![]() |
The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 00:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Tendentious and devoid of useful content. Referenced only by a blog. Rathfelder ( talk) 23:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sources provided here do not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable 3rd party sources. Joyous! | Talk 00:49, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Does not meet notability guidelines, sources are link to apple music, her twitter and her iMDB page. Single was just released on 12/2, so maybe WP:TOOSOON? Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk 23:46, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Keep - She is indeed eligible for inclusion on wikipedia. People are starting to attempt to impersonate her on social media pages, and according to website metadata, her name is being searched constantly. It seems fair that she has a wikipedia article letting people know her work history and current accomplishments, especially since wikipedia has become such a frequently used informational website. She is very popular on her social media accounts, and fans have asked on certain social media pages why they can't find her on wikipedia. It isn't too soon, and I honestly feel she is eligible. - WikiPR1234 ( talk) 10:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Ian.thomson , I didn't only say social media. That was ONE thing used to verify a statement that she made. I didn't know wikipedia contributors were so accusatory and hateful over a new entry. I am stating facts along with what I believe to be a great add to the site.— Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiPR1234 ( talk • contribs)
Keep : This page should be kept, because this actress is just as "notable" as countless other public figures (even if small) who have articles on Wikipedia. There are clearly sources to back up the things said in this article. The Internet Movie Database is the best way to verify films, work credits and other info for members of the entertainment industry, which she is. there is also a source here that was added (her twitter page) and that is reasonable, only because it verifies a statement that the actress made about her own music. her social media can be used to verify HER words. Jana424 ( talk) 10:52, 7 December 2016 (UTC)— Jana242 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 23:42, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Per WP:BAND and WP:GNG. I could not locate any reliable sources to add to the page. The only source provided is a primary source from the musician's band website. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 23:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Mobile Crowdsensing. Joyous! | Talk 00:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Dictionary article. Unreferenced. Rathfelder ( talk) 23:19, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Perfectly happy with that option Rathfelder ( talk) 20:19, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy close.. This is not an article. It's a redirect that the nominator blanked and then took to Afd. This is not the place to discuss redirects I'm going to close and restore the redirect. Take to WP:RFD if you wish -- without blanking it, please. ( non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 03:56, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
The page is unencylopaedic and is one of many nonsense pages made by user Sladen who seems to have ridiculous authorship issues regarding anything to do with The Grand Tour (2016 TV series) Dyolf87 ( talk) 23:09, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 23:42, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
I still confirm my PROD here as it's clear this is still advertising, regardless of anything or anyone else, and it therefore violates policy WP:NOT. SwisterTwister talk 22:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete and salt. Joyous! | Talk 00:54, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Deleted first because of a mass advertising campaign and a user asked for restoration, but quite honestly, this new one has equal amounts of advertising and sole motivations at tgat; the sources and information are simply published and republished advertising, regardless of anything or anyone else and the "notability-acclaims" section lends nothing for actual notability and substance. WP:NOT applies since this is not suitable for this encyclopedia. SwisterTwister talk 21:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Just noting that "no references" is indeed an important reason for deletion, see WP:V. Sandstein 08:15, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
No references. Regards— ~ THE INFI NITE SPACE X 20:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The result was Speedied (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Was prodded a few weeks ago, since it had no references. Now, it does, but none of them go to notability. His citation counts are quite low (highest is 74). A news search turned up virtually nothing, as did searches using the other engines. He has had a few articles published in industry magazines, but nothing about him. In addition, as it stands the article has a high POV issue. He's definitely accomplished, simply not notable. Onel5969 TT me 20:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Stargate Atlantis (season 4). Closing as a redirect to Stargate Atlantis (season 4). Material is still available through the article history if someone has the urge to merge some of it. Joyous! | Talk 01:00, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
A non-notable TV show episode. Delete and redirect to the episode list, as per the next one in the series, This Mortal Coil (Stargate Atlantis). Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:12, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted four times by four different admins. If she becomes famous enough the protection can be lifted, but as it is it's just been recreated every time it's deleted Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:44, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Not really notable - sources are not so much sources as passing mentions and YouTube channels. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk 19:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sam Walton ( talk) 23:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Fraudulent spam for non notable individual bombarded with dud references, primary sources, quotes from him and faked verification. duffbeerforme ( talk) 04:20, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Consensus is that the subject does not presently meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. North America 1000 04:14, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF. created by a single purpose editor. Has not held any high academic positions like professor. He is only the lead author on 2 of the quoted articles. Also an orphan article LibStar ( talk) 13:23, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 11:05, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Unable to find any source or references about this saint. Doesn't pass WP:GNG.
@ Iridescent:, Read the Legends section The villagers of Kirthal relate several legends about Baba Teja Nath:
invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally, which is the sole criterion for whether something is deletable under A11. (Aside from anything else, it's been mentioned in the parent article for over two years.) Speedy deletion is nothing to do with notability. ‑ Iridescent 14:29, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete. self-written spam with no proper sources Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
COI, only sources and coverage are from self titled website and a fb page. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk 19:02, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. With nothing against opening a new AfD if someone feels particularly strongly about this. Sam Walton ( talk) 23:31, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Magnolia677 ( talk) 17:00, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Deleting as WP:TOOSOON as this station does not exactly exist yet. Joyous! | Talk 01:17, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Delete. Two WP:TOOSOON articles about planned future radio stations which received their license approvals from the CRTC yesterday (and I do mean literally within the past 24 hours), but have not yet actually commenced broadcasting as required by WP:NMEDIA. While it's true that Wikipedia used to let licensed but not yet launched radio stations hold a presumption of notability because of the license approval itself, we don't anymore -- there have been far too many radio stations that got approved but then failed for one reason or another to actually get off the ground and had their licenses expire unbuilt, so consensus is now much stricter that a radio station does not get an article until it's actually on the air. No prejudice against recreation once the stations are actually transmitting signals, but "newly licensed future station which still exists only on paper as of today" is not enough in and of itself for a Wikipedia article anymore. Bearcat ( talk) 17:03, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 01:19, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Non-notable educational institution, no reliable source coverage. Appable ( talk) 18:39, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) st170e talk 01:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
This single does not meet notability criteria for singles or for songs. If the details can be sourced, merge them into the article about the album The Adventures of Women & Men Without Hate in the 21st Century. Lwarrenwiki ( talk) 21:54, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete. A7 - obvious WP:BLP1E Ronhjones (Talk) 22:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
WP:BLP1E Meatsgains ( talk) 18:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4. Also deleted Albert Aflitunov for the same reason. — David Eppstein ( talk) 03:56, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Previously deleted for reading like a hoax, no notability and web links are not actual sources. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk 18:32, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 01:23, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Article PRODded with reason "Huge and useless list of mostly unknown people. Massive fail of WP:NOTADIRECTORY". Article dePRODded by creatto and on the talk page of the article the argument is made that we have lists like this for earlier elections, too. This is incorrect. We have earlier lists of electors, whereas this is a list of elector candidates. Most of these (largely non-notable people) will not even become an elector. This is pure listcruft. Hence: Delete. Randykitty ( talk) 18:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete. copyright Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:01, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Clear COI, potentially notable but article does not convey notability Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk 18:03, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The result was merge to List of Greyhawk deities. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 23:43, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
This article fails to establish notability. TTN ( talk) 17:34, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. A redirect can be separately created (and contested), we don't have enough discussion of that here to determine a consensus for or against it. Sandstein 16:47, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Child contestant on TV talent contest, who does not meet our notability guidelines. Cordless Larry ( talk) 17:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Delete - Only coverage I can find are blurbs written by talent management agencies, a youtube video and an instagram account. Not notable at this point. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk 18:21, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The result was merge to Undead (Warhammer). ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 23:43, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
This article does not establish notability. TTN ( talk) 17:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete. spammy self-promotion from non-notable Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Notability not truly met, COI issues. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk 17:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The result was Speedy deleted by User:Samtar ( non-admin closure) - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 22:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Potential COI, does not meet notability guidelines Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk 17:13, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 20:54, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
institute that was created in 2016 and almost no links on the web. does not meet criteria WP:CORPORATE Domdeparis ( talk) 18:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy Delete. Speedy deleted A7 by Iridescent ( non-admin closure) Jbh Talk 21:07, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:NORG . The sources are press releases and all I can find in my searches are blogs and social media. Jbh Talk 16:55, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Political positions of Donald Trump. Opinions are about equally divided between keep, redirect and delete. There are what seem to be valid arguments on both sides; whether one considers this term to describe the same thing as Political positions of Donald Trump (making it a content fork), or a separate topic (a distinct ideology vs. a disparate set of positions) is a matter of editorial judgment which I can't determine by fiat. What I can tell, however, is that on balance we have consensus to not continue to cover this as a separate article. In such cases I find that the best thing to do is to close the AfD as a redirect, which allows subsequent editorial consensus to work out whether and what to merge from the history into the target article. Sandstein 08:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
This article seems to exist only to criticize Donald Trump (note that the lede says Trumpism is based on the CONTROVERSIAL remarks of Donald Trump - in other words, the bad stuff). Previous incarnations had more detail, but very little that was definitive or factual. I deleted one particularly outrageous, poorly sourced claim
[11] which by itself makes me think the article and its history should be erased. What remains is just an attempt to establish that Trumpism is a word, and evidence that there are various theories about what Trump believes but nobody is really sure. IMO there is nothing here worth salvaging. I propose that the article be deleted and then redirected to
Political positions of Donald Trump, where it is already mentioned and briefly described.
MelanieN (
talk)
16:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The result was redirect to MechWarrior#In-universe_timeline. ( non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 01:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
the game will be released in 2018 and as the article says So far there has been no information released about MechWarrior 5 So this seems to be a case of WP:TOOSOON Domdeparis ( talk) 16:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Whether a redirect to the founder Robert Parry (journalist) is appropriate is a separate matter; nothing here precludes creating such a redirect. Sandstein 08:18, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
A news service. This article was speedily deleted per WP:A7 (no assertion of notability). The subsequent discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 November 28 decided to refer the article to AfD to determine the topic's notability. This is a procedural nomination, I am neutral. Sandstein 16:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Consensus is that the subject does not meet notability guidelines at this time. North America 1000 06:56, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Non notable actress, Have found 2 mentions but nothing substantial, Fails BASIC & GNG – Davey2010 Talk 21:11, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 01:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Cross's lone claim to notability is being Miss Delaware. As it stands this article has one source, which is neither fully indepdent, and I am not sure how much it would be considered reliable. To pass GNG we need multiple sources, and in a way that overcomes one event concerns. My search on google could not find any sources that provide indepth coverage of Cross as subject in a reliable source. There are probably a few from the time she was Miss Delaware, but unless shown otherwise there is no reason to suppose these are enough to establish notability beyond that one event. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 23:59, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 01:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
In theory there are two claims to notability, one being Miss Delaware, the other being a news anchor at the local level. The first is not enough on its own, and beyond that we actually lack any sources directly about it. My search on google came up with little. I did find this [21] which from the title does not strike me as a reliable source, and merely fact checks that Kurtz was Miss Delaware. Also this [22] extremely short blurb from the University of Delaware. The two sources we have here are her own website and the website of her employer. They prove she has worked in broadcast journalism, but nothing her shows her role in such has at all been notable. So she is a non-notable beauty pageant contestant and a non-notable broadcast journalist. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:14, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 01:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Williams lone claim to fame is being Miss Delaware, and this is not enough on its own to justify having an article on her. By most interpretations we lack any sources that fit the criteria for meeting GNG, that is reliable, 3rd party, secondary sources. The one source is from the Miss Delaware organization, which has interest in mentioning and promoting its title winners. Even if we were to accept that it is indepedent and reliable enough to count, GNG requires multiple sources, and we would have a one event problem. My search for additional sources. I did find this [23] article from the Syracuse University newspaper. An article that begins "Syracuse is know for among other things its beautiful women" does not highly reccomend itself as reliable. Generally we do not consider articles in college newspapers to be enough to demonstrate their subjects are notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:23, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 01:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Parekh was Miss Delaware. This title alone is not enough to make someone notable. She also had a bit part in a movie, and I think I may be overstating her role at bit part. The movie role is sourced to IMDb, which is not a reliable source. The other sources are from Miss America and an article that mentions her among other Miss America contestants, but is not about her. My search for her on google came up with nothing better. I did find mention of a Soha Parekh who wrote a book on the history of the sari. However there is absolutely nothing indicating they are the same person, and not just the different spelling but the nature of the interview suggests they are different. The one person we have no indication she has ever left India, and this one we have no indication she has ever left the United States, although we have almost nothing on her. Clearly nothing coming even close to passing the general notability guidelines. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. Katie talk 18:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
AfD created by request at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion. TimothyJosephWood 16:06, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The requesting anonymous user posted the following on the article's talk page:
I have nominated this page for deletion. The campaign does not meet the notability requirement that 'the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject'. The references on the page are just to official 'BBC 100 Women' campaign pages (certainly not independent of the subject). Searching further, there is little evidence that the campaign is influential enough to be given substantial coverage in independent third-party sources. Compare this to the attention given to Time Person of the Year, for example. 2A00:23C4:A683:6A00:C414:D65C:FA3:A059 ( talk) 16:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The result was Deleted as A11. by DGG — Spaceman Spiff 11:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Reads like a recipe and may be able to be put under a stub for Indian Cuisine though I have googled "Ween" in this context and have not found any references. Are personal recipes allowed for non-notable food items? Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk 15:22, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) st170e talk 01:05, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
No assertion of notability, wierd use of the fraternity infbox. Naraht ( talk) 15:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Withdrawn by nominator - Massive improvement by AllyD and Kudpung, thank you. Naraht ( talk) 16:10, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
The result was Speedy delete. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 13:42, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Frequency is spelled wrong in the article, and one with correct spelling already exists Jeppevinkel ( talk) 13:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. No prejudice against userfication to enable the performance of a merge, if anyone wants to do so. North America 1000 07:08, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Contested WP:PROD. The two sources state "Alliance Rail Holdings has started industry consultation on proposals to launch an open access passenger service" and "Alliance Rail Holdings (Alliance) has started consultation within the rail industry on starting a new ‘open access’ rail service" - so it's not even a proposal, and fails WP:CRYSTAL. Only one of the two sources uses the term "Grand Southern Railway"; a Google search turns up some U.S. railroads, plus a British scheme from the 1830s that never got off the drawing board. Redrose64 ( talk) 23:38, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. ( No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation herein.) North America 1000 07:13, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Non notable actress, found a few mentions but nothing substantial, Her most notable role would've probably been in Waterloo Road (TV series) so should perhaps be redirected there however I'll leave that up to the community, Anyway fails BASIC & GNG – Davey2010 Talk 21:40, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. While more input here would have been desirable, rough consensus (per low participation) in this short discussion is that article is not promotional in nature, which was the basis of the rationale for deletion. North America 1000 07:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Promo piece, ?. Speedy deletion template removed by the creator. Kavdiamanju ( talk) 20:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE. Sam Walton ( talk) 23:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Only notability/coverage is because he is a celebrity impersonator. Mr. Vernon ( talk) 19:41, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. ( No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation herein.) North America 1000 07:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. ( ?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. A redirect to Kane (Command & Conquer)—his most notable role—would suffice, if it's even necessary (not sure that even Kane is independently notable from the series). czar 19:14, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. ( No prejudice against speedy renomination per no participation herein other than from the nominator.) North America 1000 08:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
This article makes no credible claim of significance and has no indication that its subject is notable. The article includes a lot of information about how big the off-grid solar industry is (1.2 billion people as target customers, 100 companies in industry), but makes no mention of why d.light might be considered a notable player within that industry.
The only noteworthy coverage that d.light seems to have received is the NYTimes article, which is not enough to indicate notability in the absence of other reliable sources. IagoQnsi ( talk) 18:27, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. This should have been deleted via BLP Prod, however since we are here and no sources have been added in three weeks I'm deleting it per the incorrectly removed BLP Prod. — Spaceman Spiff 03:36, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable person. Fails GNG. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 17:28, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 12:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Doesn't seem to meet WP:BAND. Only singles so far (one site says they don't have an album yet), mentions of "hit" songs but without references as to their definition of hit (getting into national rotation, charting, etc.) Mr. Vernon ( talk) 16:38, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sam Walton ( talk) 23:33, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Non-notable. Article created by single-purpose account for promotional purposes, in contravention of our policies on what Wikipedia is not. Citobun ( talk) 16:05, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete. WP:G11 slakr\ talk / 02:34, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
The annual edition of the pageant did not received SIGNIFICANT coverage in MULTIPLE reliable sources. Popular pageants in Australia like Miss Universe Australia and Miss World Australia does not have annual articles (but necessary due to multiple reliable sources). There is no need for a series of redirects as the article starts with "Mrs Globe". The winners of the previous editions were already indicated in the parent article, Mrs globe australia. The content of the article was written in promotional way. Richie Campbell ( talk) 14:35, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
As the WP:GNG have been addressed... the new issue raised now in the second attempt to delete is that the article is written in a promotional way, Every word in this article has been published in the news sources contained in the references. Lastly the importance of having the Mrs Globe Australia 2016 separate article is because of the news coverage as it is the 20th anniversary of the pageant. ( Australianblackbelt ( talk) 02:16, 23 November 2016 (UTC))
The first reference is not about the Mrs Australia Globe 2016 beauty pageant but mainly about the First Macedonian Festival and Mrs Australia Globe 2016 was mentioned by passing as guest and not an in-depth article about the coverage of the pageant.
The second reference is Press Release WIRE which is not a reliable source. The press release article has been removed/expired.
The third reference is about the alleged Latin Australian Times article which is a photo of the newspaper posted in Facebook where the text cannot be read. Wiki articles must contain reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Use sources that directly support the material presented in an article and are appropriate to the claims made.
The fourth reference is about Mrs Globe NOT about Mrs Globe Australia 2016.
The fifth reference is about the Non-Profit organization CheekyMac Charities held “Briland’s Be Your Best Talent Quest”. Totally no mention about the subject of the article and not a coverage of Mrs Globe Australia 2016.
The sixth reference is about the Hip-hop artist Chico Johnson who works with schools in Melbourne to share positive message. Not a coverage of Mrs Globe Australia 2016 beauty pageant.
The seventh reference is a community ePaper - Mt Evelyn Mail - 13th December 2016. The creator of the Mrs Globe Australia 2016 article specified in the cited reference that it’s on the front page titled “Dominating the Globe", but nowhere to be found. The front page talked about the “Equal View of Life”. I checked the search engine of the ePaper with the title cited but it says “Sorry, but the requested resource was not found on this site.”
The eighth reference is not a reliable source whose content is largely user-generated. Nevertheless, the article is about “Mrs UK Globe Classic” not a coverage of the Mrs Australia 2016 beauty pageant.
The ninth reference titled "Not with those boobs,darl!" is a promotional magazine. Anyway, it’s not coverage about the Mrs Globe Australia 2016 beauty pageant. Try looking at the link here: http://www.take5mag.com.au/
The tenth and eleventh references were about another pageant called, Mrs Globe Classic (NOT about Mrs Globe Australia 2016) which is another pageant of the same organizer and was also created by the Australianblackbelt. The Mrs Globe Classic was deleted via AfD consensus.-- Richie Campbell ( talk) 16:12, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
This reference was not mentioned in his critique: http://www.starweekly.com.au/lifestyle/from-behind-the-lense-a-real-beauty/ ( Australianblackbelt ( talk) 02:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC))
The result was redirect to List_of_simulation_video_games#Bus_simulation. MBisanz talk 12:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
No credible indication of notability. A Google search finds only listings for sale and some YouTube videos showing people playing. Nothing that meets the requirements of WP:GNG. Gronk Oz ( talk) 14:28, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE. Sam Walton ( talk) 23:34, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Tried to speedy this under G11 but the article creator (almost certainly) used an IP address to remove the deletion tag so now must bring here to AfD. The kid has been in a bunch of commercials, apparently. No evidence of notability has been established. I suspect COI editing, and certainly bad faith editing. (Notes: the Bollywood Life ref. is to a self-proclaimed gossip magazine, which I am going to doubt has much in the way of editorial oversight, and the Tellychakar ref appears to be hear-say only; the other two refs are IMdB cites, which means no independence, which leaves nothing.) KDS4444 ( talk) 13:10, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. General consensus to keep; the article has been at AfD for a while now and there has been no other input from editors to suggest anything other than keep. ( non-admin closure) st170e talk 00:59, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Non-notable film. Existence does not equal notability. No refs, and I could find none independently (searching was complicated by the film's title). What I found was IMDB (no independence), blogs (not reliable), and some promotional information. KDS4444 ( talk) 11:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 08:57, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a user guide or instruction manual. KDS4444 ( talk) 11:12, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 12:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
There are several explanations as to why this shouldn't have been accepted: (1) is that the information and sources are all trivial and unconvincing, either coming from the company itself or republishing of it (supposed reviews are coming from indie websites, quite conceivable for such to be either self-authored or paid for), (2) is the fact my own searches are then not finding anything but said sources, especially as I got deeper, (3) is that the history shows it was only started for advertising, since there's no actual significance or anything close it and (4) there's literally nothing else but this, showing how it's simply a blatant advertisement for a newly started company, of which is hoping to use this as a PR webhost. Clearly this is not a case for WP:BASIC and WP:GNG but even if it was, WP:SPAM and WP:NOT apply which is Wikipedia-founded, not guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 08:13, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Uncontested. Sandstein 16:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Delete and Salt please given this was literally deleted last month for advertising and that's exactly what it is, simply considering all of the factors here: (1) the account is clearly an advertising-only account, (2) the source are all entirely trivial and unconvincing, (3) my own searches are not finding anything helpful and (4) for such a new company, and with such blatant and noticeable attempts at advertising, it's basically self-explanatory this is not going to be acceptable and it certainly should not be restarted again, since 2 times of advertising has been excessive as it is.
As it is, we've questioned before, including here at AfD, that such publications (but it seems there's not any for this company), cannot immediately be taken as automatic acceptance since there's obvious payment involved with "publishing news". Not that WP:BASIC or WP:GNG would even apply, WP:NOT is still applicable if anyone asks, since it specifically states "Remove any unsuitable", in this case advertising. SwisterTwister talk 06:45, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 12:38, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Literally a trivial and unconvincing article, and it shouldn't have been accepted from AfC since, not only are the listed sources trivial and unconvincing, I've found exactly the same, and that's not surprising since there's simply nothing for actual notability and substance; the history itself suggests this may have been started for business listing uses as it is. SwisterTwister talk 05:06, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. ( No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation herein.) North America 1000 08:42, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Aslett owns a local cleaning service in Pocatlello, Idaho. He also has written books about cleaning. When your books have to be sourced to a libarry catalogue instead of reviews, that is suggesting not really notable. Most of the sources listed here are his websites or connected to his publishers. My search for additional sources was not very helpful. I came up with sources showing his comapny leasing space in Idaho and that was about it, and an article written by someone of the same name in a southern Idaho paper, but that looked to be by someone else, unless some of the detials of his education here are wrong. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:33, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was Speedy delete. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 13:18, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Article promotes an IT training business and references do not demonstrate notability. Parkywiki ( talk) 09:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 10:23, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Only notable for one film and does not meet WP:NACTOR.-- Fastester ( talk) 08:07, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The last AfD for this article ran for around three weeks* from 1st October, resulting in a keep verdict. As the film has been out for such a short period of time, I am not sure how much can be added to the previous discussion. Thanks for opening this up for discussion Fastester ( talk) - though I am a bit confused as to what your vote was for? I presume "delete" but could be "merge"? :-) EmWinn ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:44, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
- * my mistake, sorry - originally said four weeks but just checked and it closed on the 19th EmWinn ( talk) 11:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 12:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Source searches are not providing significant coverage in reliable sources for this new television show; does not meet WP:GNG at this time. North America 1000 08:35, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SK#1, nom should await the outcome of their own Special:Permalink/753284360#Requested move 2 December 2016 filed only four days ago. Secondly, we nominate articles for deletion, we do not nominate talk pages. ( non-admin closure) — Sam Sailor 11:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
An ongoing rename discussion which I initiated is ongoing at [55] but in light of one of the comments made there, I now feel this is really a BLP1E and thus I feel a deletion or more preferably a merge to [56] is more appropriate. If I'm running afoul of some Wikiprocess, please feel free to NAC this and I'll address this after the MfD has finished. That man from Nantucket ( talk) 07:07, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. consensus DGG ( talk ) 04:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
After I stated and showed the obvious signs of this only existing as an article but then worse, actually being a paid advertisement, a random IP removed it, therefore not only will the PROD still apply, but so is policy WP:NOT which is stated explicitly to remove any such advertising and that includes paid advertising, since it is not tolerated and will be deleted onsight, as it's quite clear there's enough here to state policy is far important than anything else. SwisterTwister talk 06:35, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 10:20, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG, the fact that one country has a High Commission in another does not establish any degree of notability. Dan arndt ( talk) 05:31, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. But clearly needs cleanup for neutrality and copyediting, including the title. Subsequent discussion can work out if anything needs to be merged back to Degar. Sandstein 08:55, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
The page, although it has numerous sources, is biased and slanted towards one particular side while harshly criticizing the other side. For example, they cast Vietnamese as being bad overall and committing "savage acts" or as "colonists" while casting the Degars, despite their diversity as one entire monolithic group. The article solely criticizes one ethnic group (Vietnamese) as the cause of all the faults for the Degar people using mostly partisan sources, unreliable sources (in books that mention genocide, they never elaborate on it such as the source, "Battle for the Central Highlands" while the source Criminal Investigation Detachment #3: Bamboo Battleground is not an academic book source for example), citation overkill (references 28-30, and 42-43 are the same sources while 9 references are being used to deliberate show that the claim is strong) or deliberate misinterpretations. In the 2004 subsection, there is repeated sentences that accuses Vietnam of criticizing the Montagnard Foundation as if Vietnam truly hates them. The format is much like a news article, mentioning all of the events which are deliberately selected to prove the general viewpoint, which is synthesis and Original Research. The article was originally from the Degar page before it was moved (see page history) which was ridden with bias. Ssbbplayer ( talk) 05:22, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 09:12, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Borderline A7 candidate but the claim to founding a company plus the local new mention makes me think it barely passes the assertion of significance bar. Only new mention is the local morning show, and I could find no reliable sources mentioning her. Currently the only independent source in the article is the morning show interview, which is more of a fluff piece than anything else. Other sources are Facebook pages and her company website. TonyBallioni ( talk) 03:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The result was redirect to American Idol (season 13). Having looked at the sources in the prev AFD - She's known for American Idol & nothing else, In some respects this is a BLP1E/BIO1E, No point deleting so just closing as redirect. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 23:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Looking with the arguments on the previous AFD discussion with having no consensus to delete or redirect the show article with receiving keep votes in the last AFD. With the failing on WP:BLP1E and WP:NMUSIC, I suggest to either delete or redirect to American Idol (season 13) article. ApprenticeFan work 09:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) GSS ( talk) 11:50, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
WP:PROMO page created by WP:COI user. Fails WP:NOTFILM. Zackmann08 ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 06:23, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. apparent consensus DGG ( talk ) 06:12, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
No independent sources. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:41, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 23:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Unremarkable condiment. If the manufacturer had an article, I'd suggest a redirect of a mertge. But they don't. TheLongTone ( talk) 16:32, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. apparent consensus DGG ( talk ) 06:09, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Declined speedy since the article has sources, but nevertheless this seems to be an entirely unremarkable business. One minor award does not seem to alter this. TheLongTone ( talk) 17:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. apparent consensus DGG ( talk ) 06:08, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Overly promotional article on a non-notable tech startup. I could only find trivial mentions in independent, reliable sources. Joe Roe ( talk) 17:40, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Rooster Teeth. MBisanz talk 12:41, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
It's been two months since the last AfD closed as no consensus (primarily due to a simple lack of comments), and there has been no improvement on this article. There is still no indication of notability other than the mere fact that the podcast is produced by Rooster Teeth, but notability is not inherited. IagoQnsi ( talk) 17:58, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was Speedy keep. Nominator should read last AfD. I also note nominator is (believed to be) inexperienced when it comes to looking for reliability and notability of an article. ( non-admin closure) Nordic Nightfury 08:15, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
InstallShield is not notable as installshield does not get much coverage it does it warrent an article on wikipedia Jonnymoon96 ( talk) 01:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. consensus; DGG ( talk ) 06:07, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Little actual content, WP:TOOSOON for anything to be added onto this article. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 01:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Keep How is this too soon? Content needs to be added to the page, not the page removed! Take a look at the history of Public image of Barack Obama, and tell me what you see. Ethanbas ( talk) 04:20, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Keep. Plenty of sources already exist, so this does not meet WP:TOOSOON. Riceissa ( talk) 04:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 04:34, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
There is no indication this Bible translation is notable. There are no reliable independent sources at all. Huon ( talk) 00:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Curious. I thought the Golden Rule was, "Do unto others as you would have others do to you." Until this threat to delete came up, I had thought that wikipedia wanted to encourage participation in building a resource for informative and useful content, and that was why I invested the time to correct some errors in the subject article and add some useful content. As a result of your rejection of my contribution, I took a moment to see what some others thought about wikipedia and one of the first articles that came up started with this:
The Top 10 Reasons why people cannot rely on Wikipedia:
<ref>...</ref>
tags in your comment since it's just a wikilink
Primefac (
talk)
01:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)thank you so much Primefac i am thankful for your service yes my recommendation is to Userfy for onebible thank you Primefac for fixing my mistake i am grateful for your service
The result was Keep per WP:SNOW - AfD created by sockpuppet account. ( non-admin closure) Exemplo347 ( talk) 13:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Reason
![]() |
The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 00:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Tendentious and devoid of useful content. Referenced only by a blog. Rathfelder ( talk) 23:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sources provided here do not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable 3rd party sources. Joyous! | Talk 00:49, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Does not meet notability guidelines, sources are link to apple music, her twitter and her iMDB page. Single was just released on 12/2, so maybe WP:TOOSOON? Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk 23:46, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Keep - She is indeed eligible for inclusion on wikipedia. People are starting to attempt to impersonate her on social media pages, and according to website metadata, her name is being searched constantly. It seems fair that she has a wikipedia article letting people know her work history and current accomplishments, especially since wikipedia has become such a frequently used informational website. She is very popular on her social media accounts, and fans have asked on certain social media pages why they can't find her on wikipedia. It isn't too soon, and I honestly feel she is eligible. - WikiPR1234 ( talk) 10:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Ian.thomson , I didn't only say social media. That was ONE thing used to verify a statement that she made. I didn't know wikipedia contributors were so accusatory and hateful over a new entry. I am stating facts along with what I believe to be a great add to the site.— Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiPR1234 ( talk • contribs)
Keep : This page should be kept, because this actress is just as "notable" as countless other public figures (even if small) who have articles on Wikipedia. There are clearly sources to back up the things said in this article. The Internet Movie Database is the best way to verify films, work credits and other info for members of the entertainment industry, which she is. there is also a source here that was added (her twitter page) and that is reasonable, only because it verifies a statement that the actress made about her own music. her social media can be used to verify HER words. Jana424 ( talk) 10:52, 7 December 2016 (UTC)— Jana242 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 23:42, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Per WP:BAND and WP:GNG. I could not locate any reliable sources to add to the page. The only source provided is a primary source from the musician's band website. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 23:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Mobile Crowdsensing. Joyous! | Talk 00:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Dictionary article. Unreferenced. Rathfelder ( talk) 23:19, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Perfectly happy with that option Rathfelder ( talk) 20:19, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy close.. This is not an article. It's a redirect that the nominator blanked and then took to Afd. This is not the place to discuss redirects I'm going to close and restore the redirect. Take to WP:RFD if you wish -- without blanking it, please. ( non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 03:56, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
The page is unencylopaedic and is one of many nonsense pages made by user Sladen who seems to have ridiculous authorship issues regarding anything to do with The Grand Tour (2016 TV series) Dyolf87 ( talk) 23:09, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 23:42, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
I still confirm my PROD here as it's clear this is still advertising, regardless of anything or anyone else, and it therefore violates policy WP:NOT. SwisterTwister talk 22:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete and salt. Joyous! | Talk 00:54, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Deleted first because of a mass advertising campaign and a user asked for restoration, but quite honestly, this new one has equal amounts of advertising and sole motivations at tgat; the sources and information are simply published and republished advertising, regardless of anything or anyone else and the "notability-acclaims" section lends nothing for actual notability and substance. WP:NOT applies since this is not suitable for this encyclopedia. SwisterTwister talk 21:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Just noting that "no references" is indeed an important reason for deletion, see WP:V. Sandstein 08:15, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
No references. Regards— ~ THE INFI NITE SPACE X 20:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The result was Speedied (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Was prodded a few weeks ago, since it had no references. Now, it does, but none of them go to notability. His citation counts are quite low (highest is 74). A news search turned up virtually nothing, as did searches using the other engines. He has had a few articles published in industry magazines, but nothing about him. In addition, as it stands the article has a high POV issue. He's definitely accomplished, simply not notable. Onel5969 TT me 20:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Stargate Atlantis (season 4). Closing as a redirect to Stargate Atlantis (season 4). Material is still available through the article history if someone has the urge to merge some of it. Joyous! | Talk 01:00, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
A non-notable TV show episode. Delete and redirect to the episode list, as per the next one in the series, This Mortal Coil (Stargate Atlantis). Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:12, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted four times by four different admins. If she becomes famous enough the protection can be lifted, but as it is it's just been recreated every time it's deleted Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:44, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Not really notable - sources are not so much sources as passing mentions and YouTube channels. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk 19:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sam Walton ( talk) 23:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Fraudulent spam for non notable individual bombarded with dud references, primary sources, quotes from him and faked verification. duffbeerforme ( talk) 04:20, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Consensus is that the subject does not presently meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. North America 1000 04:14, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF. created by a single purpose editor. Has not held any high academic positions like professor. He is only the lead author on 2 of the quoted articles. Also an orphan article LibStar ( talk) 13:23, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 11:05, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Unable to find any source or references about this saint. Doesn't pass WP:GNG.
@ Iridescent:, Read the Legends section The villagers of Kirthal relate several legends about Baba Teja Nath:
invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally, which is the sole criterion for whether something is deletable under A11. (Aside from anything else, it's been mentioned in the parent article for over two years.) Speedy deletion is nothing to do with notability. ‑ Iridescent 14:29, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete. self-written spam with no proper sources Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
COI, only sources and coverage are from self titled website and a fb page. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk 19:02, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. With nothing against opening a new AfD if someone feels particularly strongly about this. Sam Walton ( talk) 23:31, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Magnolia677 ( talk) 17:00, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Deleting as WP:TOOSOON as this station does not exactly exist yet. Joyous! | Talk 01:17, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Delete. Two WP:TOOSOON articles about planned future radio stations which received their license approvals from the CRTC yesterday (and I do mean literally within the past 24 hours), but have not yet actually commenced broadcasting as required by WP:NMEDIA. While it's true that Wikipedia used to let licensed but not yet launched radio stations hold a presumption of notability because of the license approval itself, we don't anymore -- there have been far too many radio stations that got approved but then failed for one reason or another to actually get off the ground and had their licenses expire unbuilt, so consensus is now much stricter that a radio station does not get an article until it's actually on the air. No prejudice against recreation once the stations are actually transmitting signals, but "newly licensed future station which still exists only on paper as of today" is not enough in and of itself for a Wikipedia article anymore. Bearcat ( talk) 17:03, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 01:19, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Non-notable educational institution, no reliable source coverage. Appable ( talk) 18:39, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) st170e talk 01:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
This single does not meet notability criteria for singles or for songs. If the details can be sourced, merge them into the article about the album The Adventures of Women & Men Without Hate in the 21st Century. Lwarrenwiki ( talk) 21:54, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete. A7 - obvious WP:BLP1E Ronhjones (Talk) 22:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
WP:BLP1E Meatsgains ( talk) 18:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4. Also deleted Albert Aflitunov for the same reason. — David Eppstein ( talk) 03:56, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Previously deleted for reading like a hoax, no notability and web links are not actual sources. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk 18:32, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 01:23, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Article PRODded with reason "Huge and useless list of mostly unknown people. Massive fail of WP:NOTADIRECTORY". Article dePRODded by creatto and on the talk page of the article the argument is made that we have lists like this for earlier elections, too. This is incorrect. We have earlier lists of electors, whereas this is a list of elector candidates. Most of these (largely non-notable people) will not even become an elector. This is pure listcruft. Hence: Delete. Randykitty ( talk) 18:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete. copyright Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:01, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Clear COI, potentially notable but article does not convey notability Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk 18:03, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The result was merge to List of Greyhawk deities. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 23:43, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
This article fails to establish notability. TTN ( talk) 17:34, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. A redirect can be separately created (and contested), we don't have enough discussion of that here to determine a consensus for or against it. Sandstein 16:47, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Child contestant on TV talent contest, who does not meet our notability guidelines. Cordless Larry ( talk) 17:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Delete - Only coverage I can find are blurbs written by talent management agencies, a youtube video and an instagram account. Not notable at this point. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk 18:21, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The result was merge to Undead (Warhammer). ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 23:43, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
This article does not establish notability. TTN ( talk) 17:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete. spammy self-promotion from non-notable Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Notability not truly met, COI issues. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk 17:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The result was Speedy deleted by User:Samtar ( non-admin closure) - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 22:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Potential COI, does not meet notability guidelines Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk 17:13, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 20:54, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
institute that was created in 2016 and almost no links on the web. does not meet criteria WP:CORPORATE Domdeparis ( talk) 18:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy Delete. Speedy deleted A7 by Iridescent ( non-admin closure) Jbh Talk 21:07, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:NORG . The sources are press releases and all I can find in my searches are blogs and social media. Jbh Talk 16:55, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Political positions of Donald Trump. Opinions are about equally divided between keep, redirect and delete. There are what seem to be valid arguments on both sides; whether one considers this term to describe the same thing as Political positions of Donald Trump (making it a content fork), or a separate topic (a distinct ideology vs. a disparate set of positions) is a matter of editorial judgment which I can't determine by fiat. What I can tell, however, is that on balance we have consensus to not continue to cover this as a separate article. In such cases I find that the best thing to do is to close the AfD as a redirect, which allows subsequent editorial consensus to work out whether and what to merge from the history into the target article. Sandstein 08:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
This article seems to exist only to criticize Donald Trump (note that the lede says Trumpism is based on the CONTROVERSIAL remarks of Donald Trump - in other words, the bad stuff). Previous incarnations had more detail, but very little that was definitive or factual. I deleted one particularly outrageous, poorly sourced claim
[11] which by itself makes me think the article and its history should be erased. What remains is just an attempt to establish that Trumpism is a word, and evidence that there are various theories about what Trump believes but nobody is really sure. IMO there is nothing here worth salvaging. I propose that the article be deleted and then redirected to
Political positions of Donald Trump, where it is already mentioned and briefly described.
MelanieN (
talk)
16:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The result was redirect to MechWarrior#In-universe_timeline. ( non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 01:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
the game will be released in 2018 and as the article says So far there has been no information released about MechWarrior 5 So this seems to be a case of WP:TOOSOON Domdeparis ( talk) 16:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Whether a redirect to the founder Robert Parry (journalist) is appropriate is a separate matter; nothing here precludes creating such a redirect. Sandstein 08:18, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
A news service. This article was speedily deleted per WP:A7 (no assertion of notability). The subsequent discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 November 28 decided to refer the article to AfD to determine the topic's notability. This is a procedural nomination, I am neutral. Sandstein 16:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Consensus is that the subject does not meet notability guidelines at this time. North America 1000 06:56, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Non notable actress, Have found 2 mentions but nothing substantial, Fails BASIC & GNG – Davey2010 Talk 21:11, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 01:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Cross's lone claim to notability is being Miss Delaware. As it stands this article has one source, which is neither fully indepdent, and I am not sure how much it would be considered reliable. To pass GNG we need multiple sources, and in a way that overcomes one event concerns. My search on google could not find any sources that provide indepth coverage of Cross as subject in a reliable source. There are probably a few from the time she was Miss Delaware, but unless shown otherwise there is no reason to suppose these are enough to establish notability beyond that one event. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 23:59, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 01:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
In theory there are two claims to notability, one being Miss Delaware, the other being a news anchor at the local level. The first is not enough on its own, and beyond that we actually lack any sources directly about it. My search on google came up with little. I did find this [21] which from the title does not strike me as a reliable source, and merely fact checks that Kurtz was Miss Delaware. Also this [22] extremely short blurb from the University of Delaware. The two sources we have here are her own website and the website of her employer. They prove she has worked in broadcast journalism, but nothing her shows her role in such has at all been notable. So she is a non-notable beauty pageant contestant and a non-notable broadcast journalist. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:14, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 01:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Williams lone claim to fame is being Miss Delaware, and this is not enough on its own to justify having an article on her. By most interpretations we lack any sources that fit the criteria for meeting GNG, that is reliable, 3rd party, secondary sources. The one source is from the Miss Delaware organization, which has interest in mentioning and promoting its title winners. Even if we were to accept that it is indepedent and reliable enough to count, GNG requires multiple sources, and we would have a one event problem. My search for additional sources. I did find this [23] article from the Syracuse University newspaper. An article that begins "Syracuse is know for among other things its beautiful women" does not highly reccomend itself as reliable. Generally we do not consider articles in college newspapers to be enough to demonstrate their subjects are notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:23, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 01:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Parekh was Miss Delaware. This title alone is not enough to make someone notable. She also had a bit part in a movie, and I think I may be overstating her role at bit part. The movie role is sourced to IMDb, which is not a reliable source. The other sources are from Miss America and an article that mentions her among other Miss America contestants, but is not about her. My search for her on google came up with nothing better. I did find mention of a Soha Parekh who wrote a book on the history of the sari. However there is absolutely nothing indicating they are the same person, and not just the different spelling but the nature of the interview suggests they are different. The one person we have no indication she has ever left India, and this one we have no indication she has ever left the United States, although we have almost nothing on her. Clearly nothing coming even close to passing the general notability guidelines. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. Katie talk 18:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
AfD created by request at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion. TimothyJosephWood 16:06, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The requesting anonymous user posted the following on the article's talk page:
I have nominated this page for deletion. The campaign does not meet the notability requirement that 'the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject'. The references on the page are just to official 'BBC 100 Women' campaign pages (certainly not independent of the subject). Searching further, there is little evidence that the campaign is influential enough to be given substantial coverage in independent third-party sources. Compare this to the attention given to Time Person of the Year, for example. 2A00:23C4:A683:6A00:C414:D65C:FA3:A059 ( talk) 16:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The result was Deleted as A11. by DGG — Spaceman Spiff 11:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Reads like a recipe and may be able to be put under a stub for Indian Cuisine though I have googled "Ween" in this context and have not found any references. Are personal recipes allowed for non-notable food items? Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk 15:22, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) st170e talk 01:05, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
No assertion of notability, wierd use of the fraternity infbox. Naraht ( talk) 15:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Withdrawn by nominator - Massive improvement by AllyD and Kudpung, thank you. Naraht ( talk) 16:10, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
The result was Speedy delete. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 13:42, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Frequency is spelled wrong in the article, and one with correct spelling already exists Jeppevinkel ( talk) 13:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. No prejudice against userfication to enable the performance of a merge, if anyone wants to do so. North America 1000 07:08, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Contested WP:PROD. The two sources state "Alliance Rail Holdings has started industry consultation on proposals to launch an open access passenger service" and "Alliance Rail Holdings (Alliance) has started consultation within the rail industry on starting a new ‘open access’ rail service" - so it's not even a proposal, and fails WP:CRYSTAL. Only one of the two sources uses the term "Grand Southern Railway"; a Google search turns up some U.S. railroads, plus a British scheme from the 1830s that never got off the drawing board. Redrose64 ( talk) 23:38, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. ( No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation herein.) North America 1000 07:13, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Non notable actress, found a few mentions but nothing substantial, Her most notable role would've probably been in Waterloo Road (TV series) so should perhaps be redirected there however I'll leave that up to the community, Anyway fails BASIC & GNG – Davey2010 Talk 21:40, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. While more input here would have been desirable, rough consensus (per low participation) in this short discussion is that article is not promotional in nature, which was the basis of the rationale for deletion. North America 1000 07:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Promo piece, ?. Speedy deletion template removed by the creator. Kavdiamanju ( talk) 20:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE. Sam Walton ( talk) 23:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Only notability/coverage is because he is a celebrity impersonator. Mr. Vernon ( talk) 19:41, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. ( No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation herein.) North America 1000 07:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. ( ?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. A redirect to Kane (Command & Conquer)—his most notable role—would suffice, if it's even necessary (not sure that even Kane is independently notable from the series). czar 19:14, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. ( No prejudice against speedy renomination per no participation herein other than from the nominator.) North America 1000 08:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
This article makes no credible claim of significance and has no indication that its subject is notable. The article includes a lot of information about how big the off-grid solar industry is (1.2 billion people as target customers, 100 companies in industry), but makes no mention of why d.light might be considered a notable player within that industry.
The only noteworthy coverage that d.light seems to have received is the NYTimes article, which is not enough to indicate notability in the absence of other reliable sources. IagoQnsi ( talk) 18:27, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. This should have been deleted via BLP Prod, however since we are here and no sources have been added in three weeks I'm deleting it per the incorrectly removed BLP Prod. — Spaceman Spiff 03:36, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable person. Fails GNG. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 17:28, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 12:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Doesn't seem to meet WP:BAND. Only singles so far (one site says they don't have an album yet), mentions of "hit" songs but without references as to their definition of hit (getting into national rotation, charting, etc.) Mr. Vernon ( talk) 16:38, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sam Walton ( talk) 23:33, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Non-notable. Article created by single-purpose account for promotional purposes, in contravention of our policies on what Wikipedia is not. Citobun ( talk) 16:05, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete. WP:G11 slakr\ talk / 02:34, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
The annual edition of the pageant did not received SIGNIFICANT coverage in MULTIPLE reliable sources. Popular pageants in Australia like Miss Universe Australia and Miss World Australia does not have annual articles (but necessary due to multiple reliable sources). There is no need for a series of redirects as the article starts with "Mrs Globe". The winners of the previous editions were already indicated in the parent article, Mrs globe australia. The content of the article was written in promotional way. Richie Campbell ( talk) 14:35, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
As the WP:GNG have been addressed... the new issue raised now in the second attempt to delete is that the article is written in a promotional way, Every word in this article has been published in the news sources contained in the references. Lastly the importance of having the Mrs Globe Australia 2016 separate article is because of the news coverage as it is the 20th anniversary of the pageant. ( Australianblackbelt ( talk) 02:16, 23 November 2016 (UTC))
The first reference is not about the Mrs Australia Globe 2016 beauty pageant but mainly about the First Macedonian Festival and Mrs Australia Globe 2016 was mentioned by passing as guest and not an in-depth article about the coverage of the pageant.
The second reference is Press Release WIRE which is not a reliable source. The press release article has been removed/expired.
The third reference is about the alleged Latin Australian Times article which is a photo of the newspaper posted in Facebook where the text cannot be read. Wiki articles must contain reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Use sources that directly support the material presented in an article and are appropriate to the claims made.
The fourth reference is about Mrs Globe NOT about Mrs Globe Australia 2016.
The fifth reference is about the Non-Profit organization CheekyMac Charities held “Briland’s Be Your Best Talent Quest”. Totally no mention about the subject of the article and not a coverage of Mrs Globe Australia 2016.
The sixth reference is about the Hip-hop artist Chico Johnson who works with schools in Melbourne to share positive message. Not a coverage of Mrs Globe Australia 2016 beauty pageant.
The seventh reference is a community ePaper - Mt Evelyn Mail - 13th December 2016. The creator of the Mrs Globe Australia 2016 article specified in the cited reference that it’s on the front page titled “Dominating the Globe", but nowhere to be found. The front page talked about the “Equal View of Life”. I checked the search engine of the ePaper with the title cited but it says “Sorry, but the requested resource was not found on this site.”
The eighth reference is not a reliable source whose content is largely user-generated. Nevertheless, the article is about “Mrs UK Globe Classic” not a coverage of the Mrs Australia 2016 beauty pageant.
The ninth reference titled "Not with those boobs,darl!" is a promotional magazine. Anyway, it’s not coverage about the Mrs Globe Australia 2016 beauty pageant. Try looking at the link here: http://www.take5mag.com.au/
The tenth and eleventh references were about another pageant called, Mrs Globe Classic (NOT about Mrs Globe Australia 2016) which is another pageant of the same organizer and was also created by the Australianblackbelt. The Mrs Globe Classic was deleted via AfD consensus.-- Richie Campbell ( talk) 16:12, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
This reference was not mentioned in his critique: http://www.starweekly.com.au/lifestyle/from-behind-the-lense-a-real-beauty/ ( Australianblackbelt ( talk) 02:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC))
The result was redirect to List_of_simulation_video_games#Bus_simulation. MBisanz talk 12:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
No credible indication of notability. A Google search finds only listings for sale and some YouTube videos showing people playing. Nothing that meets the requirements of WP:GNG. Gronk Oz ( talk) 14:28, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE. Sam Walton ( talk) 23:34, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Tried to speedy this under G11 but the article creator (almost certainly) used an IP address to remove the deletion tag so now must bring here to AfD. The kid has been in a bunch of commercials, apparently. No evidence of notability has been established. I suspect COI editing, and certainly bad faith editing. (Notes: the Bollywood Life ref. is to a self-proclaimed gossip magazine, which I am going to doubt has much in the way of editorial oversight, and the Tellychakar ref appears to be hear-say only; the other two refs are IMdB cites, which means no independence, which leaves nothing.) KDS4444 ( talk) 13:10, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. General consensus to keep; the article has been at AfD for a while now and there has been no other input from editors to suggest anything other than keep. ( non-admin closure) st170e talk 00:59, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Non-notable film. Existence does not equal notability. No refs, and I could find none independently (searching was complicated by the film's title). What I found was IMDB (no independence), blogs (not reliable), and some promotional information. KDS4444 ( talk) 11:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 08:57, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a user guide or instruction manual. KDS4444 ( talk) 11:12, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 12:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
There are several explanations as to why this shouldn't have been accepted: (1) is that the information and sources are all trivial and unconvincing, either coming from the company itself or republishing of it (supposed reviews are coming from indie websites, quite conceivable for such to be either self-authored or paid for), (2) is the fact my own searches are then not finding anything but said sources, especially as I got deeper, (3) is that the history shows it was only started for advertising, since there's no actual significance or anything close it and (4) there's literally nothing else but this, showing how it's simply a blatant advertisement for a newly started company, of which is hoping to use this as a PR webhost. Clearly this is not a case for WP:BASIC and WP:GNG but even if it was, WP:SPAM and WP:NOT apply which is Wikipedia-founded, not guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 08:13, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Uncontested. Sandstein 16:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Delete and Salt please given this was literally deleted last month for advertising and that's exactly what it is, simply considering all of the factors here: (1) the account is clearly an advertising-only account, (2) the source are all entirely trivial and unconvincing, (3) my own searches are not finding anything helpful and (4) for such a new company, and with such blatant and noticeable attempts at advertising, it's basically self-explanatory this is not going to be acceptable and it certainly should not be restarted again, since 2 times of advertising has been excessive as it is.
As it is, we've questioned before, including here at AfD, that such publications (but it seems there's not any for this company), cannot immediately be taken as automatic acceptance since there's obvious payment involved with "publishing news". Not that WP:BASIC or WP:GNG would even apply, WP:NOT is still applicable if anyone asks, since it specifically states "Remove any unsuitable", in this case advertising. SwisterTwister talk 06:45, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 12:38, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Literally a trivial and unconvincing article, and it shouldn't have been accepted from AfC since, not only are the listed sources trivial and unconvincing, I've found exactly the same, and that's not surprising since there's simply nothing for actual notability and substance; the history itself suggests this may have been started for business listing uses as it is. SwisterTwister talk 05:06, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. ( No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation herein.) North America 1000 08:42, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Aslett owns a local cleaning service in Pocatlello, Idaho. He also has written books about cleaning. When your books have to be sourced to a libarry catalogue instead of reviews, that is suggesting not really notable. Most of the sources listed here are his websites or connected to his publishers. My search for additional sources was not very helpful. I came up with sources showing his comapny leasing space in Idaho and that was about it, and an article written by someone of the same name in a southern Idaho paper, but that looked to be by someone else, unless some of the detials of his education here are wrong. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:33, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was Speedy delete. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 13:18, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Article promotes an IT training business and references do not demonstrate notability. Parkywiki ( talk) 09:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 10:23, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Only notable for one film and does not meet WP:NACTOR.-- Fastester ( talk) 08:07, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The last AfD for this article ran for around three weeks* from 1st October, resulting in a keep verdict. As the film has been out for such a short period of time, I am not sure how much can be added to the previous discussion. Thanks for opening this up for discussion Fastester ( talk) - though I am a bit confused as to what your vote was for? I presume "delete" but could be "merge"? :-) EmWinn ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:44, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
- * my mistake, sorry - originally said four weeks but just checked and it closed on the 19th EmWinn ( talk) 11:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 12:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Source searches are not providing significant coverage in reliable sources for this new television show; does not meet WP:GNG at this time. North America 1000 08:35, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SK#1, nom should await the outcome of their own Special:Permalink/753284360#Requested move 2 December 2016 filed only four days ago. Secondly, we nominate articles for deletion, we do not nominate talk pages. ( non-admin closure) — Sam Sailor 11:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
An ongoing rename discussion which I initiated is ongoing at [55] but in light of one of the comments made there, I now feel this is really a BLP1E and thus I feel a deletion or more preferably a merge to [56] is more appropriate. If I'm running afoul of some Wikiprocess, please feel free to NAC this and I'll address this after the MfD has finished. That man from Nantucket ( talk) 07:07, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. consensus DGG ( talk ) 04:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
After I stated and showed the obvious signs of this only existing as an article but then worse, actually being a paid advertisement, a random IP removed it, therefore not only will the PROD still apply, but so is policy WP:NOT which is stated explicitly to remove any such advertising and that includes paid advertising, since it is not tolerated and will be deleted onsight, as it's quite clear there's enough here to state policy is far important than anything else. SwisterTwister talk 06:35, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 10:20, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG, the fact that one country has a High Commission in another does not establish any degree of notability. Dan arndt ( talk) 05:31, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. But clearly needs cleanup for neutrality and copyediting, including the title. Subsequent discussion can work out if anything needs to be merged back to Degar. Sandstein 08:55, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
The page, although it has numerous sources, is biased and slanted towards one particular side while harshly criticizing the other side. For example, they cast Vietnamese as being bad overall and committing "savage acts" or as "colonists" while casting the Degars, despite their diversity as one entire monolithic group. The article solely criticizes one ethnic group (Vietnamese) as the cause of all the faults for the Degar people using mostly partisan sources, unreliable sources (in books that mention genocide, they never elaborate on it such as the source, "Battle for the Central Highlands" while the source Criminal Investigation Detachment #3: Bamboo Battleground is not an academic book source for example), citation overkill (references 28-30, and 42-43 are the same sources while 9 references are being used to deliberate show that the claim is strong) or deliberate misinterpretations. In the 2004 subsection, there is repeated sentences that accuses Vietnam of criticizing the Montagnard Foundation as if Vietnam truly hates them. The format is much like a news article, mentioning all of the events which are deliberately selected to prove the general viewpoint, which is synthesis and Original Research. The article was originally from the Degar page before it was moved (see page history) which was ridden with bias. Ssbbplayer ( talk) 05:22, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 09:12, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Borderline A7 candidate but the claim to founding a company plus the local new mention makes me think it barely passes the assertion of significance bar. Only new mention is the local morning show, and I could find no reliable sources mentioning her. Currently the only independent source in the article is the morning show interview, which is more of a fluff piece than anything else. Other sources are Facebook pages and her company website. TonyBallioni ( talk) 03:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The result was redirect to American Idol (season 13). Having looked at the sources in the prev AFD - She's known for American Idol & nothing else, In some respects this is a BLP1E/BIO1E, No point deleting so just closing as redirect. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 23:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Looking with the arguments on the previous AFD discussion with having no consensus to delete or redirect the show article with receiving keep votes in the last AFD. With the failing on WP:BLP1E and WP:NMUSIC, I suggest to either delete or redirect to American Idol (season 13) article. ApprenticeFan work 09:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) GSS ( talk) 11:50, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
WP:PROMO page created by WP:COI user. Fails WP:NOTFILM. Zackmann08 ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 06:23, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. apparent consensus DGG ( talk ) 06:12, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
No independent sources. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:41, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 23:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Unremarkable condiment. If the manufacturer had an article, I'd suggest a redirect of a mertge. But they don't. TheLongTone ( talk) 16:32, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. apparent consensus DGG ( talk ) 06:09, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Declined speedy since the article has sources, but nevertheless this seems to be an entirely unremarkable business. One minor award does not seem to alter this. TheLongTone ( talk) 17:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. apparent consensus DGG ( talk ) 06:08, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Overly promotional article on a non-notable tech startup. I could only find trivial mentions in independent, reliable sources. Joe Roe ( talk) 17:40, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Rooster Teeth. MBisanz talk 12:41, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
It's been two months since the last AfD closed as no consensus (primarily due to a simple lack of comments), and there has been no improvement on this article. There is still no indication of notability other than the mere fact that the podcast is produced by Rooster Teeth, but notability is not inherited. IagoQnsi ( talk) 17:58, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was Speedy keep. Nominator should read last AfD. I also note nominator is (believed to be) inexperienced when it comes to looking for reliability and notability of an article. ( non-admin closure) Nordic Nightfury 08:15, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
InstallShield is not notable as installshield does not get much coverage it does it warrent an article on wikipedia Jonnymoon96 ( talk) 01:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. consensus; DGG ( talk ) 06:07, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Little actual content, WP:TOOSOON for anything to be added onto this article. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 01:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Keep How is this too soon? Content needs to be added to the page, not the page removed! Take a look at the history of Public image of Barack Obama, and tell me what you see. Ethanbas ( talk) 04:20, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Keep. Plenty of sources already exist, so this does not meet WP:TOOSOON. Riceissa ( talk) 04:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 04:34, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
There is no indication this Bible translation is notable. There are no reliable independent sources at all. Huon ( talk) 00:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Curious. I thought the Golden Rule was, "Do unto others as you would have others do to you." Until this threat to delete came up, I had thought that wikipedia wanted to encourage participation in building a resource for informative and useful content, and that was why I invested the time to correct some errors in the subject article and add some useful content. As a result of your rejection of my contribution, I took a moment to see what some others thought about wikipedia and one of the first articles that came up started with this:
The Top 10 Reasons why people cannot rely on Wikipedia:
<ref>...</ref>
tags in your comment since it's just a wikilink
Primefac (
talk)
01:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)thank you so much Primefac i am thankful for your service yes my recommendation is to Userfy for onebible thank you Primefac for fixing my mistake i am grateful for your service
The result was Keep per WP:SNOW - AfD created by sockpuppet account. ( non-admin closure) Exemplo347 ( talk) 13:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Reason