The result was redirect to Traction Labs. Consensus that this is not independently notable. Editors are now free to merge stuff from history and/or nominate Traction Labs for deletion too. Sandstein 07:19, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Company has pivoted and changed names and focus. Also, page has been hijacked by a former employee. Kleubay ( talk) 23:58, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. a suitable case for honoring the subject's wishes DGG ( talk ) 04:19, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Individual does not appear to meet notability guidelines, maybe borderline at best. The author herself has requested deletion ( WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE) in the page history. Sro23 ( talk) 23:20, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, please delete, old and outdated. By author: Constantia Oomen (August 1, 2016) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThroughTheWindow ( talk • contribs) 20:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 09:06, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Basically still an advertorial job listing since DGG nominated in January, examining this found nothing at all substantially better apart from interviews, press releases, his own authored articles, trivial passing mentions and other unacceptable sources; my own searches have also mirrored this by noticeably finding only press releases and mentions. The 2 sources listed at the other AfD were simply interviews and nothing else convincing. That also seems to the basis here, "inheriting notability" from the listed notable news sources and even the "Keep" votes were either saying "they liked his work" (the article's author) or "the article is (quote) bloated, feels promotional, probably needs much trimming"....and there's summarily nothing to suggest confidently improving and keeping. SwisterTwister talk 22:57, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 07:45, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
No doubt a very worthy organisation but there is no evidence that it is notable. Both refs are from the web-site of its parent organisation and nothing more. Fails WP:GNG Velella Velella Talk 22:27, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 19:03, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Insufficient notability requirements as per WP:Politician. A municipal councillor and then an unsuccessful candidate for mayor is insufficient for a standalone biography article. She has received press coverage but not as significant in multiple in-depth sources as described by WP:BIO quotation (also read the details in the footnote in that section):
Canuckle ( talk) 22:04, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was Merge and redirect as a week has not suggested anything else, history contents are available in the logs if anyone needs them. I would've redirected initially if it wasn't for the fact this was still questionable by itself and, also, advertorial. At least we have a consensus in case this gets moved again later (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 21:46, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Still nothing actually suggestive of the needed substance and I confirm everything I said with both my PROD and speedy. SwisterTwister talk 21:55, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. apparent consenus DGG ( talk ) 14:00, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
PROD removed with the apparent basis "it may meet notability" (although there's certainly no inherited notability and, I'll emphasize also, that there would still need to be the needed coverage) but I still confirm the PROD as there's still nothing actually convincing. SwisterTwister talk 21:56, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was Deleted WP:G5 and SNOW. -- GB fan 15:06, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Article is an unusual spelling of the Tagalog name for bamboo (see tl:Kawayan). No need for this term on en.wiki where it will just make it harder for people to find the tl.wiki article. Plantdrew ( talk) 21:37, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 19:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
PROD removed by a drive-by user even after it was endorsed Anarchyte and I still confirm everything I said here but, fortunately, with this 2nd AfD (the first one was closed as Speedied), we can at least have G4. Although this is tagged as "new user and assume good faith", there's simply no chances of this actually being notable as I note several things: nothing satisfying the applicable notability, the sources are simply not convincing and searches, again, simply found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 21:27, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 07:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Speedy deletion per WP:G4 was declined, but the underlying notability concerns remain. He has still not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article still fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 20:24, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 19:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Usual stuff: young footballer that fails WP:GNG and WP:FOOTYN (no professional appearances as of yet). Luxic ( talk) 20:02, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 19:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Non-notable social media "star". While they have a large Instagram following, I only found this article: [2], which mentions him, but as part of an article on internet "stars". RickinBaltimore ( talk) 19:15, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. obvious strong consensus DGG ( talk ) 04:10, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
This article is on the U.S. tax form 1040 for individuals. It reads far too close to explaining how to do a tax return, especially by giving "who must file" and "signature requirement" sections, explaining different ways to file, and so on. The IRS is the authority on this - Wikipedia is not a manual, nor do we give advice. This article was expanded by a paid editor who is getting paid on page hits by User:Vipul - see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Form 1120. An AfD on Form 1120 resulted in a redirect to IRS tax forms. I attempted to do the same here, but another paid editor associated with Vipul, has repeatedly undone the redirect. Therefore, I am bringing this to AfD for community consensus. MSJapan ( talk) 18:45, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 07:51, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Notability of Article is Questionable, per Wikipedia:Notability and WP:GNG; there is hardly any reason to create an article to detail an episode of a magazine programme GUtt01 ( talk) 18:31, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 19:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunately G4 was removed as it's not symmetrical to the 1st AfD but the non-notability is still there, nothing here is actually convincing and my own searches have found nothing else better. SwisterTwister talk 18:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Page meets guidelines for WP:MUSIC by having coverage in reliable publications and has released albums on a large independent label with many notable artists. Jdogg Shaw ( talk) 06:28, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. North America 1000 00:21, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Deleted in 2006 and I frankly am still not finding anything actually convincing and I would've frankly PRODed if not for that 1st AfD. SwisterTwister talk 17:38, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 09:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
PROD removed (I still confirm everything I said there) apparently with the basis that they believed everything listed still suggests notability and substance but it's not actually the case. All sources listed are simply either press releases or trivial mentions. SwisterTwister talk 17:30, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 07:53, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
NonNotable mid-level officer. One of the many Commissioner ranking officers of India. Just a bureaucrat doing his job. His book is also not notable. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Speedy delete. Uncletomwood ( talk) 17:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
SwisterTwister DGG John Pack Lambert comments please. Uncletomwood ( talk) 17:10, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. The article has improved since the AfD began. However, the nominator recommends the article creator go through the Articles for Creation process to avoid similar problems in the future. ( non-admin closure) Gestrid ( talk) 19:24, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
This article does not meet the general notability guidelines. Gestrid ( talk) 16:41, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi everyone,
Pasting some of the notes sent to Gestrid here for help explaining and improving the page: Some references and links for consideration:
Regards Anujkaps ( talk) 17:30, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Dear all,
I am a friend of AnujKaps. He pointed me to this page and chat. I have located a Wikipedia page that also references Chukh ( /info/en/?search=Indian_cuisine#Himachal_Pradesh). So I thought to provide it for your consideration for inclusion as a reference to this chat.
Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeetikaPandya ( talk • contribs) 18:35, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Dear Robert, Thanks for your note re: canvassing. I am aware of that clause and have been extremely careful not to canvass.
The page being discussed for deletion <Chamba Chukh> is something also being discussed quite widely in our community in Himachal offline. I have in fact contacted my friends who are also from the region to NOT EDIT the page and also to NOT get onto the discussion board. However if they do, they should EXPRESSLY SPECIFY that they know me and should state that upfront in the interest of complete transparency.
I will ask them to refrain from entering the conversation entirely, if that is more desirable. I can put forth their arguments through my own Username, if that is preferable. I am trying specifically to learn the etiquette of the wiki community to avoid such mis-understanding, before doing too much.
Thanks everyone for understanding. Anujkaps ( talk) 07:51, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
An article on a prominent Indian Travel sight that that has reference to CHAMBA CHUKH for your reference:
http://www.discoveredindia.com/himachal-pradesh/cities-and-destinations-in-himachal-pradesh/chamba.htm
Anujkaps ( talk) 07:54, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
PLEASE ADVISE IF I SHOULD ADD SOME OF THESE REFERENCES TO THE ACTUAL PAGE ALREADY OR SHOULD I KEEP POSTING HERE ON THIS TALK PAGE CREATED FOR THE DELETION?
THANKS
Anujkaps ( talk) 07:56, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
I have cited a few references on the page now. Also, I have found references to Chamba Chukh on existing Wikipedia Pages which have also now been linked back to this page <Chamba Chukh>. Will continue digging and improving the page.
Thanks Anujkaps ( talk) 23:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks understood.
Also, I have linked back to this page from the Himachal Pradesh (State in India where Chukh comes from) Wikipedia page where a reference to it already existed.
Anujkaps ( talk) 11:28, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 19:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
I originally prodded this article as being an unreferenced article that failed to credibly assert notability, but it was deprodded when some references were added. However, the new references do nothing to establish notability. The first confirms the release of YouTube red and does not mention the series at all, while the other 3 are primary sources, straight from the YouTube blog. I have been unable to find mention in reliable secondary sources that would establish notability. AussieLegend ( ✉) 16:21, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) 217.42.252.221 ( talk) 06:42, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
The Cristian Vogel page, whilst has some merits, remains un-sourced except for one random link for over 5 years. A wikipedia article should not be original research or content that does not have a source for every assertion.
This page continues to have no one editing it and providing the necessary sources so should be deleted JonnyTSpeed ( talk) 11:20, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
JohnnyTSpeed's rationale is that the article is largely unsourced, but this is not in and of itself a valid reason for deletion; the article has one reliable source, and through the past month, I got no indication that the nominator's attentions had been directed toward a WP:BEFORE effort, which might have dredged up sources such as an extensive interview from Fact (magazine), coverage from XLR8R, and two reviews by Pitchfork Media. Beyond that, the nominator may not be familiar with WP:MUSIC, and Vogel, at minimum, clears the hurdle for releases on noteworthy labels, having issued several albums on the labels Mille Plateaux and Tresor Records. Since deletion is not cleanup, the nominator's comments regarding lack of editing and sourcing are not relevant to AfD, though of course I encourage any interested parties to add sourcing as their time and interests permit. Chubbles ( talk) 17:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
>>> So basically you were the repetitive author of all this unsourced material/ original research. Why didn't you put sources in the article when you wrote it? No wonder you are angrily defending your handy work [[[Special:Contributions/217.42.252.221|217.42.252.221]] ( talk) 08:02, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. clearly an advertisement; G11 would have been reasonable DGG ( talk ) 04:11, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Non-notable company. All 5 sources are press releases, and Google search did not reveal any other in-depth coverage. SPA-editing with unclear COI status. GermanJoe ( talk) 14:57, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was merge to Swarm intelligence#Algorithms. MBisanz talk 19:06, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
This article is part of the following group of articles that I have all nomination for deletion (individually):
These article all detail research done by Xin-She Yang. All suffer from the following problems:
The result was delete. The nominator's analysis of sources is convincing. DGG ( talk ) 04:16, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
No evidence of any notability. Too many of the refs are self-written and one doesn't even feature him. This is an aspirant politician who appears to have removed the PROD previously on this article. This is far too soon - better wait until dreams turn to reality before coming back to Wikipedia. Velella Velella Talk 20:47, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
How do you suggest I go about improving the content of the article? PurpleCouch987 ( talk) 14:18, 17 July 2016 (UTC)PurpleCouch987
Unless a consensus I'm going to add more 3rd party sources and remove the being consider for deletion notification. I really would like to improve this article though so any input is appreciated. PurpleCouch987 ( talk) 17:38, 19 July 2016 (UTC) PurpleCouch987
Ok, well this discussion is going nowhere and seems largely pointless so... PurpleCouch987 ( talk) 14:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC) PurpleCouch987
Have we reached consensus? PurpleCouch987 ( talk) 17:04, 27 July 2016 (UTC) PurpleCouch987
Have we reached consensus? PurpleCouch987 ( talk) 17:04, 27 July 2016 (UTC) PurpleCouch987
Notability has been agreed upon by the other commenters. You are the sole holdout. As far as I can tell there is no explicit statement indicating that the consensus has to be unanimous. I appreciate your commitment to the quality of Wikipedia and I'm very impressed by your record. I've looked through many of the article you have written...good stuff! That said your personal feelings about this page do not outweigh the consensus. I think this discussion is closed. Again, thank you for your commitment. PurpleCouch987 ( talk) 17:27, 29 July 2016 (UTC) PurpleCouch987
Unfortunately, other "experienced" editors have established notability and stopped commenting on this page. Therefore your views are in the minority. I did not mean to be patronizing but if you want to take it that way thats fine by me. This discussion is effectively over - nobody else has commented for over a week. Unless I get new feedback by tomorrow I am going to remove the deletion notice. PurpleCouch987 ( talk) 18:47, 1 August 2016 (UTC) PurpleCouch987
The result was Speedy Deleted (G5) by Ponyo. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:14, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG... and was deleted earlier this month. Notability hasn't changed since then. Joeykai ( talk) 12:54, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. There are two critical lines of thought in this discussion: 1. All secondary schools are notable, regardless of the level of coverage received in independent sources, as long as we can verify their existence. Due to this inherent notability, any degree-awarding secondary school should have its own article. 2. Secondary schools are held to the same standard as every other organization, and must include multiple reliable sources which cover the subject directly and in detail. Without this requisite sourcing, notability cannot be determined; therefore, no article should be created or retained.
There is validity to both of these arguments, inasmuch as the conclusions are supported by their premises. But, to determine the soundness of the arguments, they must be weighed against the community's consensus precedent. The key pieces of policy I'll quote here are from WP:ORG and WP:NSCHOOL, the most authoritative guidelines on schools that we have:
No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is, including schools. [1] If the individual organization has received no or very little notice from independent sources, then it is not notable simply because other individual organizations of its type are commonly notable or merely because it exists (see "If it's not notable", below). "Notability" is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." No matter how "important" editors may personally believe an organization to be, it should not have a stand-alone article in Wikipedia unless reliable sources independent of the organization have discussed it.
— WP:ORGSIG (emphasis added)
A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization.
— WP:ORG § Primary criteria (emphasis added)
All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must satisfy either this guideline ( WP:ORG) or the general notability guideline, or both. (But see also WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, especially for universities.)
— WP:NSCHOOL (emphasis added)
Two of these guidelines point to WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES for further reference, so let's look at the relevant section:
Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are usually kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists.
— WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES
The key take away here is that we as a community have not properly discussed this issue, and therefore we have not established a working policy via consensus. The policy and our current consensus precedent seem to contradict each other, at least when it comes to the amount of coverage required. We must also consider if WP:SYSTEMICBIAS has any effect here; once again, this topic has not been discussed properly at a community level to answer such a question.
In conclusion, both arguments have full validity - just not from the same perspectives. The argument for retention based on WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is fully valid and even sound when compared to the current, de facto, consensus precedent (a precedent that the guidelines themselves point to). However, the argument for deletion, based on the requirement of establishing notability through significant coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources, is also fully valid and equally sound when compared to the established consensus set in the guidelines. Obviously, this is problem. And a determination must be made. However, for a determination to be made, the community must have a real discussion and establish a firm consensus. - Singular discussions, with limited community visibility (such as AFD), cannot achieve this goal. And as such, it is not within a single administrator's power to make this determination for the community. Therefore, no consensus can be determined at this time, defaulting to the retention of the article. Furthermore, it is recommended that a formal RFC be opened to make the requisite determination, and then rewrite the relevant policies/guidelines to reflect the consensus. (This close was done in consideration of, and accordance with, the following policies/guidelines: WP:GNG, WP:ORG, WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SYSTEMICBIAS, WP:PROMO, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:ADMIN, WP:DELETE.) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:53, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
[Note: The following reflects the name of the article at the time the AfD was relisted. Unscintillating ( talk) 22:37, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Non notable Higher Secondary school in
Nepal. Some links are are provided in see also segment but are not so strong for keeping this article here in wikipedia.
NepaliKeto62
Talk to me
04:04, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
*Delete - SCHOOLOUTCOMES is an essay not a guideline and IMHO no school should be kept just because it exists, If it doesn't have any sources it doesn't deserve an article IMHO. –
Davey2010
Talk
23:13, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The current notability guidelines for schools and other education institutions are Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N), Wikipedia:Notability (geography) (WP:NGEO) and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) (WP:ORG).
Rebb ing 22:00, 30 July 2016 (UTC)No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is, including schools. If the individual organization has received no or very little notice from independent sources, then it is not notable simply because other individual organizations of its type are commonly notable or merely because it exists . . . .
In other notes, a Google search on ["Eden English School" butwal] shows a map, an address, and phone number in the right-hand column for the school. Since most of the original text is no longer visible in the current article, I've found that this older revision is helpful in understanding the context.
We are here because of an improper DRV closing that uses the words "wrong result" while citing no policies, and addresses AfD volunteers for "not digging deep enough". The DRV itself was a nomination that could have been speedy closed as WP:POINT...a closer does not have standing to request the overturn of his/her own closing. Be that as it may, there were no issues that could not have protected the AfD volunteer community by allowing the normal six months to pass before another AfD for this article. Nor was sockpuppetry of the AfD nomination mentioned in the DRV closing. Unscintillating ( talk) 16:54, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
In your response, you've not cited from policies, guidelines, and/or essays; and in the context of proving me "wrong" suggests that you are not clear on why you are saying that which you are saying.
Another point you should perhaps consider, do you believe that Google takes satellite pictures? I'm willing to consider that there is a vast military conspiracy to alter satellite images provided to Google to hide radar arrays on coastlines, but without sources to tell us that, at Wikipedia, we follow the sources. Since we don't follow the sources blindly, I've written the essay WP:Inaccuracy, but I doubt you are going to find a consensus here that some advanced persistent threat at the direction of or on behalf of Eden English School is altering the satellite images being considered at this AfD. Summary: the satellite images are reliable and third party. Respectfully, Unscintillating ( talk) 23:52, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Cunard ( talk) 06:53, 1 August 2016 (UTC)School Code 48261
Name of the School EDEN ENGLISH BOARDING SCHOOL BUTWAL, RUPANDEHI
The result was keep. Sandstein 09:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Only two refs for this article which has been around for years. One is own web-site and the other is Hardcore Gaming 101 which is about as niche a publication as is possible to get. No claims to any special notability. No notability established. Fails WP:GNG Velella Velella Talk 12:49, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 07:16, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Cricketer who fails WP:NCRIC. Has not yet played a first-class/List A game, etc. U19 cricketers don't meet the notability threshold. Was tagged as a speedy as it's already been deleted recently, but declined by Nyttend. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:46, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
*Delete. Agreed.
DilMendis82 (
talk) 14:55, 1 August 2016 (UTC)Blocked sock—
UY Scuti
Talk
14:47, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Delete as per nom as it fails WP:NCRIC. Black hole78 talk | contrib 17:47, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 04:16, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Geographer who has just received his PhD. References show that there are some publication, but there's nothing indicating he is "well known" as the article states. H-index currently seems to be 1, with a total of 7 citations (5 for the 2011 article, 1 each for two articles from 2014), as per GScholar. Axolotl Nr.733 ( talk) 11:19, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 19:07, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Cricketer who fails WP:NCRIC. Has not yet played a first-class/List A game, etc. U19 cricketers don't meet the notability threshold. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:02, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
*Delete Agreed.
DilMendis82 (
talk) 14:55, 1 August 2016 (UTC)Blocked sock—
UY Scuti
Talk
14:44, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Delete as per nom as it fails WP:NCRIC. Black hole78 talk | contrib 17:46, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 19:07, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Cricketer who fails WP:NCRIC. Has not yet played a first-class/List A game, etc. U19 cricketers don't meet the notability threshold. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:00, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
*Delete Agreed.
DilMendis82 (
talk) 14:55, 1 August 2016 (UTC)Blocked sock—
UY Scuti
Talk
14:41, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Delete as per nom as it fails WP:NCRIC. Black hole78 talk | contrib 17:46, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — UY Scuti Talk 14:40, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Bare stub of a BLP and unreferenced Rathfelder ( talk) 12:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 19:07, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Cricketer who fails WP:NCRIC. Has not yet played a first-class/List A game, etc. U19 cricketers don't meet the notability threshold. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:56, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
*Delete. Agreed.
DilMendis82 (
talk) 14:55, 1 August 2016 (UTC) Blocked sock. —
UY Scuti
Talk
14:37, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR per low participation herein. North America 1000 00:29, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Nothing actually confidently suggesting the needed independent notability and my searches including Saudi Arabian news have found nothing convincing so far. SwisterTwister talk 05:23, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 19:07, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Cricketer who fails WP:NCRIC. Has not yet played a first-class/List A game, etc. U19 cricketers don't meet the notability threshold. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:44, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
*Delete Agreed.
DilMendis82 (
talk) 14:55, 1 August 2016 (UTC) Blocked sock. —
UY Scuti
Talk
14:35, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Delete as per nom as it fails WP:NCRIC. Black hole78 talk | contrib 17:45, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 19:07, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Cricketer who fails WP:NCRIC. Has not yet played a first-class/List A game, etc. U19 cricketers don't meet the notability threshold. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:40, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
*Delete Agreed.
DilMendis82 (
talk) 14:51, 1 August 2016 (UTC) Blocked sock. —
UY Scuti
Talk
14:34, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Delete as per nom as it fails WP:NCRIC. Black hole78 talk | contrib 17:45, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 19:07, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Cricketer who fails
WP:NCRIC. Has not yet played a first-class/List A game, etc. U19 cricketers don't meet the notability threshold.
Lugnuts
Dick Laurent is dead
09:21, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
*Delete Agreed.
DilMendis82 (
talk) 13:35, 1 August 2016 (UTC) Blocked sock. —
UY Scuti
Talk
14:32, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Delete as per nom as it fails WP:NCRIC. Black hole78 talk | contrib 17:43, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
The result was Speedy delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 06:43, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
No evidence of any notability. Only refs are its own web-site (which doesn't load) and a government listing of approved radio infrastructure components - neither convey any notability. It has been tagged as lacking notability for over 6 months and Hooperbloob has done good work on cleaning up the worst excesses of promotional tone but it still fails WP:GNG Velella Velella Talk 08:28, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 09:09, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Band with no substantive claim to passing WP:NMUSIC and no evidence of any substantive reliable source coverage to get them over WP:GNG: the substance boils down to "this is a band that exists and released its debut album in February 2016, the end", and the sourcing consists of one blurb on a blog. This is not enough to get a band into Wikipedia. Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 22:11, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 16:15, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Semi-advertorial WP:BLP of a writer who has the potential to pass WP:AUTHOR, but completely fails to properly source the fact: very nearly right across the board, the sourcing here is almost entirely to primary sources like his own publisher, with the few references that even approach reliability not being numerous enough to satisfy WP:GNG. This was rejected twice at AFC for being inadequately sourced, following which the creator arrogated herself the right to bypass AFC moving the page directly into mainspace, without making any substantive changes or resubmitting it for a third review through the proper AFC process. Either delete, or move back to draftspace. Bearcat ( talk) 23:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. clear enough. There's an apparently related article that should be examined also: Jonathan Goldman DGG ( talk ) 04:12, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Non-notable "technology", Google search found no independent in-depth coverage. Current sources are: #1, #3 self-published; #4, #5 not "independent", #2: I won't buy this on Kindle to check (unless someone donates 9,99 Euro), but it seems to be about the general concept of this method, not about this specific application. Even if "Energy Genesis" as specific topic was covered there, one questionable source from a clearly involved author (book info available on Amazon) would not be enough to establish notability. GermanJoe ( talk) 07:25, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 04:13, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Hopefully we can finally get to a confirmed consensus considering the 2 other AfDs (3 if you count the third listed here at the side), my own searches have found nothing at all actually convincing and there's summarily nothing else better. SwisterTwister talk 07:09, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Editors are free to create a redirect, perhaps from the correctly spelled version of the name. Sandstein 07:22, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
A group created a record album. That's fine, but it does not enjoy inherent notability. Are there satisfactory references to demonstrate notability Edison ( talk) 02:07, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Delete. I would say redirect to Sheila on 7, but it is an improbable search term. I couldn't find any reliable sources that discuss this album in depth. These all seem like trivial mentions. I would check to see if the album charted but there's no Indonesian national chart listed at Wikipedia:Record charts. -- Cerebellum ( talk) 14:25, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 14:00, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
My searches noticeably found simply found nothing at all and that's not surprising because, even if it's from 100 years ago, it was apparently only relaunched 15 years ago; my searches including archived news have found nothing. SwisterTwister talk 02:46, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. ( WP:NPASR). North America 1000 07:02, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
No evidence of notability. SST flyer 05:57, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. North America 1000 07:06, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Obvious WP:NOTESSAY RegistryKey (RegEdit) 06:53, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was Keep. Andrew D. ( talk) 05:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Unremarkable minor clergyman (rank of rector / canon only). Status as son of aristocrat and husband of the daughter of a bishop appears to be basis of claimed notability ("he is an important local figure"). Dubbin u | t | c 07:03, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Faber Drive. Per WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) — UY Scuti Talk 14:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. The only reliable sources that exist deal more with the band he was in ( Faber Drive) rather than the artist himself; since the band seems barely notable itself, WP:INHERIT applies here. Colonel Wilhelm Klink ( Complaints| Mistakes) 21:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was Delete: unanimous. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 14:30, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
This is an article about a Japanese economist who is an associate professor at Ibaraki University. The article creator has previously posted reasons why the article should be deleted on the article's talk page, but I am not convinced that is enough to satisfy notability. I commenced translating the article, but ran out of motivation when I started to doubt the notability. I also believe it may be either an autobiography or written by someone close to the subject, as the author's only contributions on both the English and Japanese Wikis have been concerning Noda. If anybody wants help understanding the Japanese or has particular questions regarding the contents, I am willing to help with that. AtHomeIn神戸 ( talk) 07:47, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was redirect to The Starving Artists Project. North America 1000 06:59, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Absolutely no credible assertion of independent notability. Delete or redirect to The Starving Artists Project. Slashme ( talk) 16:38, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Redirect to The Starving Artists Project, since he does not pass WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST outside of this project. Arthistorian1977 ( talk) 11:09, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Nobody actually advocates anything other than deletion. Sandstein 07:23, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Lack of any reliable sources covering the subject. Basically all the sources I could find were blogs, I previously tagged it for CSD G4, but it was declined. See also, previous AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linux Deepin. - Champion ( talk) ( contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 01:39, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 19:07, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai ( talk) 09:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America 1000 00:31, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai ( talk) 22:55, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 19:07, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
My searches have simply found nothing actually convincing and there's nothing else to actually suggest convincing independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:25, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Per WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) — UY Scuti Talk 14:17, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Apparently only best known for working at the New York Times so far and my searches have found no actual substantially convincing sources thus nothing to suggest independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:54, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. consensus after relistings DGG ( talk ) 04:06, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
No evidence of any notability except perhaps for losing a court case. Two published books appear to have no special notability and refs are from Amazon. The remaining refs show that he exists and and that he has helped set up an organisation in Northwest Indiana but no evidence of notability. Another real estate salesman (failed) of which there must be many thousands in the US alone. Velella Velella Talk 08:51, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was Keep. Sufficient consensus that WP:GNG is satisfied. Michig ( talk) 07:21, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Promotional and non notable. Makes medical claims without using MEDRS quality resources. I tagged it for A7and G111, but the tags were removed by another editor, who seems to think that the mere presence of references indicate possible importance even if they are just press press releases, DGG ( talk ) 07:16, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
References
The result was speedy keep. North America 1000 02:29, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
She has had some success, but I am not convinced she meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG Boleyn ( talk) 21:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 07:12, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Fails WP:NBIO. Tagged for notability since June 2008. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 21:21, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete and redirect to Holy Sons. Sandstein 07:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Unreferenced. No indication of notability Rathfelder ( talk) 13:59, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Eels discography. Per WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) — UY Scuti Talk 14:14, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Does not appear to satisfy the notability criteria. FamblyCat94 ( talk) 06:33, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 22:20, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
2014 AfD closed as no consensus, few responses and an assumption that better sources would be found (hasn't happened yet). It was closed with no prejudice to swift renomination if sources weren't added, but I left it a while instead. I still can't establish that he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG - hopefully this time we can reach a consensus. Boleyn ( talk) 11:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 07:09, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Non notable film producer. Fails GNG and is not notable as a producer - all his credits appear to be as Co-producer with others getting first billing Gbawden ( talk) 09:49, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Per WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) — UY Scuti Talk 14:10, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai ( talk) 22:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 07:16, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Unnotable video game released this in 2016, so it might be too soon for an article on this video game. Using the custom source search for video games brings up 0 results for "Clash of Queens: Dragons Rise" and there is no Metacritic page. I could find no proper coverage for this subject. Anarchyte ( work | talk) 12:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. North America 1000 06:53, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
From what can be found, the individual is just a typical lawyer and architect with no significant accomplishments. Anyways, there is not enough material to pass GNG. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 06:26, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete. Obvious spam regardless of notability Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:23, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Clear WP:AUTO violation (see edit history), and non-notable (claimed) doctor easily failing WP:GNG. Also, no references. Pianoman320 ( talk) 06:04, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedily deleted by User:Jo-Jo Eumerus under criterion G7. (Non-admin closure) " Pepper" @ 03:58, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
List containing only one entry. Fbdave ( talk) 03:22, 29 July 2016 (UTC) Comment - I created that article. Anyone can (or should) delete this. Because, I think I failed to add more than one player on this article because he was the ony gymnast from Bangladesh in Olympics ever. I've added just one source, which is I think inadequete and I think the article is very short assuming its weigh. Actually, I was inspired by List of Olympic female gymnasts for Hungary and similar ones. I thought of making any one or more articles regarding male gymnasts and most probably about Bangladesh. It's all so. Neebras ( talk) 03:48, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was Delete. WP:V concerns around lack of third-party reliable sources take precedence over arguments about school notability. Hut 8.5 12:13, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Non-notable, defunct organization, insufficiently sourced. Electoralist ( talk) 01:56, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 19:07, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Single sentence article, tagged as unsourced since 2009, non-notable organization and as it is defunct unlikely to ever be notable Electoralist ( talk) 01:53, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 07:19, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
This footballer fails WP:NFOOTBALL as a player that has not played in any WP:FPL (fully proffessional league). Soccer8295 ( talk) 01:39, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was Already speedily deleted G11. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:53, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Not notable, fails WP:GNG Searches come up with blogs and not much else. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 01:37, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. North America 1000 06:51, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai ( talk) 01:32, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 19:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai ( talk) 01:16, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 19:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai ( talk) 01:16, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 19:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai ( talk) 01:12, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 19:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai ( talk) 01:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 07:03, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
seems to fail WP:COMPANY and WP:GNG. nothing notable, nothing encyclopaedic, cannot see why its presence here is justified Rayman60 ( talk) 00:58, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 07:16, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Made-up genre based on one fansite article and a smidgin of original research. Orange Mike | Talk 00:46, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
User:Betty Logan, I think it does because it's obviously not properly sourced yet. I think it was written too prematurely. Saving it as a draft would give us time to build on it before publishing it again.-- Taeyebar 02:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was Speedy delete - already deleted as G7, per author's request (non-admin closure). GermanJoe ( talk) 12:02, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
I wrote an Arabic article in English Wikipedia Akram1988 ( talk) 23:59, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 19:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai ( talk) 00:05, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Traction Labs. Consensus that this is not independently notable. Editors are now free to merge stuff from history and/or nominate Traction Labs for deletion too. Sandstein 07:19, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Company has pivoted and changed names and focus. Also, page has been hijacked by a former employee. Kleubay ( talk) 23:58, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. a suitable case for honoring the subject's wishes DGG ( talk ) 04:19, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Individual does not appear to meet notability guidelines, maybe borderline at best. The author herself has requested deletion ( WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE) in the page history. Sro23 ( talk) 23:20, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, please delete, old and outdated. By author: Constantia Oomen (August 1, 2016) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThroughTheWindow ( talk • contribs) 20:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 09:06, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Basically still an advertorial job listing since DGG nominated in January, examining this found nothing at all substantially better apart from interviews, press releases, his own authored articles, trivial passing mentions and other unacceptable sources; my own searches have also mirrored this by noticeably finding only press releases and mentions. The 2 sources listed at the other AfD were simply interviews and nothing else convincing. That also seems to the basis here, "inheriting notability" from the listed notable news sources and even the "Keep" votes were either saying "they liked his work" (the article's author) or "the article is (quote) bloated, feels promotional, probably needs much trimming"....and there's summarily nothing to suggest confidently improving and keeping. SwisterTwister talk 22:57, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 07:45, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
No doubt a very worthy organisation but there is no evidence that it is notable. Both refs are from the web-site of its parent organisation and nothing more. Fails WP:GNG Velella Velella Talk 22:27, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 19:03, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Insufficient notability requirements as per WP:Politician. A municipal councillor and then an unsuccessful candidate for mayor is insufficient for a standalone biography article. She has received press coverage but not as significant in multiple in-depth sources as described by WP:BIO quotation (also read the details in the footnote in that section):
Canuckle ( talk) 22:04, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was Merge and redirect as a week has not suggested anything else, history contents are available in the logs if anyone needs them. I would've redirected initially if it wasn't for the fact this was still questionable by itself and, also, advertorial. At least we have a consensus in case this gets moved again later (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 21:46, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Still nothing actually suggestive of the needed substance and I confirm everything I said with both my PROD and speedy. SwisterTwister talk 21:55, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. apparent consenus DGG ( talk ) 14:00, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
PROD removed with the apparent basis "it may meet notability" (although there's certainly no inherited notability and, I'll emphasize also, that there would still need to be the needed coverage) but I still confirm the PROD as there's still nothing actually convincing. SwisterTwister talk 21:56, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was Deleted WP:G5 and SNOW. -- GB fan 15:06, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Article is an unusual spelling of the Tagalog name for bamboo (see tl:Kawayan). No need for this term on en.wiki where it will just make it harder for people to find the tl.wiki article. Plantdrew ( talk) 21:37, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 19:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
PROD removed by a drive-by user even after it was endorsed Anarchyte and I still confirm everything I said here but, fortunately, with this 2nd AfD (the first one was closed as Speedied), we can at least have G4. Although this is tagged as "new user and assume good faith", there's simply no chances of this actually being notable as I note several things: nothing satisfying the applicable notability, the sources are simply not convincing and searches, again, simply found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 21:27, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 07:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Speedy deletion per WP:G4 was declined, but the underlying notability concerns remain. He has still not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article still fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 20:24, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 19:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Usual stuff: young footballer that fails WP:GNG and WP:FOOTYN (no professional appearances as of yet). Luxic ( talk) 20:02, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 19:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Non-notable social media "star". While they have a large Instagram following, I only found this article: [2], which mentions him, but as part of an article on internet "stars". RickinBaltimore ( talk) 19:15, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. obvious strong consensus DGG ( talk ) 04:10, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
This article is on the U.S. tax form 1040 for individuals. It reads far too close to explaining how to do a tax return, especially by giving "who must file" and "signature requirement" sections, explaining different ways to file, and so on. The IRS is the authority on this - Wikipedia is not a manual, nor do we give advice. This article was expanded by a paid editor who is getting paid on page hits by User:Vipul - see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Form 1120. An AfD on Form 1120 resulted in a redirect to IRS tax forms. I attempted to do the same here, but another paid editor associated with Vipul, has repeatedly undone the redirect. Therefore, I am bringing this to AfD for community consensus. MSJapan ( talk) 18:45, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 07:51, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Notability of Article is Questionable, per Wikipedia:Notability and WP:GNG; there is hardly any reason to create an article to detail an episode of a magazine programme GUtt01 ( talk) 18:31, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 19:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunately G4 was removed as it's not symmetrical to the 1st AfD but the non-notability is still there, nothing here is actually convincing and my own searches have found nothing else better. SwisterTwister talk 18:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Page meets guidelines for WP:MUSIC by having coverage in reliable publications and has released albums on a large independent label with many notable artists. Jdogg Shaw ( talk) 06:28, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. North America 1000 00:21, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Deleted in 2006 and I frankly am still not finding anything actually convincing and I would've frankly PRODed if not for that 1st AfD. SwisterTwister talk 17:38, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 09:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
PROD removed (I still confirm everything I said there) apparently with the basis that they believed everything listed still suggests notability and substance but it's not actually the case. All sources listed are simply either press releases or trivial mentions. SwisterTwister talk 17:30, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 07:53, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
NonNotable mid-level officer. One of the many Commissioner ranking officers of India. Just a bureaucrat doing his job. His book is also not notable. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Speedy delete. Uncletomwood ( talk) 17:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
SwisterTwister DGG John Pack Lambert comments please. Uncletomwood ( talk) 17:10, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. The article has improved since the AfD began. However, the nominator recommends the article creator go through the Articles for Creation process to avoid similar problems in the future. ( non-admin closure) Gestrid ( talk) 19:24, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
This article does not meet the general notability guidelines. Gestrid ( talk) 16:41, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi everyone,
Pasting some of the notes sent to Gestrid here for help explaining and improving the page: Some references and links for consideration:
Regards Anujkaps ( talk) 17:30, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Dear all,
I am a friend of AnujKaps. He pointed me to this page and chat. I have located a Wikipedia page that also references Chukh ( /info/en/?search=Indian_cuisine#Himachal_Pradesh). So I thought to provide it for your consideration for inclusion as a reference to this chat.
Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeetikaPandya ( talk • contribs) 18:35, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Dear Robert, Thanks for your note re: canvassing. I am aware of that clause and have been extremely careful not to canvass.
The page being discussed for deletion <Chamba Chukh> is something also being discussed quite widely in our community in Himachal offline. I have in fact contacted my friends who are also from the region to NOT EDIT the page and also to NOT get onto the discussion board. However if they do, they should EXPRESSLY SPECIFY that they know me and should state that upfront in the interest of complete transparency.
I will ask them to refrain from entering the conversation entirely, if that is more desirable. I can put forth their arguments through my own Username, if that is preferable. I am trying specifically to learn the etiquette of the wiki community to avoid such mis-understanding, before doing too much.
Thanks everyone for understanding. Anujkaps ( talk) 07:51, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
An article on a prominent Indian Travel sight that that has reference to CHAMBA CHUKH for your reference:
http://www.discoveredindia.com/himachal-pradesh/cities-and-destinations-in-himachal-pradesh/chamba.htm
Anujkaps ( talk) 07:54, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
PLEASE ADVISE IF I SHOULD ADD SOME OF THESE REFERENCES TO THE ACTUAL PAGE ALREADY OR SHOULD I KEEP POSTING HERE ON THIS TALK PAGE CREATED FOR THE DELETION?
THANKS
Anujkaps ( talk) 07:56, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
I have cited a few references on the page now. Also, I have found references to Chamba Chukh on existing Wikipedia Pages which have also now been linked back to this page <Chamba Chukh>. Will continue digging and improving the page.
Thanks Anujkaps ( talk) 23:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks understood.
Also, I have linked back to this page from the Himachal Pradesh (State in India where Chukh comes from) Wikipedia page where a reference to it already existed.
Anujkaps ( talk) 11:28, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 19:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
I originally prodded this article as being an unreferenced article that failed to credibly assert notability, but it was deprodded when some references were added. However, the new references do nothing to establish notability. The first confirms the release of YouTube red and does not mention the series at all, while the other 3 are primary sources, straight from the YouTube blog. I have been unable to find mention in reliable secondary sources that would establish notability. AussieLegend ( ✉) 16:21, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) 217.42.252.221 ( talk) 06:42, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
The Cristian Vogel page, whilst has some merits, remains un-sourced except for one random link for over 5 years. A wikipedia article should not be original research or content that does not have a source for every assertion.
This page continues to have no one editing it and providing the necessary sources so should be deleted JonnyTSpeed ( talk) 11:20, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
JohnnyTSpeed's rationale is that the article is largely unsourced, but this is not in and of itself a valid reason for deletion; the article has one reliable source, and through the past month, I got no indication that the nominator's attentions had been directed toward a WP:BEFORE effort, which might have dredged up sources such as an extensive interview from Fact (magazine), coverage from XLR8R, and two reviews by Pitchfork Media. Beyond that, the nominator may not be familiar with WP:MUSIC, and Vogel, at minimum, clears the hurdle for releases on noteworthy labels, having issued several albums on the labels Mille Plateaux and Tresor Records. Since deletion is not cleanup, the nominator's comments regarding lack of editing and sourcing are not relevant to AfD, though of course I encourage any interested parties to add sourcing as their time and interests permit. Chubbles ( talk) 17:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
>>> So basically you were the repetitive author of all this unsourced material/ original research. Why didn't you put sources in the article when you wrote it? No wonder you are angrily defending your handy work [[[Special:Contributions/217.42.252.221|217.42.252.221]] ( talk) 08:02, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. clearly an advertisement; G11 would have been reasonable DGG ( talk ) 04:11, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Non-notable company. All 5 sources are press releases, and Google search did not reveal any other in-depth coverage. SPA-editing with unclear COI status. GermanJoe ( talk) 14:57, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was merge to Swarm intelligence#Algorithms. MBisanz talk 19:06, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
This article is part of the following group of articles that I have all nomination for deletion (individually):
These article all detail research done by Xin-She Yang. All suffer from the following problems:
The result was delete. The nominator's analysis of sources is convincing. DGG ( talk ) 04:16, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
No evidence of any notability. Too many of the refs are self-written and one doesn't even feature him. This is an aspirant politician who appears to have removed the PROD previously on this article. This is far too soon - better wait until dreams turn to reality before coming back to Wikipedia. Velella Velella Talk 20:47, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
How do you suggest I go about improving the content of the article? PurpleCouch987 ( talk) 14:18, 17 July 2016 (UTC)PurpleCouch987
Unless a consensus I'm going to add more 3rd party sources and remove the being consider for deletion notification. I really would like to improve this article though so any input is appreciated. PurpleCouch987 ( talk) 17:38, 19 July 2016 (UTC) PurpleCouch987
Ok, well this discussion is going nowhere and seems largely pointless so... PurpleCouch987 ( talk) 14:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC) PurpleCouch987
Have we reached consensus? PurpleCouch987 ( talk) 17:04, 27 July 2016 (UTC) PurpleCouch987
Have we reached consensus? PurpleCouch987 ( talk) 17:04, 27 July 2016 (UTC) PurpleCouch987
Notability has been agreed upon by the other commenters. You are the sole holdout. As far as I can tell there is no explicit statement indicating that the consensus has to be unanimous. I appreciate your commitment to the quality of Wikipedia and I'm very impressed by your record. I've looked through many of the article you have written...good stuff! That said your personal feelings about this page do not outweigh the consensus. I think this discussion is closed. Again, thank you for your commitment. PurpleCouch987 ( talk) 17:27, 29 July 2016 (UTC) PurpleCouch987
Unfortunately, other "experienced" editors have established notability and stopped commenting on this page. Therefore your views are in the minority. I did not mean to be patronizing but if you want to take it that way thats fine by me. This discussion is effectively over - nobody else has commented for over a week. Unless I get new feedback by tomorrow I am going to remove the deletion notice. PurpleCouch987 ( talk) 18:47, 1 August 2016 (UTC) PurpleCouch987
The result was Speedy Deleted (G5) by Ponyo. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:14, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG... and was deleted earlier this month. Notability hasn't changed since then. Joeykai ( talk) 12:54, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. There are two critical lines of thought in this discussion: 1. All secondary schools are notable, regardless of the level of coverage received in independent sources, as long as we can verify their existence. Due to this inherent notability, any degree-awarding secondary school should have its own article. 2. Secondary schools are held to the same standard as every other organization, and must include multiple reliable sources which cover the subject directly and in detail. Without this requisite sourcing, notability cannot be determined; therefore, no article should be created or retained.
There is validity to both of these arguments, inasmuch as the conclusions are supported by their premises. But, to determine the soundness of the arguments, they must be weighed against the community's consensus precedent. The key pieces of policy I'll quote here are from WP:ORG and WP:NSCHOOL, the most authoritative guidelines on schools that we have:
No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is, including schools. [1] If the individual organization has received no or very little notice from independent sources, then it is not notable simply because other individual organizations of its type are commonly notable or merely because it exists (see "If it's not notable", below). "Notability" is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." No matter how "important" editors may personally believe an organization to be, it should not have a stand-alone article in Wikipedia unless reliable sources independent of the organization have discussed it.
— WP:ORGSIG (emphasis added)
A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization.
— WP:ORG § Primary criteria (emphasis added)
All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must satisfy either this guideline ( WP:ORG) or the general notability guideline, or both. (But see also WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, especially for universities.)
— WP:NSCHOOL (emphasis added)
Two of these guidelines point to WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES for further reference, so let's look at the relevant section:
Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are usually kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists.
— WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES
The key take away here is that we as a community have not properly discussed this issue, and therefore we have not established a working policy via consensus. The policy and our current consensus precedent seem to contradict each other, at least when it comes to the amount of coverage required. We must also consider if WP:SYSTEMICBIAS has any effect here; once again, this topic has not been discussed properly at a community level to answer such a question.
In conclusion, both arguments have full validity - just not from the same perspectives. The argument for retention based on WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is fully valid and even sound when compared to the current, de facto, consensus precedent (a precedent that the guidelines themselves point to). However, the argument for deletion, based on the requirement of establishing notability through significant coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources, is also fully valid and equally sound when compared to the established consensus set in the guidelines. Obviously, this is problem. And a determination must be made. However, for a determination to be made, the community must have a real discussion and establish a firm consensus. - Singular discussions, with limited community visibility (such as AFD), cannot achieve this goal. And as such, it is not within a single administrator's power to make this determination for the community. Therefore, no consensus can be determined at this time, defaulting to the retention of the article. Furthermore, it is recommended that a formal RFC be opened to make the requisite determination, and then rewrite the relevant policies/guidelines to reflect the consensus. (This close was done in consideration of, and accordance with, the following policies/guidelines: WP:GNG, WP:ORG, WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SYSTEMICBIAS, WP:PROMO, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:ADMIN, WP:DELETE.) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:53, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
[Note: The following reflects the name of the article at the time the AfD was relisted. Unscintillating ( talk) 22:37, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Non notable Higher Secondary school in
Nepal. Some links are are provided in see also segment but are not so strong for keeping this article here in wikipedia.
NepaliKeto62
Talk to me
04:04, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
*Delete - SCHOOLOUTCOMES is an essay not a guideline and IMHO no school should be kept just because it exists, If it doesn't have any sources it doesn't deserve an article IMHO. –
Davey2010
Talk
23:13, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The current notability guidelines for schools and other education institutions are Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N), Wikipedia:Notability (geography) (WP:NGEO) and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) (WP:ORG).
Rebb ing 22:00, 30 July 2016 (UTC)No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is, including schools. If the individual organization has received no or very little notice from independent sources, then it is not notable simply because other individual organizations of its type are commonly notable or merely because it exists . . . .
In other notes, a Google search on ["Eden English School" butwal] shows a map, an address, and phone number in the right-hand column for the school. Since most of the original text is no longer visible in the current article, I've found that this older revision is helpful in understanding the context.
We are here because of an improper DRV closing that uses the words "wrong result" while citing no policies, and addresses AfD volunteers for "not digging deep enough". The DRV itself was a nomination that could have been speedy closed as WP:POINT...a closer does not have standing to request the overturn of his/her own closing. Be that as it may, there were no issues that could not have protected the AfD volunteer community by allowing the normal six months to pass before another AfD for this article. Nor was sockpuppetry of the AfD nomination mentioned in the DRV closing. Unscintillating ( talk) 16:54, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
In your response, you've not cited from policies, guidelines, and/or essays; and in the context of proving me "wrong" suggests that you are not clear on why you are saying that which you are saying.
Another point you should perhaps consider, do you believe that Google takes satellite pictures? I'm willing to consider that there is a vast military conspiracy to alter satellite images provided to Google to hide radar arrays on coastlines, but without sources to tell us that, at Wikipedia, we follow the sources. Since we don't follow the sources blindly, I've written the essay WP:Inaccuracy, but I doubt you are going to find a consensus here that some advanced persistent threat at the direction of or on behalf of Eden English School is altering the satellite images being considered at this AfD. Summary: the satellite images are reliable and third party. Respectfully, Unscintillating ( talk) 23:52, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Cunard ( talk) 06:53, 1 August 2016 (UTC)School Code 48261
Name of the School EDEN ENGLISH BOARDING SCHOOL BUTWAL, RUPANDEHI
The result was keep. Sandstein 09:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Only two refs for this article which has been around for years. One is own web-site and the other is Hardcore Gaming 101 which is about as niche a publication as is possible to get. No claims to any special notability. No notability established. Fails WP:GNG Velella Velella Talk 12:49, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 07:16, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Cricketer who fails WP:NCRIC. Has not yet played a first-class/List A game, etc. U19 cricketers don't meet the notability threshold. Was tagged as a speedy as it's already been deleted recently, but declined by Nyttend. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:46, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
*Delete. Agreed.
DilMendis82 (
talk) 14:55, 1 August 2016 (UTC)Blocked sock—
UY Scuti
Talk
14:47, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Delete as per nom as it fails WP:NCRIC. Black hole78 talk | contrib 17:47, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 04:16, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Geographer who has just received his PhD. References show that there are some publication, but there's nothing indicating he is "well known" as the article states. H-index currently seems to be 1, with a total of 7 citations (5 for the 2011 article, 1 each for two articles from 2014), as per GScholar. Axolotl Nr.733 ( talk) 11:19, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 19:07, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Cricketer who fails WP:NCRIC. Has not yet played a first-class/List A game, etc. U19 cricketers don't meet the notability threshold. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:02, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
*Delete Agreed.
DilMendis82 (
talk) 14:55, 1 August 2016 (UTC)Blocked sock—
UY Scuti
Talk
14:44, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Delete as per nom as it fails WP:NCRIC. Black hole78 talk | contrib 17:46, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 19:07, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Cricketer who fails WP:NCRIC. Has not yet played a first-class/List A game, etc. U19 cricketers don't meet the notability threshold. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:00, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
*Delete Agreed.
DilMendis82 (
talk) 14:55, 1 August 2016 (UTC)Blocked sock—
UY Scuti
Talk
14:41, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Delete as per nom as it fails WP:NCRIC. Black hole78 talk | contrib 17:46, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — UY Scuti Talk 14:40, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Bare stub of a BLP and unreferenced Rathfelder ( talk) 12:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 19:07, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Cricketer who fails WP:NCRIC. Has not yet played a first-class/List A game, etc. U19 cricketers don't meet the notability threshold. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:56, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
*Delete. Agreed.
DilMendis82 (
talk) 14:55, 1 August 2016 (UTC) Blocked sock. —
UY Scuti
Talk
14:37, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR per low participation herein. North America 1000 00:29, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Nothing actually confidently suggesting the needed independent notability and my searches including Saudi Arabian news have found nothing convincing so far. SwisterTwister talk 05:23, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 19:07, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Cricketer who fails WP:NCRIC. Has not yet played a first-class/List A game, etc. U19 cricketers don't meet the notability threshold. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:44, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
*Delete Agreed.
DilMendis82 (
talk) 14:55, 1 August 2016 (UTC) Blocked sock. —
UY Scuti
Talk
14:35, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Delete as per nom as it fails WP:NCRIC. Black hole78 talk | contrib 17:45, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 19:07, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Cricketer who fails WP:NCRIC. Has not yet played a first-class/List A game, etc. U19 cricketers don't meet the notability threshold. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:40, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
*Delete Agreed.
DilMendis82 (
talk) 14:51, 1 August 2016 (UTC) Blocked sock. —
UY Scuti
Talk
14:34, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Delete as per nom as it fails WP:NCRIC. Black hole78 talk | contrib 17:45, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 19:07, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Cricketer who fails
WP:NCRIC. Has not yet played a first-class/List A game, etc. U19 cricketers don't meet the notability threshold.
Lugnuts
Dick Laurent is dead
09:21, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
*Delete Agreed.
DilMendis82 (
talk) 13:35, 1 August 2016 (UTC) Blocked sock. —
UY Scuti
Talk
14:32, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Delete as per nom as it fails WP:NCRIC. Black hole78 talk | contrib 17:43, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
The result was Speedy delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 06:43, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
No evidence of any notability. Only refs are its own web-site (which doesn't load) and a government listing of approved radio infrastructure components - neither convey any notability. It has been tagged as lacking notability for over 6 months and Hooperbloob has done good work on cleaning up the worst excesses of promotional tone but it still fails WP:GNG Velella Velella Talk 08:28, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 09:09, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Band with no substantive claim to passing WP:NMUSIC and no evidence of any substantive reliable source coverage to get them over WP:GNG: the substance boils down to "this is a band that exists and released its debut album in February 2016, the end", and the sourcing consists of one blurb on a blog. This is not enough to get a band into Wikipedia. Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 22:11, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 16:15, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Semi-advertorial WP:BLP of a writer who has the potential to pass WP:AUTHOR, but completely fails to properly source the fact: very nearly right across the board, the sourcing here is almost entirely to primary sources like his own publisher, with the few references that even approach reliability not being numerous enough to satisfy WP:GNG. This was rejected twice at AFC for being inadequately sourced, following which the creator arrogated herself the right to bypass AFC moving the page directly into mainspace, without making any substantive changes or resubmitting it for a third review through the proper AFC process. Either delete, or move back to draftspace. Bearcat ( talk) 23:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. clear enough. There's an apparently related article that should be examined also: Jonathan Goldman DGG ( talk ) 04:12, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Non-notable "technology", Google search found no independent in-depth coverage. Current sources are: #1, #3 self-published; #4, #5 not "independent", #2: I won't buy this on Kindle to check (unless someone donates 9,99 Euro), but it seems to be about the general concept of this method, not about this specific application. Even if "Energy Genesis" as specific topic was covered there, one questionable source from a clearly involved author (book info available on Amazon) would not be enough to establish notability. GermanJoe ( talk) 07:25, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 04:13, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Hopefully we can finally get to a confirmed consensus considering the 2 other AfDs (3 if you count the third listed here at the side), my own searches have found nothing at all actually convincing and there's summarily nothing else better. SwisterTwister talk 07:09, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Editors are free to create a redirect, perhaps from the correctly spelled version of the name. Sandstein 07:22, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
A group created a record album. That's fine, but it does not enjoy inherent notability. Are there satisfactory references to demonstrate notability Edison ( talk) 02:07, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Delete. I would say redirect to Sheila on 7, but it is an improbable search term. I couldn't find any reliable sources that discuss this album in depth. These all seem like trivial mentions. I would check to see if the album charted but there's no Indonesian national chart listed at Wikipedia:Record charts. -- Cerebellum ( talk) 14:25, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 14:00, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
My searches noticeably found simply found nothing at all and that's not surprising because, even if it's from 100 years ago, it was apparently only relaunched 15 years ago; my searches including archived news have found nothing. SwisterTwister talk 02:46, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. ( WP:NPASR). North America 1000 07:02, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
No evidence of notability. SST flyer 05:57, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. North America 1000 07:06, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Obvious WP:NOTESSAY RegistryKey (RegEdit) 06:53, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was Keep. Andrew D. ( talk) 05:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Unremarkable minor clergyman (rank of rector / canon only). Status as son of aristocrat and husband of the daughter of a bishop appears to be basis of claimed notability ("he is an important local figure"). Dubbin u | t | c 07:03, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Faber Drive. Per WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) — UY Scuti Talk 14:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. The only reliable sources that exist deal more with the band he was in ( Faber Drive) rather than the artist himself; since the band seems barely notable itself, WP:INHERIT applies here. Colonel Wilhelm Klink ( Complaints| Mistakes) 21:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was Delete: unanimous. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 14:30, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
This is an article about a Japanese economist who is an associate professor at Ibaraki University. The article creator has previously posted reasons why the article should be deleted on the article's talk page, but I am not convinced that is enough to satisfy notability. I commenced translating the article, but ran out of motivation when I started to doubt the notability. I also believe it may be either an autobiography or written by someone close to the subject, as the author's only contributions on both the English and Japanese Wikis have been concerning Noda. If anybody wants help understanding the Japanese or has particular questions regarding the contents, I am willing to help with that. AtHomeIn神戸 ( talk) 07:47, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was redirect to The Starving Artists Project. North America 1000 06:59, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Absolutely no credible assertion of independent notability. Delete or redirect to The Starving Artists Project. Slashme ( talk) 16:38, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Redirect to The Starving Artists Project, since he does not pass WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST outside of this project. Arthistorian1977 ( talk) 11:09, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Nobody actually advocates anything other than deletion. Sandstein 07:23, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Lack of any reliable sources covering the subject. Basically all the sources I could find were blogs, I previously tagged it for CSD G4, but it was declined. See also, previous AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linux Deepin. - Champion ( talk) ( contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 01:39, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 19:07, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai ( talk) 09:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America 1000 00:31, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai ( talk) 22:55, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 19:07, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
My searches have simply found nothing actually convincing and there's nothing else to actually suggest convincing independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:25, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Per WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) — UY Scuti Talk 14:17, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Apparently only best known for working at the New York Times so far and my searches have found no actual substantially convincing sources thus nothing to suggest independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:54, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. consensus after relistings DGG ( talk ) 04:06, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
No evidence of any notability except perhaps for losing a court case. Two published books appear to have no special notability and refs are from Amazon. The remaining refs show that he exists and and that he has helped set up an organisation in Northwest Indiana but no evidence of notability. Another real estate salesman (failed) of which there must be many thousands in the US alone. Velella Velella Talk 08:51, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was Keep. Sufficient consensus that WP:GNG is satisfied. Michig ( talk) 07:21, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Promotional and non notable. Makes medical claims without using MEDRS quality resources. I tagged it for A7and G111, but the tags were removed by another editor, who seems to think that the mere presence of references indicate possible importance even if they are just press press releases, DGG ( talk ) 07:16, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
References
The result was speedy keep. North America 1000 02:29, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
She has had some success, but I am not convinced she meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG Boleyn ( talk) 21:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 07:12, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Fails WP:NBIO. Tagged for notability since June 2008. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 21:21, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete and redirect to Holy Sons. Sandstein 07:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Unreferenced. No indication of notability Rathfelder ( talk) 13:59, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Eels discography. Per WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) — UY Scuti Talk 14:14, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Does not appear to satisfy the notability criteria. FamblyCat94 ( talk) 06:33, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 22:20, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
2014 AfD closed as no consensus, few responses and an assumption that better sources would be found (hasn't happened yet). It was closed with no prejudice to swift renomination if sources weren't added, but I left it a while instead. I still can't establish that he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG - hopefully this time we can reach a consensus. Boleyn ( talk) 11:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 07:09, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Non notable film producer. Fails GNG and is not notable as a producer - all his credits appear to be as Co-producer with others getting first billing Gbawden ( talk) 09:49, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Per WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) — UY Scuti Talk 14:10, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai ( talk) 22:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 07:16, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Unnotable video game released this in 2016, so it might be too soon for an article on this video game. Using the custom source search for video games brings up 0 results for "Clash of Queens: Dragons Rise" and there is no Metacritic page. I could find no proper coverage for this subject. Anarchyte ( work | talk) 12:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. North America 1000 06:53, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
From what can be found, the individual is just a typical lawyer and architect with no significant accomplishments. Anyways, there is not enough material to pass GNG. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 06:26, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete. Obvious spam regardless of notability Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:23, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Clear WP:AUTO violation (see edit history), and non-notable (claimed) doctor easily failing WP:GNG. Also, no references. Pianoman320 ( talk) 06:04, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedily deleted by User:Jo-Jo Eumerus under criterion G7. (Non-admin closure) " Pepper" @ 03:58, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
List containing only one entry. Fbdave ( talk) 03:22, 29 July 2016 (UTC) Comment - I created that article. Anyone can (or should) delete this. Because, I think I failed to add more than one player on this article because he was the ony gymnast from Bangladesh in Olympics ever. I've added just one source, which is I think inadequete and I think the article is very short assuming its weigh. Actually, I was inspired by List of Olympic female gymnasts for Hungary and similar ones. I thought of making any one or more articles regarding male gymnasts and most probably about Bangladesh. It's all so. Neebras ( talk) 03:48, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was Delete. WP:V concerns around lack of third-party reliable sources take precedence over arguments about school notability. Hut 8.5 12:13, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Non-notable, defunct organization, insufficiently sourced. Electoralist ( talk) 01:56, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 19:07, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Single sentence article, tagged as unsourced since 2009, non-notable organization and as it is defunct unlikely to ever be notable Electoralist ( talk) 01:53, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 07:19, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
This footballer fails WP:NFOOTBALL as a player that has not played in any WP:FPL (fully proffessional league). Soccer8295 ( talk) 01:39, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was Already speedily deleted G11. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:53, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Not notable, fails WP:GNG Searches come up with blogs and not much else. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 01:37, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. North America 1000 06:51, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai ( talk) 01:32, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 19:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai ( talk) 01:16, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 19:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai ( talk) 01:16, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 19:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai ( talk) 01:12, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 19:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai ( talk) 01:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 07:03, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
seems to fail WP:COMPANY and WP:GNG. nothing notable, nothing encyclopaedic, cannot see why its presence here is justified Rayman60 ( talk) 00:58, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 07:16, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Made-up genre based on one fansite article and a smidgin of original research. Orange Mike | Talk 00:46, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
User:Betty Logan, I think it does because it's obviously not properly sourced yet. I think it was written too prematurely. Saving it as a draft would give us time to build on it before publishing it again.-- Taeyebar 02:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was Speedy delete - already deleted as G7, per author's request (non-admin closure). GermanJoe ( talk) 12:02, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
I wrote an Arabic article in English Wikipedia Akram1988 ( talk) 23:59, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 19:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai ( talk) 00:05, 29 July 2016 (UTC)