![]() |
The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k ( talk) 19:03, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Article does not establish why the case is significant. Ethanlu121 ( talk) 22:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination
Ethanlu121 (
talk)
13:09, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 11:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a website to host quotes, it is an encylopedia. This article should be deleted, and moved to Wikiquote if it is not there already. Ethanlu121 ( talk) 22:28, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
NN metal band. Appears to fail both WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. The sources mentioned don't seem to be sufficient (Metal Temple is a minor e-zine and Metalholic appears to be 3 guys in Texas) and I haven't found any beyond that. Failed speedy. Toddst1 ( talk) 19:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete. Coverage is insubstabntial & from niche publications. Essentially, it's fancruft. TheLongTone ( talk) 14:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete-- Ymblanter ( talk) 07:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
PROD contested by COI creator with no decent rationale. Non-notable politician, fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOLITICIAN Joseph2302 ( talk) 21:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Very little discussion, but the one "keep" opinion makes no argument based on guidelines or practice, i.e., about the level of coverage in reliable source the topic has received. Sandstein 21:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Despite an extensive search, all I could find about this event are press releases, brief mentions, or otherwise coverage from non-independent sources. There appears to be little third-party coverage about this which could establish notability. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 23:50, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
C-SPAN, the Museum of American Finance and Trinity Church have either broadcasted, co-hosted or publicized CelebrateHAMILTON events. The United States Coast Guard has participated with both its colors and its auxiliary band. The Hamilton Grange National Memorial, Federal Hall and the George Washington Headquarters Museum have been venues for the CelebrateHAMILTON events more than once. The page is not only well made, it is very informative and precise. SergioVillavicencio ( talk) 03:51, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
References
The result was no consensus. ( WP:NPASR). North America 1000 13:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement ([as well as [Wikipedia:Notability (newspapers)]]). It was initially prodded by User:I dream of horses with insufficient rationale, and the prod was declined on technical grounds by User:James500. As I do share to concerns about notability of this tiny publication (reported circulation 6k, no history to speak of) I am bringing it here. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:49, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was: moved back to userspace, User:Liushiye/sandbox, by User:Philg88. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 12:25, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
This student essay covers a topic that already exists on Wikipedia: sea salt. There is no need for a separate article. Some of the content might be incorporated into the existing article, but much of the content of this article involves poorly sourced dubious medical claims. Referencing health benefit claims to clickbait articles hosted on websites such as stylecraze.com, healingnaturallybybee.com, smallfootprintfamily.com, etc. are clear violations of WP:MEDRS. This article should never have been moved out of draft space. Edgeweyes ( talk) 21:08, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 11:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
This article does not have any references. No references can be found by a web search either. It could either be a hoax or at least it is not notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia. The author has been asked 5 days ago, to upload references, but uploaded some photographs of other events instead. There is also some confusion about km and miles. NearEMPTiness ( talk) 20:21, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Valley2 city‽ 20:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Coverage—both what's claimed and referenced in the article and what I dug up myself—falls short of establishing notability under WP:GNG and WP:BASIC as it's either connected with the subject or not substantial. Rebb ing 19:29, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 11:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Fails WP:MUSICBIO - after removing refs from his bandcamp page all sources are from whats-on listings. No assertion that any of his recordings have charted anywhere. Bazj ( talk) 22:07, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was no consensus, defaulted to keep. There is no consensus in the discussion that the article needs to be deleted. There is consensus however that there is a strong POV which needs to be addressed (possibly even by merging the article).-- Ymblanter ( talk) 11:09, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Multiple editors on the article's talk page agree that even if this is a topic worthy of discussion, the current version of the article is so thoroughly POV in its tone and in its synthesis and misrepresentation of sources that it would be better to WP:TNT it. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 15:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
When a topic is supported by verifiable reliable sources that establish it notability, deletion over contributors failing to reach a consensus on a POV version has always been a last resort.
When I checked the talk page for myself I found the discussion the nominator refers to is only hours old.
In that discussion nominator calls the current state of the article "a ridiculous screed". That is not what I found, at all. I found an article written in the idiosyncratic style of someone who was not a native speaker of English. I did not detect any attempt to use the wikipedia for a "screed".
I will remind nominator that WP:Wikipedia is not censored. Nominator's statements on the talk page, and here, give the appearance that his or her objection is to coverage of a genuine real phenomenon -- one they don't like.
I have asserted, over the years, that there is no topic that can't be covered from a neutral point of view, if there are references to support its notability, and good faith contributors willing to make the effort. Geo Swan ( talk) 04:04, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
It is theoretically possible to make this article neutral. However, it would involve renaming the article and rewriting every sentence in it. Because the author asked for evidence that it was biased, I compiled four examples. (They were written in response to the author, to whom I refer in the second person.)
1. "Feminists are very divided on this. Some feminists want equal rights and promote this idea. Other feminists deny it." Are they actually very divided on it? Is it anything close to an even split? Or are there just a small number of feminists who are in favor of it? Similarly, do you see how your way of contrasting feminists who are for and against the idea is biased? Because it is absurdly biased, and I'm not sure how I can explain it to you if you do not already see it. Imagine a statement like, "some children have good taste and prefer vanilla ice cream. Other children prefer chocolate ice cream." I've implied that children with good taste prefer vanilla ice cream, and that those who prefer chocolate ice cream have bad taste. Also, your use of the word "deny" is a non-native usage.
2. "The denial of parenthood meats same contra arguments[11][12] as common abortion did[13]: use birth control or don't have sex at all.[14][15]" Not only does this sentence contain a typo, grammatical errors, and a basic structure that is non-intuitive to native speakers, it also presents the arguments against "paper abortion" in a dismissive, straw-man tone. Did you think that you had done a good job summarizing the arguments against your position?
3. "But there is a huge debate in many countries." How many countries? How huge of a debate? You mentioned two countries, and one of them (Sweden), was a proposal by five kids involved in a youth politics group that got media attention because of how it was such a bad idea. You say "huge debate in many countries," but to me it seems like "a small debate in a handful of countries. But debated a lot online by men's rights activists."
4. When you say that 7 out of 10 Danes want to support "paper abortion," you cite an article that cites a Gallup poll. The article that you cite also talks about another poll in which 42 percent of Danes would support "paper abortion." So here you have an article that presents two facts, and you have picked the fact that makes "paper abortion" seem better-supported. Why did you pick 7/10, instead of 42%? Did you think you weren't being biased?
The author of this article didn't do basic research behind this article -- for example, they didn't bring up the US court case on this issue, and they didn't link to it from its subsection in another Wikipedia article. They also cherry-picked from a Danish article in one citation and flat-out lied about the content of a Swedish article in another citation (and then denied having lied about it, confusingly). Trying to work with them to improve this article is going to be a huge and frustrating waste of time. You already needed somebody who can read three different languages to catch the shady stuff they're pulling.
The author wrote a bad article and posted it without prior experience with editing or creating articles (at least, not on this account). They made Wikipedia worse by writing this article. If they want it to be an article, they can write a version worth keeping. Triacylglyceride ( talk) 05:08, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Also it violates WP:FRINGE. Triacylglyceride ( talk) 05:11, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
As for your assertion that the article can't reasonably be brought into compliance with WP:NPOV... Your suggestion that we leap immediately to deletion is not appropriate. The deletion of articles due to irresolvable editorial disagreements is supposed to be reserved for a very last resort, when ordinary discussion on the talk page fails. Our nominator lapsed from compliance with WP:BATTLEFIELD with his or her immediate jump to nominate this article for deletion, without making a sincere good faith attempt to voice their concerns on the talk page first. Frankly, your comments on the talk page on March 14th also lapsed from compliance with BATTLEFIELD.
On the fifteenth you did offer specific concerns on the talk page -- specific concerns which you seemed to have repeated here. Okay, first, specific concerns like yours should have been expressed on the talk page, first. You and nominator, and critics of the article should only have called for its deletion if you could point to a civil, collegial, effort to reach a compromise, on the talk page, an effort that failed in spite of your best efforts. Nominator skipped that step.
News flash: Maintaining ANY article is hard work, even articles on topics where there is no controversy or disagreement. If we deleted every article that looked like it was going to be hard work, we wouldn't have a single article left. Let's be serious and drop the idea that this article should be deleted because working on improving it would be hard work.
With regard to "none of us" wants to work on it, please don't claim to speak for the entire community. Please don't claim to speak for me. I found this article interesting. At the point you were claiming no one else wanted to work on the article I had already spent half an hour working on the references. Geo Swan ( talk) 16:38, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
References
References
The result was delete. Valley2 city‽ 20:53, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Nominating on behalf of this IP - "I have AfD's this article, for the reason that Køhler is not notable per WP:N or WP:NFOOTY." Giant Snowman 18:08, 23 March 2016 (UTC) Giant Snowman 18:08, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 11:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Fails WP:CORP, reads like an advert with dubious sources JMHamo ( talk) 17:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 02:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Non-notable, fails WP:CREATIVE JMHamo ( talk) 17:06, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 02:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Very little information in this article Qpalzmmzlapq | talk | contribs 17:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. A clear consensus. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 11:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Dreams Beyond Grades was created recently by User:Novelbuzz, an SPA who has also edited the many times deleted and recreated Sujit_Meher, which I am concurrently listing. I don't know how best to AfD two connected articles which are both disrupted/recreated etc by the same crowd of disruptive socks, so I'll just put the relevant information in both places, and cross-link. (Look out for new socks in this discussion.) Sujit Meher, a young fashion designer, is the author of the purported "bestseller" [18] Dreams Beyond Grades. The article Sujit_Meher has been repeatedly speedied and recreated, see the deletion log here: [19]. Yunshui eventually restored Sujit Meher, obviously with some misgivings, [20] on request from a new user, Celebtech. Yunshui's AGF seems frankly of the suicidal kind; consider also the dialogue here. Anyway, Yunshui has left the project, but he was a checkuser and has blocked most of the socks involved in this saga of (to my mind obvious) self-promotion: Fashiondiva2015 ( talk · contribs) and Quickjazz ( talk · contribs). A new sock showed up when I prodded Dreams Beyond Grades yesterday, User:Fashiongrade2016, who removed the prod, restored copyright material to Dreams Beyond Grades, and restored unsourced puffery to Sujit_Meher. Blocked as a sock by Floquenbeam. The story emerging is of SPAs (or to put it more bluntly, socks) determined to promote the person Sujit Meher at all costs, in Sujit Meher and in Dreams Beyond Grades, repeatedly removing speedy templates and prods, requesting undeletion and recreating Sujit Meher with new accounts. I think we should delete and salt all this unscrupolous self-promotion. Oh, the article? Yes. It was quite long before, with a peacock plot summary of the life of the subject (Sujit Meher), most of which is at the moment gone because it's copyvio, but it tends to be restored by fresh socks, see history. To summarize: it fails WP:NBOOK and the sources are all promotional. Bishonen | talk 16:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC).
The result was delete. Consensus in this community discussion is that this is an exercise in self-promotion, which we empathically do not want, by a non-notable person. Accounts who continue with such editing may find themselves summarily blocked. Sandstein 21:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Sujit_Meher, a young fashion designer, is the author of the purported "bestseller" Dreams Beyond Grades, which I am concurrently listing. I don't know how best to AfD two connected articles which are both disrupted/recreated, etc, by the same crowd of disruptive socks, so I'll just put the relevant information in both places, and cross-link. (Look out for new socks in this discussion.) The article has been repeatedly speedied and recreated. See the deletion log here: [23]. Yunshui eventually restored Sujit Meher, obviously with some misgivings, [24] on request from a new user, Celebtech. Yunshui's AGF seems frankly of the suicidal kind; consider also the dialogue here. Anyway, Yunshui has left the project, but he was a checkuser and has blocked most of the socks involved in this saga of (to my mind obvious) self-promotion: Fashiondiva2015 ( talk · contribs) and Quickjazz ( talk · contribs). A new sock showed up when I prodded Dreams Beyond Grades yesterday, user:Fashiongrade2016, who removed the prod, restored copyright material to Dreams Beyond Grades, and restored unsourced puffery to Sujit_Meher. Blocked as a sock by Floquenbeam. The story emerging is of SPAs (or to put it more bluntly, socks) determined to promote the person Sujit Meher at all costs, in Sujit Meher and in Dreams Beyond Grades, repeatedly removing speedy templates and prods, requesting undeletion and recreating Sujit Meher with new accounts. I think we should delete and salt all this unscrupolous self-promotion. Oh, the article? Well, it fails WP:NBIO and the sources are all promotional. Bishonen | talk 16:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC). Bishonen | talk 16:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
References
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 11:08, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
There is nothing to suggest that ice hockey is an established sport in Egypt, with no significant coverage to establish notability. Most of the sources here are Facebook posts by an amateur ice hockey club. The International Ice Hockey Federation does not recognise any ice hockey organising body in the country. Cordless Larry ( talk) 16:27, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 02:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Notability unclear. Laber□ T 15:49, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 11:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Google search does not offer any evidence of notability. Dyson's book is a reliable secondary source with moderate coverage of the subject, but it is apparently the only one, and none of the secondary criteria of WP:PERSON seem to be met. — swpb T 13:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Very little discussion, but the one "keep" opinion makes no argument based in guidelines or practice, i.e., about the level of coverage in reliable source the topic has received. Sandstein 21:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Non-notable website which fails to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. There are ~3 secondary sources used in the article, but one of them is a press release written by someone connected to the company. The others are quick reviews of the website, mostly because Google Reader closed. There has been no other coverage since. Elaenia ( talk) 05:12, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
While Feedspot may not be particularly notorious, and seems to get lots of bad grades for their specific marketing practices, it does get used and talked about. There are probably a lot of pages on Wikipedia that are less useful. It could use a little info on number of users, frequency of update, and pros and cons of its particular methodology. If its actual entry is removed, it should probably (at least) point to a general page on comparing newsreaders for people who are trying to find out information about it as I did when I came to Wikipedia today. Kentpollard ( talk) 16:44, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 11:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
This article is about a small arena in Michigan. It does not cite any sources, include any historical background, or seem to have any significance. The information here is likely based on the arena's own website, which is included in the external links. Amccann421 ( talk) 04:59, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 11:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Does not appear to meet the guideline for companies. A Google search turned up a handful of articles, but all were either passing mentions, or from the Winnipeg Free Press. No indication that this company has gotten any in-depth coverage outside of Winnipeg. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 03:33, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 11:01, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Questionable notability-I had this as a blp prod but looking around can't find much about anything. Wgolf ( talk) 03:11, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. ( WP:NPASR). North America 1000 11:11, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Non-notable documentary with no justification of importance ViperSnake151 Talk 01:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. czar 20:52, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Not notable. The article does not have sufficient sources to support its notability. AdrianGamer ( talk) 12:06, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 10:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Unsourced original research. Previously prodded and deprodded by Ehird in April 2012. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 16:33, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Mention may be made in another article independently. Sandstein 09:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
May not meet notability. Greek Legend ( talk) 10:11, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. joe decker talk 15:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Sadly no evidence of notability. Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. Sources provided and the one I found through WP:BEFORE are unreliable. The reliable ones I found are passing mention. Wikic¤l¤gy t@lk to M£ 07:05, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Spiritual 11:16, 18 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victhur69 ( talk • contribs)
Maihe101 ( talk) 01:40, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Cleverman. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 10:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Koen West (these afd's should be merged together btw) Wgolf ( talk) 05:36, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Cleverman. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 10:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Koen West (these afd's should be merged together btw) Wgolf ( talk) 05:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Cleverman. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 10:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Koen West (these afd's should be merged together btw) Wgolf ( talk) 05:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Cleverman. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 10:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Koen West (these afd's should be merged together btw) Wgolf ( talk) 05:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Cleverman. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 10:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Koen West (these afd's should be merged together btw) Wgolf ( talk) 05:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 10:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Very promotional, so much so I don't know it can be saved. Usterday ( talk) 00:59, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Someone deprodded, so here I am. Term is not notable. It was coined by non-notable author in a non-notable book. The only citations on the article are the book itself; there are no secondary/reliable sources. Searching google for more references only turned up tiny blogs and an Urban Dictionary entry -- not enough to establish notability. IagoQnsi ( talk) 01:08, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 21:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
No coverage about him whatsoever. Fails all relevant guidelines. Article is a PR piece. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 15:19, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 21:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:PEOPLE. I see nothing notable about this person. Sources only mention him being fired, a non-notable event. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 20:11, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. North America 1000 09:53, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Fails NMUSIC and ORG John from Idegon ( talk) 00:11, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 09:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
These series characters, as a set, are not independently notable from the main series, as shown through their lack of significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. ( ?) A merge or redirect to the parent article's character section should suffice. The parent article is a GA and sufficiently covers the characters. czar 14:18, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. And rename to "... primaries". Sandstein 09:08, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
As the first sentence of these five articles clearly states, unlike the 50 U.S. states plus Washington D.C. (see previous AfD), these territories will not participate in the presidential election, so the mere existence of these articles is slightly misleading. While the major parties hold primary contests in these territories, they do so at their own discretion, similarly to the Democrats Abroad primary, 2016. So while the major parties' individual primaries and caucuses are valid topics, these ones IMHO aren't. PanchoS ( talk) 11:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 10:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:GNG. Sole reference only identifies subject as someone who made a legal filing, and does nothing to establish his notability. Article is basically a resume. ubiquity ( talk) 09:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 21:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
An extraordinary WP:POVFORK. Violates every letter of WP:NOTESSAY, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTSOAPBOX. On a sidenote, I think we should be able to speedily delete these sort of essays rather than allow people to have a seven day soapbox AusLondonder ( talk) 08:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 21:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Promotional article with no evidence of notability. Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. This seem like a WP:RESUME. I think it's necessary to remind the article creator that Wikipedia is not a place to publish their resume. Wikic¤l¤gy t@lk to M£ 07:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. No chance of, or reason for, being deleted. Geschichte ( talk) 18:25, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
this article is very short wiki tamil 100 07:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 21:42, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Has only one vague mention in a news website and the article was not about him. This is like an advertisement article. Greek Legend ( talk) 05:47, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 21:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. ( ?) No worthwhile redirect targets. czar 05:39, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
This page was created & edited by a few linked accounts (including one that was the subject of the article) without ever establishing WP:Notability or declaring WP:COI despite clear bias, and the content remains strictly in violation of WP:Promo JamesG5 ( talk) 05:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 10:55, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Promotional and refbombed BLP lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. ( ?) Loaded with primary source and non-independent refs but nothing reliable and in-depth about the individual. I don't think a redirect to any one work would be worthwhile but open to suggestions. czar 04:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was Delete and...(The preceding comment added by Lourdes to resolve breaking of the Afd script)) moved back to a userspace draft, User:Gillianhai/sandbox. This appears to be a class project ( Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/University of British Columbia/FNH 200 102 (Term 2)) and the instructor is guiding the students, so it is best to keep the text as a draft rather than deleting outright. @ JudyCChan:, I suggest that you have your students improve existing articles, such as miso, instead of creating new articles on existing topics. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 12:08, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Strongly may not meet MOS, this should be declined if it is a draft. This seems terrible. 333 -blue 04:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 10:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
There are no other Wikipedia articles about subjects simply called "Digon". There are mostly partial title matches on this disambiguation page, which was previously deprodded by Boleyn with this edit. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 04:29, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Keep It is irrelevant whether there are other articles, but whether there are other valid entries, perhaps per MOS:DABMENTION. In this case, there are no partial matches (unless the valley could never be called simply 'Digon' and then that would be a partial match). This is a dab and surname page is one, and is structured appropriately as such per MOS:DABNAME: For short lists of name holders, new sections of Persons with the surname Xxxx or Persons with the given name Xxxx can be added below the main disambiguation list. It has a sufficient number of entries. Boleyn ( talk) 06:49, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Trees for Cities. Content may be merged from history to the extent that editorial consensus allows. Sandstein 21:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
trivial event, local references and notices only seem to be available DGG ( talk ) 06:15, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 10:54, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. I can't find any evidence of notability. While "founder of the first Nigerian Muslim high-fashion Magazine, Hayati" is a credible claim of significance, its not an evidence of notability] Wikic¤l¤gy t@lk to M£ 11:45, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete-- Ymblanter ( talk) 06:33, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Completely non-notable writer. The news search results are about foreman, sportsperson and broker with the same name. There is no news about this writer. Greek Legend ( talk) 02:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was Closing as Speedy Keep per WP:SK1 and WP:SNOW. The article is a mess but the subject is unquestionably notable. ( non-admin closure)- Ad Orientem ( talk) 14:32, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
WP:FANCRUFT. jps ( talk) 01:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 01:44, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Subject fails WP:GNG. While the article does make some claims towards asserting notability, it is entirely unreferenced. A google search and a google book search have yielded no sources where James Bourque is the primary subject. 4meter4 ( talk) 01:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 21:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Doubtful notability for this drinking game. Tagged for notability since May of 2014. A previous version of article was deleted at AfD, but due to the passage of time, CSD G4 is inappropriate. Article has been PROD'ed and declined recently. My opinion is this falls short of satisfying WP:GNG. Safiel ( talk) 00:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete, unreferenced BLP-- Ymblanter ( talk) 06:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Article should be deleted as per WP:TNT. Ethanlu121 ( talk) 00:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. North America 1000 09:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Article appears to be an essay. Ethanlu121 ( talk) 00:36, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete, no prejudice against recreation after reliable sources have been found-- Ymblanter ( talk) 06:23, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Article does not meet general notability guideline. Ethanlu121 ( talk) 00:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete. Even the original Arabic Wiki page (which this article is translated from) would fall short of establishing sufficient notability. Tpdwkouaa ( talk) 01:07, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedily deleted by 78.26 per WP:A7. (non-admin closure) — Nizolan (talk) 05:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Non-notable person. Ethanlu121 ( talk) 00:22, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k ( talk) 19:03, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Article does not establish why the case is significant. Ethanlu121 ( talk) 22:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination
Ethanlu121 (
talk)
13:09, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 11:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a website to host quotes, it is an encylopedia. This article should be deleted, and moved to Wikiquote if it is not there already. Ethanlu121 ( talk) 22:28, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
NN metal band. Appears to fail both WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. The sources mentioned don't seem to be sufficient (Metal Temple is a minor e-zine and Metalholic appears to be 3 guys in Texas) and I haven't found any beyond that. Failed speedy. Toddst1 ( talk) 19:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete. Coverage is insubstabntial & from niche publications. Essentially, it's fancruft. TheLongTone ( talk) 14:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete-- Ymblanter ( talk) 07:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
PROD contested by COI creator with no decent rationale. Non-notable politician, fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOLITICIAN Joseph2302 ( talk) 21:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Very little discussion, but the one "keep" opinion makes no argument based on guidelines or practice, i.e., about the level of coverage in reliable source the topic has received. Sandstein 21:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Despite an extensive search, all I could find about this event are press releases, brief mentions, or otherwise coverage from non-independent sources. There appears to be little third-party coverage about this which could establish notability. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 23:50, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
C-SPAN, the Museum of American Finance and Trinity Church have either broadcasted, co-hosted or publicized CelebrateHAMILTON events. The United States Coast Guard has participated with both its colors and its auxiliary band. The Hamilton Grange National Memorial, Federal Hall and the George Washington Headquarters Museum have been venues for the CelebrateHAMILTON events more than once. The page is not only well made, it is very informative and precise. SergioVillavicencio ( talk) 03:51, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
References
The result was no consensus. ( WP:NPASR). North America 1000 13:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement ([as well as [Wikipedia:Notability (newspapers)]]). It was initially prodded by User:I dream of horses with insufficient rationale, and the prod was declined on technical grounds by User:James500. As I do share to concerns about notability of this tiny publication (reported circulation 6k, no history to speak of) I am bringing it here. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:49, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was: moved back to userspace, User:Liushiye/sandbox, by User:Philg88. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 12:25, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
This student essay covers a topic that already exists on Wikipedia: sea salt. There is no need for a separate article. Some of the content might be incorporated into the existing article, but much of the content of this article involves poorly sourced dubious medical claims. Referencing health benefit claims to clickbait articles hosted on websites such as stylecraze.com, healingnaturallybybee.com, smallfootprintfamily.com, etc. are clear violations of WP:MEDRS. This article should never have been moved out of draft space. Edgeweyes ( talk) 21:08, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 11:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
This article does not have any references. No references can be found by a web search either. It could either be a hoax or at least it is not notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia. The author has been asked 5 days ago, to upload references, but uploaded some photographs of other events instead. There is also some confusion about km and miles. NearEMPTiness ( talk) 20:21, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Valley2 city‽ 20:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Coverage—both what's claimed and referenced in the article and what I dug up myself—falls short of establishing notability under WP:GNG and WP:BASIC as it's either connected with the subject or not substantial. Rebb ing 19:29, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 11:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Fails WP:MUSICBIO - after removing refs from his bandcamp page all sources are from whats-on listings. No assertion that any of his recordings have charted anywhere. Bazj ( talk) 22:07, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was no consensus, defaulted to keep. There is no consensus in the discussion that the article needs to be deleted. There is consensus however that there is a strong POV which needs to be addressed (possibly even by merging the article).-- Ymblanter ( talk) 11:09, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Multiple editors on the article's talk page agree that even if this is a topic worthy of discussion, the current version of the article is so thoroughly POV in its tone and in its synthesis and misrepresentation of sources that it would be better to WP:TNT it. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 15:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
When a topic is supported by verifiable reliable sources that establish it notability, deletion over contributors failing to reach a consensus on a POV version has always been a last resort.
When I checked the talk page for myself I found the discussion the nominator refers to is only hours old.
In that discussion nominator calls the current state of the article "a ridiculous screed". That is not what I found, at all. I found an article written in the idiosyncratic style of someone who was not a native speaker of English. I did not detect any attempt to use the wikipedia for a "screed".
I will remind nominator that WP:Wikipedia is not censored. Nominator's statements on the talk page, and here, give the appearance that his or her objection is to coverage of a genuine real phenomenon -- one they don't like.
I have asserted, over the years, that there is no topic that can't be covered from a neutral point of view, if there are references to support its notability, and good faith contributors willing to make the effort. Geo Swan ( talk) 04:04, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
It is theoretically possible to make this article neutral. However, it would involve renaming the article and rewriting every sentence in it. Because the author asked for evidence that it was biased, I compiled four examples. (They were written in response to the author, to whom I refer in the second person.)
1. "Feminists are very divided on this. Some feminists want equal rights and promote this idea. Other feminists deny it." Are they actually very divided on it? Is it anything close to an even split? Or are there just a small number of feminists who are in favor of it? Similarly, do you see how your way of contrasting feminists who are for and against the idea is biased? Because it is absurdly biased, and I'm not sure how I can explain it to you if you do not already see it. Imagine a statement like, "some children have good taste and prefer vanilla ice cream. Other children prefer chocolate ice cream." I've implied that children with good taste prefer vanilla ice cream, and that those who prefer chocolate ice cream have bad taste. Also, your use of the word "deny" is a non-native usage.
2. "The denial of parenthood meats same contra arguments[11][12] as common abortion did[13]: use birth control or don't have sex at all.[14][15]" Not only does this sentence contain a typo, grammatical errors, and a basic structure that is non-intuitive to native speakers, it also presents the arguments against "paper abortion" in a dismissive, straw-man tone. Did you think that you had done a good job summarizing the arguments against your position?
3. "But there is a huge debate in many countries." How many countries? How huge of a debate? You mentioned two countries, and one of them (Sweden), was a proposal by five kids involved in a youth politics group that got media attention because of how it was such a bad idea. You say "huge debate in many countries," but to me it seems like "a small debate in a handful of countries. But debated a lot online by men's rights activists."
4. When you say that 7 out of 10 Danes want to support "paper abortion," you cite an article that cites a Gallup poll. The article that you cite also talks about another poll in which 42 percent of Danes would support "paper abortion." So here you have an article that presents two facts, and you have picked the fact that makes "paper abortion" seem better-supported. Why did you pick 7/10, instead of 42%? Did you think you weren't being biased?
The author of this article didn't do basic research behind this article -- for example, they didn't bring up the US court case on this issue, and they didn't link to it from its subsection in another Wikipedia article. They also cherry-picked from a Danish article in one citation and flat-out lied about the content of a Swedish article in another citation (and then denied having lied about it, confusingly). Trying to work with them to improve this article is going to be a huge and frustrating waste of time. You already needed somebody who can read three different languages to catch the shady stuff they're pulling.
The author wrote a bad article and posted it without prior experience with editing or creating articles (at least, not on this account). They made Wikipedia worse by writing this article. If they want it to be an article, they can write a version worth keeping. Triacylglyceride ( talk) 05:08, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Also it violates WP:FRINGE. Triacylglyceride ( talk) 05:11, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
As for your assertion that the article can't reasonably be brought into compliance with WP:NPOV... Your suggestion that we leap immediately to deletion is not appropriate. The deletion of articles due to irresolvable editorial disagreements is supposed to be reserved for a very last resort, when ordinary discussion on the talk page fails. Our nominator lapsed from compliance with WP:BATTLEFIELD with his or her immediate jump to nominate this article for deletion, without making a sincere good faith attempt to voice their concerns on the talk page first. Frankly, your comments on the talk page on March 14th also lapsed from compliance with BATTLEFIELD.
On the fifteenth you did offer specific concerns on the talk page -- specific concerns which you seemed to have repeated here. Okay, first, specific concerns like yours should have been expressed on the talk page, first. You and nominator, and critics of the article should only have called for its deletion if you could point to a civil, collegial, effort to reach a compromise, on the talk page, an effort that failed in spite of your best efforts. Nominator skipped that step.
News flash: Maintaining ANY article is hard work, even articles on topics where there is no controversy or disagreement. If we deleted every article that looked like it was going to be hard work, we wouldn't have a single article left. Let's be serious and drop the idea that this article should be deleted because working on improving it would be hard work.
With regard to "none of us" wants to work on it, please don't claim to speak for the entire community. Please don't claim to speak for me. I found this article interesting. At the point you were claiming no one else wanted to work on the article I had already spent half an hour working on the references. Geo Swan ( talk) 16:38, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
References
References
The result was delete. Valley2 city‽ 20:53, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Nominating on behalf of this IP - "I have AfD's this article, for the reason that Køhler is not notable per WP:N or WP:NFOOTY." Giant Snowman 18:08, 23 March 2016 (UTC) Giant Snowman 18:08, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 11:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Fails WP:CORP, reads like an advert with dubious sources JMHamo ( talk) 17:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 02:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Non-notable, fails WP:CREATIVE JMHamo ( talk) 17:06, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 02:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Very little information in this article Qpalzmmzlapq | talk | contribs 17:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. A clear consensus. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 11:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Dreams Beyond Grades was created recently by User:Novelbuzz, an SPA who has also edited the many times deleted and recreated Sujit_Meher, which I am concurrently listing. I don't know how best to AfD two connected articles which are both disrupted/recreated etc by the same crowd of disruptive socks, so I'll just put the relevant information in both places, and cross-link. (Look out for new socks in this discussion.) Sujit Meher, a young fashion designer, is the author of the purported "bestseller" [18] Dreams Beyond Grades. The article Sujit_Meher has been repeatedly speedied and recreated, see the deletion log here: [19]. Yunshui eventually restored Sujit Meher, obviously with some misgivings, [20] on request from a new user, Celebtech. Yunshui's AGF seems frankly of the suicidal kind; consider also the dialogue here. Anyway, Yunshui has left the project, but he was a checkuser and has blocked most of the socks involved in this saga of (to my mind obvious) self-promotion: Fashiondiva2015 ( talk · contribs) and Quickjazz ( talk · contribs). A new sock showed up when I prodded Dreams Beyond Grades yesterday, User:Fashiongrade2016, who removed the prod, restored copyright material to Dreams Beyond Grades, and restored unsourced puffery to Sujit_Meher. Blocked as a sock by Floquenbeam. The story emerging is of SPAs (or to put it more bluntly, socks) determined to promote the person Sujit Meher at all costs, in Sujit Meher and in Dreams Beyond Grades, repeatedly removing speedy templates and prods, requesting undeletion and recreating Sujit Meher with new accounts. I think we should delete and salt all this unscrupolous self-promotion. Oh, the article? Yes. It was quite long before, with a peacock plot summary of the life of the subject (Sujit Meher), most of which is at the moment gone because it's copyvio, but it tends to be restored by fresh socks, see history. To summarize: it fails WP:NBOOK and the sources are all promotional. Bishonen | talk 16:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC).
The result was delete. Consensus in this community discussion is that this is an exercise in self-promotion, which we empathically do not want, by a non-notable person. Accounts who continue with such editing may find themselves summarily blocked. Sandstein 21:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Sujit_Meher, a young fashion designer, is the author of the purported "bestseller" Dreams Beyond Grades, which I am concurrently listing. I don't know how best to AfD two connected articles which are both disrupted/recreated, etc, by the same crowd of disruptive socks, so I'll just put the relevant information in both places, and cross-link. (Look out for new socks in this discussion.) The article has been repeatedly speedied and recreated. See the deletion log here: [23]. Yunshui eventually restored Sujit Meher, obviously with some misgivings, [24] on request from a new user, Celebtech. Yunshui's AGF seems frankly of the suicidal kind; consider also the dialogue here. Anyway, Yunshui has left the project, but he was a checkuser and has blocked most of the socks involved in this saga of (to my mind obvious) self-promotion: Fashiondiva2015 ( talk · contribs) and Quickjazz ( talk · contribs). A new sock showed up when I prodded Dreams Beyond Grades yesterday, user:Fashiongrade2016, who removed the prod, restored copyright material to Dreams Beyond Grades, and restored unsourced puffery to Sujit_Meher. Blocked as a sock by Floquenbeam. The story emerging is of SPAs (or to put it more bluntly, socks) determined to promote the person Sujit Meher at all costs, in Sujit Meher and in Dreams Beyond Grades, repeatedly removing speedy templates and prods, requesting undeletion and recreating Sujit Meher with new accounts. I think we should delete and salt all this unscrupolous self-promotion. Oh, the article? Well, it fails WP:NBIO and the sources are all promotional. Bishonen | talk 16:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC). Bishonen | talk 16:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
References
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 11:08, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
There is nothing to suggest that ice hockey is an established sport in Egypt, with no significant coverage to establish notability. Most of the sources here are Facebook posts by an amateur ice hockey club. The International Ice Hockey Federation does not recognise any ice hockey organising body in the country. Cordless Larry ( talk) 16:27, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 02:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Notability unclear. Laber□ T 15:49, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 11:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Google search does not offer any evidence of notability. Dyson's book is a reliable secondary source with moderate coverage of the subject, but it is apparently the only one, and none of the secondary criteria of WP:PERSON seem to be met. — swpb T 13:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Very little discussion, but the one "keep" opinion makes no argument based in guidelines or practice, i.e., about the level of coverage in reliable source the topic has received. Sandstein 21:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Non-notable website which fails to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. There are ~3 secondary sources used in the article, but one of them is a press release written by someone connected to the company. The others are quick reviews of the website, mostly because Google Reader closed. There has been no other coverage since. Elaenia ( talk) 05:12, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
While Feedspot may not be particularly notorious, and seems to get lots of bad grades for their specific marketing practices, it does get used and talked about. There are probably a lot of pages on Wikipedia that are less useful. It could use a little info on number of users, frequency of update, and pros and cons of its particular methodology. If its actual entry is removed, it should probably (at least) point to a general page on comparing newsreaders for people who are trying to find out information about it as I did when I came to Wikipedia today. Kentpollard ( talk) 16:44, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 11:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
This article is about a small arena in Michigan. It does not cite any sources, include any historical background, or seem to have any significance. The information here is likely based on the arena's own website, which is included in the external links. Amccann421 ( talk) 04:59, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 11:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Does not appear to meet the guideline for companies. A Google search turned up a handful of articles, but all were either passing mentions, or from the Winnipeg Free Press. No indication that this company has gotten any in-depth coverage outside of Winnipeg. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 03:33, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 11:01, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Questionable notability-I had this as a blp prod but looking around can't find much about anything. Wgolf ( talk) 03:11, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. ( WP:NPASR). North America 1000 11:11, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Non-notable documentary with no justification of importance ViperSnake151 Talk 01:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. czar 20:52, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Not notable. The article does not have sufficient sources to support its notability. AdrianGamer ( talk) 12:06, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 10:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Unsourced original research. Previously prodded and deprodded by Ehird in April 2012. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 16:33, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Mention may be made in another article independently. Sandstein 09:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
May not meet notability. Greek Legend ( talk) 10:11, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. joe decker talk 15:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Sadly no evidence of notability. Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. Sources provided and the one I found through WP:BEFORE are unreliable. The reliable ones I found are passing mention. Wikic¤l¤gy t@lk to M£ 07:05, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Spiritual 11:16, 18 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victhur69 ( talk • contribs)
Maihe101 ( talk) 01:40, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Cleverman. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 10:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Koen West (these afd's should be merged together btw) Wgolf ( talk) 05:36, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Cleverman. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 10:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Koen West (these afd's should be merged together btw) Wgolf ( talk) 05:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Cleverman. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 10:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Koen West (these afd's should be merged together btw) Wgolf ( talk) 05:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Cleverman. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 10:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Koen West (these afd's should be merged together btw) Wgolf ( talk) 05:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Cleverman. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 10:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Koen West (these afd's should be merged together btw) Wgolf ( talk) 05:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 10:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Very promotional, so much so I don't know it can be saved. Usterday ( talk) 00:59, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Someone deprodded, so here I am. Term is not notable. It was coined by non-notable author in a non-notable book. The only citations on the article are the book itself; there are no secondary/reliable sources. Searching google for more references only turned up tiny blogs and an Urban Dictionary entry -- not enough to establish notability. IagoQnsi ( talk) 01:08, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 21:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
No coverage about him whatsoever. Fails all relevant guidelines. Article is a PR piece. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 15:19, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 21:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:PEOPLE. I see nothing notable about this person. Sources only mention him being fired, a non-notable event. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 20:11, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. North America 1000 09:53, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Fails NMUSIC and ORG John from Idegon ( talk) 00:11, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 09:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
These series characters, as a set, are not independently notable from the main series, as shown through their lack of significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. ( ?) A merge or redirect to the parent article's character section should suffice. The parent article is a GA and sufficiently covers the characters. czar 14:18, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. And rename to "... primaries". Sandstein 09:08, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
As the first sentence of these five articles clearly states, unlike the 50 U.S. states plus Washington D.C. (see previous AfD), these territories will not participate in the presidential election, so the mere existence of these articles is slightly misleading. While the major parties hold primary contests in these territories, they do so at their own discretion, similarly to the Democrats Abroad primary, 2016. So while the major parties' individual primaries and caucuses are valid topics, these ones IMHO aren't. PanchoS ( talk) 11:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 10:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:GNG. Sole reference only identifies subject as someone who made a legal filing, and does nothing to establish his notability. Article is basically a resume. ubiquity ( talk) 09:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 21:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
An extraordinary WP:POVFORK. Violates every letter of WP:NOTESSAY, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTSOAPBOX. On a sidenote, I think we should be able to speedily delete these sort of essays rather than allow people to have a seven day soapbox AusLondonder ( talk) 08:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 21:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Promotional article with no evidence of notability. Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. This seem like a WP:RESUME. I think it's necessary to remind the article creator that Wikipedia is not a place to publish their resume. Wikic¤l¤gy t@lk to M£ 07:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. No chance of, or reason for, being deleted. Geschichte ( talk) 18:25, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
this article is very short wiki tamil 100 07:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 21:42, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Has only one vague mention in a news website and the article was not about him. This is like an advertisement article. Greek Legend ( talk) 05:47, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 21:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. ( ?) No worthwhile redirect targets. czar 05:39, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
This page was created & edited by a few linked accounts (including one that was the subject of the article) without ever establishing WP:Notability or declaring WP:COI despite clear bias, and the content remains strictly in violation of WP:Promo JamesG5 ( talk) 05:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 10:55, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Promotional and refbombed BLP lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. ( ?) Loaded with primary source and non-independent refs but nothing reliable and in-depth about the individual. I don't think a redirect to any one work would be worthwhile but open to suggestions. czar 04:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was Delete and...(The preceding comment added by Lourdes to resolve breaking of the Afd script)) moved back to a userspace draft, User:Gillianhai/sandbox. This appears to be a class project ( Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/University of British Columbia/FNH 200 102 (Term 2)) and the instructor is guiding the students, so it is best to keep the text as a draft rather than deleting outright. @ JudyCChan:, I suggest that you have your students improve existing articles, such as miso, instead of creating new articles on existing topics. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 12:08, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Strongly may not meet MOS, this should be declined if it is a draft. This seems terrible. 333 -blue 04:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 10:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
There are no other Wikipedia articles about subjects simply called "Digon". There are mostly partial title matches on this disambiguation page, which was previously deprodded by Boleyn with this edit. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 04:29, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Keep It is irrelevant whether there are other articles, but whether there are other valid entries, perhaps per MOS:DABMENTION. In this case, there are no partial matches (unless the valley could never be called simply 'Digon' and then that would be a partial match). This is a dab and surname page is one, and is structured appropriately as such per MOS:DABNAME: For short lists of name holders, new sections of Persons with the surname Xxxx or Persons with the given name Xxxx can be added below the main disambiguation list. It has a sufficient number of entries. Boleyn ( talk) 06:49, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Trees for Cities. Content may be merged from history to the extent that editorial consensus allows. Sandstein 21:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
trivial event, local references and notices only seem to be available DGG ( talk ) 06:15, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 10:54, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. I can't find any evidence of notability. While "founder of the first Nigerian Muslim high-fashion Magazine, Hayati" is a credible claim of significance, its not an evidence of notability] Wikic¤l¤gy t@lk to M£ 11:45, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete-- Ymblanter ( talk) 06:33, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Completely non-notable writer. The news search results are about foreman, sportsperson and broker with the same name. There is no news about this writer. Greek Legend ( talk) 02:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was Closing as Speedy Keep per WP:SK1 and WP:SNOW. The article is a mess but the subject is unquestionably notable. ( non-admin closure)- Ad Orientem ( talk) 14:32, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
WP:FANCRUFT. jps ( talk) 01:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 01:44, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Subject fails WP:GNG. While the article does make some claims towards asserting notability, it is entirely unreferenced. A google search and a google book search have yielded no sources where James Bourque is the primary subject. 4meter4 ( talk) 01:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 21:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Doubtful notability for this drinking game. Tagged for notability since May of 2014. A previous version of article was deleted at AfD, but due to the passage of time, CSD G4 is inappropriate. Article has been PROD'ed and declined recently. My opinion is this falls short of satisfying WP:GNG. Safiel ( talk) 00:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete, unreferenced BLP-- Ymblanter ( talk) 06:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Article should be deleted as per WP:TNT. Ethanlu121 ( talk) 00:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. North America 1000 09:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Article appears to be an essay. Ethanlu121 ( talk) 00:36, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete, no prejudice against recreation after reliable sources have been found-- Ymblanter ( talk) 06:23, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Article does not meet general notability guideline. Ethanlu121 ( talk) 00:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete. Even the original Arabic Wiki page (which this article is translated from) would fall short of establishing sufficient notability. Tpdwkouaa ( talk) 01:07, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedily deleted by 78.26 per WP:A7. (non-admin closure) — Nizolan (talk) 05:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Non-notable person. Ethanlu121 ( talk) 00:22, 23 March 2016 (UTC)