![]() |
The result was keep. Joyous! | Talk 04:31, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
fails WP:SOLDIER Reza Amper ( talk) 00:39, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 06:47, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't believe that Mr. Dedering qualifies for inclusion under WP:POLITICIAN. The article doesn't meet WP:GNG because all of the references cited either doesn't involve the subject directly or mentioned Mr. Dedering in passing along with other political candidates. Dolotta ( talk) 23:25, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 13:28, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
It has been suggested at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_November_11#Polish mythology redirects that:
The (moreover, messy and unsourced) article "Polish mythology" should be deleted, or at least radically changed/written anew. There is not such a thing like "Polish mythology". This notion may be used metaphorically, or in some (for example, neopagan) circles, but it is not a real scientific term. The current article "Polish mythology" is a stange mix of the (real, but porly known) Slavic mythology, medieval legends, folk customs and believes, and espescially medieval and modern forgeries. Henryk Tannhäuser ( talk) 03:54, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Taken to AfD by me, Si Trew ( talk) 23:16, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:43, 15 November 2016 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:43, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedily deleted by User:Orangemike under criterion G11. (Non-admin closure) " Pepper" @ 01:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
The PROD tag was removed by the author who unfortunately left no explanation. In any case, I stand by my PROD-rationale: this is an opinion piece but Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Pichpich ( talk) 23:09, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 06:47, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Insufficient evidence of notability. Nearly a speedy deletion candidate under WP:A7, but "In 2013, it was rated by Sunday times as the fastest growing small business." does constitute a credible claim of significance. However, it's not a sufficient indicator of notability by itself, and it also lacks a source (the reference attached to that statement is unrelated). Besides that, there's nothing on the page to indicate notability. IagoQnsi ( talk) 22:47, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. North America 1000 01:32, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Seems more like a CV than a Wikipedia article. I don't really see anything sufficient to establish notability -- the closest thing is that she's had a lot of gallery exhibitions and "2016 City of Miami Artist Recognition by Mayor Thomas Regalado". Besides lacking sources, neither of those claims seems sufficient for GNG. IagoQnsi ( talk) 21:52, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 15:41, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Removed prod, the article fails WP:RLN and WP:GNG Mattlore ( talk) 21:49, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 15:40, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Topic not notable. There is barely any information on the series, which is ten years old, and only one (OK) reference. Cindlevet ( talk) 21:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Consensus is that the subject does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards at this time. North America 1000 01:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Fails WP:NMUSIC/ WP:BASIC - all sources are WP:PRIMARY, no chart placings or major label signings. McGeddon ( talk) 21:02, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Joyous! | Talk 04:33, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Still a blatant advertisement since my extensive and specific PROD here since the listed sources are all simply publishing PR or republishing it, take the Forbes for example, it is literally from a "special contributor" who is a apparently some random journalist, likely hired or enticed by the company to publish their own advertising; the Fortune itself is simply part of a list of new minor companies to work with, and the others are equally blatant PR; my own searches had in fact found PR, and that's not surprising since that's exactly what both the article contents and history show in that this has literally not changed since the first user's contributions, Mxheil (which seems to have been a clever advertising-only account and I would even speculate it was a paid advertising account, the fact it's one major contribution was this one advertisement). Something else to note about this article is not only the blatancy of using PR and advertising puff here, but once again, my repeated searches are still only finding local PR advertising and PR words published or republished by the businesspeople or company themselves.
We never and never shall make compromises with such advertising blatancy wherever the information may be published, because one thing is certain, and that's that the information, even in the major news, are simply PR and republished PR, including by damningly blatant "special contributor". SwisterTwister talk 18:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
"The company wants its clients to know it's a welcoming workplace and offers its clients the best services", "The company said today", "The company's businesspeople", "The company's finances are", "My company Ruby Receptions", "Today, the businesspeople from Ruby Receptions said", "Ruby Receptionist's services include", "Ruby Receptionists is good for its clients", "Ruby Receptionists's new offices today", "Ruby Receptionists offers its employees beneficial pay", "Ruby Receptionists announces here today", "Ruby Receptionists' employees include", "Ruby Receptionists' CEO says", "Ruby Receptionists has a perky office vibe and happy workforce,, etc. None of that was actual journalism, instead costumed advertising acting as "News". When all those pages have this, it shows there's no genuine news there, since it's everything company-published. SwisterTwister talk 03:05, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Nosler. And merge whatever may be considered appropriate from history. Sandstein 13:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Methinks we should merge and redirect to Nosler. See WP:PRODUCT, in particular the "explosive space modulator" example. Tigraan Click here to contact me 15:53, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 06:47, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Delete. Article about a fairly run of the mill arterial road in a city, whose strongest real claim of notability is "has a shopping mall located on it". This was created in 2006, a time when there was still some support for the view that Wikipedia should have an article about every major street in every city -- but consensus now is that a road should only have an article if reliable sources discuss its historical, political or social context rather than just its physical characteristics. But three of the four sources shown here are just discussing non-notable people or organizations that used to have Greenbank Road as their address, and the only other source is a deadlink of a construction company's report on a road construction project. This is not the kind of sourcing that it takes to make a road a suitable topic for an encyclopedia article. Bearcat ( talk) 19:57, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. North America 1000 02:01, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
I believe that this is thinly disguised spam. The list is basically a bunch of links to the manufacturer's website with no encyclopedic content. Pichpich ( talk) 19:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 06:48, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't believe this person is notable--the claim to fame is a Radiohead remix, but the only reliable sources I can find that attest to this and thus lend the subject notability are this one review (which I suppose we are to think of as "professional"--OK, maybe) and incidental mentions like this one. Drmies ( talk) 19:10, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Consensus is that there is not enough quality sourcing for this to be a distinct article topic. Sandstein 17:21, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Egregious violation of WP:NPOV with poor sourcing, weasel words and astonishing statements in Wikipedia's voice like "Some individuals simply did not like Clinton for a variety of reasons including her being a conservative in liberal clothing." If anything useful can be salvaged from this monstrosity, perhaps it could be folded into Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016. Scjessey ( talk) 17:17, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Hilltrot ( talk) 19:43, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
They are:
I just found:
Every presidential election in US has a lot of people with mindset "Never this candidate", which always receives some coverage.
notable and unique
Actually thanks to EM Gregory there is a lot more information. All you have to do is look up anti-Clinton, anti-hillary, Dump Clinton, dump hillary, Never clinton, never hillary, Stop clinton, and stop hillary. There is a ton of information about that. BlackAmerican ( talk) 15:46, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
(talk) (cont) 10:55, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Totally different and s till exists. BlackAmerican ( talk) 19:09, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
The Super Pacs is redundant? It isn't covered anywhere. BlackAmerican ( talk) 19:09, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 06:48, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
non notable actor--only minor roles. DGG ( talk ) 16:44, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. Consensus s that simply saying "keep per SCHOOLOUTCOMES" isn't enough and that editors are now expected to find a source for schools (that confirms its existence) otherwise they get deleted, In this case a source has been provided which obviously confirms the schools existence so closing as Keep ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 00:12, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't see any coverage by third-party sources and believe that this particular school does not meet the basic notability requirement. Pichpich ( talk) 16:21, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. All populated, legally recognized places are kept per WP:GEOLAND. ( non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 02:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Dreamland Villa is a neighborhood/subdivison within Mesa, Arizona. It has about 350 homes and not notable. This subdivision is one of many thousands in Arizona alone and completely fails WP:GNG. MB 16:13, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Farnsworth...began his company...in the late 1950s....Youngtown had just started up, and we thought it would be a good thing to put something like that out here because this is the prettier end of the Valley. That led to the launch of Dreamland Villa, which in 15 years ballooned to 3,000 homes at University Drive and Recker Road. Sunland Villa, Sunland Village and Sunland Springs Village, all in Mesa, eventually joined his inventory. Farnsworth was actually about a year ahead of Del Webb, who gets most of the national credit for launching the postwar surge in retirement communities. Dreamland Villa opened in 1959, but by late that year, Webb was making headlines with his Sun City development, which was to open on Jan. 1, 1960. “When we first heard Del Webb’s plans, we thought we were ruined,” Farnsworth told The Republic in 1995. “Del Webb started doing all of this national advertising that was bringing lots of people in to look at the development.” Farnsworth countered with a billboard on Grand Avenue, between Phoenix and Sun City, drawing customers to his own development in Mesa. |
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 06:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
There is no reason to think that this novel will be notable. It hasn't even been published. DGG ( talk ) 16:12, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 15:39, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
One of three unsourced invention articles by this author. No credible assertion that the subject actually exists. Appears to be an SEO play to direct searches to this guy's website (infraredmarkedcards/invisibleinkmarkedcards .com). See also: Poker analyzer and Infrared contact lenses. I AfD'd this one instead of speedying it because I think these might exist, just not in the way described. Jergling ( talk) 15:49, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 06:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Six years without references! (Carlos Emanuel) ( talk) 15:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Delete per lack of independent reliable secondary sources. Bilhauano ( talk) 21:55, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 08:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
No evidence of meeting WP:GNG or WP:PRODUCT. PROD contested by IP with no comment. RA0808 talk contribs 14:45, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Kogan Page Publishers. ( non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 18:46, 22 November 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. This was AfD before, and closed as no consensus, through we had 4 delete votes to 1 keep and 1 weak keep. The article hasn't improved since. While I am open to discussion on whether perhaps all book publishers are notable, thee is no exception for them currently at NCOMPANY or at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes. I'll ping User:DGG who made the most convincing argument for keeping this last time, as well as all other participants of the last AfD: User:Oo7565 , User:Schuym1, User:SteveLoughran , User:ChildofMidnight, User:LeaveSleaves. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:07, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was Speedy Deleted per CSD G5 RickinBaltimore ( talk) 15:55, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Created by known SP. Non notable firm with history about purchases of locomotives but nothing notable. Nordic Nightfury 07:20, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 16:48, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Non-notable actor, no significant sourcing, very few roles to his name. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 07:18, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 12:23, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
No explanation what this music in fact is. Only source is a commercial link, but none of the 7 articles I have checked point to this music style. Possibly just a sorting music style, not a real one The Banner talk 14:30, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 06:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Previously AfD snow deleted, but not identical (same book, different text in article). CreateSpace self-published novel with no indication of notability, and currently Amazon don't know when or if it will be available again. Peridon ( talk) 12:51, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 08:45, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Unremarkable... hike? KDS4444 ( talk) 12:05, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was Keep as SNOW, considering it's a few days before, but the consensus is clear, and there's nothing else suggesting there are in fact concerns for WP:PROF (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 07:37, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
My principal concern is that she appears to have received a series of non-notable awards, and therefore does not qualify for WP:ACADEMIC. The article certainly implies her importance, but the references, as given, do not support the actual claim of notability. KDS4444 ( talk) 11:57, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 06:50, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Non-notable short story. Refs consist mostly of citations to a primary source (Sondergrad). Significant discussion in secondary sources appears to be lacking. KDS4444 ( talk) 11:42, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 00:13, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Unremarkable person. Speedy was declined, but no sources provided. I wasn't able to find any reliable sources by myself. Arthistorian1977 ( talk) 09:53, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. Mostly a procedural keep. There is consensus that at least some of these are notable and they should not be bulk nominated. No prejudice against individual re-nominations. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 08:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi! I am Pual98 and I am new to Wikipedia, so please feel free to correct me on my information. However, I have done a LOT of research on policies and believe I am right in my group proposal for deletion of the following libraries.
The grounds for deletion is primarily a failure to meet the standards of WP:CORP. None of these articles meet the standards of notability. As a context, the author of these articles, Winterstar74, has openly admitted the creation of these articles as a conflict of interest on Usertalk:Elkman/Archive12 where he says “I have been tasked to do in my position at SELCO (Southeastern Libraries Cooperating).” While I understand that COI is not a grounds for deletion, this makes it clear that the authors only goal (by the way this is not an active user) was to create a page for each SELCO library that only included a link to the website and the hours of the library. The libraries listed are not notable. On a side note, this is not a deletion of every library the author created. Those libraries that were significant have since then been updated into fuller articles or redirected to the main article (because the author did not think to look to see if the libraries already had pages). There are eight libraries that have nothing wrong with them.
Although this meets grounds for speedy deletion, many of these articles have failed speedy deletion. The reason being for some was the issue not being properly addressed in the speedy deletion and for others because the administrator who reviewed them making what I believe is a false connection. For example, in Albert Lea Public Library’s speedy deletion process, SarekOfVulcan denied it because “odds are, a public library is notable enough.” This rationale is completely off. The WP:CORP clearly says “No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is, including schools.” I do believe SarekOfVulcan was acting in good faith, however the fact of the matter remains, just because these are libraries does not make them inherently notable.
What was a little worse than this is the same SarekOfVulcan saying “decline speedy - I would presume a public library to be notable in the absense of evidence otherwise” in the speedy deletion of LeRoy Public Library. Are you telling me that libraries are notable unless there is evidence saying, “no, this library was not a notable library.” Where are you going to find a source like that? It’s not “notable unless proven otherwise”—it has to be proven notable.
Overall, I would say the best solution would be the deletion of these articles and the creation of an articles for SELCO as the overarching backbone of all of these articles. I wouldn’t be surprises if I missed a library or two in the creation of this AfD, so please notify me if you find one that fits in this category. On the other side, I would not be surprised if one or two of these libraries can be proven to be notable, so in the case of this, please notify me which one is notable and I will remove it. Pual98 ( talk) 08:57, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 06:50, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
fails WP:GNG. Yet another small shopping centre in Australia. 11,000 square metres is tiny by any standard. LibStar ( talk) 08:48, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 12:21, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
no apparent evidence for notability, just for existence DGG ( talk ) 08:26, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was redirect to International Data Group#IDG Global Brands. ( non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 18:48, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
I prodded it with the following rationale: "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. " It was deprodded by User:DGG with the following rationale "well known trade journal, there should be no difficulty showing notability". 2 years down the road, nobody has added any new sources, and I don't see anything that would help support's DGG position. I am afraid that we need to cite sources that call this an important, well known publication, our own views are not sufficient. And all the article has so far are WP:PRIMARY sources, and claims of numerous awards, out of which the only ref is not for being a winner, but just one of 10 finalists for [30] - non-notable awards from American Society of Business Publication Editors, an organization of dubious notability itself. I am afraid this will need a much better rationale for keeping, DGG. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:13, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 07:27, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
This seems like a niche portal. Interesting - I am a reader of TechDirt myself - but sadly, it does not seem to be notable, failing WP:NCORP and WP:NWEB and WP:NMEDIA. Except primary sources, the best it has is the minor coverage from similar niche portals, Network World [31] and Digital Trends ( [32]), and that coverage is related to one lawsuit (so, WP:ONEVENT logic applies). If anyone can suggest good reasons to save it, I'd love to hear them, but as much as many Wikipedians, including myself, like those kind of portals, they still have to meet our policies. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:06, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 06:50, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai ( talk) 07:21, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 06:51, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai ( talk) 07:13, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
He plays in a top professional league (Swiss NLA) and enough sources/references have been added. In my opinion there is no reason to delete this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zamekrizeni ( talk • contribs)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 06:51, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai ( talk) 07:04, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 17:16, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Non notable enough and I don't think we need to have article for the countries by HDI listing for each year. Nickrds09 (Talk to me) 06:37, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Pendragon_(band). Don't see anything useful to merge. ( non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 17:17, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
I prodded it with the following rationale: "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 (biographies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Jvvtheater ( WP:SPA, creator) with no rationale (despite the fact that I explicitly asked for one in the PROD). Few months later, the article has not been improved in any way that would make me think the subject is notable. Thoughts? The best I can think of is a redirect to the band article ( Pendragon (band)). PS. Also pinging User:Paste who prodded the article before I did. PPS. [33] by GMA News and Public Affairs is the only source about him, and I don't think one source is sufficient for aforementioned policies, which usually require multiple coverage. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:39, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I have found these 2 links, one from IMDB and one from Philippine Star newspaper article about the performance at the London 2012 Olympics Opening Ceremony. [1] [2]
I apologise but I'm very new to Wikipedia so I appreciate all the help I can get. Many thanks Jvvtheater ( talk) 08:44, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 15:39, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
This was prodded in 2008 by User:Craw-daddy on the grounds of failing WP:GNG, and deprodded by creator who argued WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. Sadly, I don't see any sources for this, and as fascinating as this may be on many levels, we need sources to prove among others that this is not a WP:HOAX, and then that the game is notable. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was redirect to various Cruelties. MBisanz talk 16:48, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Non-notable British songwriter. Sources in the article are not reliable. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk, contribs) 23:08, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 06:51, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
This music biography was previously deleted on August 18, 2015. The user who restarted it is a user who registered an account one week later. There are no references to establish notability, and per WP:BEFORE I have been unable to find any reliable sources describing his career to satisfy WP:MUSICBIO. Unfortunately, the news accounts of Yung Gleesh are about his skirmish with the law. He was accused of rape [34] and then charged and arrested in March 2015. [35] In September 2015 he described how the charges messed up his career. [36] However, he was not convicted and so he is not deserving of a biography as a criminal. I just don't think there's enough music stuff here to host a rapper article, and not enough to host a criminal article. Binksternet ( talk) 23:07, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 06:51, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Mr. Suscha's major source of notability was his 12 years as mayor of Sheboygan, Wisconsin (2010 population: 49,288) which, by my extremely humble opinion, does not warrant an ex officio article under WP:POLITICIAN. Dolotta ( talk) 23:26, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Attack Vector: Tactical. North America 1000 02:10, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
This company appears to be defunct and there is another company that uses the same name so be careful when you search. My search was unable to locate anything for this company that satisfies WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. CNMall41 ( talk) 05:13, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 16:48, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline." It was deprodded by User:DGG with the following rationale "Given the famous originator, this needs a source in published sources about Kaufman". I am frankly a bit confused by that, as this does not read like a deprodding rationale, merely a criticism of inadequae sources. I don't see a single mention of this in Google Books. At most this could be redirected and merged to the creator's biography, but it doesn't look likely that it can be kept as a game of stand-alone notability. Thoughts? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:09, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was moved to Draft:Pascal Stil. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 15:50, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
No indication that this person satisfies WP:GNG. There are various sources cited, but none of them seem to provide the significant coverage in independent reliable sources which is generally needed to establish Wikipedia notability for a stand-alone article. The primary claim of notability appears to be that Still was the first player to represent Ireland in international draughts, but I have been unable to find any coverage at all of this in any Irish newspaper. The same editor who created this article also created and 2012 European championships of international draughts and 2014 European championships international draughts around the same time, and Stil is listed as finishing 64th and 75th respectively in those tournaments. Even if the tournaments themselves are notable per WP:NEVENT, finishing so low would not be any indication of notability in and of itself. I've tried to find better sources for the article and have asked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland/Archive 17#Pascal Stil. I've also tried discussing things with the article's creator on Talk:Pascal Stil#Notability, but no better sources have been provided and the only comment from anyone else was that "he [Stil] looks notable". The notability issue was also discussed at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 525#Notability issue and the same concerns were pointed out by others. Maybe this is just a case of WP:TOOSOON and the article can be redirected to one of the two tournament articles. Otherwise, I think is should be deleted for a lack of notability. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 07:06, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete and redirect to Supernumerary (disambiguation). The rough consensus here was that the article fails NOTDICTIONARY. I have redirected to the existing disambiguation page Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:28, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Fails the general notability guideline as well as Wikipedia is not a dictionary – article is essentially a dictionary definition followed by numerous examples that lack a unifying context and are only related semantically. Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 07:31, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was Delete with no prejudice against anyone creating a redirect at this title. Hut 8.5 20:56, 22 November 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. The company was mentioned in two reliable sources, but in the context of discussing its founder, who may have a bigger claim to notability; the company's coverage was pretty much in passing. I looked for other sources but except few more mentions in passing (ex. a sentence in
[40]) I don't see much. I don't think such mentions are enough to make this pass cited notability policies.
WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES, and
WP:CORPSPAM. Thoughts?
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here
03:58, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 21:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
No notability. A local league with zero coverage. Abbottonian ( talk) 17:13, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
This competition is very popular and important to the Hunter region. I suggest you view the 2016 Grand Final, Shortland v Windale on you tube, which was broadcasted by BarTV. You will see that there is a large crowd and that the coverage itself gives the competition notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eladnara ( talk • contribs) 23:12, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 09:02, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
PRODed by @ Some Gadget Geek: and endorsed by me. Non-notable self-published book that appears to have been created by an account with some link to the author. Fails WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG TonyBallioni ( talk) 03:57, 14 November 2016 (UTC)'
The reasons are: 1. This book is new, but highly valuable to humanity. Most fellow humans have problem improve themselves intellectually and spiritually on their own because they are not conscious of The Human Intelligence System and the human intellectual process, "Complete and Successful Intellectual Process(CSIP)". The author is hoping humanity will bring "The Human Intelligence System" and "Complete and Successful Intellectual Process" to conscious level sooner than later. 2. Up to now, humanity is only semi-conscious of The Human Intelligence System and the human intellectual process, "Complete and Successful Intellectual Process". For examples, in Buddhism guide, Sandhinirmocana Sutra, the author described the 9th intellectual and spiritual stage is "liberating one's mind from (words) / (linguistic expressions)". On page 108 of The Power of Now, Eckhart Tolle asked his book readers to "look beyond the words". On the first page of How to win Friends & Influence People, Dale Carnegie provided a page of instructions to tell his reader to look beyond words . In section "Inside-Out" of The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, Stephen R. Covey attempted to ask his reader to look beyond words. Of these famous authors and many more self-help book authors, they used "Complete and Successful Intellectual Process(CSIP)" unconsciously or semi-consciously. Hence, they know that to develop the intellectual capabilities they found valuable, a person needs to "look beyond words". However, none of the authors explained how to do it consciously. The capability to "look beyond words" to develop intellectual capability on one's own is to "CSIP at level of interconnectedness, mental object, and physicon", as explained in the book "Universal Intellectual and Spiritual Guide". To speed up the intellectual and spiritual advancement on individual level and humanity as a whole, The Human Intelligence System and "Complete and Successful Intellectual Process" to conscious level. "Universal Intellectual and Spiritual Guide" is created to accomplish this goal. Once a person masters CSIP, the person can consciously gain the full value of all books that is ever written. I sincerely ask you to let this article to stay.
The result was delete. SOFTDELETE per no participation herein other than from the nominator. North America 1000 02:13, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Fails WP:BLP. No reliable source to verify notability. Abbottonian ( talk) 16:37, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 16:48, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Fails WP:BASIC with no in-depth secondary sources, just WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs of Jani in lists of castmembers, or "John Smith at Big Company said" style quotations. Article appears to fail the "significant roles in multiple notable films" criteria of WP:NACTOR as of the three bluelink films listed, two are flagged as "may not meet notability" with a weak single source and the other is currently at AfD.
Blocked sockmaster User:Nouman khan sherani has a history of creating articles about non-notable films and adding them to Jahangir Khan Jani's filmography: most have since been deleted. McGeddon ( talk) 12:12, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 12:27, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
No independent significance.
Abbottonian (
talk)
16:54, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
~
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 07:21, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Pure promotion, just a litany of features and some promotional links instead of any independent sources. W Nowicki ( talk) 17:38, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
This deletion is not justified. The page describes features of the product without any promotion. Chiz ( talk) 18:05, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was redirect to University of Jaffna. What if any material to merge over is up to editorial decision. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 06:52, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Individual faculties are rarely notable. This article has no independent sources, is mostly unreferenced, and full of promotional stuff like "We have the Internship Training for our Accountancy and Finance specialization students in their fourth year. They are going for ... Actually it is a very great opportunity for them, to compete in the job market and grasping the job opportunities." WP:DUCK quacks "spam". Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:42, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 06:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
WP:BIO notability not met. Some of his cases were notable but notability is not inherited. The article bears signs of puffery (e.g. questionable awards from nn publications and their press releases) and was created by a now blocked editor. There are no substantial biographical details provided such as year/place of birth. Many of the sources are primary court records and have no bearing on subject's notability. The article's creator was blocked for advertising; see DGG's comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larry E. Coben for another of his nn attorney bio creations which had very similar problems with article formulation. Brianhe ( talk) 18:34, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 06:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Delete. Article that was deleted earlier this year per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Keniston, then recreated as a redirect to his party, but was then revived as a standalone WP:BLP in August (but is different enough this time that G4 speedy is not suitable.) The subject is still a minor party candidate for president, which is not an automatic inclusion freebie in the absence of a demonstrable WP:GNG pass, but the sourcing still isn't appreciably stronger than it was the first time: of the eight sources being cited here, two are primary ones (his own campaign website and a press release from the party); three are glancing namechecks of his existence in "all of your third party options" overview articles rather than substantive coverage about him; one is a "local man runs for president" article in local media serving the town where he lives; one is a Q&A-style interview with him (which is not a class of sourcing that can assist GNG, as it represents the subject talking about himself rather than third parties talking or writing about him); and the one reference left that's independent and non-local and appears to have been substantively about him is an unverifiable deadlink. No prejudice against recreating or restoring a redirect to the party afterward, but the quality of sourcing here still is not good enough to earn him a standalone BLP just for being a minor candidate who has no actual chance of winning the presidency. Bearcat ( talk) 17:09, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 06:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
This article does not establish notability. TTN ( talk) 14:37, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 06:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Fails WP:NFILM. The article was previously prodded by Comatmebro and deprodded by its creator Tolly4bolly on 10 May 2012. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk, contribs) 23:35, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 17:17, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn ( talk) 03:07, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 07:19, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
For many years, it was a redirect. Then, in 2009, a standalone article was created. It was AfDed, with the nomination quickly withdrawn. Subsequently, there was consensus at the talk page to merge the content to Alois Hitler, since the very existence of the individual is doubtful. A couple of days ago it was recreated by a user in good standing. However, I still do not see how we need a standalone article, and we should have once a proper AfD discussion. Ymblanter ( talk) 07:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Redirect to something akin de:Frankenberger-These Agathoclea ( talk) 13:16, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETEish given the low input. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 06:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
fails GNG CerealKillerYum ( talk) 08:16, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Pinoy Big Brother: Lucky 7. Implemented by author during the AfD. ( non-admin closure) ansh 666 07:18, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Known for just being a contestant of a reality game show. May not meet WP:BIO. WP:TOO SOON and WP:BIO1E also apply here. Hitro talk 20:22, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 06:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Aside from the first sentence, everything is copied/pasted verbatim from the article Chu Tien-hsin, who cannot possibly be the same person. Every single reference is about Chu Tien-hsin (also romanized as Zhu Tianxin). This writer, "Lee Pak Hang", does seem to exist, but it's unclear to me how notable he is. Page is orphaned. Timmyshin ( talk) 23:30, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETEish given the low input. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 06:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Unsourced biography. Unable to establish notability. Unable to deorphan. ~ Kvng ( talk) 22:31, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. I'm closing this as delete, but treating it as a prod. There was only one !vote, and it appears to mainly go towards Anyoption. There have been 2 relists, and the last one didn't garner any additional participation. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:20, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Fails WP:CORP notability. This article was created by a promotional editor (now blocked) with absurdly weak sources, mostly Forex websites deemed non-reliable at RSN in a September 2016 thread.
I am also nominating the following related pages because they are part of a circle of Belize/Cyprus financial entity related promotion by several other socks (see September 2016 COIN thread), with identical sourcing issues plus vague assertions of awards from non-notable sources:
— Brianhe ( talk) 02:22, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 16:47, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Delete: as non-notable Chetnik. No article in Serbian Wikipedia, and Google Search turns up only mirror sites which all say the same thing: "Chetnik of the Macedonian Struggle" and "a member of the Serbian Chetnik Organization. His band ranged from 8 to 12." And that's about it. Quis separabit? 23:43, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. I was holding off withdrawing the nomination because of the relatively large number of delete !votes, but almost half of them have changed their opinions (as have I). The article has been significantly improved and I have no further objections. ( non-admin closure) Primefac ( talk) 03:38, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
This seems like a rather arbitrary cross-categorization, which falls under WP:NOT (in addition to having no references). Comets are not "fast" events, so I see no reason why we need to specifically narrow the country of viewing (e.g. everyone in the world saw Halley's Comet in 1986). Primefac ( talk) 04:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 06:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
I prodded it with the following rationale: "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 (biographies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:QatarStarsLeague (creator) with no rationale (despite the fact that I explicitly asked for one in the PROD). I have looked at the refs in article and on the web, and the while he is mentioned in media it is either in passing (ex. the Polish ref added [49] is misleading, it is not about him - it is about the bank ownership, and the subject is only mention briefly in the context that his job as the CEO is likely safe) or in the recurring context of being the most highly paid bank CEO in Poland, something that is discussed in passing in major newspapers, and a bit more in depth in tabloids. Note that there is no in-depth coverage, the only articles about him are few tabloid rants about "this Italian person works in the Polish bank and is earning a lot of $$$, yadda yadda". I don't think that this sufficient to be notable, and being a CEO of a medium bank is not enough to meet WP:BUSINESSPERSONOUTCOME. Lastly, pl wiki mentions he received an Italian government award, but it seems minor and not sufficient for notability. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:29, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 06:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
I had been open and honest with my concerns about this Draft to the user showing how the sources, even though about 4 news reviews, were still not enough because even the foreign sources such as Spanish in fact only consisted of interviewed quotes and other self-given information by the man himself, another thing was the fact there are no significant library holdings and he has merely published 3 books in the past few years, nothing is yet actually amounting to substance. Therefore I still confirm my my PROD here and examining this article finds nothing for genuine independent notability and substance aside from having attention for a few events, particularly the bull riding. SwisterTwister talk 05:51, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Bill Hillmann is notable. The Chicago Tribune named him a Remarkable Person in 2011. Hillmann's notability falls into three different categories.
1. His Books and writing: I just added yet another review of The Old Neighborhood done by Barbra Hoffert of Library Journal. Hoffert is one of the most important librarians in the country. The Old Neighborhood is collected by over a thousand libraries, there is a link provided to The Chicago Public Library the third biggest chain of libraries in the country. The Old Neighborhood was named best new book of 2014 by the Chicago Sun-Times a major news outlet. Coverage of Hillmann's second book Mozos appeared on several extensive National TV segments in Spain and the United States. Hillmann appeared on the cover of the Diario De Navarra a regional newspaper in Pamplona, Spain for an interview about his book. There is a pure review by a national outlet in Spain El Imparcial which is cited in the article. Hillmann was published in Spain by the biggest most prestigious publisher in all of Spain, Planeta. Hillmann's audio essay "Running With The Bulls" won a Great Lakes Regional Edward Murrow Award for Radio Excellence in 2010, it was a finalist for the National Edward Murrow Award. Hillmann received the Encierro Divulgation Award from the organization Eh Toro for his writing on the bull run in Cuellar Spain in 2012.
2. Expert Bull Runner
Hillmann has run with the bulls more than 300 times over more than a decade. Hillmann has been called an "Expert Bull Runner" by CNN International during a segment they did about Hillmann and his book Mozos. The LA Times called him "The Best Young American Runner". Hillmann appeared on the back cover of Diario De Navarra regional newspaper in Pamplona for a story about his experiences running 200 bull runs in one summer.
Hillmann was gored in 2014 and stories appeared in, The New York Times, The Guardian, The Australian, The Hindu, El Mundo Spain, CNN International, NBC Today, The Economic Times of India, and numerous other outlets. Hillmann has been a guest commentator for NBC Today, CBS This Morning, The Esquire Network, on the running of the bulls. Photos of Hillmann running with the bulls have been published around the world including in Life Magazine.
3. Storyteller and Windy City Story Slam creator and host. Hillmann created The Windy City Story Slam a show that was the first of it's kind in Chicago. The show recieved attention nationally in Salon and The Chicago Tribune, and internationally in The Guardian UK. The show attracted massive crowds in Chicago, Philadelphia, London and the Edinburgh Festival. Hillmann also created the first National Story Slam which took place on the main stage of the Chicago Tribune Printer's Row Book Fair and included storytellers representing storytelling series from 10 different cities across the USA. Hillmann won the Boulder Story Slam competition in Boulder Colorado. He has told Stories broadcast on National Public Radio three times for The Story, and Snapjudgment. Hillmann's told stories across the United States and in England, Mexico, Spain, and Scotland.
The notability of Hillmann is obvious. The logic that Hillmann hasn't published enough books is ludicrous many authors only publish one book and become very notable. There are 22 cites for this article from some of the biggest news outlets in the world. I'm worried this article is being targeted in an attempt to censor it due to political reasons, or potentially personal reasons. I have never found a more extensively cited article for an author. DanHamilton1998 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:12, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
The problem with your arguement is what you consider significant. The Chicago Tribune, Chicago Sun-Times, Publisher's Weekly, Library Journal, The Week Magazine, El Imparcial, have all reviewed the works. I'm sorry you feel those outlets are not significant. You are incorrect. They are all extremely significant. Not to mention, your idea's on an author being interviewed and quoted about their works by major outlets as being insignificant is also false. Where do you get these nonsensical ideas? An author interview means that a major outlet has deemed the book and author significant and notable. Your logic there is extremely weak and incorrect. I don't know where you draw your experience in the publishing world but it clearly is not a background in real publishing. What is your background? What makes you an expert on this subject? Your lines of logic are vague and weak and rely on your personal opinion which clearly has no merit. You continue to perpetrate this lie that the works in question are not collected in libraries. They are collected by over a thousand libraries, that is a fact. You are incorrect about there not being enough here to merit an article. There is more cited evidence for this article than any author article, I've been able to find. Swister Twister please step aside this is getting strange and feels personal. DanHamilton1998 ( talk) 22:52, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Ok,SwisterTwister. now you are outright lying, or not checking the links. You acknowledged El Imparcial was a review in our chatroom discussion now you are just contradicting yourself.
Anyone can follow this link and copy and paste this review into google translate and see that it is a review of the memoir Mozos.
Ok now, I took ten seconds to go to the website, she just used to argue that Bill Hillmann's books are not in libraries. I dropped the name Bill Hillmann in the search at WorldCat and the books popped up. So either she forgot the second n in Hillmann or she is just lying or potentially mentally ill and fixated on trying to block this article.
I'm sorry but Swister Twister has absolutely no touch with reality on how the publishing world works. You can not go to a news publication and tell them what to write, or make them publish words you've written about yourself. These are multi-million dollar award winning news outlets who give attention to whom ever they see worthy. These outlets contradict everything SwisterTwista has written. Is this what Wikipedia is? A place where a person who has no touch with reality, no expertise, can delete quality articles? What SwistaTwista is arguing is that a group of the biggest news outlets in the world conspired to allow Bill Hillmann to write things about himself and then they published them. Do you really think that is how journalism works? Please tell me a logical person will read this. Her argument is a conspiracy theory that more than 22 world renowned news outlets have allowed Bill Hillmann to write about himself then publish it in their outlets. Then her argument is that a website called "worldcat" says that Hillmann's books are not collected when The Chicago Public Library system consisting of more than 50 libraries and libraries across the country say otherwise. So who do you believe swistatwista and worldcat? Or the dozens of world renowned institutions Chicago Tribune, The Guardian (UK), Chicago Public Library, New York Times, Toronto Star, People Magazine, The Times of India, NBC Today, The Australian and dozens others that have given a tremendous amount of attention to Hillmann and his works? Those outlets say he is notable, twistasista says he is not. Who do you believe? DanHamilton1998 ( talk) 19:36, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
References
The result was no consensus. Poor participation. Renom if appropriate. ( non-admin closure) Nordic Nightfury 15:05, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
The "Chrysler Touring" is not shown as a model in the 1926 Chrysler brochure nor can I find evidence of any such model on the Internet. I note that the 1926 brochure lists the Chrysler 58 as being available in Royal Sedan, Crown Sedan, Touring & Roadster bodystyles, however the 58 was a four cylinder model, not a six. GTHO ( talk) 09:07, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 12:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
The sources seem to be links to lists and to the subject's own works. I do not see anything that looks like a reliable source and when I search on the name all I see are social media pages and the like. Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. Since the top search results are this article and social media the article is likely WP:PROMO. Jbh Talk 16:28, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
~
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 16:47, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Not notable; no evidence of notability, or even a credible claim. The refs simply prove it exists and has some traffic, but do nothing more, and are not reliable sources. JohnBlackburne words deeds 10:38, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. Consensus is for the article to be retained. Discussion about the article, such as concerns about original research and sourcing can continue on the talk page if desired. North America 1000 02:39, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
As the original author plain refuses to add the detailed sourcing as requested by two other editors (including me), it is clear that this article is WP:OR. See discussions on User talk:Rwbest (largely removed) and Talk:Worldwide energy supply. By and large, every excuse not to give the sources is used. The Banner talk 09:28, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 16:47, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
A long way off meeting the notability requirements for notability since I'm unable to find any substantial coverage in RS. (Created by undisclosed paid editors). SmartSE ( talk) 13:35, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. ( No prejudice against speedy renomination per no participation herein other than from the nominator.) North America 1000 02:41, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
I couldn 't establish that this is WP:NOTABLE. Boleyn ( talk) 18:00, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETEish given the low input. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 06:56, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG Kleuske ( talk) 11:43, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 15:41, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
This article fails to establish notability. Nothing in the article describes the character in real world detail, and the only non-primary sources are irrelevant fluff. TTN ( talk) 12:16, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 19:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Rather random list full of links to disambiguation pages. I have checked several articles that do not refer to any type of surveillance. Unsourced. In this state fails WP:LISTCOMPANY. The Banner talk 19:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Comment Would the Electronic Frontier Foundation count as a reliable source for this? I can't find the 'Who's Who' referred to on that page, but maybe Archive.org has a copy. Nev1 ( talk) 19:34, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 07:05, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
The channel lineup described in the page has been obsolete for at least two years. Nobody has stepped up to edit the page and bring it current. This information could easily be replaced with a hyperlink to the relevant live page on SiriusXM's site. Dkendr ( talk) 18:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 16:46, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
No sources of any kind or any indication of notability or significance. Zackmann08 ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 17:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. czar 19:31, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
No indication of notability or significance. No sources at all. Zackmann08 ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 17:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. North America 1000 02:45, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a place for promotion fails WP:NOTSOAPBOX Domdeparis ( talk) 17:39, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was merge to Ruth (band). ( non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 18:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Insufficient sources to confirm notability, and I cannot find more online. Allmusic lists just one album from 2004 which is not even mentioned in the article. – Fayenatic L ondon 09:05, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. ( No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation herein.) North America 1000 07:17, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
not notable - did not chart. few references. the page claims 2 different release dates. Kellymoat ( talk) 11:28, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
It actually charted at #4 on the US Heatseekers..... Aleccat ( talk) 02:19, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 12:29, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
No indication of passing WP:EVENT. No sources or any kind. Zackmann08 ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 01:17, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
The result was keep. Joyous! | Talk 04:31, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
fails WP:SOLDIER Reza Amper ( talk) 00:39, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 06:47, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't believe that Mr. Dedering qualifies for inclusion under WP:POLITICIAN. The article doesn't meet WP:GNG because all of the references cited either doesn't involve the subject directly or mentioned Mr. Dedering in passing along with other political candidates. Dolotta ( talk) 23:25, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 13:28, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
It has been suggested at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_November_11#Polish mythology redirects that:
The (moreover, messy and unsourced) article "Polish mythology" should be deleted, or at least radically changed/written anew. There is not such a thing like "Polish mythology". This notion may be used metaphorically, or in some (for example, neopagan) circles, but it is not a real scientific term. The current article "Polish mythology" is a stange mix of the (real, but porly known) Slavic mythology, medieval legends, folk customs and believes, and espescially medieval and modern forgeries. Henryk Tannhäuser ( talk) 03:54, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Taken to AfD by me, Si Trew ( talk) 23:16, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:43, 15 November 2016 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:43, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedily deleted by User:Orangemike under criterion G11. (Non-admin closure) " Pepper" @ 01:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
The PROD tag was removed by the author who unfortunately left no explanation. In any case, I stand by my PROD-rationale: this is an opinion piece but Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Pichpich ( talk) 23:09, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 06:47, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Insufficient evidence of notability. Nearly a speedy deletion candidate under WP:A7, but "In 2013, it was rated by Sunday times as the fastest growing small business." does constitute a credible claim of significance. However, it's not a sufficient indicator of notability by itself, and it also lacks a source (the reference attached to that statement is unrelated). Besides that, there's nothing on the page to indicate notability. IagoQnsi ( talk) 22:47, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. North America 1000 01:32, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Seems more like a CV than a Wikipedia article. I don't really see anything sufficient to establish notability -- the closest thing is that she's had a lot of gallery exhibitions and "2016 City of Miami Artist Recognition by Mayor Thomas Regalado". Besides lacking sources, neither of those claims seems sufficient for GNG. IagoQnsi ( talk) 21:52, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 15:41, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Removed prod, the article fails WP:RLN and WP:GNG Mattlore ( talk) 21:49, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 15:40, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Topic not notable. There is barely any information on the series, which is ten years old, and only one (OK) reference. Cindlevet ( talk) 21:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Consensus is that the subject does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards at this time. North America 1000 01:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Fails WP:NMUSIC/ WP:BASIC - all sources are WP:PRIMARY, no chart placings or major label signings. McGeddon ( talk) 21:02, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Joyous! | Talk 04:33, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Still a blatant advertisement since my extensive and specific PROD here since the listed sources are all simply publishing PR or republishing it, take the Forbes for example, it is literally from a "special contributor" who is a apparently some random journalist, likely hired or enticed by the company to publish their own advertising; the Fortune itself is simply part of a list of new minor companies to work with, and the others are equally blatant PR; my own searches had in fact found PR, and that's not surprising since that's exactly what both the article contents and history show in that this has literally not changed since the first user's contributions, Mxheil (which seems to have been a clever advertising-only account and I would even speculate it was a paid advertising account, the fact it's one major contribution was this one advertisement). Something else to note about this article is not only the blatancy of using PR and advertising puff here, but once again, my repeated searches are still only finding local PR advertising and PR words published or republished by the businesspeople or company themselves.
We never and never shall make compromises with such advertising blatancy wherever the information may be published, because one thing is certain, and that's that the information, even in the major news, are simply PR and republished PR, including by damningly blatant "special contributor". SwisterTwister talk 18:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
"The company wants its clients to know it's a welcoming workplace and offers its clients the best services", "The company said today", "The company's businesspeople", "The company's finances are", "My company Ruby Receptions", "Today, the businesspeople from Ruby Receptions said", "Ruby Receptionist's services include", "Ruby Receptionists is good for its clients", "Ruby Receptionists's new offices today", "Ruby Receptionists offers its employees beneficial pay", "Ruby Receptionists announces here today", "Ruby Receptionists' employees include", "Ruby Receptionists' CEO says", "Ruby Receptionists has a perky office vibe and happy workforce,, etc. None of that was actual journalism, instead costumed advertising acting as "News". When all those pages have this, it shows there's no genuine news there, since it's everything company-published. SwisterTwister talk 03:05, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Nosler. And merge whatever may be considered appropriate from history. Sandstein 13:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Methinks we should merge and redirect to Nosler. See WP:PRODUCT, in particular the "explosive space modulator" example. Tigraan Click here to contact me 15:53, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 06:47, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Delete. Article about a fairly run of the mill arterial road in a city, whose strongest real claim of notability is "has a shopping mall located on it". This was created in 2006, a time when there was still some support for the view that Wikipedia should have an article about every major street in every city -- but consensus now is that a road should only have an article if reliable sources discuss its historical, political or social context rather than just its physical characteristics. But three of the four sources shown here are just discussing non-notable people or organizations that used to have Greenbank Road as their address, and the only other source is a deadlink of a construction company's report on a road construction project. This is not the kind of sourcing that it takes to make a road a suitable topic for an encyclopedia article. Bearcat ( talk) 19:57, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. North America 1000 02:01, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
I believe that this is thinly disguised spam. The list is basically a bunch of links to the manufacturer's website with no encyclopedic content. Pichpich ( talk) 19:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 06:48, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't believe this person is notable--the claim to fame is a Radiohead remix, but the only reliable sources I can find that attest to this and thus lend the subject notability are this one review (which I suppose we are to think of as "professional"--OK, maybe) and incidental mentions like this one. Drmies ( talk) 19:10, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Consensus is that there is not enough quality sourcing for this to be a distinct article topic. Sandstein 17:21, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Egregious violation of WP:NPOV with poor sourcing, weasel words and astonishing statements in Wikipedia's voice like "Some individuals simply did not like Clinton for a variety of reasons including her being a conservative in liberal clothing." If anything useful can be salvaged from this monstrosity, perhaps it could be folded into Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016. Scjessey ( talk) 17:17, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Hilltrot ( talk) 19:43, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
They are:
I just found:
Every presidential election in US has a lot of people with mindset "Never this candidate", which always receives some coverage.
notable and unique
Actually thanks to EM Gregory there is a lot more information. All you have to do is look up anti-Clinton, anti-hillary, Dump Clinton, dump hillary, Never clinton, never hillary, Stop clinton, and stop hillary. There is a ton of information about that. BlackAmerican ( talk) 15:46, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
(talk) (cont) 10:55, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Totally different and s till exists. BlackAmerican ( talk) 19:09, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
The Super Pacs is redundant? It isn't covered anywhere. BlackAmerican ( talk) 19:09, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 06:48, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
non notable actor--only minor roles. DGG ( talk ) 16:44, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. Consensus s that simply saying "keep per SCHOOLOUTCOMES" isn't enough and that editors are now expected to find a source for schools (that confirms its existence) otherwise they get deleted, In this case a source has been provided which obviously confirms the schools existence so closing as Keep ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 00:12, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't see any coverage by third-party sources and believe that this particular school does not meet the basic notability requirement. Pichpich ( talk) 16:21, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. All populated, legally recognized places are kept per WP:GEOLAND. ( non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 02:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Dreamland Villa is a neighborhood/subdivison within Mesa, Arizona. It has about 350 homes and not notable. This subdivision is one of many thousands in Arizona alone and completely fails WP:GNG. MB 16:13, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Farnsworth...began his company...in the late 1950s....Youngtown had just started up, and we thought it would be a good thing to put something like that out here because this is the prettier end of the Valley. That led to the launch of Dreamland Villa, which in 15 years ballooned to 3,000 homes at University Drive and Recker Road. Sunland Villa, Sunland Village and Sunland Springs Village, all in Mesa, eventually joined his inventory. Farnsworth was actually about a year ahead of Del Webb, who gets most of the national credit for launching the postwar surge in retirement communities. Dreamland Villa opened in 1959, but by late that year, Webb was making headlines with his Sun City development, which was to open on Jan. 1, 1960. “When we first heard Del Webb’s plans, we thought we were ruined,” Farnsworth told The Republic in 1995. “Del Webb started doing all of this national advertising that was bringing lots of people in to look at the development.” Farnsworth countered with a billboard on Grand Avenue, between Phoenix and Sun City, drawing customers to his own development in Mesa. |
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 06:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
There is no reason to think that this novel will be notable. It hasn't even been published. DGG ( talk ) 16:12, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 15:39, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
One of three unsourced invention articles by this author. No credible assertion that the subject actually exists. Appears to be an SEO play to direct searches to this guy's website (infraredmarkedcards/invisibleinkmarkedcards .com). See also: Poker analyzer and Infrared contact lenses. I AfD'd this one instead of speedying it because I think these might exist, just not in the way described. Jergling ( talk) 15:49, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 06:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Six years without references! (Carlos Emanuel) ( talk) 15:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Delete per lack of independent reliable secondary sources. Bilhauano ( talk) 21:55, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 08:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
No evidence of meeting WP:GNG or WP:PRODUCT. PROD contested by IP with no comment. RA0808 talk contribs 14:45, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Kogan Page Publishers. ( non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 18:46, 22 November 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. This was AfD before, and closed as no consensus, through we had 4 delete votes to 1 keep and 1 weak keep. The article hasn't improved since. While I am open to discussion on whether perhaps all book publishers are notable, thee is no exception for them currently at NCOMPANY or at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes. I'll ping User:DGG who made the most convincing argument for keeping this last time, as well as all other participants of the last AfD: User:Oo7565 , User:Schuym1, User:SteveLoughran , User:ChildofMidnight, User:LeaveSleaves. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:07, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was Speedy Deleted per CSD G5 RickinBaltimore ( talk) 15:55, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Created by known SP. Non notable firm with history about purchases of locomotives but nothing notable. Nordic Nightfury 07:20, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 16:48, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Non-notable actor, no significant sourcing, very few roles to his name. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 07:18, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 12:23, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
No explanation what this music in fact is. Only source is a commercial link, but none of the 7 articles I have checked point to this music style. Possibly just a sorting music style, not a real one The Banner talk 14:30, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 06:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Previously AfD snow deleted, but not identical (same book, different text in article). CreateSpace self-published novel with no indication of notability, and currently Amazon don't know when or if it will be available again. Peridon ( talk) 12:51, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 08:45, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Unremarkable... hike? KDS4444 ( talk) 12:05, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was Keep as SNOW, considering it's a few days before, but the consensus is clear, and there's nothing else suggesting there are in fact concerns for WP:PROF (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 07:37, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
My principal concern is that she appears to have received a series of non-notable awards, and therefore does not qualify for WP:ACADEMIC. The article certainly implies her importance, but the references, as given, do not support the actual claim of notability. KDS4444 ( talk) 11:57, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 06:50, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Non-notable short story. Refs consist mostly of citations to a primary source (Sondergrad). Significant discussion in secondary sources appears to be lacking. KDS4444 ( talk) 11:42, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 00:13, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Unremarkable person. Speedy was declined, but no sources provided. I wasn't able to find any reliable sources by myself. Arthistorian1977 ( talk) 09:53, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. Mostly a procedural keep. There is consensus that at least some of these are notable and they should not be bulk nominated. No prejudice against individual re-nominations. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 08:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi! I am Pual98 and I am new to Wikipedia, so please feel free to correct me on my information. However, I have done a LOT of research on policies and believe I am right in my group proposal for deletion of the following libraries.
The grounds for deletion is primarily a failure to meet the standards of WP:CORP. None of these articles meet the standards of notability. As a context, the author of these articles, Winterstar74, has openly admitted the creation of these articles as a conflict of interest on Usertalk:Elkman/Archive12 where he says “I have been tasked to do in my position at SELCO (Southeastern Libraries Cooperating).” While I understand that COI is not a grounds for deletion, this makes it clear that the authors only goal (by the way this is not an active user) was to create a page for each SELCO library that only included a link to the website and the hours of the library. The libraries listed are not notable. On a side note, this is not a deletion of every library the author created. Those libraries that were significant have since then been updated into fuller articles or redirected to the main article (because the author did not think to look to see if the libraries already had pages). There are eight libraries that have nothing wrong with them.
Although this meets grounds for speedy deletion, many of these articles have failed speedy deletion. The reason being for some was the issue not being properly addressed in the speedy deletion and for others because the administrator who reviewed them making what I believe is a false connection. For example, in Albert Lea Public Library’s speedy deletion process, SarekOfVulcan denied it because “odds are, a public library is notable enough.” This rationale is completely off. The WP:CORP clearly says “No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is, including schools.” I do believe SarekOfVulcan was acting in good faith, however the fact of the matter remains, just because these are libraries does not make them inherently notable.
What was a little worse than this is the same SarekOfVulcan saying “decline speedy - I would presume a public library to be notable in the absense of evidence otherwise” in the speedy deletion of LeRoy Public Library. Are you telling me that libraries are notable unless there is evidence saying, “no, this library was not a notable library.” Where are you going to find a source like that? It’s not “notable unless proven otherwise”—it has to be proven notable.
Overall, I would say the best solution would be the deletion of these articles and the creation of an articles for SELCO as the overarching backbone of all of these articles. I wouldn’t be surprises if I missed a library or two in the creation of this AfD, so please notify me if you find one that fits in this category. On the other side, I would not be surprised if one or two of these libraries can be proven to be notable, so in the case of this, please notify me which one is notable and I will remove it. Pual98 ( talk) 08:57, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 06:50, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
fails WP:GNG. Yet another small shopping centre in Australia. 11,000 square metres is tiny by any standard. LibStar ( talk) 08:48, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 12:21, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
no apparent evidence for notability, just for existence DGG ( talk ) 08:26, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was redirect to International Data Group#IDG Global Brands. ( non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 18:48, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
I prodded it with the following rationale: "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. " It was deprodded by User:DGG with the following rationale "well known trade journal, there should be no difficulty showing notability". 2 years down the road, nobody has added any new sources, and I don't see anything that would help support's DGG position. I am afraid that we need to cite sources that call this an important, well known publication, our own views are not sufficient. And all the article has so far are WP:PRIMARY sources, and claims of numerous awards, out of which the only ref is not for being a winner, but just one of 10 finalists for [30] - non-notable awards from American Society of Business Publication Editors, an organization of dubious notability itself. I am afraid this will need a much better rationale for keeping, DGG. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:13, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 07:27, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
This seems like a niche portal. Interesting - I am a reader of TechDirt myself - but sadly, it does not seem to be notable, failing WP:NCORP and WP:NWEB and WP:NMEDIA. Except primary sources, the best it has is the minor coverage from similar niche portals, Network World [31] and Digital Trends ( [32]), and that coverage is related to one lawsuit (so, WP:ONEVENT logic applies). If anyone can suggest good reasons to save it, I'd love to hear them, but as much as many Wikipedians, including myself, like those kind of portals, they still have to meet our policies. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:06, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 06:50, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai ( talk) 07:21, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 06:51, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai ( talk) 07:13, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
He plays in a top professional league (Swiss NLA) and enough sources/references have been added. In my opinion there is no reason to delete this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zamekrizeni ( talk • contribs)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 06:51, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai ( talk) 07:04, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 17:16, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Non notable enough and I don't think we need to have article for the countries by HDI listing for each year. Nickrds09 (Talk to me) 06:37, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Pendragon_(band). Don't see anything useful to merge. ( non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 17:17, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
I prodded it with the following rationale: "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 (biographies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Jvvtheater ( WP:SPA, creator) with no rationale (despite the fact that I explicitly asked for one in the PROD). Few months later, the article has not been improved in any way that would make me think the subject is notable. Thoughts? The best I can think of is a redirect to the band article ( Pendragon (band)). PS. Also pinging User:Paste who prodded the article before I did. PPS. [33] by GMA News and Public Affairs is the only source about him, and I don't think one source is sufficient for aforementioned policies, which usually require multiple coverage. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:39, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I have found these 2 links, one from IMDB and one from Philippine Star newspaper article about the performance at the London 2012 Olympics Opening Ceremony. [1] [2]
I apologise but I'm very new to Wikipedia so I appreciate all the help I can get. Many thanks Jvvtheater ( talk) 08:44, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 15:39, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
This was prodded in 2008 by User:Craw-daddy on the grounds of failing WP:GNG, and deprodded by creator who argued WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. Sadly, I don't see any sources for this, and as fascinating as this may be on many levels, we need sources to prove among others that this is not a WP:HOAX, and then that the game is notable. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was redirect to various Cruelties. MBisanz talk 16:48, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Non-notable British songwriter. Sources in the article are not reliable. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk, contribs) 23:08, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 06:51, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
This music biography was previously deleted on August 18, 2015. The user who restarted it is a user who registered an account one week later. There are no references to establish notability, and per WP:BEFORE I have been unable to find any reliable sources describing his career to satisfy WP:MUSICBIO. Unfortunately, the news accounts of Yung Gleesh are about his skirmish with the law. He was accused of rape [34] and then charged and arrested in March 2015. [35] In September 2015 he described how the charges messed up his career. [36] However, he was not convicted and so he is not deserving of a biography as a criminal. I just don't think there's enough music stuff here to host a rapper article, and not enough to host a criminal article. Binksternet ( talk) 23:07, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 06:51, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Mr. Suscha's major source of notability was his 12 years as mayor of Sheboygan, Wisconsin (2010 population: 49,288) which, by my extremely humble opinion, does not warrant an ex officio article under WP:POLITICIAN. Dolotta ( talk) 23:26, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Attack Vector: Tactical. North America 1000 02:10, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
This company appears to be defunct and there is another company that uses the same name so be careful when you search. My search was unable to locate anything for this company that satisfies WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. CNMall41 ( talk) 05:13, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 16:48, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline." It was deprodded by User:DGG with the following rationale "Given the famous originator, this needs a source in published sources about Kaufman". I am frankly a bit confused by that, as this does not read like a deprodding rationale, merely a criticism of inadequae sources. I don't see a single mention of this in Google Books. At most this could be redirected and merged to the creator's biography, but it doesn't look likely that it can be kept as a game of stand-alone notability. Thoughts? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:09, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was moved to Draft:Pascal Stil. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 15:50, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
No indication that this person satisfies WP:GNG. There are various sources cited, but none of them seem to provide the significant coverage in independent reliable sources which is generally needed to establish Wikipedia notability for a stand-alone article. The primary claim of notability appears to be that Still was the first player to represent Ireland in international draughts, but I have been unable to find any coverage at all of this in any Irish newspaper. The same editor who created this article also created and 2012 European championships of international draughts and 2014 European championships international draughts around the same time, and Stil is listed as finishing 64th and 75th respectively in those tournaments. Even if the tournaments themselves are notable per WP:NEVENT, finishing so low would not be any indication of notability in and of itself. I've tried to find better sources for the article and have asked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland/Archive 17#Pascal Stil. I've also tried discussing things with the article's creator on Talk:Pascal Stil#Notability, but no better sources have been provided and the only comment from anyone else was that "he [Stil] looks notable". The notability issue was also discussed at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 525#Notability issue and the same concerns were pointed out by others. Maybe this is just a case of WP:TOOSOON and the article can be redirected to one of the two tournament articles. Otherwise, I think is should be deleted for a lack of notability. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 07:06, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete and redirect to Supernumerary (disambiguation). The rough consensus here was that the article fails NOTDICTIONARY. I have redirected to the existing disambiguation page Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:28, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Fails the general notability guideline as well as Wikipedia is not a dictionary – article is essentially a dictionary definition followed by numerous examples that lack a unifying context and are only related semantically. Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 07:31, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was Delete with no prejudice against anyone creating a redirect at this title. Hut 8.5 20:56, 22 November 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. The company was mentioned in two reliable sources, but in the context of discussing its founder, who may have a bigger claim to notability; the company's coverage was pretty much in passing. I looked for other sources but except few more mentions in passing (ex. a sentence in
[40]) I don't see much. I don't think such mentions are enough to make this pass cited notability policies.
WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES, and
WP:CORPSPAM. Thoughts?
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here
03:58, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 21:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
No notability. A local league with zero coverage. Abbottonian ( talk) 17:13, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
This competition is very popular and important to the Hunter region. I suggest you view the 2016 Grand Final, Shortland v Windale on you tube, which was broadcasted by BarTV. You will see that there is a large crowd and that the coverage itself gives the competition notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eladnara ( talk • contribs) 23:12, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 09:02, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
PRODed by @ Some Gadget Geek: and endorsed by me. Non-notable self-published book that appears to have been created by an account with some link to the author. Fails WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG TonyBallioni ( talk) 03:57, 14 November 2016 (UTC)'
The reasons are: 1. This book is new, but highly valuable to humanity. Most fellow humans have problem improve themselves intellectually and spiritually on their own because they are not conscious of The Human Intelligence System and the human intellectual process, "Complete and Successful Intellectual Process(CSIP)". The author is hoping humanity will bring "The Human Intelligence System" and "Complete and Successful Intellectual Process" to conscious level sooner than later. 2. Up to now, humanity is only semi-conscious of The Human Intelligence System and the human intellectual process, "Complete and Successful Intellectual Process". For examples, in Buddhism guide, Sandhinirmocana Sutra, the author described the 9th intellectual and spiritual stage is "liberating one's mind from (words) / (linguistic expressions)". On page 108 of The Power of Now, Eckhart Tolle asked his book readers to "look beyond the words". On the first page of How to win Friends & Influence People, Dale Carnegie provided a page of instructions to tell his reader to look beyond words . In section "Inside-Out" of The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, Stephen R. Covey attempted to ask his reader to look beyond words. Of these famous authors and many more self-help book authors, they used "Complete and Successful Intellectual Process(CSIP)" unconsciously or semi-consciously. Hence, they know that to develop the intellectual capabilities they found valuable, a person needs to "look beyond words". However, none of the authors explained how to do it consciously. The capability to "look beyond words" to develop intellectual capability on one's own is to "CSIP at level of interconnectedness, mental object, and physicon", as explained in the book "Universal Intellectual and Spiritual Guide". To speed up the intellectual and spiritual advancement on individual level and humanity as a whole, The Human Intelligence System and "Complete and Successful Intellectual Process" to conscious level. "Universal Intellectual and Spiritual Guide" is created to accomplish this goal. Once a person masters CSIP, the person can consciously gain the full value of all books that is ever written. I sincerely ask you to let this article to stay.
The result was delete. SOFTDELETE per no participation herein other than from the nominator. North America 1000 02:13, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Fails WP:BLP. No reliable source to verify notability. Abbottonian ( talk) 16:37, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 16:48, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Fails WP:BASIC with no in-depth secondary sources, just WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs of Jani in lists of castmembers, or "John Smith at Big Company said" style quotations. Article appears to fail the "significant roles in multiple notable films" criteria of WP:NACTOR as of the three bluelink films listed, two are flagged as "may not meet notability" with a weak single source and the other is currently at AfD.
Blocked sockmaster User:Nouman khan sherani has a history of creating articles about non-notable films and adding them to Jahangir Khan Jani's filmography: most have since been deleted. McGeddon ( talk) 12:12, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 12:27, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
No independent significance.
Abbottonian (
talk)
16:54, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
~
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 07:21, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Pure promotion, just a litany of features and some promotional links instead of any independent sources. W Nowicki ( talk) 17:38, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
This deletion is not justified. The page describes features of the product without any promotion. Chiz ( talk) 18:05, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was redirect to University of Jaffna. What if any material to merge over is up to editorial decision. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 06:52, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Individual faculties are rarely notable. This article has no independent sources, is mostly unreferenced, and full of promotional stuff like "We have the Internship Training for our Accountancy and Finance specialization students in their fourth year. They are going for ... Actually it is a very great opportunity for them, to compete in the job market and grasping the job opportunities." WP:DUCK quacks "spam". Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:42, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 06:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
WP:BIO notability not met. Some of his cases were notable but notability is not inherited. The article bears signs of puffery (e.g. questionable awards from nn publications and their press releases) and was created by a now blocked editor. There are no substantial biographical details provided such as year/place of birth. Many of the sources are primary court records and have no bearing on subject's notability. The article's creator was blocked for advertising; see DGG's comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larry E. Coben for another of his nn attorney bio creations which had very similar problems with article formulation. Brianhe ( talk) 18:34, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 06:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Delete. Article that was deleted earlier this year per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Keniston, then recreated as a redirect to his party, but was then revived as a standalone WP:BLP in August (but is different enough this time that G4 speedy is not suitable.) The subject is still a minor party candidate for president, which is not an automatic inclusion freebie in the absence of a demonstrable WP:GNG pass, but the sourcing still isn't appreciably stronger than it was the first time: of the eight sources being cited here, two are primary ones (his own campaign website and a press release from the party); three are glancing namechecks of his existence in "all of your third party options" overview articles rather than substantive coverage about him; one is a "local man runs for president" article in local media serving the town where he lives; one is a Q&A-style interview with him (which is not a class of sourcing that can assist GNG, as it represents the subject talking about himself rather than third parties talking or writing about him); and the one reference left that's independent and non-local and appears to have been substantively about him is an unverifiable deadlink. No prejudice against recreating or restoring a redirect to the party afterward, but the quality of sourcing here still is not good enough to earn him a standalone BLP just for being a minor candidate who has no actual chance of winning the presidency. Bearcat ( talk) 17:09, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 06:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
This article does not establish notability. TTN ( talk) 14:37, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 06:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Fails WP:NFILM. The article was previously prodded by Comatmebro and deprodded by its creator Tolly4bolly on 10 May 2012. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk, contribs) 23:35, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 17:17, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn ( talk) 03:07, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 07:19, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
For many years, it was a redirect. Then, in 2009, a standalone article was created. It was AfDed, with the nomination quickly withdrawn. Subsequently, there was consensus at the talk page to merge the content to Alois Hitler, since the very existence of the individual is doubtful. A couple of days ago it was recreated by a user in good standing. However, I still do not see how we need a standalone article, and we should have once a proper AfD discussion. Ymblanter ( talk) 07:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Redirect to something akin de:Frankenberger-These Agathoclea ( talk) 13:16, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETEish given the low input. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 06:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
fails GNG CerealKillerYum ( talk) 08:16, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Pinoy Big Brother: Lucky 7. Implemented by author during the AfD. ( non-admin closure) ansh 666 07:18, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Known for just being a contestant of a reality game show. May not meet WP:BIO. WP:TOO SOON and WP:BIO1E also apply here. Hitro talk 20:22, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 06:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Aside from the first sentence, everything is copied/pasted verbatim from the article Chu Tien-hsin, who cannot possibly be the same person. Every single reference is about Chu Tien-hsin (also romanized as Zhu Tianxin). This writer, "Lee Pak Hang", does seem to exist, but it's unclear to me how notable he is. Page is orphaned. Timmyshin ( talk) 23:30, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETEish given the low input. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 06:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Unsourced biography. Unable to establish notability. Unable to deorphan. ~ Kvng ( talk) 22:31, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. I'm closing this as delete, but treating it as a prod. There was only one !vote, and it appears to mainly go towards Anyoption. There have been 2 relists, and the last one didn't garner any additional participation. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:20, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Fails WP:CORP notability. This article was created by a promotional editor (now blocked) with absurdly weak sources, mostly Forex websites deemed non-reliable at RSN in a September 2016 thread.
I am also nominating the following related pages because they are part of a circle of Belize/Cyprus financial entity related promotion by several other socks (see September 2016 COIN thread), with identical sourcing issues plus vague assertions of awards from non-notable sources:
— Brianhe ( talk) 02:22, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 16:47, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Delete: as non-notable Chetnik. No article in Serbian Wikipedia, and Google Search turns up only mirror sites which all say the same thing: "Chetnik of the Macedonian Struggle" and "a member of the Serbian Chetnik Organization. His band ranged from 8 to 12." And that's about it. Quis separabit? 23:43, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. I was holding off withdrawing the nomination because of the relatively large number of delete !votes, but almost half of them have changed their opinions (as have I). The article has been significantly improved and I have no further objections. ( non-admin closure) Primefac ( talk) 03:38, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
This seems like a rather arbitrary cross-categorization, which falls under WP:NOT (in addition to having no references). Comets are not "fast" events, so I see no reason why we need to specifically narrow the country of viewing (e.g. everyone in the world saw Halley's Comet in 1986). Primefac ( talk) 04:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 06:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
I prodded it with the following rationale: "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 (biographies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:QatarStarsLeague (creator) with no rationale (despite the fact that I explicitly asked for one in the PROD). I have looked at the refs in article and on the web, and the while he is mentioned in media it is either in passing (ex. the Polish ref added [49] is misleading, it is not about him - it is about the bank ownership, and the subject is only mention briefly in the context that his job as the CEO is likely safe) or in the recurring context of being the most highly paid bank CEO in Poland, something that is discussed in passing in major newspapers, and a bit more in depth in tabloids. Note that there is no in-depth coverage, the only articles about him are few tabloid rants about "this Italian person works in the Polish bank and is earning a lot of $$$, yadda yadda". I don't think that this sufficient to be notable, and being a CEO of a medium bank is not enough to meet WP:BUSINESSPERSONOUTCOME. Lastly, pl wiki mentions he received an Italian government award, but it seems minor and not sufficient for notability. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:29, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 06:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
I had been open and honest with my concerns about this Draft to the user showing how the sources, even though about 4 news reviews, were still not enough because even the foreign sources such as Spanish in fact only consisted of interviewed quotes and other self-given information by the man himself, another thing was the fact there are no significant library holdings and he has merely published 3 books in the past few years, nothing is yet actually amounting to substance. Therefore I still confirm my my PROD here and examining this article finds nothing for genuine independent notability and substance aside from having attention for a few events, particularly the bull riding. SwisterTwister talk 05:51, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Bill Hillmann is notable. The Chicago Tribune named him a Remarkable Person in 2011. Hillmann's notability falls into three different categories.
1. His Books and writing: I just added yet another review of The Old Neighborhood done by Barbra Hoffert of Library Journal. Hoffert is one of the most important librarians in the country. The Old Neighborhood is collected by over a thousand libraries, there is a link provided to The Chicago Public Library the third biggest chain of libraries in the country. The Old Neighborhood was named best new book of 2014 by the Chicago Sun-Times a major news outlet. Coverage of Hillmann's second book Mozos appeared on several extensive National TV segments in Spain and the United States. Hillmann appeared on the cover of the Diario De Navarra a regional newspaper in Pamplona, Spain for an interview about his book. There is a pure review by a national outlet in Spain El Imparcial which is cited in the article. Hillmann was published in Spain by the biggest most prestigious publisher in all of Spain, Planeta. Hillmann's audio essay "Running With The Bulls" won a Great Lakes Regional Edward Murrow Award for Radio Excellence in 2010, it was a finalist for the National Edward Murrow Award. Hillmann received the Encierro Divulgation Award from the organization Eh Toro for his writing on the bull run in Cuellar Spain in 2012.
2. Expert Bull Runner
Hillmann has run with the bulls more than 300 times over more than a decade. Hillmann has been called an "Expert Bull Runner" by CNN International during a segment they did about Hillmann and his book Mozos. The LA Times called him "The Best Young American Runner". Hillmann appeared on the back cover of Diario De Navarra regional newspaper in Pamplona for a story about his experiences running 200 bull runs in one summer.
Hillmann was gored in 2014 and stories appeared in, The New York Times, The Guardian, The Australian, The Hindu, El Mundo Spain, CNN International, NBC Today, The Economic Times of India, and numerous other outlets. Hillmann has been a guest commentator for NBC Today, CBS This Morning, The Esquire Network, on the running of the bulls. Photos of Hillmann running with the bulls have been published around the world including in Life Magazine.
3. Storyteller and Windy City Story Slam creator and host. Hillmann created The Windy City Story Slam a show that was the first of it's kind in Chicago. The show recieved attention nationally in Salon and The Chicago Tribune, and internationally in The Guardian UK. The show attracted massive crowds in Chicago, Philadelphia, London and the Edinburgh Festival. Hillmann also created the first National Story Slam which took place on the main stage of the Chicago Tribune Printer's Row Book Fair and included storytellers representing storytelling series from 10 different cities across the USA. Hillmann won the Boulder Story Slam competition in Boulder Colorado. He has told Stories broadcast on National Public Radio three times for The Story, and Snapjudgment. Hillmann's told stories across the United States and in England, Mexico, Spain, and Scotland.
The notability of Hillmann is obvious. The logic that Hillmann hasn't published enough books is ludicrous many authors only publish one book and become very notable. There are 22 cites for this article from some of the biggest news outlets in the world. I'm worried this article is being targeted in an attempt to censor it due to political reasons, or potentially personal reasons. I have never found a more extensively cited article for an author. DanHamilton1998 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:12, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
The problem with your arguement is what you consider significant. The Chicago Tribune, Chicago Sun-Times, Publisher's Weekly, Library Journal, The Week Magazine, El Imparcial, have all reviewed the works. I'm sorry you feel those outlets are not significant. You are incorrect. They are all extremely significant. Not to mention, your idea's on an author being interviewed and quoted about their works by major outlets as being insignificant is also false. Where do you get these nonsensical ideas? An author interview means that a major outlet has deemed the book and author significant and notable. Your logic there is extremely weak and incorrect. I don't know where you draw your experience in the publishing world but it clearly is not a background in real publishing. What is your background? What makes you an expert on this subject? Your lines of logic are vague and weak and rely on your personal opinion which clearly has no merit. You continue to perpetrate this lie that the works in question are not collected in libraries. They are collected by over a thousand libraries, that is a fact. You are incorrect about there not being enough here to merit an article. There is more cited evidence for this article than any author article, I've been able to find. Swister Twister please step aside this is getting strange and feels personal. DanHamilton1998 ( talk) 22:52, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Ok,SwisterTwister. now you are outright lying, or not checking the links. You acknowledged El Imparcial was a review in our chatroom discussion now you are just contradicting yourself.
Anyone can follow this link and copy and paste this review into google translate and see that it is a review of the memoir Mozos.
Ok now, I took ten seconds to go to the website, she just used to argue that Bill Hillmann's books are not in libraries. I dropped the name Bill Hillmann in the search at WorldCat and the books popped up. So either she forgot the second n in Hillmann or she is just lying or potentially mentally ill and fixated on trying to block this article.
I'm sorry but Swister Twister has absolutely no touch with reality on how the publishing world works. You can not go to a news publication and tell them what to write, or make them publish words you've written about yourself. These are multi-million dollar award winning news outlets who give attention to whom ever they see worthy. These outlets contradict everything SwisterTwista has written. Is this what Wikipedia is? A place where a person who has no touch with reality, no expertise, can delete quality articles? What SwistaTwista is arguing is that a group of the biggest news outlets in the world conspired to allow Bill Hillmann to write things about himself and then they published them. Do you really think that is how journalism works? Please tell me a logical person will read this. Her argument is a conspiracy theory that more than 22 world renowned news outlets have allowed Bill Hillmann to write about himself then publish it in their outlets. Then her argument is that a website called "worldcat" says that Hillmann's books are not collected when The Chicago Public Library system consisting of more than 50 libraries and libraries across the country say otherwise. So who do you believe swistatwista and worldcat? Or the dozens of world renowned institutions Chicago Tribune, The Guardian (UK), Chicago Public Library, New York Times, Toronto Star, People Magazine, The Times of India, NBC Today, The Australian and dozens others that have given a tremendous amount of attention to Hillmann and his works? Those outlets say he is notable, twistasista says he is not. Who do you believe? DanHamilton1998 ( talk) 19:36, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
References
The result was no consensus. Poor participation. Renom if appropriate. ( non-admin closure) Nordic Nightfury 15:05, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
The "Chrysler Touring" is not shown as a model in the 1926 Chrysler brochure nor can I find evidence of any such model on the Internet. I note that the 1926 brochure lists the Chrysler 58 as being available in Royal Sedan, Crown Sedan, Touring & Roadster bodystyles, however the 58 was a four cylinder model, not a six. GTHO ( talk) 09:07, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 12:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
The sources seem to be links to lists and to the subject's own works. I do not see anything that looks like a reliable source and when I search on the name all I see are social media pages and the like. Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. Since the top search results are this article and social media the article is likely WP:PROMO. Jbh Talk 16:28, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
~
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 16:47, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Not notable; no evidence of notability, or even a credible claim. The refs simply prove it exists and has some traffic, but do nothing more, and are not reliable sources. JohnBlackburne words deeds 10:38, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. Consensus is for the article to be retained. Discussion about the article, such as concerns about original research and sourcing can continue on the talk page if desired. North America 1000 02:39, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
As the original author plain refuses to add the detailed sourcing as requested by two other editors (including me), it is clear that this article is WP:OR. See discussions on User talk:Rwbest (largely removed) and Talk:Worldwide energy supply. By and large, every excuse not to give the sources is used. The Banner talk 09:28, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 16:47, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
A long way off meeting the notability requirements for notability since I'm unable to find any substantial coverage in RS. (Created by undisclosed paid editors). SmartSE ( talk) 13:35, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. ( No prejudice against speedy renomination per no participation herein other than from the nominator.) North America 1000 02:41, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
I couldn 't establish that this is WP:NOTABLE. Boleyn ( talk) 18:00, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETEish given the low input. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 06:56, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG Kleuske ( talk) 11:43, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 15:41, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
This article fails to establish notability. Nothing in the article describes the character in real world detail, and the only non-primary sources are irrelevant fluff. TTN ( talk) 12:16, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 19:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Rather random list full of links to disambiguation pages. I have checked several articles that do not refer to any type of surveillance. Unsourced. In this state fails WP:LISTCOMPANY. The Banner talk 19:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Comment Would the Electronic Frontier Foundation count as a reliable source for this? I can't find the 'Who's Who' referred to on that page, but maybe Archive.org has a copy. Nev1 ( talk) 19:34, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 07:05, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
The channel lineup described in the page has been obsolete for at least two years. Nobody has stepped up to edit the page and bring it current. This information could easily be replaced with a hyperlink to the relevant live page on SiriusXM's site. Dkendr ( talk) 18:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 16:46, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
No sources of any kind or any indication of notability or significance. Zackmann08 ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 17:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. czar 19:31, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
No indication of notability or significance. No sources at all. Zackmann08 ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 17:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. North America 1000 02:45, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a place for promotion fails WP:NOTSOAPBOX Domdeparis ( talk) 17:39, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was merge to Ruth (band). ( non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 18:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Insufficient sources to confirm notability, and I cannot find more online. Allmusic lists just one album from 2004 which is not even mentioned in the article. – Fayenatic L ondon 09:05, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. ( No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation herein.) North America 1000 07:17, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
not notable - did not chart. few references. the page claims 2 different release dates. Kellymoat ( talk) 11:28, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
It actually charted at #4 on the US Heatseekers..... Aleccat ( talk) 02:19, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 12:29, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
No indication of passing WP:EVENT. No sources or any kind. Zackmann08 ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 01:17, 14 November 2016 (UTC)