![]() |
The result was Delete-- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 10:07, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Promo and non notable. I had it marked for speedy A7 and promo, but another editor removed the tag. John from Idegon ( talk) 23:59, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
The result was Redirect to Applied Micro Circuits Corporation. There is unanimous consensus that there should not be a separate article on this topic. If anyone wishes to merge any of the content then they can do so. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 16:16, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Fails WP:ORG. History of a long dead corporation who developed a new packet switching algo.for optimising throughput on raid controllers. Company ended up at LSI, that most excellent company. Can't see how it's notable. Ancient history. scope_creep 22:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
The result was Deleted by Anthony Bradbury, who logged this AfD as reason, but didn't close the discussion, presumably by mistake, so I am closing it. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 16:20, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Band with no substantive or properly sourced claim of notability per WP:NMUSIC. The strongest things here are that its lead singer was a non-winning competitor on The Voice, that one of its songs was selected as "Song of the Day" by a single local radio station, and that one of its other songs got included in a Spotify playlist. But simply being a competitor in a reality show is not a claim of notability in and of itself, notability-because-radio-play has to be tied to national terrestrial radio networks rather than individual stations or Spotify playlists, and the sourcing here is almost entirely to primary sources and blogs rather than to real media coverage about them. As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform on which a band is entitled to an article just because they exist -- real media coverage, supporting a claim of notability that passes NMUSIC, must be present for a band to earn an article on here. Delete. (Note also the redirect from Troy Ritchie, which was formerly a separate article but made no claim of independent notability substantive enough to get him a standalone WP:BLP as a separate topic from the band, as it was based on exactly the same set of inadequate sources that aren't cutting it here.) Bearcat ( talk) 17:23, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. Well it's been a week since sources have been added and no one's refuted them or whatever so closing as Keep, Don't usually close on one !vote however the next relist would only gain another !Keep so wrapping it up as Keep (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 00:02, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Racing driver that does not meet the WP:NMOTORSPORT criteria, and has not received significant coverage from reliable sources. QueenCake ( talk) 21:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
References
The result was redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1992#January. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 00:02, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
What is the notability of this small time "model and actress", being a Playmate of the Month and a teen beauty pageant winner, that's really all. In a nutshell, fail WP:NMODEL and I doubt any other of the Miss District of Columbia Teen USA winners has an article either. Donnie Park ( talk) 21:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. nominator and only dissenting voice acknowledges notability per subject-specific guideline. No need to keep this open for purely administrative reasons Fenix down ( talk) 08:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
The subject is non-notable, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. This article is also a stub on the Romanian Wikipedia, which means additional sourcing will be hard to find, if it exists. Sheepythemouse ( talk) 20:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
^The aforementioned team was dissolved in 2014. Sheepythemouse ( talk) 00:51, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Alright, obviously the subject is notable and I didnt do enough research, apologies ><. But can anybody deny that, for the accomplishments of this player, his page shows next-to-nothing? Sheepythemouse ( talk) 01:10, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
The result was Delete-- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 10:15, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
I can't find enough secondary sources on the topic to be convinced that the subject meets the WP:GNG or WP:BIO; in fact, I can't really find any. The article has no sources and reads like a CV or an advertisement, and while those aren't reasons to delete, the lack of available secondary sources makes it impossible to create an acceptable article. -- Rrburke ( talk) 20:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
The result was Delete-- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 10:42, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Non-notable free mixtape, fails WP:NALBUMS. Azealia911 talk 19:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
The result was Delete-- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 10:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Fails WP:POLITICIAN; Mr. Cords is a current candidate for local office who hopes to run for statewide office in six years. My research indicates that third-party coverage of this person addresses his high-school athletic history rather than his political candidacy. This doesn't meet Wikipedia's guidelines for notability of politicians, and I hope the article creator will read that guideline to understand why I'm making this nomination. (Reviewers/commenters: note that I did copy-edit the article for the duration, and if my deletion nomination is thus inappropriate on a COI basis, I will withdraw same in favor of another nominator.) Julietdeltalima (talk) 19:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
*KEEP This article appears to be fine. If you contact the DFL, you will be able to find out that Mr. Cords is a very prominent member and may actually become a 'super delegate' (a prominent political official who votes for presidential nominees) for the democratic national convention this summer.— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Purpledoglady (
talk •
contribs) —
Purpledoglady (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
If a news article was found, would this page be kept? 68.112.47.11 ( talk)Jack 68.112.47.11 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:45, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
There is a week left on this discussion if I am correct. I will try to find one or more before that deadline. I hope we can have further discussions on this. 68.112.47.11 ( talk)Jack 68.112.47.11 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC) https://m.facebook.com/OwatonnaIkes/photos/pb.1417827575098136.-2207520000.1460760905./1729173760630181/?type=3&source=54&refid=17 Here is a Facebook post about him lobbying on behalf of the Izaak Walton League. 68.112.47.11 ( talk)Jack 68.112.47.11 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC) http://ci.owatonna.mn.us/sites/default/files/documents/2011/01/2015-04-07_Packet.pdf Here is an official document from the City of Owatonna, mentioning Mr. Cords. 68.112.47.11 ( talk)Jack 68.112.47.11 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:03, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
It is unfortunate you people do not live in Minnesota, where you would surely know of him, Cords was endorsed by a state senator and five other important figures such as the President of the Southern Minnesota Municipal Power Association. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Purpledoglady ( talk • contribs) 23:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
I am disappointed that none of you believe what I have said simply because I can not source it to anybody accept for the politician, Mr. Cords, himself from his Twitter feed. For the most part, I respect you people, but I feel as if though, you are not giving fair and equal consideration to my half of the arguement. Purpledoglady ( talk) 00:33, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
I fixed my typo saying Me. Cords instead of Mr. Cords. 68.112.47.11 ( talk) 03:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)Jack 68.112.47.11 ( talk) 03:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
The result was Delete-- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 11:19, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
This majority of this article is original research and appears to be written by the subject himself. Not convinced that this passed WP:GNG T v x1 19:22, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
The result was Delete-- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 14:48, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Software with no indication of notability. Prodded and endorsed--prod tag removed by article creator without explanation or addressing of notability concerns. -- Finngall talk 18:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Can someone check if now is good? -- Sauler95 ( talk) 19:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
The result was Delete per clear consensus. -- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 14:59, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Not sure how this previously survived AFD. It is purely listcruft. Even if all of these were sourced, dropping out is rarely (if ever) relevant to people's notability to begin with. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 18:09, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete its a Crystal Ball major issue waiting to happen. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ ( talk) 18:26, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
The result was Delete re-evaluation after listing has produced unanimity.-- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 15:04, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Non-notable female boxer. Lacks the coverage to meet the GNG and also fails to meet WP:NBOX. Winning a state amateur championship and being invited to compete at the national amateur championships is not enough to show notability. Mdtemp ( talk) 16:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 08:25, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Non-notable MMA fighter. Even after she makes her scheduled UFC debut, she will not meet WP:NMMA. Article was created WP:TOOSOON. No objection to saving copy of article in userspace until she becomes notable. Mdtemp ( talk) 15:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
The result was Delete-- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 15:12, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
New non-notable; no references available to suport notability. Only refs on article are low-quality Quora or Blog refs. HappyValleyEditor ( talk) 17:06, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
The result was Delete-- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 15:15, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Contested WP:PROD, nominated for WP:NOTINHERITED rationale as a small-time actress and reality TV star focused on her then husband. Minimal if not any decent coverage at all with one major coverage from a "free weekly community newspaper" and the only major source (LA Times) covering her divorce. Donnie Park ( talk) 17:05, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Mhhossein ( talk) 07:50, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
This is taking a recent term for improvised fighting vehicles and dragging it kicking and screaming into the past. There's material here, perhaps, for a smaller more focused article, or a larger, renamed or merged one. Anmccaff ( talk) 15:38, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
The result was merge to Wyandotte, Michigan#Sports and recreation. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 03:39, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Non-notable local park. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 14:58, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
The result was Speedy Deleted-- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 13:25, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
This article appears to be a long-lived hoax. No such player was nominated for the Outland Trophy in 1984, nor did New Mexico football participate in a bowl game during this time period. The article creator's other edits all appear to consist of changes to other articles to support this hoax. Calamondin12 ( talk) 13:22, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Rape in India#Notable incidents. The content is available under the redirect for anyone wishing to merge. Stifle ( talk) 08:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Had nominated it for speedy deletion previously, but was declined. Nominating per WP:NOTNEWS. The incident doesn't seem to have any WP:LASTING effects and neither WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. The article itself has not been edited since about a month making me doubt its notability. Lemongirl942 ( talk) 13:15, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance.. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 03:10, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
However, not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia.followed by criteria which states why routine news reports may not be suitable for including in Wikipedia. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 03:15, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. czar 14:53, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
An autobiography of a non-notable actress. ThePlatypusofDoom ( talk) 12:45, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Kiana Tajammol is an Iranian visual artist , photographer …All we have is that she played a role in the movie A Dragon Arrives! which is not enough to make her notable. 14:32, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This page has been blanked as a courtesy. |
The result was Delete-- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 15:49, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. Looking up "squigs" brings up a lot of searches on the custom WP:VG/RS Google search engine. But a squig is also a creature from Warhammer 40,000. "squigs amiga" brings up a total of 8 results, 4 of which don't mention Squigs. Redirect to developer Jon Hibbins. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 10:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
The result was Delete A detailed assessment of the unusually long thread produces a clear and reasoned consensus. -- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 16:04, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm unable to find any coverage of the subject in reliable sources. The references cited are mainly primary sources written by the subject or biographies on sites where he writes, which are of no use for establishing notability. A long way of meeting the requirements of WP:BIO SmartSE ( talk) 12:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Comment Dear Editors, I really apologize for creating such concern here and for other pages I have recently created. I have had a blast contributing to Wikipedia and yes, I have been compensated for a few articles recently. I made note of it on the respective pages. I do now regret that I accepted compensation. I didn't realize it would upset the editorial community as it has and I apologize for it. I inquired about compensation in the chat room when some one asked me to create a page, and an editor kindly directed me to how to follow procedure. In addition, I admit that I've made a lot of mistakes since I started contributing both to my own page and to others I have either edited or created, but I have really tried to be as neutral and objective as possible. In some instances, I lost perspective and was corrected. I'm still learning and I use both the chat room and talk pages of other editors to help me navigate around. I was really alarmed by this notice and tonight reached out to an editor who I have been consulting with and this what they responded with when I asked if I could be blocked or banned from editing my own page to avoid any concern:
"jordan Schaul page
Hi, Jpop. I'm not sure, but I believe any editor can voluntarily pledge to topic-ban themselves from editing a particular article. I haven't run across this before, but you might try posting a query outlining your and the other editor's concerns at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. You might also make a case at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jordan Schaul (2nd nomination) — and do feel free to mention that you've worked with me over the last year or two on trying to make the article read neutrally and encyclopedically, including with a Criticism section. (Since I've edited the article, I haven't weighed in on the deletion discussion. But I hope these two suggestions help._ --Tenebrae (talk) 03:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)"
With this said, I would gladly topic-ban myself from editing this article or post query as suggested if you all think that would make sense. I would just ask for someone to instruct me on how to do it. I appreciate all your concerns and I don't want to cause any conflict regarding this page or others. I've really enjoyed Wikipedia immensely and hope to get a better understanding of policy. I really like to write in this encyclopedic style, but I realize that I need to pay close attention to guidelines and policies. Thank you for letting me share. I welcome any more feedback either here or on my page. Regards Jpop73 ( talk) 04:07, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
'Dear Editors, Thank you for sharing this proposed deletion debate in other discussions. I hope the editors will adhere to policy based protocols and not take punitive measures because of the fact that I disclosed that I was compensated for creating a few biographies in the recent past. I certainly thought that I was following policy as I mentioned above by disclosing such information.
My biographical entry on the National Geographic website ( http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/author/jschaul/) is a fairly current and accurate account of my career as a zoologist and nature writer. However, it does not include my more recent board service to ZooNation ( http://zoonation.org/about-us/leadership/) or Nsefu Wildlife Conservation Foundation ( http://nsefuwildlife.com/board-of-directors.html) or my board service to the Northwest Autism Foundation. My writings include articles about my colleagues as well as my own conservation projects, including this wood bison project ( http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2010/08/12/wood_bison_return_to_alaska_range/).
In addition, I have a verified Facebook page ( https://www.facebook.com/jordan.schaul/?fref=ts) with 7000 plus followers, which emphasizes my work as a writer. I don't know if a verified social media account in itself establishes notability, but it is not something listed on my Wikipedia profile and so I thought I would share it. Thank you again for letting me contribute to this discussion. I appreciate it Jpop73 ( talk) 04:57, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Comment Dear SwisterTwister, Thank you for your note. With respect, I'm not sure I understand what "solid independent notability" means. As a journalist, including 4 years writing for NAT GEO, I feel that I established independent notability as my articles were featured as front page articles online, but many were cross posted in numerous other publications. According to Wikipedia policy, as I understand, journalists don't neccesssarily get secondary coverage, but they can be deemed notable for their contributions to primary resources.
On another note, I noticed that the first attempt to delete this article was unsuccessful and that was before new references were added and the article was changed and updated. So may I ask what is different this time? Thanks again Jpop73 ( talk) 05:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Again, here is another secondary source that was also noted on the COI page:
"Here is one example of a media outlet, which interviewed me on the future of zoos for Minnesota Public Radio. This a secondary reference, not a primary source, but is just one example that the editors refuse to consider as a source where my expertise on zoos was valued. The coverage was on me as the subject of the interview. http://www.mprnews.org/story/2012/07/12/daily-circuit-future-of-zoos I just don't understand why the editors/administrators who nominated my article for deletion continue to dismiss this kind of information.Jpop73 (talk) 05:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)" Jpop73 ( talk) 05:41, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't know if this would be helpful or not http://www.raintees.com/rain-tees-interview-jordan-schaul-1475/ thanks Jpop73 ( talk) 23:39, 16 April 2016 (UTC) Evidentlyy this is archived but on a black listed site Jpop73 ( talk) 23:49, 16 April 2016 (UTC) I have a screen shot of it, but I don't know how to share it. Can someone advise? Jpop73 ( talk) 23:56, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Dear Smartse, I understand, but I was invited to contribute to relatively notable publications and I'm also a content expert and for example contributed both as an ex officio council member of the International Association for Bear Research & Management and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature's Bear Specialist Group. I don't think that I am a typical journalist and if you read the criticisms section on my page, you'll see that although controversial, my opinions were noted and addressed in the articles of others. In addition, some in the editorial community feel that this is retribution for my paid contributions and is not a coincidence, particularly given that I recieved 12 messages in one day stating that my own article and others I created have been proposed for deletion. They further question why my own article was reviewed and accepted a long time ago and suddenly due to to controversy over me following policy over paid contributions, my article is now being proposed for deletion. It seems a little suspicious to myself and others. Thanks Jpop73 ( talk) 20:47, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
In addition this was noted by one editor, in support of my argument: "I have strong reason to believe that this suite of articles was written by a well meaning individual. Note that by disclosing the articles he was paid to create, he is following our terms of service More than one article up for deletion is legitimately notable. If it's excessively promotional, take the promotional fluff out. Basically, none of this stuff would be up for deletion if he hadn't FOLLOWED our terms of services and declared the two articles he was paid to create. When I have more time I will be back with further comments, but I hope you all realize that if you AFD articles on notable subjects by someone who created two disclosed paid articles, all you're going to do is ensure that no paid editor discloses, and that's actually doing more active harm to Wikipedia than before we got the damn TOS amendment on paid editing in place in the first place? @WWB, Keilana, and Floquenbeam: - please take a look at these if you have a chance and happen to have more time than I, because I'm in crunch time, but it's a horrible idea to AFD notable subjects written by someone who followed our terms of service by disclosing the two articles he was paid to write. What do you all posting here view as a better situation: people spending hundreds of hours tracking anonymous paid editing groups that take actions to avoid our detection, or someone who has written about legitimately notable subjects without payment following our TOS and disclosing what he was paid to do so they could receive extra scrutiny? This chain of actions is the best way possible to drive good actors off and increase the market for the six Wiki-PR or bigger groups I'm currently aware of. User:Kevin Gorman | talk page 01:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)"
Dear Semartse: I'm just repsonding to the sentiment of much more experienced editors than myself and the comments made by some of the editors above. I would also add that I see numerous biographical articles that have been accepted that rely exclusively or almost exclusively on primary sources (and are tagged as such) and they seem to meet the notability guidelines and have not been proposed for deletion. It seems that you really have a strong desire to delete my page. It seems rather targeted and also coincidentally coincides with concerns about my editing history and it is fairly and perhaps blatantly obvious. I've done my best to be honest, fair and objective and respond to feedback. If you want to use this as an example to punish me and make an example out of me, there is not much I can do about it, but I do appreciate your consideration. Thanks Jpop73 ( talk) 22:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm not sure I understand why peer recognition in the journalism community is as critical as the publications in which an author contributes to. If you will do a search you will find examples of where my work has been reprinted and discussed by others. There seems to be a lot of examples of peer recognition of subjects with Wikipedia pages in publications, which are not noteworthy. I would even include some of my own in this case. With that said, I appreciate the assessment. It seems to be a fair account, although still subjective. More than anything, it seems that if Wikipedia editors want to delete someone, they will find a way to do it. That has been my learning experience. Thanks again for your time. Jpop73 ( talk) 20:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
I suspect he/she was talking about the fact Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is the largest marine mammal dedidicated preservation organization in the world and offers coverage in multiple languages, including French. (like the press mentioned under the "Criticisms" section below in the article). Thanks Jpop73 ( talk) 06:57, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
OK, I'm sorry. I'm just trying to be helpful and just feel a that there is such a strong bias to delete, precipitated by this being created by the subject. Again, I apologize Jpop73 ( talk) 15:56, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I worked closely with another editor over a period of time (cited above) to improve this article, which is one reason I am fairly invested in it. Excuse my naivete, but what do you mean when you say the "BLP's request carries weight." Jpop73 ( talk) 00:52, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm sorry if I sound like I'm trying to pursuade anyone about how I think Wikipedia should function. I'm not and that is not my interest. I'm just observing and responding to mixed reactions and much apparent subjectivity regarding the meeting of notability requirements. As far as notability regarding my article is concerned, my only reference or basis for reference is from what other editors have stated. I've been advised not to share an opinion because it would be a conflict of interest. There seems to be disagreement on whether it is notable, while some have called it "borderline" and others "marginally notable," others have said it is within the criteria of notability. I even received comments via email. Hence, notability seems fairly subjective here on Wikipedia whether there are guidelines in place or not.
In addition, I am still a little confused a bit on how something passes the initial review, gets frequently updated by editors and then is suddenly proposed for deletion. That indicates to me that the review process is inconsistent or this delayed deletion process is inconsistent. It also tells me that every editor seems to have their own opinion and there are numerous disparities, not to mention unusual events that precipitate proposing several articles that had been published for some time, suddenly find themselves proposed for deletion. Some of the subjects I have created profiles for or edited had the same questions because they find their articles in the same predicament as mine and find it suspicious that these AFD tags have all suddenly been placed this week. I do appreciate your effort to explain and for doing it with courtesy. thanks Jpop73 ( talk) 07:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC) 07:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, but I don't see a list of secondary sources of significance to choose from. It is arbitrary and up to the discretion of the editor, which to me means it is subjective. But that is beside the point. One of the editors who recommended keeping the article (see above) clearly indicates a difference of opinion with regard to how the WP:GNG is interpreted. And that is just a difference of interpretation on my page, which illustrates how rampant the problem must be. I'm not trying to be difficult. It is just that you only have to read the commentary above from User:Unscintillating to see how editors interpret policy differently.
If you can't speak to the second point, it would seem that every single article that has been reviewed, accepted and published should be heavily scrutinized and critiqued and perhaps proposed for deletion as mine and those I have created have been. That would be fair if you want to talk about fairness and standards. Until that happens, I think that my article and the others I have created should be left as they were, otherwise I would consider this a fairly discriminatory action and a targeted campaign as one of the editors mentioned on the COI discussion page. There is plenty of conjecture on the internet about editorial bias among the community of Wikipedia contributors/editors/adminsitrators, etc. I don't know how much of it is true or not nor is it my businsess. I just know that if you are going to be hyper-critical of certain articles, it would only seem fair that you use the same treatment on others. Furthermore, why didn't any of the editors bring this to my attention when they reviewed and worked on my article and others I've created. Do they have a different set of criteria then the deletion team? They obviously didn't see issues with the profile at the time. Now all of the sudden there is this concerted effort to delete my page and others I've created. It may be the Wikipedia way, but it certainly is neither fair or objective. The amount of time and energy spent concerning whether or not my secondary sources are significant enough for a loosely set criterion, when hundreds, if not thousands of articles are missing secondary or even significant primary sources is rather remarkable. The subjects of the articles that I created, which you have proposed for deletion have given me enough feedback beyond my own research to indicate that this is a subjective critique and fairly targeted. I'm not trying to over-emphasize, it is just strikingly apparent. Jpop73 ( talk) 10:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
LaMona ( talk) 21:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
The result was Speedy Deleted (G5) by RHaworth. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 15:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
No evidence of notability. The sole reference in the article does not contain the word "Nadan". SSTflyer 10:22, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 11:49, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
WP:TOOSOON. The movie has yet to enter principle photography; per WP:FFILM, such articles should not have articles, and I don't think there's enough reliable, secondary sources to make an exception. JudgeRM 17:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
References
Delete The associated short film could potentially be notable and merit an article (has some level of secondary sources, possibly not enough), but the feature length film itself has yet to enter principle photography as per nom, thus fails
WP:NFF
Daniel Kenneth (
talk)
10:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. After discounting the confirmed sockpuppets and SPAs, the consensus is clearly to delete, particularly considering the comments of those who examined the sources in depth. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 23:36, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
nn entrepreneur. With rge exception of arrest for hate speech I don't see significant independent coverage in sources cited. - üser:Altenmann >t 15:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Collapsed sock !vote ☺ ·
Salvidrim! ·
✉
14:23, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
|
---|
|
Collapsed sock !vote ☺ ·
Salvidrim! ·
✉
14:23, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
|
---|
|
Collapsed sock !vote ☺ ·
Salvidrim! ·
✉
14:23, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
|
---|
|
Collapsed socking comments ☺ ·
Salvidrim! ·
✉
14:23, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
|
---|
this and this, it is safe to conclude that Mridusinha does indeed work for SynapseIndia, and may well be Shamit Khemka himself. Ian.thomson ( talk) 05:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
|
The result was Speedy Deleted (G5) by RHaworth. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 15:21, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG with no sources; the Express Tribune source appears to be about a different film entirely. McGeddon ( talk) 09:15, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
The result was Keep (NAC). Although the subject does not meet WP:CRIC, the argument that he meets GNG due to the sources provided are convincing. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 17:50, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Not played International level cricket or any first-class game. GreenCricket (talk) 07:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
The result was Delete-- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 16:08, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Non-notable poet, fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE JMHamo ( talk) 16:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was selective merge to Albertville, Minnesota.— S Marshall T/ C 16:20, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
non notable congregation or building John from Idegon ( talk) 06:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. General consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 07:53, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Spam of a non-notable person by a series of COI editors. Joseph2302 ( talk) 19:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
The result was Delete-- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 18:55, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Unsourced article about a new networking protocol. I am unable to find any reliable sources about the subject. Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 00:55, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. sufficient consensus. Can be re-created in Draft if more information is found. DGG ( talk ) 23:07, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Non-notable organization. Copyvio problem resolved, but I realized that this article might be sent to AfD here. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 22:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
The result was Delete-- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 18:58, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Non-notable, fails WP:BIO JMHamo ( talk) 20:54, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. North America 1000 01:06, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Poorly-sourced article about a new networking protocol. I am unable to find any reliable sources about the subject. Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 00:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 14:24, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
This article is like
Islamic Front for the Liberation of Oromia
Greek Legend (
talk) 09:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC) blocked sockpuppet
Atlantic306 (
talk)
16:39, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. czar 14:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Racing driver that does not meet the WP:NMOTORSPORT criteria. The only source is a database site, which is not considered enough to establish notability per WP:SPORTCRIT. QueenCake ( talk) 22:07, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
The result was merge to Alone Yet Not Alone. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 07:36, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
This article partially copies the parent article, Alone Yet Not Alone. Also, despite reliable sources on copied content, I'm unsure whether this meets WP:NSONGS or WP:notability. I would propose a merger or converting the page into a redirect if it's not a copycat. However, the page may be not worth keeping as any type. George Ho ( talk) 21:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. czar 14:49, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Unsourced biography, ineligible for BLPPROD because of unreliable sources which were removed by another editor, did not see reliable sources which did more than a credit listing for this actress. Additional sources welcomed, particularly because of potential language searching issues. joe decker talk 16:05, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Uncontested, despite the nominator now being blocked. Sandstein 14:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Sources on article is not reliable. Blogspot is an not reliable source and sources maybe self-published. Article was created by unknown user. Article nominated for deletion. Vietkingo 17:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. czar 14:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Seemingly NN musician at this point. The only claim to any notability is possibly WP:MUSIC #10, but none of them a theme, rather played during the shows and the LA Music award probably doesn't satisfy WP:MUSIC #8 - it's a minor award. Toddst1 ( talk) 15:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
The result was merge to Primorial. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:48, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Not notable. The prod tag was previously replaced with a merge tag, and the merge to Composite number completed, but the merge was undone. 96.41.0.15 ( talk) 15:23, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 14:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Firstly, it is questioned whether Martin is notable enough for his own wikipedia page. There are many, many (millions of) artists and musicians who have performed just as widely and released as many recordings who do not have a page. Secondly, there are not enough sources for most of the biographical information. In fact, I would go so far to say that most of the article is written by Martin Rummel himself. The information is incredibly detailed and a lot of it, such as Martin's appointment as Head of School, just a few weeks ago, is very recent, which you would not expect on a biography of a person of his relatively limited notability. Most of the sources are for the discography at the end, but many of these are not cited. Lastly, the style is very questionable. Compare the article with Martin's biography on the University of Auckland website: http://www.creative.auckland.ac.nz/people/profile/m-rummel, which is written in a very similar, boastful style and tone. Again, it seems clear that the article was written by Martin. The specificity of information for a relatively un-famous musician, the lack of sources to support this detailed information, and the narrative-style of writing point to the article being written by Martin himself. It begins like this and continues throughout: "The son of Peter Rummel, professor of law, grew up in Linz, where he went to primary school..." In summary, I believe this article fails on the grounds of: notability; lack of sources; and style. Mii 97531 ( talk) 02:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. czar 08:47, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
The above was quoted from the 2007 AfD, and imagine my surprise when I found a new article created for this nonentity by yet another SPA, and who hadn't had any new credits since. The previous nomination rationale will do for me tonight, thanks. Of the sources listed in the article, one is IMDB, one is a broken link, and here's the sum total mention of the subject in the third: "Chris Green has nailed the cabaret crooner/Puck concept." A search on the UK Google turns up social media and user-generated sites. Fails the GNG and WP:ACTOR going away. Ravenswing 07:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
The result was Delete-- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 19:10, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Singer with questionable notability, not sure how notable the show she was on is though either. Wgolf ( talk) 01:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Charlene (Tweet album). (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 00:05, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Non-notable song: Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 15:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Charlene (Tweet album). (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 00:05, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Non-notable song: Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 15:45, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
The result was Delete-- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 19:14, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Lack of independent sourcing establishing her notability as either an actress or a writer Roberticus talk 15:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:47, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Fails
WP:GNG.
Greek Legend (
talk) 09:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC) blocked sockpuppet
Atlantic306 (
talk)
18:09, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Kareo. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:46, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Non-notable person. The only source providing substantial coverage is a 3 part interview at http://www.sramanamitra.com/. Interviews are fairly useless as reliable sources and I don't think the site meets RS either. The others are brief mentions or don't even mention him e.g. [45]. Searches for other potential sources have not turned up anything suitable. SmartSE ( talk) 15:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Lots of ideas here about merges; discussion about the article can continue on its talk page. No consensus for a particular action has arisen from this discussion. North America 1000 10:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Looks like WP:OR The Banner talk 21:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
This is probably attributable to sources; the tables appear to be and other information can probably be found in existing articles. Merge to Primary energy? Peter James ( talk) 22:32, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
The original research is done by about 200 experts of the International Energy Agency. They collect, analyse and publish periodically huge amounts of energy supply data. Worldwide energy supply aims to be a short summary, suitable for Wikipedia.
I like Peter's idea to merge to Primary energy, the two articles are complimentary. But then the title should not be Primary energy which is only a part of the whole energy supply chain. Rwbest ( talk) 08:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Split-merge in multiple pieces would eliminate the article's clear sequence of processes in energy supply, production - conversion and trade - final consumption. Rwbest ( talk) 08:08, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
I've asked on MGTom's talk page to comment on merge to Primary energy, but he doesn't respond. Is he still active on WP? Is it correct that I start merging on my own? Rwbest ( talk) 07:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
I've merged Primary energy in Worldwide energy supply, leaving out thermodynamic terminology that I consider not appropriate in this general description of energy supply. But it could be added in a separate section. Rwbest ( talk) 10:01, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
The table in Primary energy does not reflect the sources to carriers conversion sufficiently accurate and complete to fit in Worldwide energy supply. I'm trying to improve it. Rwbest ( talk) 07:39, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Della Falls. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 07:21, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Completely unsourced biography of a person notable only as a local prospector and explorer, with no reliable source coverage to make him extralocally notable for either endeavour. Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 02:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR by a non-socking user. North America 1000 00:20, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Google news search results are about Manoj Shroff of "Equinox". This article is about Manoj Shroff of "Niti group".
Greek Legend (
talk) 01:54, 30 March 2016 (UTC) blocked sockpuppet
Atlantic306 (
talk)
18:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR by a non-socking user. North America 1000 00:19, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Fails
WP:NACTOR
Greek Legend (
talk) 01:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC) blocked sockpuppet
Atlantic306 (
talk)
15:55, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. czar 08:49, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Fails
WP:COMPANY as there are no reliable sources.
Greek Legend (
talk) 02:09, 23 March 2016 (UTC) blocked sockpuppet
Atlantic306 (
talk)
18:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete - not the subject of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. -- Euryalus ( talk) 23:03, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. czar 14:47, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
This article was primarily written to advertise the company, which does not even serve the entire United States, just Texas and Florida. It is not related to any significant or notable subjects either; the founder does not count. Given the amount of activity and non-free content that was added by the creator of this article, the creator most likely broke NPOV writing the article.
Other than its presence in these two states, WellMed, its founder, and its "significant" awards and subsidiaries and acts of philanthropy, are not notable enough to be on Wikipedia. If I removed everything non-notable and not properly cited from this article, nothing except the header would be left at all. Even the footnote references are just links to the homepages of websites that are not even part of the press.
Let us remind such companies that Wikipedia is **not** a place to advertise or promote non-notable services and products, even if it is "big business." Longbyte1 ( talk) 22:42, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR by a non-socking user. North America 1000 00:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Fails
WP:EVENT. No news about this summit and it's founders.
Greek Legend (
talk) 02:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC) blocked sockpuppet
Atlantic306 (
talk)
18:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 08:37, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Non-notable company. Kvng's argument to deprod the article was essentially WP:DINC. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 00:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:46, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Apparently a TV series that is or will be (I can't find sources to determine which) aired on TVM (Malta). — teb728 t c 06:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. General consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 03:45, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Non-notable former minor league baseball player. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BASE/N. Declined PROD, with the suggestion that "old newspapers somewhere" have covered him. Well, let's look. A search of google.com/newspapers turns up a police chief. Adding the word "baseball" to the search still yields nothing on this subject. Onus is on you, Alex, to produce sources to establish notability. I looked and can't find any. – Muboshgu ( talk) 00:27, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
The result was Move to Draft as shown by the history and I frankly concur with that considering this article is noticeably unsourced and will need better improvements (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 04:34, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
This biography of a living person does not include any references or sources Epic Tracks ( talk) 00:03, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
The result was Delete-- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 10:07, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Promo and non notable. I had it marked for speedy A7 and promo, but another editor removed the tag. John from Idegon ( talk) 23:59, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
The result was Redirect to Applied Micro Circuits Corporation. There is unanimous consensus that there should not be a separate article on this topic. If anyone wishes to merge any of the content then they can do so. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 16:16, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Fails WP:ORG. History of a long dead corporation who developed a new packet switching algo.for optimising throughput on raid controllers. Company ended up at LSI, that most excellent company. Can't see how it's notable. Ancient history. scope_creep 22:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
The result was Deleted by Anthony Bradbury, who logged this AfD as reason, but didn't close the discussion, presumably by mistake, so I am closing it. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 16:20, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Band with no substantive or properly sourced claim of notability per WP:NMUSIC. The strongest things here are that its lead singer was a non-winning competitor on The Voice, that one of its songs was selected as "Song of the Day" by a single local radio station, and that one of its other songs got included in a Spotify playlist. But simply being a competitor in a reality show is not a claim of notability in and of itself, notability-because-radio-play has to be tied to national terrestrial radio networks rather than individual stations or Spotify playlists, and the sourcing here is almost entirely to primary sources and blogs rather than to real media coverage about them. As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform on which a band is entitled to an article just because they exist -- real media coverage, supporting a claim of notability that passes NMUSIC, must be present for a band to earn an article on here. Delete. (Note also the redirect from Troy Ritchie, which was formerly a separate article but made no claim of independent notability substantive enough to get him a standalone WP:BLP as a separate topic from the band, as it was based on exactly the same set of inadequate sources that aren't cutting it here.) Bearcat ( talk) 17:23, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. Well it's been a week since sources have been added and no one's refuted them or whatever so closing as Keep, Don't usually close on one !vote however the next relist would only gain another !Keep so wrapping it up as Keep (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 00:02, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Racing driver that does not meet the WP:NMOTORSPORT criteria, and has not received significant coverage from reliable sources. QueenCake ( talk) 21:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
References
The result was redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1992#January. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 00:02, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
What is the notability of this small time "model and actress", being a Playmate of the Month and a teen beauty pageant winner, that's really all. In a nutshell, fail WP:NMODEL and I doubt any other of the Miss District of Columbia Teen USA winners has an article either. Donnie Park ( talk) 21:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. nominator and only dissenting voice acknowledges notability per subject-specific guideline. No need to keep this open for purely administrative reasons Fenix down ( talk) 08:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
The subject is non-notable, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. This article is also a stub on the Romanian Wikipedia, which means additional sourcing will be hard to find, if it exists. Sheepythemouse ( talk) 20:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
^The aforementioned team was dissolved in 2014. Sheepythemouse ( talk) 00:51, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Alright, obviously the subject is notable and I didnt do enough research, apologies ><. But can anybody deny that, for the accomplishments of this player, his page shows next-to-nothing? Sheepythemouse ( talk) 01:10, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
The result was Delete-- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 10:15, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
I can't find enough secondary sources on the topic to be convinced that the subject meets the WP:GNG or WP:BIO; in fact, I can't really find any. The article has no sources and reads like a CV or an advertisement, and while those aren't reasons to delete, the lack of available secondary sources makes it impossible to create an acceptable article. -- Rrburke ( talk) 20:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
The result was Delete-- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 10:42, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Non-notable free mixtape, fails WP:NALBUMS. Azealia911 talk 19:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
The result was Delete-- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 10:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Fails WP:POLITICIAN; Mr. Cords is a current candidate for local office who hopes to run for statewide office in six years. My research indicates that third-party coverage of this person addresses his high-school athletic history rather than his political candidacy. This doesn't meet Wikipedia's guidelines for notability of politicians, and I hope the article creator will read that guideline to understand why I'm making this nomination. (Reviewers/commenters: note that I did copy-edit the article for the duration, and if my deletion nomination is thus inappropriate on a COI basis, I will withdraw same in favor of another nominator.) Julietdeltalima (talk) 19:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
*KEEP This article appears to be fine. If you contact the DFL, you will be able to find out that Mr. Cords is a very prominent member and may actually become a 'super delegate' (a prominent political official who votes for presidential nominees) for the democratic national convention this summer.— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Purpledoglady (
talk •
contribs) —
Purpledoglady (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
If a news article was found, would this page be kept? 68.112.47.11 ( talk)Jack 68.112.47.11 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:45, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
There is a week left on this discussion if I am correct. I will try to find one or more before that deadline. I hope we can have further discussions on this. 68.112.47.11 ( talk)Jack 68.112.47.11 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC) https://m.facebook.com/OwatonnaIkes/photos/pb.1417827575098136.-2207520000.1460760905./1729173760630181/?type=3&source=54&refid=17 Here is a Facebook post about him lobbying on behalf of the Izaak Walton League. 68.112.47.11 ( talk)Jack 68.112.47.11 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC) http://ci.owatonna.mn.us/sites/default/files/documents/2011/01/2015-04-07_Packet.pdf Here is an official document from the City of Owatonna, mentioning Mr. Cords. 68.112.47.11 ( talk)Jack 68.112.47.11 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:03, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
It is unfortunate you people do not live in Minnesota, where you would surely know of him, Cords was endorsed by a state senator and five other important figures such as the President of the Southern Minnesota Municipal Power Association. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Purpledoglady ( talk • contribs) 23:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
I am disappointed that none of you believe what I have said simply because I can not source it to anybody accept for the politician, Mr. Cords, himself from his Twitter feed. For the most part, I respect you people, but I feel as if though, you are not giving fair and equal consideration to my half of the arguement. Purpledoglady ( talk) 00:33, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
I fixed my typo saying Me. Cords instead of Mr. Cords. 68.112.47.11 ( talk) 03:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)Jack 68.112.47.11 ( talk) 03:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
The result was Delete-- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 11:19, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
This majority of this article is original research and appears to be written by the subject himself. Not convinced that this passed WP:GNG T v x1 19:22, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
The result was Delete-- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 14:48, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Software with no indication of notability. Prodded and endorsed--prod tag removed by article creator without explanation or addressing of notability concerns. -- Finngall talk 18:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Can someone check if now is good? -- Sauler95 ( talk) 19:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
The result was Delete per clear consensus. -- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 14:59, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Not sure how this previously survived AFD. It is purely listcruft. Even if all of these were sourced, dropping out is rarely (if ever) relevant to people's notability to begin with. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 18:09, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete its a Crystal Ball major issue waiting to happen. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ ( talk) 18:26, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
The result was Delete re-evaluation after listing has produced unanimity.-- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 15:04, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Non-notable female boxer. Lacks the coverage to meet the GNG and also fails to meet WP:NBOX. Winning a state amateur championship and being invited to compete at the national amateur championships is not enough to show notability. Mdtemp ( talk) 16:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 08:25, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Non-notable MMA fighter. Even after she makes her scheduled UFC debut, she will not meet WP:NMMA. Article was created WP:TOOSOON. No objection to saving copy of article in userspace until she becomes notable. Mdtemp ( talk) 15:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
The result was Delete-- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 15:12, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
New non-notable; no references available to suport notability. Only refs on article are low-quality Quora or Blog refs. HappyValleyEditor ( talk) 17:06, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
The result was Delete-- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 15:15, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Contested WP:PROD, nominated for WP:NOTINHERITED rationale as a small-time actress and reality TV star focused on her then husband. Minimal if not any decent coverage at all with one major coverage from a "free weekly community newspaper" and the only major source (LA Times) covering her divorce. Donnie Park ( talk) 17:05, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Mhhossein ( talk) 07:50, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
This is taking a recent term for improvised fighting vehicles and dragging it kicking and screaming into the past. There's material here, perhaps, for a smaller more focused article, or a larger, renamed or merged one. Anmccaff ( talk) 15:38, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
The result was merge to Wyandotte, Michigan#Sports and recreation. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 03:39, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Non-notable local park. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 14:58, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
The result was Speedy Deleted-- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 13:25, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
This article appears to be a long-lived hoax. No such player was nominated for the Outland Trophy in 1984, nor did New Mexico football participate in a bowl game during this time period. The article creator's other edits all appear to consist of changes to other articles to support this hoax. Calamondin12 ( talk) 13:22, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Rape in India#Notable incidents. The content is available under the redirect for anyone wishing to merge. Stifle ( talk) 08:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Had nominated it for speedy deletion previously, but was declined. Nominating per WP:NOTNEWS. The incident doesn't seem to have any WP:LASTING effects and neither WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. The article itself has not been edited since about a month making me doubt its notability. Lemongirl942 ( talk) 13:15, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance.. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 03:10, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
However, not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia.followed by criteria which states why routine news reports may not be suitable for including in Wikipedia. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 03:15, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. czar 14:53, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
An autobiography of a non-notable actress. ThePlatypusofDoom ( talk) 12:45, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Kiana Tajammol is an Iranian visual artist , photographer …All we have is that she played a role in the movie A Dragon Arrives! which is not enough to make her notable. 14:32, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This page has been blanked as a courtesy. |
The result was Delete-- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 15:49, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. Looking up "squigs" brings up a lot of searches on the custom WP:VG/RS Google search engine. But a squig is also a creature from Warhammer 40,000. "squigs amiga" brings up a total of 8 results, 4 of which don't mention Squigs. Redirect to developer Jon Hibbins. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 10:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
The result was Delete A detailed assessment of the unusually long thread produces a clear and reasoned consensus. -- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 16:04, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm unable to find any coverage of the subject in reliable sources. The references cited are mainly primary sources written by the subject or biographies on sites where he writes, which are of no use for establishing notability. A long way of meeting the requirements of WP:BIO SmartSE ( talk) 12:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Comment Dear Editors, I really apologize for creating such concern here and for other pages I have recently created. I have had a blast contributing to Wikipedia and yes, I have been compensated for a few articles recently. I made note of it on the respective pages. I do now regret that I accepted compensation. I didn't realize it would upset the editorial community as it has and I apologize for it. I inquired about compensation in the chat room when some one asked me to create a page, and an editor kindly directed me to how to follow procedure. In addition, I admit that I've made a lot of mistakes since I started contributing both to my own page and to others I have either edited or created, but I have really tried to be as neutral and objective as possible. In some instances, I lost perspective and was corrected. I'm still learning and I use both the chat room and talk pages of other editors to help me navigate around. I was really alarmed by this notice and tonight reached out to an editor who I have been consulting with and this what they responded with when I asked if I could be blocked or banned from editing my own page to avoid any concern:
"jordan Schaul page
Hi, Jpop. I'm not sure, but I believe any editor can voluntarily pledge to topic-ban themselves from editing a particular article. I haven't run across this before, but you might try posting a query outlining your and the other editor's concerns at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. You might also make a case at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jordan Schaul (2nd nomination) — and do feel free to mention that you've worked with me over the last year or two on trying to make the article read neutrally and encyclopedically, including with a Criticism section. (Since I've edited the article, I haven't weighed in on the deletion discussion. But I hope these two suggestions help._ --Tenebrae (talk) 03:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)"
With this said, I would gladly topic-ban myself from editing this article or post query as suggested if you all think that would make sense. I would just ask for someone to instruct me on how to do it. I appreciate all your concerns and I don't want to cause any conflict regarding this page or others. I've really enjoyed Wikipedia immensely and hope to get a better understanding of policy. I really like to write in this encyclopedic style, but I realize that I need to pay close attention to guidelines and policies. Thank you for letting me share. I welcome any more feedback either here or on my page. Regards Jpop73 ( talk) 04:07, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
'Dear Editors, Thank you for sharing this proposed deletion debate in other discussions. I hope the editors will adhere to policy based protocols and not take punitive measures because of the fact that I disclosed that I was compensated for creating a few biographies in the recent past. I certainly thought that I was following policy as I mentioned above by disclosing such information.
My biographical entry on the National Geographic website ( http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/author/jschaul/) is a fairly current and accurate account of my career as a zoologist and nature writer. However, it does not include my more recent board service to ZooNation ( http://zoonation.org/about-us/leadership/) or Nsefu Wildlife Conservation Foundation ( http://nsefuwildlife.com/board-of-directors.html) or my board service to the Northwest Autism Foundation. My writings include articles about my colleagues as well as my own conservation projects, including this wood bison project ( http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2010/08/12/wood_bison_return_to_alaska_range/).
In addition, I have a verified Facebook page ( https://www.facebook.com/jordan.schaul/?fref=ts) with 7000 plus followers, which emphasizes my work as a writer. I don't know if a verified social media account in itself establishes notability, but it is not something listed on my Wikipedia profile and so I thought I would share it. Thank you again for letting me contribute to this discussion. I appreciate it Jpop73 ( talk) 04:57, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Comment Dear SwisterTwister, Thank you for your note. With respect, I'm not sure I understand what "solid independent notability" means. As a journalist, including 4 years writing for NAT GEO, I feel that I established independent notability as my articles were featured as front page articles online, but many were cross posted in numerous other publications. According to Wikipedia policy, as I understand, journalists don't neccesssarily get secondary coverage, but they can be deemed notable for their contributions to primary resources.
On another note, I noticed that the first attempt to delete this article was unsuccessful and that was before new references were added and the article was changed and updated. So may I ask what is different this time? Thanks again Jpop73 ( talk) 05:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Again, here is another secondary source that was also noted on the COI page:
"Here is one example of a media outlet, which interviewed me on the future of zoos for Minnesota Public Radio. This a secondary reference, not a primary source, but is just one example that the editors refuse to consider as a source where my expertise on zoos was valued. The coverage was on me as the subject of the interview. http://www.mprnews.org/story/2012/07/12/daily-circuit-future-of-zoos I just don't understand why the editors/administrators who nominated my article for deletion continue to dismiss this kind of information.Jpop73 (talk) 05:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)" Jpop73 ( talk) 05:41, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't know if this would be helpful or not http://www.raintees.com/rain-tees-interview-jordan-schaul-1475/ thanks Jpop73 ( talk) 23:39, 16 April 2016 (UTC) Evidentlyy this is archived but on a black listed site Jpop73 ( talk) 23:49, 16 April 2016 (UTC) I have a screen shot of it, but I don't know how to share it. Can someone advise? Jpop73 ( talk) 23:56, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Dear Smartse, I understand, but I was invited to contribute to relatively notable publications and I'm also a content expert and for example contributed both as an ex officio council member of the International Association for Bear Research & Management and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature's Bear Specialist Group. I don't think that I am a typical journalist and if you read the criticisms section on my page, you'll see that although controversial, my opinions were noted and addressed in the articles of others. In addition, some in the editorial community feel that this is retribution for my paid contributions and is not a coincidence, particularly given that I recieved 12 messages in one day stating that my own article and others I created have been proposed for deletion. They further question why my own article was reviewed and accepted a long time ago and suddenly due to to controversy over me following policy over paid contributions, my article is now being proposed for deletion. It seems a little suspicious to myself and others. Thanks Jpop73 ( talk) 20:47, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
In addition this was noted by one editor, in support of my argument: "I have strong reason to believe that this suite of articles was written by a well meaning individual. Note that by disclosing the articles he was paid to create, he is following our terms of service More than one article up for deletion is legitimately notable. If it's excessively promotional, take the promotional fluff out. Basically, none of this stuff would be up for deletion if he hadn't FOLLOWED our terms of services and declared the two articles he was paid to create. When I have more time I will be back with further comments, but I hope you all realize that if you AFD articles on notable subjects by someone who created two disclosed paid articles, all you're going to do is ensure that no paid editor discloses, and that's actually doing more active harm to Wikipedia than before we got the damn TOS amendment on paid editing in place in the first place? @WWB, Keilana, and Floquenbeam: - please take a look at these if you have a chance and happen to have more time than I, because I'm in crunch time, but it's a horrible idea to AFD notable subjects written by someone who followed our terms of service by disclosing the two articles he was paid to write. What do you all posting here view as a better situation: people spending hundreds of hours tracking anonymous paid editing groups that take actions to avoid our detection, or someone who has written about legitimately notable subjects without payment following our TOS and disclosing what he was paid to do so they could receive extra scrutiny? This chain of actions is the best way possible to drive good actors off and increase the market for the six Wiki-PR or bigger groups I'm currently aware of. User:Kevin Gorman | talk page 01:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)"
Dear Semartse: I'm just repsonding to the sentiment of much more experienced editors than myself and the comments made by some of the editors above. I would also add that I see numerous biographical articles that have been accepted that rely exclusively or almost exclusively on primary sources (and are tagged as such) and they seem to meet the notability guidelines and have not been proposed for deletion. It seems that you really have a strong desire to delete my page. It seems rather targeted and also coincidentally coincides with concerns about my editing history and it is fairly and perhaps blatantly obvious. I've done my best to be honest, fair and objective and respond to feedback. If you want to use this as an example to punish me and make an example out of me, there is not much I can do about it, but I do appreciate your consideration. Thanks Jpop73 ( talk) 22:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm not sure I understand why peer recognition in the journalism community is as critical as the publications in which an author contributes to. If you will do a search you will find examples of where my work has been reprinted and discussed by others. There seems to be a lot of examples of peer recognition of subjects with Wikipedia pages in publications, which are not noteworthy. I would even include some of my own in this case. With that said, I appreciate the assessment. It seems to be a fair account, although still subjective. More than anything, it seems that if Wikipedia editors want to delete someone, they will find a way to do it. That has been my learning experience. Thanks again for your time. Jpop73 ( talk) 20:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
I suspect he/she was talking about the fact Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is the largest marine mammal dedidicated preservation organization in the world and offers coverage in multiple languages, including French. (like the press mentioned under the "Criticisms" section below in the article). Thanks Jpop73 ( talk) 06:57, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
OK, I'm sorry. I'm just trying to be helpful and just feel a that there is such a strong bias to delete, precipitated by this being created by the subject. Again, I apologize Jpop73 ( talk) 15:56, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I worked closely with another editor over a period of time (cited above) to improve this article, which is one reason I am fairly invested in it. Excuse my naivete, but what do you mean when you say the "BLP's request carries weight." Jpop73 ( talk) 00:52, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm sorry if I sound like I'm trying to pursuade anyone about how I think Wikipedia should function. I'm not and that is not my interest. I'm just observing and responding to mixed reactions and much apparent subjectivity regarding the meeting of notability requirements. As far as notability regarding my article is concerned, my only reference or basis for reference is from what other editors have stated. I've been advised not to share an opinion because it would be a conflict of interest. There seems to be disagreement on whether it is notable, while some have called it "borderline" and others "marginally notable," others have said it is within the criteria of notability. I even received comments via email. Hence, notability seems fairly subjective here on Wikipedia whether there are guidelines in place or not.
In addition, I am still a little confused a bit on how something passes the initial review, gets frequently updated by editors and then is suddenly proposed for deletion. That indicates to me that the review process is inconsistent or this delayed deletion process is inconsistent. It also tells me that every editor seems to have their own opinion and there are numerous disparities, not to mention unusual events that precipitate proposing several articles that had been published for some time, suddenly find themselves proposed for deletion. Some of the subjects I have created profiles for or edited had the same questions because they find their articles in the same predicament as mine and find it suspicious that these AFD tags have all suddenly been placed this week. I do appreciate your effort to explain and for doing it with courtesy. thanks Jpop73 ( talk) 07:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC) 07:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, but I don't see a list of secondary sources of significance to choose from. It is arbitrary and up to the discretion of the editor, which to me means it is subjective. But that is beside the point. One of the editors who recommended keeping the article (see above) clearly indicates a difference of opinion with regard to how the WP:GNG is interpreted. And that is just a difference of interpretation on my page, which illustrates how rampant the problem must be. I'm not trying to be difficult. It is just that you only have to read the commentary above from User:Unscintillating to see how editors interpret policy differently.
If you can't speak to the second point, it would seem that every single article that has been reviewed, accepted and published should be heavily scrutinized and critiqued and perhaps proposed for deletion as mine and those I have created have been. That would be fair if you want to talk about fairness and standards. Until that happens, I think that my article and the others I have created should be left as they were, otherwise I would consider this a fairly discriminatory action and a targeted campaign as one of the editors mentioned on the COI discussion page. There is plenty of conjecture on the internet about editorial bias among the community of Wikipedia contributors/editors/adminsitrators, etc. I don't know how much of it is true or not nor is it my businsess. I just know that if you are going to be hyper-critical of certain articles, it would only seem fair that you use the same treatment on others. Furthermore, why didn't any of the editors bring this to my attention when they reviewed and worked on my article and others I've created. Do they have a different set of criteria then the deletion team? They obviously didn't see issues with the profile at the time. Now all of the sudden there is this concerted effort to delete my page and others I've created. It may be the Wikipedia way, but it certainly is neither fair or objective. The amount of time and energy spent concerning whether or not my secondary sources are significant enough for a loosely set criterion, when hundreds, if not thousands of articles are missing secondary or even significant primary sources is rather remarkable. The subjects of the articles that I created, which you have proposed for deletion have given me enough feedback beyond my own research to indicate that this is a subjective critique and fairly targeted. I'm not trying to over-emphasize, it is just strikingly apparent. Jpop73 ( talk) 10:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
LaMona ( talk) 21:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
The result was Speedy Deleted (G5) by RHaworth. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 15:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
No evidence of notability. The sole reference in the article does not contain the word "Nadan". SSTflyer 10:22, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 11:49, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
WP:TOOSOON. The movie has yet to enter principle photography; per WP:FFILM, such articles should not have articles, and I don't think there's enough reliable, secondary sources to make an exception. JudgeRM 17:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
References
Delete The associated short film could potentially be notable and merit an article (has some level of secondary sources, possibly not enough), but the feature length film itself has yet to enter principle photography as per nom, thus fails
WP:NFF
Daniel Kenneth (
talk)
10:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. After discounting the confirmed sockpuppets and SPAs, the consensus is clearly to delete, particularly considering the comments of those who examined the sources in depth. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 23:36, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
nn entrepreneur. With rge exception of arrest for hate speech I don't see significant independent coverage in sources cited. - üser:Altenmann >t 15:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Collapsed sock !vote ☺ ·
Salvidrim! ·
✉
14:23, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
|
---|
|
Collapsed sock !vote ☺ ·
Salvidrim! ·
✉
14:23, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
|
---|
|
Collapsed sock !vote ☺ ·
Salvidrim! ·
✉
14:23, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
|
---|
|
Collapsed socking comments ☺ ·
Salvidrim! ·
✉
14:23, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
|
---|
this and this, it is safe to conclude that Mridusinha does indeed work for SynapseIndia, and may well be Shamit Khemka himself. Ian.thomson ( talk) 05:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
|
The result was Speedy Deleted (G5) by RHaworth. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 15:21, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG with no sources; the Express Tribune source appears to be about a different film entirely. McGeddon ( talk) 09:15, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
The result was Keep (NAC). Although the subject does not meet WP:CRIC, the argument that he meets GNG due to the sources provided are convincing. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 17:50, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Not played International level cricket or any first-class game. GreenCricket (talk) 07:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
The result was Delete-- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 16:08, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Non-notable poet, fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE JMHamo ( talk) 16:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was selective merge to Albertville, Minnesota.— S Marshall T/ C 16:20, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
non notable congregation or building John from Idegon ( talk) 06:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. General consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 07:53, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Spam of a non-notable person by a series of COI editors. Joseph2302 ( talk) 19:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
The result was Delete-- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 18:55, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Unsourced article about a new networking protocol. I am unable to find any reliable sources about the subject. Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 00:55, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. sufficient consensus. Can be re-created in Draft if more information is found. DGG ( talk ) 23:07, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Non-notable organization. Copyvio problem resolved, but I realized that this article might be sent to AfD here. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 22:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
The result was Delete-- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 18:58, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Non-notable, fails WP:BIO JMHamo ( talk) 20:54, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. North America 1000 01:06, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Poorly-sourced article about a new networking protocol. I am unable to find any reliable sources about the subject. Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 00:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 14:24, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
This article is like
Islamic Front for the Liberation of Oromia
Greek Legend (
talk) 09:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC) blocked sockpuppet
Atlantic306 (
talk)
16:39, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. czar 14:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Racing driver that does not meet the WP:NMOTORSPORT criteria. The only source is a database site, which is not considered enough to establish notability per WP:SPORTCRIT. QueenCake ( talk) 22:07, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
The result was merge to Alone Yet Not Alone. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 07:36, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
This article partially copies the parent article, Alone Yet Not Alone. Also, despite reliable sources on copied content, I'm unsure whether this meets WP:NSONGS or WP:notability. I would propose a merger or converting the page into a redirect if it's not a copycat. However, the page may be not worth keeping as any type. George Ho ( talk) 21:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. czar 14:49, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Unsourced biography, ineligible for BLPPROD because of unreliable sources which were removed by another editor, did not see reliable sources which did more than a credit listing for this actress. Additional sources welcomed, particularly because of potential language searching issues. joe decker talk 16:05, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Uncontested, despite the nominator now being blocked. Sandstein 14:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Sources on article is not reliable. Blogspot is an not reliable source and sources maybe self-published. Article was created by unknown user. Article nominated for deletion. Vietkingo 17:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. czar 14:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Seemingly NN musician at this point. The only claim to any notability is possibly WP:MUSIC #10, but none of them a theme, rather played during the shows and the LA Music award probably doesn't satisfy WP:MUSIC #8 - it's a minor award. Toddst1 ( talk) 15:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
The result was merge to Primorial. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:48, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Not notable. The prod tag was previously replaced with a merge tag, and the merge to Composite number completed, but the merge was undone. 96.41.0.15 ( talk) 15:23, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 14:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Firstly, it is questioned whether Martin is notable enough for his own wikipedia page. There are many, many (millions of) artists and musicians who have performed just as widely and released as many recordings who do not have a page. Secondly, there are not enough sources for most of the biographical information. In fact, I would go so far to say that most of the article is written by Martin Rummel himself. The information is incredibly detailed and a lot of it, such as Martin's appointment as Head of School, just a few weeks ago, is very recent, which you would not expect on a biography of a person of his relatively limited notability. Most of the sources are for the discography at the end, but many of these are not cited. Lastly, the style is very questionable. Compare the article with Martin's biography on the University of Auckland website: http://www.creative.auckland.ac.nz/people/profile/m-rummel, which is written in a very similar, boastful style and tone. Again, it seems clear that the article was written by Martin. The specificity of information for a relatively un-famous musician, the lack of sources to support this detailed information, and the narrative-style of writing point to the article being written by Martin himself. It begins like this and continues throughout: "The son of Peter Rummel, professor of law, grew up in Linz, where he went to primary school..." In summary, I believe this article fails on the grounds of: notability; lack of sources; and style. Mii 97531 ( talk) 02:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. czar 08:47, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
The above was quoted from the 2007 AfD, and imagine my surprise when I found a new article created for this nonentity by yet another SPA, and who hadn't had any new credits since. The previous nomination rationale will do for me tonight, thanks. Of the sources listed in the article, one is IMDB, one is a broken link, and here's the sum total mention of the subject in the third: "Chris Green has nailed the cabaret crooner/Puck concept." A search on the UK Google turns up social media and user-generated sites. Fails the GNG and WP:ACTOR going away. Ravenswing 07:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
The result was Delete-- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 19:10, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Singer with questionable notability, not sure how notable the show she was on is though either. Wgolf ( talk) 01:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Charlene (Tweet album). (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 00:05, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Non-notable song: Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 15:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Charlene (Tweet album). (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 00:05, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Non-notable song: Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 15:45, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
The result was Delete-- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 19:14, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Lack of independent sourcing establishing her notability as either an actress or a writer Roberticus talk 15:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:47, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Fails
WP:GNG.
Greek Legend (
talk) 09:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC) blocked sockpuppet
Atlantic306 (
talk)
18:09, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Kareo. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:46, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Non-notable person. The only source providing substantial coverage is a 3 part interview at http://www.sramanamitra.com/. Interviews are fairly useless as reliable sources and I don't think the site meets RS either. The others are brief mentions or don't even mention him e.g. [45]. Searches for other potential sources have not turned up anything suitable. SmartSE ( talk) 15:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Lots of ideas here about merges; discussion about the article can continue on its talk page. No consensus for a particular action has arisen from this discussion. North America 1000 10:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Looks like WP:OR The Banner talk 21:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
This is probably attributable to sources; the tables appear to be and other information can probably be found in existing articles. Merge to Primary energy? Peter James ( talk) 22:32, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
The original research is done by about 200 experts of the International Energy Agency. They collect, analyse and publish periodically huge amounts of energy supply data. Worldwide energy supply aims to be a short summary, suitable for Wikipedia.
I like Peter's idea to merge to Primary energy, the two articles are complimentary. But then the title should not be Primary energy which is only a part of the whole energy supply chain. Rwbest ( talk) 08:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Split-merge in multiple pieces would eliminate the article's clear sequence of processes in energy supply, production - conversion and trade - final consumption. Rwbest ( talk) 08:08, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
I've asked on MGTom's talk page to comment on merge to Primary energy, but he doesn't respond. Is he still active on WP? Is it correct that I start merging on my own? Rwbest ( talk) 07:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
I've merged Primary energy in Worldwide energy supply, leaving out thermodynamic terminology that I consider not appropriate in this general description of energy supply. But it could be added in a separate section. Rwbest ( talk) 10:01, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
The table in Primary energy does not reflect the sources to carriers conversion sufficiently accurate and complete to fit in Worldwide energy supply. I'm trying to improve it. Rwbest ( talk) 07:39, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Della Falls. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 07:21, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Completely unsourced biography of a person notable only as a local prospector and explorer, with no reliable source coverage to make him extralocally notable for either endeavour. Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 02:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR by a non-socking user. North America 1000 00:20, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Google news search results are about Manoj Shroff of "Equinox". This article is about Manoj Shroff of "Niti group".
Greek Legend (
talk) 01:54, 30 March 2016 (UTC) blocked sockpuppet
Atlantic306 (
talk)
18:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR by a non-socking user. North America 1000 00:19, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Fails
WP:NACTOR
Greek Legend (
talk) 01:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC) blocked sockpuppet
Atlantic306 (
talk)
15:55, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. czar 08:49, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Fails
WP:COMPANY as there are no reliable sources.
Greek Legend (
talk) 02:09, 23 March 2016 (UTC) blocked sockpuppet
Atlantic306 (
talk)
18:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete - not the subject of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. -- Euryalus ( talk) 23:03, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. czar 14:47, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
This article was primarily written to advertise the company, which does not even serve the entire United States, just Texas and Florida. It is not related to any significant or notable subjects either; the founder does not count. Given the amount of activity and non-free content that was added by the creator of this article, the creator most likely broke NPOV writing the article.
Other than its presence in these two states, WellMed, its founder, and its "significant" awards and subsidiaries and acts of philanthropy, are not notable enough to be on Wikipedia. If I removed everything non-notable and not properly cited from this article, nothing except the header would be left at all. Even the footnote references are just links to the homepages of websites that are not even part of the press.
Let us remind such companies that Wikipedia is **not** a place to advertise or promote non-notable services and products, even if it is "big business." Longbyte1 ( talk) 22:42, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR by a non-socking user. North America 1000 00:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Fails
WP:EVENT. No news about this summit and it's founders.
Greek Legend (
talk) 02:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC) blocked sockpuppet
Atlantic306 (
talk)
18:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 08:37, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Non-notable company. Kvng's argument to deprod the article was essentially WP:DINC. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 00:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:46, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Apparently a TV series that is or will be (I can't find sources to determine which) aired on TVM (Malta). — teb728 t c 06:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. General consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 03:45, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Non-notable former minor league baseball player. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BASE/N. Declined PROD, with the suggestion that "old newspapers somewhere" have covered him. Well, let's look. A search of google.com/newspapers turns up a police chief. Adding the word "baseball" to the search still yields nothing on this subject. Onus is on you, Alex, to produce sources to establish notability. I looked and can't find any. – Muboshgu ( talk) 00:27, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
The result was Move to Draft as shown by the history and I frankly concur with that considering this article is noticeably unsourced and will need better improvements (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 04:34, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
This biography of a living person does not include any references or sources Epic Tracks ( talk) 00:03, 15 April 2016 (UTC)