![]() |
The result was delete. North America 1000 00:45, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he is signed to a Premier League side. However, since he has not actually played, this does not confer notability. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 23:47, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. discounting the sockpuppetry. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 07:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Article asserts notability, but I was unable to find any sources on him whatsoever, and most results from Google were just social media. The article is quite promotional in tone, too. The creator has provided a handful of YouTube links on the talk page, but I don't know if these suffice in regards to sourcing. GAB Hello! 22:54, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Comments by blocked socks, including article creator
|
---|
check these links out you will see his name in the articles as the first runner up of mr punjab 2015 by PTC Punjab some more are here bro
check these also you will definitely see the name in the articles
hello general bro.. i respect your decision but what jeet456 is saying is 100 percent true. i belong to the place where this person has won that title and it is a very big achievement. so please also respect the hardwork he has done to write the article on the wikipedia Rahul0500 ( talk) 00:57, 13 March 2016 (UTC) i have seen articles made with such small articles on them bro .. why are you not understanding... this article is about a genuine guy and now even a wikipedia editor of that region has also said that the article i have created is 100 percent genuine... Jeet456 ( talk) 01:02, 13 March 2016 (UTC) yes jeet456 you have created a genuine article and nothing is fake in it so there is no such scope of getting it deleted from wikipedia. Rahul0500 ( talk) 01:06, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
amandeep sigh is the winner of the mr punjab 2015 but mandhir singh chahal is the first runner up of the mr punjab 2015 so his name is inside the article which is written as firs runner up of mr punjab 2015 you can check it bro.... Jeet456 ( talk) 01:13, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
|
The result was no consensus. Closing with NPASR. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 ( T) 18:36, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
WP:NSKATE, see http://www.isuresults.com/bios/isufs00003679.htm Hergilei ( talk) 23:24, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
The result was rescope. czar 20:54, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
I initially tagged a CSD on this and reverted it. Daniel Lara seems to be an internet celebrity. However, there are no references to this, so it's hard to tell if it's the internet celebrity or a same name situation. Or even if that internet celebrity would be worthy of a stand alone page. Damn Daniel which this article refers to redirects to List of Internet phenomena. May this one should also?? I decided to bring it over to XFD and let others have an opinion on it. — Maile ( talk) 21:56, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 06:57, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Article seems to be beyond hope of nailing down how the subject is notable in what appears to be a resume-building exercise (some of which I've recently removed). There appears to be no good reliable sources, either in the article or online, backing up the notability of the subject. Also, the author has been primarily fixated on this and the related subject TriYoga, suggestive of WP:COI. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 18:56, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 08:26, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
No evidence of notability for this product. Few Google hits, nothing that's substantial, independent, and in reliable sources. What little there is consists of instructions and documentation. —Largo Plazo ( talk) 22:10, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi, please note: I am SAP employee and involved with the SAPUI5 project, see my conflict of interest declaration. I think I'm still allowed to contribute facts to the notability/deletion discussion:
There are more, but as far as I have understood, these references should be sufficient to establish notability. Please excuse that I have posted the same content on the article's talk page - I am not sure where the notability discussion will be predominantly led. Akudev ( talk)( COI) 13:25, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Nominator has withdrawn nomination. ( non-admin closure) NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 02:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
No independent, verifiable sources in the article. Could not find any independent, verifiable sources online either. The reference section only provides booking information. The text reads as a promotional story and a personal history. The parallel article on nl.wiki was deleted, while the Dutch Wikipedia tends to be more inclusive than en.wiki.
gidonb (
talk)
20:31, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 07:20, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. Newly created company with no sustained coverage and no credible claim to notability. Harry Let us have speaks 19:04, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was Keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) IagoQnsi ( talk) 20:35, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
This article is written more like an opinion piece than an encyclopedia article, and it has been for a very long time ( the essay-like tag has been there for over seven years ). An "Open API" isn't really a standalone topic; it's just a Web 2.0 buzzword ( WP:NOTDIC) about making APIs public. I would suggest this article be merged into Open data, but I don't think there's any content here that could be merged without having to be substantially revised or rewritten due to the unencyclopedic tone. IagoQnsi ( talk) 19:13, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep ( non-admin closure). Sir Sputnik ( talk) 00:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
I came across this article at DYK. The article is written in a very promotional tone, almost like a CV. All the images in the article are claimed as CC 4.0 with no evidence of ownership by the article creator indicating a perhaps close alignment with the article subject or potentially copyright violation. My main concern is whether the article topic is notable enough i.e. meets WP:GNG. Ref 1 is a video of an independently organised TED talk so is a primary source. Ref 2 basically states that she's a news anchor. Ref 3, 4 are interviews by the article subject, Ref 5 basically states she's written two articles for Tehelka. Ref 6 is a Dawn article covering an event she attended. Ref 7 states she's a correspondent for IBNLive,Ref 8 is a case study where Radical Reflex describes the work they did for her on a website. Ref 9 is a blog, Ref 10 is an article written by the article subject, Ref 11 is the article subject's facebook page. I don't think there is enough evidence of significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources. Cowlibob ( talk) 18:48, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 07:11, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Article about Musician who does not meet WP:MUSICBIO. Searches have brought up little to support notability worthy of inclusion. One does not inherit notability from colleagues. This musician has won no major awards or charted on any music charts. As I do not feel the musician is notable enough for inclusion to Wikipedia I have also nominated both articles on his albums to be included. McMatter ( talk)/( contrib) 18:11, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 07:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. No evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gy t@lk to M£ 15:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 20:37, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Subject of the article fails
WP:GNG and
WP:ARTIST. No evidence of notability.
Wikic¤l¤gy
t@lk to M£ 15:55, 12 March 2016 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn per the arguments below. Keep.
Wikic¤l¤gy
t@lk to M£
20:37, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep per WP:WDAFD. (non-admin closure) The Origins of Heaven ( talk) 18:01, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Not convinced that Metropolitan Borough Council leaders are de facto notable. Uhooep ( talk) 15:12, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Consensus is for deletion, for various reasons as delineated below. North America 1000 00:35, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
I cannot see any point in this incoherent article on the supernatural, apparently 'inspired' by a TV show and not written in English. TheLongTone ( talk) 14:22, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
I found that incomprehensible. It has to be a Delete in lieu of someone making the case for notability in a language structure I can understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pupsbunch ( talk • contribs) 18:19, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. A clear consensus. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 06:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a newspaper. This article does not purport to do anything other than report on a serious traffic accident. It does not indicate that the event has any significance other than as a report of a current event. R'n'B ( call me Russ) 12:55, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of Maximals#Technorganic. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 14:17, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Minor character from the Transformers universe. No evidence of real-world notability. Tagged as lacking notability and being written in an in-universe style since 2010. Josh Milburn ( talk) 10:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. Overall consensus is that he meets LAWYER & GNG & As the nom hasn't objected to any of the replies I'm wrapping it up as Keep. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:22, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't believe Circuit judges in England and Wales are de facto notable individuals. There are over 600 of these and they rank below high court judges. All of my recent AFD nominations of English and Welsh Circuit judges have reached a consensus to delete, but of course each AFD should still be judged independently. Also stood for Parliament but finished third. Uhooep ( talk) 09:23, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. Overall consensus is that he meets LAWYER & GNG & As the nom hasn't objected to any of the replies I'm wrapping it up as Keep. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:22, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't believe Circuit judges in England and Wales are de facto notable individuals. There are over 600 of these and they rank below high court judges. All of my recent AFD nominations of English and Welsh Circuit judges have reached a consensus to delete, but of course each AFD should still be judged independently. Uhooep ( talk) 09:22, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. North America 1000 00:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Previously deleted by AfD here. Still fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND JMHamo ( talk) 08:29, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 07:16, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
This is an article about a university center, which belongs to the university of which we have no article. Unless in special circumstances, such organizations would not be notable, and, indeed, there is not a slightest indication of notability in the article. It could have been notable as a building if built by a famous architect for example but this has not been shown either. Ymblanter ( talk) 08:21, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Nominator withdrew. @ Shabidoo: As the only substantial editor, feel free to redirect it as you please. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 ( T) 18:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Almost-exact duplicate of Guobiao Majiang mahir256 ( talk) 07:09, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 07:48, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Non-notable local author. Has some local coverage, but limited. Borders on advertisement. Fails WP:AUTHOR. reddogsix ( talk) 05:23, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered to search....So closing as SK (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Failed parliamentary candidate. Uhooep ( talk) 04:08, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:23, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Twice failed parliamentary candidate. Uhooep ( talk) 04:05, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:23, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Three times failed parliamentary candidate. Uhooep ( talk) 04:00, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Failed parliamentary candidate. Uhooep ( talk) 03:57, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered to search....So closing as SK (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Failed parliamentary candidate. Uhooep ( talk) 03:52, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. [{WP:BEFORE|The nom hasn't even bothered to search]]....So closing as SK (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Failed parliamentary and London County Council candidate. Uhooep ( talk) 03:51, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered to search....So closing as SK (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:30, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Four times failed parliamentary candidate. Uhooep ( talk) 03:49, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered to search....So closing as SK (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:30, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Three times failed parliamentary candidate. Uhooep ( talk) 03:46, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered to search....So closing as SK (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:30, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Failed parliamentary candidate. Uhooep ( talk) 03:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered to search....So closing as SK (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:30, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Three times failed parliamentary candidate. Uhooep ( talk) 03:40, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered to search....So closing as SK (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Failed parliamentary candidate. Uhooep ( talk) 03:34, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 14:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete: as non-notable designer. Quis separabit? 03:33, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered with searching for sources as these have all been nominated within seconds of each other. No objections to speedy renomination by anyone except the nom. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:34, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Failed parliamentary candidate. Uhooep ( talk) 03:31, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered with searching for sources as these have all been nominated within seconds of each other. No objections to speedy renomination by anyone except the nom. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Failed parliamentary candidate and non-notable circuit judge. If he were a High Court judge I wouldn't nominate. Uhooep ( talk) 03:29, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered with searching for sources as these have all been nominated within seconds of each other. No objections to speedy renomination by anyone except the nom. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Failed parliamentary candidate. Uhooep ( talk) 03:26, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered with searching for sources as these have all been nominated within seconds of each other. No objections to speedy renomination by anyone except the nom. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Failed parliamentary candidate. Uhooep ( talk) 03:23, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered with searching for sources as these have all been nominated within seconds of each other. No objections to speedy renomination by anyone except the nom. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Failed parliamentary candidate. Uhooep ( talk) 03:22, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered with searching for sources as these have all been nominated within seconds of each other. No objections to speedy renomination by anyone except the nom. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Failed parliamentary candidate. Uhooep ( talk) 03:18, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered with searching for sources as these have all been nominated within seconds of each other. No objections to speedy renomination by anyone except the nom. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Four times failed parliamentary candidate. Uhooep ( talk) 03:17, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered with searching for sources as these have all been nominated within seconds of each other. No objections to speedy renomination by anyone except the nom. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Failed parliamentary candidate. Uhooep ( talk) 03:16, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered with searching for sources as these have all been nominated within seconds of each other. No objections to speedy renomination by anyone except the nom. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:36, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Failed parliamentary candidate. The claim that he was one of the founders of Keele University is not backed up by a reference, and during a quick search I was unable to find sources which validate or lend credence this claim. Uhooep ( talk) 03:13, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered with searching for sources as these have all been nominated within seconds of each other. No objections to speedy renomination by anyone except the nom. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:36, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Two times failed parliamentary candidate. Uhooep ( talk) 03:08, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered with searching for sources as these have all been nominated within seconds of each other. No objections to speedy renomination by anyone except the nom. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:36, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Three times failed parliamentary candidate. Uhooep ( talk) 03:07, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered with searching for sources as these have all been nominated within seconds of each other. No objections to speedy renomination by anyone except the nom. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:36, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Three times failed parliamentary candidate. Also I don't believe Circuit judges in England and Wales are de facto notable individuals. There are over 600 of these and they rank below high court judges. All of my recent AFD nominations of English and Welsh Circuit judges have reached a consensus to delete, but of course each AFD should still be judged independently. Uhooep ( talk) 03:06, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered with searching for sources as these have all been nominated within seconds of each other. No objections to speedy renomination by anyone except the nom. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:36, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Four times failed parliamentary candidate. Uhooep ( talk) 03:04, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered with searching for sources as these have all been nominated within seconds of each other. No objections to speedy renomination by anyone except the nom. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:36, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Failed parliamentary candidate. Uhooep ( talk) 03:01, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered with searching for sources as these have all been nominated within seconds of each other. No objections to speedy renomination by anyone except the nom. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:37, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Two times failed parliamentary candidate. Also I don't believe Circuit judges in England and Wales are de facto notable individuals. There are over 600 of these and they rank below high court judges. All of my recent AFD nominations of English and Welsh Circuit judges have reached a consensus to delete, but of course each AFD should still be judged independently. Uhooep ( talk) 02:56, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered with searching for sources as these have all been nominated within seconds of each other. No objections to speedy renomination by anyone except the nom. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:37, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Two times failed parliamentary candidate. Also I don't believe Circuit judges in England and Wales are de facto notable individuals. There are over 600 of these and they rank below high court judges. All of my recent AFD nominations of English and Welsh Circuit judges have reached a consensus to delete, but of course each AFD should still be judged independently. Uhooep ( talk) 02:54, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered with searching for sources as these have all been nominated within seconds of each other. No objections to speedy renomination by anyone except the nom. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:37, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Twice unsuccessful parliamentary candidate. Uhooep ( talk) 02:52, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 07:42, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
An unremarkable flag by an organization which lacks a Wikipedia article. As someone who himself is autistic, nominating this article for deletion is kind of disappointing, but searches for the flag (either the "Autism pride flag" or the "LGBT-Autism Pride flag") and the organization which promotes it fail to find any coverage in reliable sources. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 02:49, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered with searching for sources as these have all been nominated within seconds of each other. No objections to speedy renomination by anyone except the nom. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:37, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Failed parliamentary candidate. Uhooep ( talk) 02:49, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered with searching for sources as these have all been nominated within seconds of each other. No objections to speedy renomination by anyone except the nom. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:37, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Four times failed parliamentary candidate. Uhooep ( talk) 02:45, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
No legacy, whether positive or negative. Delete 45sixtyone ( talk) 02:55, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Vipinhari || talk 17:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
I cannot see how colourising three Doctor Who episodes is notable - even with third party coverage. Tiny beets 02:21, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
There was third party coverage precisely because it was notable technical and artistic achievement. The work premièred at the British Film Instutute because it was a notable achievement and the coverage in national magazines and trade publications was a result of the work being noteworthy. He is the only UK-based film colourisation artist and his colourisation technique differs from that used by other commercial olourisation processes, as detailed on the Wikipedia article on Film colorization. Chaotic Galaxy 02.43, 12 March 2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaotic Galaxy ( talk • contribs) 02:49, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Please bear in mind Chaotic Galaxy seems closely linked with the subject. Tiny beets 03:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Tiny beets is quite right - I am closely linked with the subject. I know him personally and offered to upload a photo to his page. But that shouldn't preclude me from voicing an opinion in a debate. I have no conflict of interests: I know hundreds of people in my life and I don't think any of the others are notable enough to make a case for them. But just because I know the person doesn't make me a troll or an internet vandal or in any way devious. I'm just an individual with an opinion like everyone else here and even if I was the subject's own mother (which I'm not) it shouldn't mean that I'm ignored if I make valid points. And in the interest of fairness you will all notice I didn't actually cast a vote and the AfD Vote Counter shows I have remained out of the process. But it really shouldn't prompt a warning from the person advocating deletion merely for voicing what I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaotic Galaxy ( talk • contribs) 20:55, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm not going to post a vote because I am one of the people who's helped edit the page and so have a bias in thinking it is noteworthy enough stay - but I have a genuine question about "reliable" independent sources. This link below is to 20 independent reviews of his colourisation work. Although they are all independent they do consist of a hotch-potch mixture of trade site, fan sites and individual blogs. We have no way of knowing which are (or are not) permissible to link to in the "Critical Reception" section. Are any valid? Even if two out of the 20 are considered OK it adds weight to the case. Please have a look and let us know (or suggest if this is better on the talk page)/ Thank you. Here's the link to them all REVIEWS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.37.13 ( talk) 11:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered with searching for sources as these have all been nominated within seconds of each other. No objections to speedy renomination by anyone except the nom. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:37, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Four times failed parliamentary candidate. Uhooep ( talk) 01:43, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered with searching for sources as these have all been nominated within seconds of each other. No objections to speedy renomination by anyone except the nom. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:37, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Three times failed parliamentary candidate. Uhooep ( talk) 01:41, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 14:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
promotional and non-notable. "best place to work " is a dubious distinction, awarded by no firm criteria. Best place to work in multiple cities doesn't add anything to it. Using this sort of material to support notability impliest either that there is nothing better, or the promotional intent to say whatever sounds like favorable. The statement about "growth" similar are just notices of particular investments, plus unsourced and unsourceable claims about the importance of their products.. DGG ( talk ) 01:39, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
References
And I suspect similarly of the others. The company is very good at public relations. DGG ( talk ) 01:03, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered with searching for sources as these have all been nominated within seconds of each other. No objections to speedy renomination by anyone except the nom. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:37, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure how or why this article resurfaced. It was previously deleted, and I am unconvinced the subject is sufficiently notable. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter Leslie Dingley for the previous debate. Uhooep ( talk) 01:38, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
1. The person has received a well-known and significant award...Order of the British Empire seems significant enough. — Maile ( talk) 23:29, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered with searching for sources as these have all been nominated within seconds of each other. No objections to speedy renomination by anyone except the nom. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:38, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't believe Circuit judges in England and Wales are de facto notable individuals. There are over 600 of these and they rank below high court judges. All of my recent AFD nominations of English and Welsh Circuit judges have reached a consensus to delete, but of course each AFD should still be judged independently. This individual also stood for Parliament but came third on two occasions. Uhooep ( talk) 01:32, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered with searching for sources as these have all been nominated within seconds of each other. No objections to speedy renomination by anyone except the nom. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:38, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't believe Circuit judges in England and Wales are de facto notable individuals. There are over 600 of these and they rank below high court judges. All of my recent AFD nominations of English and Welsh Circuit judges have reached a consensus to delete, but of course each AFD should still be judged independently. This individual also stood for Parliament but came third. Uhooep ( talk) 01:31, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Unlikely to reach consensus. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 14:14, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
This article fails WP:BIO on almost every level, and is a perfect example of navel gazing in the Wikiverse. There are literally millions of "managers" out there in the world, and only a hand full of them would be notable. For the purposes of this nomination I am using this version of the article.
In determining notability, one needs multiple sources which discuss the person in length.
Editors (and long-term editors at that) have, unfortunately, used trivial tit-bits and tried to present Katherine as being notable. She has not won any high-level awards in her field, there are no independent extensive bios by reliable sources out there, need I go on?
I would also recommend deletion without redirect due to her non-notability. MedalSmeddle ( talk) 01:28, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered with searching for sources as these have all been nominated within seconds of each other. No objections to speedy renomination by anyone except the nom. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:38, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't believe Circuit judges in England and Wales are de facto notable individuals. There are over 600 of these and they rank below high court judges. All of my recent AFD nominations of English and Welsh Circuit judges have reached a consensus to delete, but of course each AFD should still be judged independently. Uhooep ( talk) 01:27, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 06:34, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Actor with just one role. Granted it was a notable film he was in, but nothing else seems to be going for it-either delete or a redirect be the best I think. Wgolf ( talk) 01:18, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The article certainly doesn't look finished. After searching I can only find mention of him in production lists rather than highlighted specifically for his contribution. It appears he played Anwar in Babel (2006) and worked as third assistant director in L' ARNACOEUR (2010). I'd vote for Delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pupsbunch ( talk • contribs) 07:03, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Right-wing terrorism. If anybody wants to merge some content, be my guest, but there's probably not much. I also picked Right-wing terrorism as a target based on the discussion, but this close in no way prevents this from being boldly changed or taken to RfD. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 ( T) 18:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
The term lacks notability. The article used in the lead to establish notability does not use the term and is an opinion piece. Nor is there evidence that terrorist acts committed by white people, particularly acts that are not motivated by racism are typically called "white terrorism." Furthermore most of the first hits on Google books return "Jonathan R. White, Terrorism:An Introduction. TFD ( talk) 00:57, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a dictionary, phrasebook, or a slang, jargon or usage guide.— Maile ( talk) 23:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
-- Potguru ( talk) 16:05, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 07:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Notability. Another startup with a promotional {{ spa}} Wikionearth account building an article, another one adding links to it, but a real lack of the truly independent sources we require. Andy Dingley ( talk) 00:29, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
References
![]() |
The result was delete. North America 1000 00:45, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he is signed to a Premier League side. However, since he has not actually played, this does not confer notability. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 23:47, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. discounting the sockpuppetry. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 07:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Article asserts notability, but I was unable to find any sources on him whatsoever, and most results from Google were just social media. The article is quite promotional in tone, too. The creator has provided a handful of YouTube links on the talk page, but I don't know if these suffice in regards to sourcing. GAB Hello! 22:54, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Comments by blocked socks, including article creator
|
---|
check these links out you will see his name in the articles as the first runner up of mr punjab 2015 by PTC Punjab some more are here bro
check these also you will definitely see the name in the articles
hello general bro.. i respect your decision but what jeet456 is saying is 100 percent true. i belong to the place where this person has won that title and it is a very big achievement. so please also respect the hardwork he has done to write the article on the wikipedia Rahul0500 ( talk) 00:57, 13 March 2016 (UTC) i have seen articles made with such small articles on them bro .. why are you not understanding... this article is about a genuine guy and now even a wikipedia editor of that region has also said that the article i have created is 100 percent genuine... Jeet456 ( talk) 01:02, 13 March 2016 (UTC) yes jeet456 you have created a genuine article and nothing is fake in it so there is no such scope of getting it deleted from wikipedia. Rahul0500 ( talk) 01:06, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
amandeep sigh is the winner of the mr punjab 2015 but mandhir singh chahal is the first runner up of the mr punjab 2015 so his name is inside the article which is written as firs runner up of mr punjab 2015 you can check it bro.... Jeet456 ( talk) 01:13, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
|
The result was no consensus. Closing with NPASR. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 ( T) 18:36, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
WP:NSKATE, see http://www.isuresults.com/bios/isufs00003679.htm Hergilei ( talk) 23:24, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
The result was rescope. czar 20:54, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
I initially tagged a CSD on this and reverted it. Daniel Lara seems to be an internet celebrity. However, there are no references to this, so it's hard to tell if it's the internet celebrity or a same name situation. Or even if that internet celebrity would be worthy of a stand alone page. Damn Daniel which this article refers to redirects to List of Internet phenomena. May this one should also?? I decided to bring it over to XFD and let others have an opinion on it. — Maile ( talk) 21:56, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 06:57, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Article seems to be beyond hope of nailing down how the subject is notable in what appears to be a resume-building exercise (some of which I've recently removed). There appears to be no good reliable sources, either in the article or online, backing up the notability of the subject. Also, the author has been primarily fixated on this and the related subject TriYoga, suggestive of WP:COI. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 18:56, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 08:26, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
No evidence of notability for this product. Few Google hits, nothing that's substantial, independent, and in reliable sources. What little there is consists of instructions and documentation. —Largo Plazo ( talk) 22:10, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi, please note: I am SAP employee and involved with the SAPUI5 project, see my conflict of interest declaration. I think I'm still allowed to contribute facts to the notability/deletion discussion:
There are more, but as far as I have understood, these references should be sufficient to establish notability. Please excuse that I have posted the same content on the article's talk page - I am not sure where the notability discussion will be predominantly led. Akudev ( talk)( COI) 13:25, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Nominator has withdrawn nomination. ( non-admin closure) NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 02:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
No independent, verifiable sources in the article. Could not find any independent, verifiable sources online either. The reference section only provides booking information. The text reads as a promotional story and a personal history. The parallel article on nl.wiki was deleted, while the Dutch Wikipedia tends to be more inclusive than en.wiki.
gidonb (
talk)
20:31, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 07:20, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. Newly created company with no sustained coverage and no credible claim to notability. Harry Let us have speaks 19:04, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was Keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) IagoQnsi ( talk) 20:35, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
This article is written more like an opinion piece than an encyclopedia article, and it has been for a very long time ( the essay-like tag has been there for over seven years ). An "Open API" isn't really a standalone topic; it's just a Web 2.0 buzzword ( WP:NOTDIC) about making APIs public. I would suggest this article be merged into Open data, but I don't think there's any content here that could be merged without having to be substantially revised or rewritten due to the unencyclopedic tone. IagoQnsi ( talk) 19:13, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep ( non-admin closure). Sir Sputnik ( talk) 00:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
I came across this article at DYK. The article is written in a very promotional tone, almost like a CV. All the images in the article are claimed as CC 4.0 with no evidence of ownership by the article creator indicating a perhaps close alignment with the article subject or potentially copyright violation. My main concern is whether the article topic is notable enough i.e. meets WP:GNG. Ref 1 is a video of an independently organised TED talk so is a primary source. Ref 2 basically states that she's a news anchor. Ref 3, 4 are interviews by the article subject, Ref 5 basically states she's written two articles for Tehelka. Ref 6 is a Dawn article covering an event she attended. Ref 7 states she's a correspondent for IBNLive,Ref 8 is a case study where Radical Reflex describes the work they did for her on a website. Ref 9 is a blog, Ref 10 is an article written by the article subject, Ref 11 is the article subject's facebook page. I don't think there is enough evidence of significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources. Cowlibob ( talk) 18:48, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 07:11, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Article about Musician who does not meet WP:MUSICBIO. Searches have brought up little to support notability worthy of inclusion. One does not inherit notability from colleagues. This musician has won no major awards or charted on any music charts. As I do not feel the musician is notable enough for inclusion to Wikipedia I have also nominated both articles on his albums to be included. McMatter ( talk)/( contrib) 18:11, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 07:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. No evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gy t@lk to M£ 15:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 20:37, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Subject of the article fails
WP:GNG and
WP:ARTIST. No evidence of notability.
Wikic¤l¤gy
t@lk to M£ 15:55, 12 March 2016 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn per the arguments below. Keep.
Wikic¤l¤gy
t@lk to M£
20:37, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep per WP:WDAFD. (non-admin closure) The Origins of Heaven ( talk) 18:01, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Not convinced that Metropolitan Borough Council leaders are de facto notable. Uhooep ( talk) 15:12, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Consensus is for deletion, for various reasons as delineated below. North America 1000 00:35, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
I cannot see any point in this incoherent article on the supernatural, apparently 'inspired' by a TV show and not written in English. TheLongTone ( talk) 14:22, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
I found that incomprehensible. It has to be a Delete in lieu of someone making the case for notability in a language structure I can understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pupsbunch ( talk • contribs) 18:19, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. A clear consensus. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 06:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a newspaper. This article does not purport to do anything other than report on a serious traffic accident. It does not indicate that the event has any significance other than as a report of a current event. R'n'B ( call me Russ) 12:55, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of Maximals#Technorganic. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 14:17, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Minor character from the Transformers universe. No evidence of real-world notability. Tagged as lacking notability and being written in an in-universe style since 2010. Josh Milburn ( talk) 10:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. Overall consensus is that he meets LAWYER & GNG & As the nom hasn't objected to any of the replies I'm wrapping it up as Keep. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:22, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't believe Circuit judges in England and Wales are de facto notable individuals. There are over 600 of these and they rank below high court judges. All of my recent AFD nominations of English and Welsh Circuit judges have reached a consensus to delete, but of course each AFD should still be judged independently. Also stood for Parliament but finished third. Uhooep ( talk) 09:23, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. Overall consensus is that he meets LAWYER & GNG & As the nom hasn't objected to any of the replies I'm wrapping it up as Keep. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:22, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't believe Circuit judges in England and Wales are de facto notable individuals. There are over 600 of these and they rank below high court judges. All of my recent AFD nominations of English and Welsh Circuit judges have reached a consensus to delete, but of course each AFD should still be judged independently. Uhooep ( talk) 09:22, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. North America 1000 00:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Previously deleted by AfD here. Still fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND JMHamo ( talk) 08:29, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 07:16, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
This is an article about a university center, which belongs to the university of which we have no article. Unless in special circumstances, such organizations would not be notable, and, indeed, there is not a slightest indication of notability in the article. It could have been notable as a building if built by a famous architect for example but this has not been shown either. Ymblanter ( talk) 08:21, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Nominator withdrew. @ Shabidoo: As the only substantial editor, feel free to redirect it as you please. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 ( T) 18:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Almost-exact duplicate of Guobiao Majiang mahir256 ( talk) 07:09, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 07:48, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Non-notable local author. Has some local coverage, but limited. Borders on advertisement. Fails WP:AUTHOR. reddogsix ( talk) 05:23, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered to search....So closing as SK (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Failed parliamentary candidate. Uhooep ( talk) 04:08, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:23, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Twice failed parliamentary candidate. Uhooep ( talk) 04:05, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:23, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Three times failed parliamentary candidate. Uhooep ( talk) 04:00, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Failed parliamentary candidate. Uhooep ( talk) 03:57, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered to search....So closing as SK (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Failed parliamentary candidate. Uhooep ( talk) 03:52, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. [{WP:BEFORE|The nom hasn't even bothered to search]]....So closing as SK (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Failed parliamentary and London County Council candidate. Uhooep ( talk) 03:51, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered to search....So closing as SK (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:30, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Four times failed parliamentary candidate. Uhooep ( talk) 03:49, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered to search....So closing as SK (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:30, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Three times failed parliamentary candidate. Uhooep ( talk) 03:46, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered to search....So closing as SK (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:30, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Failed parliamentary candidate. Uhooep ( talk) 03:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered to search....So closing as SK (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:30, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Three times failed parliamentary candidate. Uhooep ( talk) 03:40, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered to search....So closing as SK (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Failed parliamentary candidate. Uhooep ( talk) 03:34, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 14:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete: as non-notable designer. Quis separabit? 03:33, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered with searching for sources as these have all been nominated within seconds of each other. No objections to speedy renomination by anyone except the nom. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:34, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Failed parliamentary candidate. Uhooep ( talk) 03:31, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered with searching for sources as these have all been nominated within seconds of each other. No objections to speedy renomination by anyone except the nom. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Failed parliamentary candidate and non-notable circuit judge. If he were a High Court judge I wouldn't nominate. Uhooep ( talk) 03:29, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered with searching for sources as these have all been nominated within seconds of each other. No objections to speedy renomination by anyone except the nom. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Failed parliamentary candidate. Uhooep ( talk) 03:26, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered with searching for sources as these have all been nominated within seconds of each other. No objections to speedy renomination by anyone except the nom. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Failed parliamentary candidate. Uhooep ( talk) 03:23, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered with searching for sources as these have all been nominated within seconds of each other. No objections to speedy renomination by anyone except the nom. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Failed parliamentary candidate. Uhooep ( talk) 03:22, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered with searching for sources as these have all been nominated within seconds of each other. No objections to speedy renomination by anyone except the nom. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Failed parliamentary candidate. Uhooep ( talk) 03:18, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered with searching for sources as these have all been nominated within seconds of each other. No objections to speedy renomination by anyone except the nom. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Four times failed parliamentary candidate. Uhooep ( talk) 03:17, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered with searching for sources as these have all been nominated within seconds of each other. No objections to speedy renomination by anyone except the nom. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Failed parliamentary candidate. Uhooep ( talk) 03:16, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered with searching for sources as these have all been nominated within seconds of each other. No objections to speedy renomination by anyone except the nom. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:36, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Failed parliamentary candidate. The claim that he was one of the founders of Keele University is not backed up by a reference, and during a quick search I was unable to find sources which validate or lend credence this claim. Uhooep ( talk) 03:13, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered with searching for sources as these have all been nominated within seconds of each other. No objections to speedy renomination by anyone except the nom. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:36, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Two times failed parliamentary candidate. Uhooep ( talk) 03:08, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered with searching for sources as these have all been nominated within seconds of each other. No objections to speedy renomination by anyone except the nom. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:36, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Three times failed parliamentary candidate. Uhooep ( talk) 03:07, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered with searching for sources as these have all been nominated within seconds of each other. No objections to speedy renomination by anyone except the nom. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:36, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Three times failed parliamentary candidate. Also I don't believe Circuit judges in England and Wales are de facto notable individuals. There are over 600 of these and they rank below high court judges. All of my recent AFD nominations of English and Welsh Circuit judges have reached a consensus to delete, but of course each AFD should still be judged independently. Uhooep ( talk) 03:06, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered with searching for sources as these have all been nominated within seconds of each other. No objections to speedy renomination by anyone except the nom. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:36, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Four times failed parliamentary candidate. Uhooep ( talk) 03:04, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered with searching for sources as these have all been nominated within seconds of each other. No objections to speedy renomination by anyone except the nom. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:36, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Failed parliamentary candidate. Uhooep ( talk) 03:01, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered with searching for sources as these have all been nominated within seconds of each other. No objections to speedy renomination by anyone except the nom. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:37, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Two times failed parliamentary candidate. Also I don't believe Circuit judges in England and Wales are de facto notable individuals. There are over 600 of these and they rank below high court judges. All of my recent AFD nominations of English and Welsh Circuit judges have reached a consensus to delete, but of course each AFD should still be judged independently. Uhooep ( talk) 02:56, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered with searching for sources as these have all been nominated within seconds of each other. No objections to speedy renomination by anyone except the nom. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:37, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Two times failed parliamentary candidate. Also I don't believe Circuit judges in England and Wales are de facto notable individuals. There are over 600 of these and they rank below high court judges. All of my recent AFD nominations of English and Welsh Circuit judges have reached a consensus to delete, but of course each AFD should still be judged independently. Uhooep ( talk) 02:54, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered with searching for sources as these have all been nominated within seconds of each other. No objections to speedy renomination by anyone except the nom. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:37, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Twice unsuccessful parliamentary candidate. Uhooep ( talk) 02:52, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 07:42, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
An unremarkable flag by an organization which lacks a Wikipedia article. As someone who himself is autistic, nominating this article for deletion is kind of disappointing, but searches for the flag (either the "Autism pride flag" or the "LGBT-Autism Pride flag") and the organization which promotes it fail to find any coverage in reliable sources. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 02:49, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered with searching for sources as these have all been nominated within seconds of each other. No objections to speedy renomination by anyone except the nom. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:37, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Failed parliamentary candidate. Uhooep ( talk) 02:49, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered with searching for sources as these have all been nominated within seconds of each other. No objections to speedy renomination by anyone except the nom. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:37, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Four times failed parliamentary candidate. Uhooep ( talk) 02:45, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
No legacy, whether positive or negative. Delete 45sixtyone ( talk) 02:55, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Vipinhari || talk 17:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
I cannot see how colourising three Doctor Who episodes is notable - even with third party coverage. Tiny beets 02:21, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
There was third party coverage precisely because it was notable technical and artistic achievement. The work premièred at the British Film Instutute because it was a notable achievement and the coverage in national magazines and trade publications was a result of the work being noteworthy. He is the only UK-based film colourisation artist and his colourisation technique differs from that used by other commercial olourisation processes, as detailed on the Wikipedia article on Film colorization. Chaotic Galaxy 02.43, 12 March 2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaotic Galaxy ( talk • contribs) 02:49, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Please bear in mind Chaotic Galaxy seems closely linked with the subject. Tiny beets 03:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Tiny beets is quite right - I am closely linked with the subject. I know him personally and offered to upload a photo to his page. But that shouldn't preclude me from voicing an opinion in a debate. I have no conflict of interests: I know hundreds of people in my life and I don't think any of the others are notable enough to make a case for them. But just because I know the person doesn't make me a troll or an internet vandal or in any way devious. I'm just an individual with an opinion like everyone else here and even if I was the subject's own mother (which I'm not) it shouldn't mean that I'm ignored if I make valid points. And in the interest of fairness you will all notice I didn't actually cast a vote and the AfD Vote Counter shows I have remained out of the process. But it really shouldn't prompt a warning from the person advocating deletion merely for voicing what I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaotic Galaxy ( talk • contribs) 20:55, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm not going to post a vote because I am one of the people who's helped edit the page and so have a bias in thinking it is noteworthy enough stay - but I have a genuine question about "reliable" independent sources. This link below is to 20 independent reviews of his colourisation work. Although they are all independent they do consist of a hotch-potch mixture of trade site, fan sites and individual blogs. We have no way of knowing which are (or are not) permissible to link to in the "Critical Reception" section. Are any valid? Even if two out of the 20 are considered OK it adds weight to the case. Please have a look and let us know (or suggest if this is better on the talk page)/ Thank you. Here's the link to them all REVIEWS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.37.13 ( talk) 11:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered with searching for sources as these have all been nominated within seconds of each other. No objections to speedy renomination by anyone except the nom. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:37, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Four times failed parliamentary candidate. Uhooep ( talk) 01:43, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered with searching for sources as these have all been nominated within seconds of each other. No objections to speedy renomination by anyone except the nom. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:37, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Three times failed parliamentary candidate. Uhooep ( talk) 01:41, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 14:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
promotional and non-notable. "best place to work " is a dubious distinction, awarded by no firm criteria. Best place to work in multiple cities doesn't add anything to it. Using this sort of material to support notability impliest either that there is nothing better, or the promotional intent to say whatever sounds like favorable. The statement about "growth" similar are just notices of particular investments, plus unsourced and unsourceable claims about the importance of their products.. DGG ( talk ) 01:39, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
References
And I suspect similarly of the others. The company is very good at public relations. DGG ( talk ) 01:03, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered with searching for sources as these have all been nominated within seconds of each other. No objections to speedy renomination by anyone except the nom. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:37, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure how or why this article resurfaced. It was previously deleted, and I am unconvinced the subject is sufficiently notable. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter Leslie Dingley for the previous debate. Uhooep ( talk) 01:38, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
1. The person has received a well-known and significant award...Order of the British Empire seems significant enough. — Maile ( talk) 23:29, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered with searching for sources as these have all been nominated within seconds of each other. No objections to speedy renomination by anyone except the nom. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:38, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't believe Circuit judges in England and Wales are de facto notable individuals. There are over 600 of these and they rank below high court judges. All of my recent AFD nominations of English and Welsh Circuit judges have reached a consensus to delete, but of course each AFD should still be judged independently. This individual also stood for Parliament but came third on two occasions. Uhooep ( talk) 01:32, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered with searching for sources as these have all been nominated within seconds of each other. No objections to speedy renomination by anyone except the nom. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:38, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't believe Circuit judges in England and Wales are de facto notable individuals. There are over 600 of these and they rank below high court judges. All of my recent AFD nominations of English and Welsh Circuit judges have reached a consensus to delete, but of course each AFD should still be judged independently. This individual also stood for Parliament but came third. Uhooep ( talk) 01:31, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Unlikely to reach consensus. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 14:14, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
This article fails WP:BIO on almost every level, and is a perfect example of navel gazing in the Wikiverse. There are literally millions of "managers" out there in the world, and only a hand full of them would be notable. For the purposes of this nomination I am using this version of the article.
In determining notability, one needs multiple sources which discuss the person in length.
Editors (and long-term editors at that) have, unfortunately, used trivial tit-bits and tried to present Katherine as being notable. She has not won any high-level awards in her field, there are no independent extensive bios by reliable sources out there, need I go on?
I would also recommend deletion without redirect due to her non-notability. MedalSmeddle ( talk) 01:28, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered with searching for sources as these have all been nominated within seconds of each other. No objections to speedy renomination by anyone except the nom. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:38, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't believe Circuit judges in England and Wales are de facto notable individuals. There are over 600 of these and they rank below high court judges. All of my recent AFD nominations of English and Welsh Circuit judges have reached a consensus to delete, but of course each AFD should still be judged independently. Uhooep ( talk) 01:27, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 06:34, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Actor with just one role. Granted it was a notable film he was in, but nothing else seems to be going for it-either delete or a redirect be the best I think. Wgolf ( talk) 01:18, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The article certainly doesn't look finished. After searching I can only find mention of him in production lists rather than highlighted specifically for his contribution. It appears he played Anwar in Babel (2006) and worked as third assistant director in L' ARNACOEUR (2010). I'd vote for Delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pupsbunch ( talk • contribs) 07:03, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Right-wing terrorism. If anybody wants to merge some content, be my guest, but there's probably not much. I also picked Right-wing terrorism as a target based on the discussion, but this close in no way prevents this from being boldly changed or taken to RfD. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 ( T) 18:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
The term lacks notability. The article used in the lead to establish notability does not use the term and is an opinion piece. Nor is there evidence that terrorist acts committed by white people, particularly acts that are not motivated by racism are typically called "white terrorism." Furthermore most of the first hits on Google books return "Jonathan R. White, Terrorism:An Introduction. TFD ( talk) 00:57, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a dictionary, phrasebook, or a slang, jargon or usage guide.— Maile ( talk) 23:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
-- Potguru ( talk) 16:05, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 07:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Notability. Another startup with a promotional {{ spa}} Wikionearth account building an article, another one adding links to it, but a real lack of the truly independent sources we require. Andy Dingley ( talk) 00:29, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
References