notability criteria, the project only has 400-some likes on Facebook and most sources on a Google search are by the organization itself. smileguy91 talk - contribs 02:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. This is a weak enough 'keep', based on the strength - or, I should say, lack thereof - of the !votes that I seriously considered closing this as "no consensus". But the fact remains that it's a unanimous 'keep' (aside from the nominator, of course), so the weakest of keep conclusions this is. Because of that I'll note that for this one there isn't the usual "this would be disruptive" if a second nomination is considered desirable. The Bushranger One ping only 10:37, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Article appears to be sourced only from publications associated with his position in the Mormon church. Neither a quick Google search nor a quick Google Books search turned up a lick of coverage that wasn't published by the LDS Church, which can't be considered an independent source in the context of an LDS official p b p 14:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. ( WP:NPASR). North America 1000 05:46, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Article appears to be sourced only from publications associated with her position in the Mormon church. Neither a quick Google search nor a quick Google Books search turned up a lick of coverage that wasn't published by the LDS Church, which can't be considered an independent source in the context of an LDS official p b p 14:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete-- Ymblanter ( talk) 08:24, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Non-notable local politician. An upazila is an administrative region three levels below national. Being a sub-regional political party president does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. The first two cites mention the subject only tangentially. The third cite is a dead link, but I doubt very much that it contained significant coverage of the subject, as extensive searches for this Abdus Sobhan Chowdhury have found nothing but passing mentions: [24], [25], [26], [27] (mostly of the "was in attendance" variety) and one brief quote. Without significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, subject does not meet WP:GNG. Worldbruce ( talk) 04:50, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 01:51, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Promotion from blocked sock on not notable individual. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Current bombardment of sources is passing mentions and PR. duffbeerforme ( talk) 04:26, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. ( WP:NPASR). North America 1000 05:43, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Sourcing doesn't establish notability per WP:BIO. Kelly hi! 10:53, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. The Bushranger One ping only 11:33, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Other than a few website links, there are no significant sources for this subject. Recommend entry deletion. WikiWatcher987 ( talk) 14:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
References
The result was merge to Racism in the United States. North America 1000 05:40, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Content already covered in article 'Racism in the United States.' Thereppy ( talk) 01:50, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Post-medieval archaeology. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 03:22, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
"Post Medieval" can be used in many contexts, not just archaeology. The archaeological usage is already discussed at Post-medieval archaeology. In Western history, the Renaissance comes to mind as "post-medieval". As a WP:DICDEF of an adjective, I don't see this as worth holding on to. BDD ( talk) 20:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 01:52, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Fails GNG, the current article is in shambles and seems to have been copy pasted from her website to boot. CSD as removed by the creator(who is SPA as far as I can see), so I took this route instead of renominating. FreeatlastChitchat ( talk) 07:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. No !votes outside the nominator after two relists. ( non-admin closure) clpo13( talk) 17:21, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Does not meet notability for WP:CRIMINAL ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 03:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was Delete. -- MelanieN ( talk) 02:02, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Considering that there are over a dozen contestants every season, I don't think there is an assertion of notability at all. There isn't a Wiki page for every winner and runners-up of Masterchef for every country Smarter1 ( talk) 15:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 03:23, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Seemingly clear non-notable locally known entertainer as my searches at Books, News, browsers and Highbeam found nothing better than a few expected links and certainly nothing for better notability and improvement. This is even borderline speedy and PROD material but I always like AfD comments anyway. Notifying speedy decliner DESiegel in case he had any input. SwisterTwister talk 22:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
The article notes:
Junior Simpson is one of Britain's most successful stand-ups. He is not at Edinburgh this year; he hasn't been since 1998. "Black performers," he says, "look at Edinburgh and at the people who go there, and we feel in the back of our minds that we won't be able to find an audience."
That is partly because Edinburgh has a tiny black population. "When I was there in 1998," says Simpson, "the black population had increased by 50% - because I was there." But even "at regular comedy nights in London, Manchester, Birmingham or wherever, it's still unusual to see a black performer on the bill."
The article discusses his beginning as a comedian:
The article covers his career:In his previous calling as a salesman, stand-up comic Junior Simpson would have never believed that a routine trip to the toilet would launch his career in comedy.
"I went along to a wedding with a girlfriend; she knew the bride and groom, but I didn't. The master of ceremonies got up and said: 'Does anyone else want to say anything on behalf of the bride and groom?' I had got up to go to the toilet, the guy assumed I wanted to say something, and I couldn't really say 'I don't know these people I have to go to the toilet'.
"I made some stuff up, talked about the day, and the whole place was laughing," said Simpson from London earlier this week.
His television debut was on the BBC's The Real McCoy in 1994, before going on to Sunday Selection, a variety show in London's Hackney Empire theatre, BBC's The Stand Up Show and Channel 5's Comedy Store. This year he will perform for the third time at the renowned Edinburgh Fringe Festival, a three-week celebration of theatre, comedy, dance and music.
In addition, the "over 21, under 99"-year-old comic hosts a game show, In The Dark, on Channel 5. The programme has three couples performing a variety of everyday tasks in total darkness. Special cameras allow the studio audience to witness the contestants doing things such as putting make-up on their partner, swapping clothes or bandaging their partner's head.
The article notes:
Junior honed his material and performance skills on the British black comedy circuit. Soon word started to spread about this bright, young comedian, dubbed "the new Lenny Henry", and within a few years he had become a mainstream success.
Junior's style is hard to categorise. This, he says, is deliberate. He doesn't want to be stereotyped or confined to a niche market, and it's his desire and ability to metamorphosise that makes him a hit with such a wide range of audiences.
...
Junior's ease at adapting his material means he is also a favourite with producers booking guests for TV shows, from Blankety Blank to Never Mind The Buzzcocks.
The talented all-rounder has also done some acting work. His TV credits include Holby City and Casualty, while his film appearances include High Heels And Low Lifes, and the hit Brit flick Love Actually, playing the world's worst wedding DJ.
The article notes:
From wedding speeches to Love Actually, Junior Simpson talks to Natalie Hale about his comedy career Since appearing on the comedy scene, Luton's lapsed choirboy Junior Simpson has quickly established himself as a true "tour de force" live performer.
...
Junior's highest profile role was as the world's worst wedding DJ in British blockbuster Love Actually. But despite the attention he received from appearing in the award-winning, worldwide hit, it's stand-up that still gives the comedian the biggest buzz of all.
The article notes:
JUNIOR Simpson says it is difficult to make a comedian laugh.
"The series The Office always makes me howl with laughter, but otherwise it's not that easy to make me laugh," the English funnyman says.
...
Junior says his material is more global comedy and is not specific to a certain area.
...
The article notes:
Junior Simpson got into comedy by accident. The Luton-born comic was walking out of a wedding reception to use the loo, when the MC thought he wanted to make a speech and invited him on to the stage.
"The only person I knew there was my girlfriend," said the Hackney comedian. "I was just going to say a few things, like best wishes for the future, but then I started talking about relationships and my parents. I went into this stand-up routine. And people were laughing."
The happy accident has seen the 41-year-old delivering his humourous observations on life on TV and in clubs for the last 11 years.
The article notes:
Simpson's irresistible energy and evangelical delivery can engage the most jaded of rooms - which is even more of an achievement when you consider the sheer paucity of his material.
His topics seem stuck in a timewarp, covering such hoary chestnuts as the deep-voiced guy who does cinema ad voiceovers, and he does so with little insight or originality.
Though his infectious stage manner carries him a long way, it can't overcome the dreary lack of invention that lies where the soul of act should be.
There is the very occasional funny line, but it all seems like woefully inadequate papering over the gaping holes in his creativity.
The article notes:
The former salesman, now 50, joked: "If I had had better bladder control we wouldn’t be having this conversation."
Junior looks for humour in everyday life and shares stories of his travels.
...
The dad of one, who lives in south Yorkshire, has had many highs and lows in his performing career.
...
A particular highlight was performing to British troops in Iraq alongside Jim Jeffries.
His lowest point was a show at the Edinburgh Festival, which he completed but was heckled so badly that he left without picking up his coat or the money he was owed.
The article notes:
With his infectious energy and huge stage presence, it is easy to see why Junior is a circuit favourite.
He has a boundless joy and exuberance that has audiences hooked with hilarity.
A true observational comic, Junior finds his humour in the everyday and humdrum with anecdotes of his world travels as a comedian adding a personal originality to his set.
Junior is a regular headliner at clubs all over the UK and is also in great demand in South Africa and Australia.
The result was speedy delete. NAC WWGB ( talk) 04:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
article already present Twomcvms ( talk) 00:44, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete-- Ymblanter ( talk) 08:15, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Barely notable website. Most of the sources found on Google only mentions the subject. Sixth o f March 00:40, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was Deleted (speedy) as G4, recreation of previously discussed deletion (non-admin closure) Vulcan's Forge ( talk) 18:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Future event with no venue, no date and no reliable sources, failing WP:CRYSTAL. Also yet another attempt to recreate Miss Universe 2016, which was redirected and protected. This pageant was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The 65th Miss Universe Pageant three weeks ago. G4 speedy was contested, saying it should go to AfD. So here we are again. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:30, 28 November 2015 (UTC)