![]() |
The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 00:08, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Corporation but I'm not seeing any notability; fusion systems turns up a lot of GNews hits but none seem to be related to this company at all, adding Japan/Tokyo (their HQ) doesn't help. There was some text about a previous iteration of the company which claimed notability, but they were bought out well over a decade ago and history for that company should go with the purchaser. Mr. Vernon ( talk) 23:25, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 00:09, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
A BLP that lacks coverage in reliable secondary sources. Sources include interviews, PR-driven industry profiles, directory listings and award nomination materials, resulting in a WP:PSEUDO biography covering trivia such as:
References
See WP:WHYN. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO either as the two awards listed are both scene related. K.e.coffman ( talk) 22:04, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 00:09, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Non-notable local author known for minor works and non-notable painting related events. Has a self-published book that lacks WP:N. References are minor in nature or are for published articles. Appears to fail WP:N and WP:BIO. reddogsix ( talk) 21:33, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. Joyous! | Talk 00:11, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Only could meet notability because his diaries were later published, but looking at WP:AUTHOR, it doesn't appear that his book meets notability guidelines; a translation was published by Yale University Press, but doesn't appear to meet notability guidelines (there are book reviews as would be expected, and some chatter from bloggers and such about the book.) Mr. Vernon ( talk) 21:19, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 00:12, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
dp without useful blue links The Banner talk 21:10, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. SOFTDELETE due to limited discussion after two relists. Joyous! | Talk 00:19, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai ( talk) 17:49, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 05:24, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Per WP:GNG. I attempted to find additional sources and had trouble finding any that seemed reliable. I do not know how noteworthy being the MLA of the Rajmanhal constituency of Jharkhand is, but this page either needs major expansion with additional reliable sources. or needs to be deleted. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 18:04, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Certainly NO CONSENSUS to delete the article. Strong suggestions to MERGE and REDIRECT to Verghese Kurien, where there is already mention of National Milk Day. Joyous! | Talk 00:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Gnews turns up 6 hits; this isn't that notable a holiday. (EDIT: this is turning up more hits, now 8, apparently this is getting some coverage in India. There are potentially more but it's difficult sifting through all the articles on other National Milk Days (apparently there are several.) Mr. Vernon ( talk) 17:28, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 00:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Delete. Poorly sourced article about a television show produced by a cable public access channel, whose only wider distribution was on one small-market television station owned by the same cable company. And for sourcing, all we have here is one WP:BLOG entry and a post to the host's own self-published page on Facebook -- which means that the reliable source coverage that it takes to pass WP:NMEDIA has not been shown. Local programs like this can sometimes qualify for articles if they pass the RS/NMEDIA combo, but are not automatically entitled to articles just because they exist if they're this poorly sourced. Bearcat ( talk) 17:22, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 00:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
This subject clearly fails WP:GNG; none of the sources listed even mention him. KSF T C 17:19, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 11:58, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
This article has no sources, and it makes no claim of notability. It's borderline A7able, but there could be sources I couldn't find with the very little effort I put in. Without them, the subject clearly fails WP:GNG. KSF T C 17:17, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was Speedy keep per criterion 1. I withdraw this nomination, as the article has been significantly improved in the last few days. ( non-admin closure) KSF T C 20:32, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
This article has no sources, and it isn't clear that the subject is notable. It might be viable, if sources could be found, but the article would need to be rewritten anyway. As it is, it reads like a how-to guide. KSF T C 16:27, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 00:26, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
This unreferenced film was already deleted as per WP:Articles for deletion/Premi O Premi. It is still WP:TOOSOON and is still unreferenced. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:45, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 00:27, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Listcruft. TheLongTone ( talk) 15:03, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 00:28, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Minor element in the Transformers universe. No evidence of any real-world notability. This article has been tagged as problematic (and, to be clear, it's problematic in the way that [almost?] every article about Transformers characters is problematic) since June 2011. Attempts to turn the article into a redirect have failed. Josh Milburn ( talk) 14:28, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. I'm seeing no consensus to delete this article. There are suggestions to redirect to List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (A), so the rest of the discussion would be better continued on the article's talk page. Joyous! | Talk 00:33, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
This historical figure does not seem to be notable as I could not find much WP:RS online. Mr. Guye ( talk) 02:23, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. SOFTDELETE due to minimal participation even after being relisted twice. Joyous! | Talk 00:35, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:BIO. The sources are not independent or are things like Goodreads and Soundcloud. From the claims it is possible there is some local coverage but I can not find a single independent reliable source. All BLPs require a reliable source but since there are claimed "sources" this can not be BLPPRODed. Jbh Talk 20:02, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Joyous! | Talk 00:36, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
The subject does not meet WP:NACADEMIC criteria Domdeparis ( talk) 17:05, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was No Consensus to Delete. I cannot extract a consensus from the comments below. Eluchil404 ( talk) 04:05, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
This is a journal published by IGI Global, a non-notable publisher - largely a vanity press - whose article was deleted. This article has no independent sources to establish notability. We have no policy on inclusion based on WP:ITSINDEXED, we require reliable independent secondary sources about the subject, and this has none. Guy ( Help!) 23:31, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 00:37, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
See WP:NRIVALRY; rivalries are not inherently notable. This rivalry definitely exists [6] [7] but all I can seem to find are routine match reports such as those attached to this sentence. There is nothing available that could suggest a WP:GNG pass. At the moment, the article is nothing more than just an unsourced collection of match results; the references provided for this don't even work. Spiderone 12:26, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. ( WP:SNOW close). North America 1000 07:35, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
This is a non notable training institute and not a "school" as such. I am unable to find enough sources for WP:ORGDEPTH or to show why this is significant. There is also no indication that it is accredited. From the looks of it, it is a simply private skills training institute, one among many similar institutes. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 11:03, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. The single "keep" was added by a blocked sockpuppet. Joyous! | Talk 00:40, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Article has no independent references. I have failed to find any (in English) on Google. Maproom ( talk) 10:52, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 00:42, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Fails WP:NALBUM. Notability is not inherited from notable songs. Mr. Guye ( talk) 03:33, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete by Jimfbleak ( G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion) ( non-admin closure) — JJMC89 ( T· C) 15:21, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
No indication of WP:GNG. Mostly WP:PROMO. Zackmann08 ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 17:26, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Dear Zackmann08 | Please tell me now how I must write down the movement of the NGO TECHO, which results in South America more pronounced than TOMS shoes, according to Wikipedia policy. In South America may be we do not have as many houses and families with internet as the rest of the world, but this business model start changing our way of looking at thinks. I beg you give us a hand, take away all the stuff you think could be publicity to a brand. But remember LEAF may look like a brand but is only a path for TECHO NGO to make possible next winter over 30K children wont suffer or even die in Argentina. All the data is around the web, dont let my Inexperience in putting this together let you see beyond the tree. We are talking not of publicity, but lives, children, people. Not numbers. Help me to clean it up, making this article Wikipedia suitable.
Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trinidad Marie ( talk • contribs) 18:35, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
In the Genera notability guideline you said: written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.
"Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. [1]
We stablished that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, then we say Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). If no reliable sources can be found on a topic"
Are we suggesting that TECHO NGO is-not a reliable sources? Because the project LEAF is the putting in practice of E.S. Parsons (Talcott Pasons should have the same problem?) business model, a revolutionary concept of social an environmental view of the market, The complete Quality Cycle as shown on www.leaf.social A web page of philosophical theory, independent of the comercial website that helps TECHO www.shop.leaf.com
TECHO NGO with more than 2 Million people involved in their activity is not enough for the Wikipedia Standars? I beg your pardon Im confused, May be because here in south America are working so hard for the needy and dont have so much time to spend trying to get some recognition from first world countries
No indication of WP:GNG.??? => If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. Again I beg your pardon, TECHO NGO with more than 2 Million people involved in their activity is not enough for the Wikipedia Standars? t a reliable source? [2] 100% the NGO explaining the new market idea...
it came to my attention, shouldn't someone from latin america take a look at an article referring a latin america NGO? it seems a little bit annoying that a unite state citizen decided that TOMS business model should prevail in wikipedia and LEAF with th complete quality cycle shouldn't , with TECHO NGO standing for it. Does it have any relation with the new us administration? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trinidad Marie ( talk • contribs) 01:59, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
References
Zackmann08 Wikimandia
This page is not unambiguously promotional, the Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion applies if the article serves only to promote or publicise an entity, person, product, or idea, and would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic. However, the same criteria said that the mere fact that a company, organization, or product is a page's subject does not, on its own, qualify that article for deletion under this criterion. Wikipedia recognize TECHO NGO /info/en/?search=TECHO in their pages. Its known that there is information that takes more or less time to spread through the network. TECHO´s LEAF project is not less than TOMS /info/en/?search=Toms_Shoes "one for one" business model.On the contrary, it is vastly superior. Seeking not to build a company ( like TOMS) that perceives millionaires profits, on the contrary generate genuine funds for the NGO. A new market paradigm The complete quality cycle. We are Latin Americans. Our media is not as fast as those of first world countries. Little by little the cycle is going public. It is a theoretical concept. Raised in the university. It is not full digitized, but its real, its not a publicity, or promotion of a a brand. Let me ask you how can you be sure Fidel Castro is dead? Shouldnt we wait to see it before we allought this on wikipedia: /info/en/?search=Fidel_Castro ? All the sources are a replica of what de Cuban goberment said. and we believed it. why? The Complete Quality Cycle is a new paradigma from students of prestogious Universidad de Buenos Aires, it already got an internation award, TECHO took that model to try to change the life of 3 Millon people in Argentina next year. And may be ot will be tomorrows market arrangement. There is more variety of sources than the death of Castro. So it is arbitrary what article can be and what is not? TOMS speaks not only of its business model, but also of the brand that markets sneakers. We seemed logical to name LEAF, which is nothing other than the implementation of the theoretical concept "THE COMPLETE QUALITY CYCLE". Do you want to let TOM talk about the brand, and force us to remove LEAF? ok, we are social, we want to stand up and show whats happening with "THE COMPLETE QUALITY CYCLE" . How in south america we are changing tomorrows market. It doesnt seems fair. We have the 1/9 of the access to the network that the industrialized countries, It would seem obvious that we would have fewer sources than TOMS. At the end of the day, unlike TOMS, this is a college development. A contribution to humanity. Handled its implementation by an NGO. Not a business. I regret that so many people in industrialized countries lend themselves to indecent mistreatment like this one. Or direct as the mocking from the guy who was in communication with me.
Last but no least, remember Albert Einstein quote "Everybody is a Genius. But If You Judge a Fish by Its Ability to Climb a Tree, It Will Live Its Whole Life Believing that It is Stupid" May be in south america we are like fish, and we do not have the instant access to create several sources of what we already have in papers. "THE COMPLETE QUALITY CYCLE" You are making a Wikipedia only for those who have the money to acces the internet. Cheers! .-- Trinidad Marie ( talk) 22:47, 30 November 2016 (UTC) comment added by Trinidad Marie ( talk
The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 01:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
fails WP:MUSBIO notability cirteria Domdeparis ( talk) 17:46, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 00:42, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Article is being disputed as a spam article (see history). I translated it from Chinese to English. BlackJackPlayer ( talk) 08:52, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. ...but could definitely use improving. Joyous! | Talk 00:43, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Although it cites plenty of WP:RS, this article is a rambling essay which is composed almost entirely of synthesis and original research, and which would need a complete rewrite to be kept. An acceptable article would be based solely on sources that discuss the pleasure-pain relationship, not based on ones that just describe individual parts of the puzzle and then assembling them via WP:SYN. The Anome ( talk) 07:59, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Meets generally accepted consensus of WP:FOOTYN, nominator has withdrawn nomination. Fenix down ( talk) 09:06, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Fails WP:N#American football/Canadian football. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 07:50, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. Joyous! | Talk 00:43, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Redundant Wikipedia:Content forking. This material can be adequately covered in the childhood section of the article on Jesus and in the article on Luke 2. The family do not return to Nazareth according to Matthew's narrative. BobKilcoyne ( talk) 07:17, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. While there is a consensus to delete, the concern voiced at the end that the discussion may have been influenced by editors' personal associations with the topic must be taken into account. It is also unusual to see a competent AfD nomination by an account with four edits to its credit. This means that the deletion is somewhat provisional, and if the article is userfied, improved and resubmitted, a new AfD should be considered as a chance to give the issue a second look. Sandstein 09:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
The article is a fine example of WP:CHERRYPICKING and propaganda. It becomes apparent after checking sources that most of the cited sources are authored by pro-Russian people, such as Sergey Markedonov and Anna Matveeva. It's now widely accepted that the pro-Kremlin propagandists have no compunction against faking facts to demonize post-Soviet states, especially those not aligned with Russia.
The very first source states that the report of the use of the slogan as state policy by Zviad Gamsakhurdia, the first president of Georgia in 1991-1992, was not a solid fact, but accusation. After further research, it was discovered that this cited source [10] states on page 101 that the slogan actually belonged to Gia Chanturia, who opposed Gamsakhurdia. While the slogan certainly existed, the article so grossly misrepresents it as a name for state policy of Georgia aimed at extermination of Georgia's ethnic minorities that it borders on hoax.
Some statements are not actually supported by the cited sources. Page 72 of this source
[11] is cited in the article, but it only mentions Kenya instead of Georgia.
Konstantine Gamsakhurdia is mentioned in the article, but the cited source
[12] doesn't even mention him. The article says that "Mixed marriages would be discouraged
" by this supposed policy and cites 4 sources, but the sources don't mention anything about prohibition of mixed marriages.
Igor Giorgadze is also cited in the article, but his cited work
[13] doesn't even mention "Georgia for Georgians."
Another fine example of falsification of sources: "This policy resulted in the decision of the South Ossetian parliament in 1989 to declare its intent to unite with North Ossetia as part of the Russian Federation.
" Gamsakhurdia, the alleged author of the policy according to this very article, did not hold any office in 1989. Then this text follows: "resulting in the revocation of South Ossetia's autonomy and the merger of the region by the Georgian authorities to Shida Kartli (literally "Interior Georgia").
" The latter sentence is supposedly backed up by Ossetian propaganda source
[14], which does not even actually mention any such slogan. The entire paragraph is a blatant violation of
WP:SYNTH.
Furthermore, the article claims that many Azeris "were forced to move from the land on which they had lived for centuries
", however, the cited book itself cites another source published in 1984. I highly doubt that anyone had heard about Georgian politician Gamsakhurdia in 1984. Furthermore, the same cited book makes claims demonizing Georgia on the same page and cites dubious Russian sources.
It's very telling that the pro-Russian creator of the article was permanently banned for abusing Wikipedia. Without further ado, deletion of this inflammatory article per WP:TNT is the only logical thing to do. To conclude, the Georgian nationalism deserves better and neutrally-written article. Integrist ( talk) 07:05, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
As long as the title remains "Georgia for Georgians", I would say keep. Entirely notable on its right. Editorial conflicts are insufficient reasons to delete this article. --
George Ho (
talk)
00:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. The assertion that the articles fail WP:BASIC was not rebutted during the discussion. Mackensen (talk) 02:12, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
It's not quite clear what these guys' claim to notability is supposed to be. They're both mid-level officials in a private organization, and have received essentially zero independent coverage. These people aren't exempt from WP:GNG, which they fail; thus, the articles should be deleted. - Biruitorul Talk 06:55, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
I am also nominating the following related page:
The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 00:50, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Not my natural field of articles but I happen to notice he's not satisfying anything listed at the rugby union notability and the WikiProject's own list, therefore there's nothing suggesting actual notability, especially by noticing the easiest part: The leagues of his teams are not the major leagues. SwisterTwister talk 05:41, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 00:50, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Fails the notability guidelines. This article is a recreation of a page previously redirected per an earlier AfD and deleted per an RfD. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk, contribs) 04:58, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 00:51, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Not seeing enough to verify notability. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 04:52, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 00:52, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Poorly sourced and trivial content. Doesn't appear to meet the criteria for lists notability. Ajf773 ( talk) 04:28, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
By "city" this may or may not mean metro area, depending on the source. Additionally, the definition of a "hotel" may vary, some sources only include corporate-owned hotels, however the information is consistent within at least one source) makes it impossible to view these as comparable values, even if it was decided that this metric is important enough to build an article around. Antepenultimate ( talk) 21:13, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. Joyous! | Talk 00:53, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Closed the first time as merge, then simultaneously discussed at Deletion Review and spun back out to a stand-alone article. Bringing back to AfD for a clean decision on whether to keep it or not. This is purely an administrative action, I have no opinion on the outcome. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:08, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. SOFTDELETE because of lack of participation. I had closed earlier as NO CONSENSUS for the same reasoning, but re-closed after User:Davey2010 pointed me to this discussion, which fits the situation here. Joyous! | Talk 01:20, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Non notable channel, Google brings up nothing at all, The article could probably be merged or redirected to Discovery_Communications#Discovery_Networks_International however I'll leave that up to the community, Anyway fails GNG. – Davey2010 Talk 22:09, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 11:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
promo The Banner talk 18:10, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. postdlf ( talk) 20:52, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
WP:NOTDIR and WP:LISTN. Many entries are unlinked. List pertains to be more of a promotional tool for Hilton Hotels. Ajf773 ( talk) 03:42, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. With only one re-creation in its history, I'm disinclined to Salt the title. Joyous! | Talk 01:00, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Not notable. Insufficient coverage in independent reliable sources. There are thousands of small businesses like this. WP is not a business directory. MB 02:21, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Certainly no consensus to delete this article. There is ongoing debate about whether the topic is best handled as a standalone article at the current title, or redirected to Snow White and The Madness of Truth. I direct interested editors to the discussion page of the article. Joyous! | Talk 01:05, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Not notable fails WP:ARTIST Shrike ( talk) 14:17, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 01:06, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Still no clear evidence of notability, after being tagged for 16 months. References include non-independent sources, such as publicity for a gallery showing her work, and sources barely mentioning her. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 19:37, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. Joyous! | Talk 22:28, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Other than having no sources, this article seems like an attempt to advocate the organization per WP:NOTADVOCATE JudeccaXIII ( talk) 20:54, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 01:06, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Not really notable at all, fails WP:GNG WP:NASTRO/ WP:NASTCRIT. Davidbuddy9 Talk 20:53, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. consensus after relisting DGG ( talk ) 19:16, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Subject fails WP:NBADMINTON criteria Domdeparis ( talk) 17:14, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 01:06, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Non-notable former program; lacks significant coverage in reliable sources, failing WP:GNG. Prod contested in 2009, not gained significant coverage since then. -- Wikipedical ( talk) 00:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 00:08, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Corporation but I'm not seeing any notability; fusion systems turns up a lot of GNews hits but none seem to be related to this company at all, adding Japan/Tokyo (their HQ) doesn't help. There was some text about a previous iteration of the company which claimed notability, but they were bought out well over a decade ago and history for that company should go with the purchaser. Mr. Vernon ( talk) 23:25, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 00:09, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
A BLP that lacks coverage in reliable secondary sources. Sources include interviews, PR-driven industry profiles, directory listings and award nomination materials, resulting in a WP:PSEUDO biography covering trivia such as:
References
See WP:WHYN. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO either as the two awards listed are both scene related. K.e.coffman ( talk) 22:04, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 00:09, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Non-notable local author known for minor works and non-notable painting related events. Has a self-published book that lacks WP:N. References are minor in nature or are for published articles. Appears to fail WP:N and WP:BIO. reddogsix ( talk) 21:33, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. Joyous! | Talk 00:11, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Only could meet notability because his diaries were later published, but looking at WP:AUTHOR, it doesn't appear that his book meets notability guidelines; a translation was published by Yale University Press, but doesn't appear to meet notability guidelines (there are book reviews as would be expected, and some chatter from bloggers and such about the book.) Mr. Vernon ( talk) 21:19, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 00:12, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
dp without useful blue links The Banner talk 21:10, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. SOFTDELETE due to limited discussion after two relists. Joyous! | Talk 00:19, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai ( talk) 17:49, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 05:24, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Per WP:GNG. I attempted to find additional sources and had trouble finding any that seemed reliable. I do not know how noteworthy being the MLA of the Rajmanhal constituency of Jharkhand is, but this page either needs major expansion with additional reliable sources. or needs to be deleted. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 18:04, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Certainly NO CONSENSUS to delete the article. Strong suggestions to MERGE and REDIRECT to Verghese Kurien, where there is already mention of National Milk Day. Joyous! | Talk 00:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Gnews turns up 6 hits; this isn't that notable a holiday. (EDIT: this is turning up more hits, now 8, apparently this is getting some coverage in India. There are potentially more but it's difficult sifting through all the articles on other National Milk Days (apparently there are several.) Mr. Vernon ( talk) 17:28, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 00:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Delete. Poorly sourced article about a television show produced by a cable public access channel, whose only wider distribution was on one small-market television station owned by the same cable company. And for sourcing, all we have here is one WP:BLOG entry and a post to the host's own self-published page on Facebook -- which means that the reliable source coverage that it takes to pass WP:NMEDIA has not been shown. Local programs like this can sometimes qualify for articles if they pass the RS/NMEDIA combo, but are not automatically entitled to articles just because they exist if they're this poorly sourced. Bearcat ( talk) 17:22, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 00:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
This subject clearly fails WP:GNG; none of the sources listed even mention him. KSF T C 17:19, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 11:58, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
This article has no sources, and it makes no claim of notability. It's borderline A7able, but there could be sources I couldn't find with the very little effort I put in. Without them, the subject clearly fails WP:GNG. KSF T C 17:17, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was Speedy keep per criterion 1. I withdraw this nomination, as the article has been significantly improved in the last few days. ( non-admin closure) KSF T C 20:32, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
This article has no sources, and it isn't clear that the subject is notable. It might be viable, if sources could be found, but the article would need to be rewritten anyway. As it is, it reads like a how-to guide. KSF T C 16:27, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 00:26, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
This unreferenced film was already deleted as per WP:Articles for deletion/Premi O Premi. It is still WP:TOOSOON and is still unreferenced. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:45, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 00:27, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Listcruft. TheLongTone ( talk) 15:03, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 00:28, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Minor element in the Transformers universe. No evidence of any real-world notability. This article has been tagged as problematic (and, to be clear, it's problematic in the way that [almost?] every article about Transformers characters is problematic) since June 2011. Attempts to turn the article into a redirect have failed. Josh Milburn ( talk) 14:28, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. I'm seeing no consensus to delete this article. There are suggestions to redirect to List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (A), so the rest of the discussion would be better continued on the article's talk page. Joyous! | Talk 00:33, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
This historical figure does not seem to be notable as I could not find much WP:RS online. Mr. Guye ( talk) 02:23, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. SOFTDELETE due to minimal participation even after being relisted twice. Joyous! | Talk 00:35, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:BIO. The sources are not independent or are things like Goodreads and Soundcloud. From the claims it is possible there is some local coverage but I can not find a single independent reliable source. All BLPs require a reliable source but since there are claimed "sources" this can not be BLPPRODed. Jbh Talk 20:02, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Joyous! | Talk 00:36, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
The subject does not meet WP:NACADEMIC criteria Domdeparis ( talk) 17:05, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was No Consensus to Delete. I cannot extract a consensus from the comments below. Eluchil404 ( talk) 04:05, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
This is a journal published by IGI Global, a non-notable publisher - largely a vanity press - whose article was deleted. This article has no independent sources to establish notability. We have no policy on inclusion based on WP:ITSINDEXED, we require reliable independent secondary sources about the subject, and this has none. Guy ( Help!) 23:31, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 00:37, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
See WP:NRIVALRY; rivalries are not inherently notable. This rivalry definitely exists [6] [7] but all I can seem to find are routine match reports such as those attached to this sentence. There is nothing available that could suggest a WP:GNG pass. At the moment, the article is nothing more than just an unsourced collection of match results; the references provided for this don't even work. Spiderone 12:26, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. ( WP:SNOW close). North America 1000 07:35, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
This is a non notable training institute and not a "school" as such. I am unable to find enough sources for WP:ORGDEPTH or to show why this is significant. There is also no indication that it is accredited. From the looks of it, it is a simply private skills training institute, one among many similar institutes. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 11:03, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. The single "keep" was added by a blocked sockpuppet. Joyous! | Talk 00:40, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Article has no independent references. I have failed to find any (in English) on Google. Maproom ( talk) 10:52, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 00:42, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Fails WP:NALBUM. Notability is not inherited from notable songs. Mr. Guye ( talk) 03:33, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete by Jimfbleak ( G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion) ( non-admin closure) — JJMC89 ( T· C) 15:21, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
No indication of WP:GNG. Mostly WP:PROMO. Zackmann08 ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 17:26, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Dear Zackmann08 | Please tell me now how I must write down the movement of the NGO TECHO, which results in South America more pronounced than TOMS shoes, according to Wikipedia policy. In South America may be we do not have as many houses and families with internet as the rest of the world, but this business model start changing our way of looking at thinks. I beg you give us a hand, take away all the stuff you think could be publicity to a brand. But remember LEAF may look like a brand but is only a path for TECHO NGO to make possible next winter over 30K children wont suffer or even die in Argentina. All the data is around the web, dont let my Inexperience in putting this together let you see beyond the tree. We are talking not of publicity, but lives, children, people. Not numbers. Help me to clean it up, making this article Wikipedia suitable.
Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trinidad Marie ( talk • contribs) 18:35, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
In the Genera notability guideline you said: written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.
"Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. [1]
We stablished that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, then we say Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). If no reliable sources can be found on a topic"
Are we suggesting that TECHO NGO is-not a reliable sources? Because the project LEAF is the putting in practice of E.S. Parsons (Talcott Pasons should have the same problem?) business model, a revolutionary concept of social an environmental view of the market, The complete Quality Cycle as shown on www.leaf.social A web page of philosophical theory, independent of the comercial website that helps TECHO www.shop.leaf.com
TECHO NGO with more than 2 Million people involved in their activity is not enough for the Wikipedia Standars? I beg your pardon Im confused, May be because here in south America are working so hard for the needy and dont have so much time to spend trying to get some recognition from first world countries
No indication of WP:GNG.??? => If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. Again I beg your pardon, TECHO NGO with more than 2 Million people involved in their activity is not enough for the Wikipedia Standars? t a reliable source? [2] 100% the NGO explaining the new market idea...
it came to my attention, shouldn't someone from latin america take a look at an article referring a latin america NGO? it seems a little bit annoying that a unite state citizen decided that TOMS business model should prevail in wikipedia and LEAF with th complete quality cycle shouldn't , with TECHO NGO standing for it. Does it have any relation with the new us administration? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trinidad Marie ( talk • contribs) 01:59, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
References
Zackmann08 Wikimandia
This page is not unambiguously promotional, the Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion applies if the article serves only to promote or publicise an entity, person, product, or idea, and would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic. However, the same criteria said that the mere fact that a company, organization, or product is a page's subject does not, on its own, qualify that article for deletion under this criterion. Wikipedia recognize TECHO NGO /info/en/?search=TECHO in their pages. Its known that there is information that takes more or less time to spread through the network. TECHO´s LEAF project is not less than TOMS /info/en/?search=Toms_Shoes "one for one" business model.On the contrary, it is vastly superior. Seeking not to build a company ( like TOMS) that perceives millionaires profits, on the contrary generate genuine funds for the NGO. A new market paradigm The complete quality cycle. We are Latin Americans. Our media is not as fast as those of first world countries. Little by little the cycle is going public. It is a theoretical concept. Raised in the university. It is not full digitized, but its real, its not a publicity, or promotion of a a brand. Let me ask you how can you be sure Fidel Castro is dead? Shouldnt we wait to see it before we allought this on wikipedia: /info/en/?search=Fidel_Castro ? All the sources are a replica of what de Cuban goberment said. and we believed it. why? The Complete Quality Cycle is a new paradigma from students of prestogious Universidad de Buenos Aires, it already got an internation award, TECHO took that model to try to change the life of 3 Millon people in Argentina next year. And may be ot will be tomorrows market arrangement. There is more variety of sources than the death of Castro. So it is arbitrary what article can be and what is not? TOMS speaks not only of its business model, but also of the brand that markets sneakers. We seemed logical to name LEAF, which is nothing other than the implementation of the theoretical concept "THE COMPLETE QUALITY CYCLE". Do you want to let TOM talk about the brand, and force us to remove LEAF? ok, we are social, we want to stand up and show whats happening with "THE COMPLETE QUALITY CYCLE" . How in south america we are changing tomorrows market. It doesnt seems fair. We have the 1/9 of the access to the network that the industrialized countries, It would seem obvious that we would have fewer sources than TOMS. At the end of the day, unlike TOMS, this is a college development. A contribution to humanity. Handled its implementation by an NGO. Not a business. I regret that so many people in industrialized countries lend themselves to indecent mistreatment like this one. Or direct as the mocking from the guy who was in communication with me.
Last but no least, remember Albert Einstein quote "Everybody is a Genius. But If You Judge a Fish by Its Ability to Climb a Tree, It Will Live Its Whole Life Believing that It is Stupid" May be in south america we are like fish, and we do not have the instant access to create several sources of what we already have in papers. "THE COMPLETE QUALITY CYCLE" You are making a Wikipedia only for those who have the money to acces the internet. Cheers! .-- Trinidad Marie ( talk) 22:47, 30 November 2016 (UTC) comment added by Trinidad Marie ( talk
The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 01:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
fails WP:MUSBIO notability cirteria Domdeparis ( talk) 17:46, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 00:42, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Article is being disputed as a spam article (see history). I translated it from Chinese to English. BlackJackPlayer ( talk) 08:52, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. ...but could definitely use improving. Joyous! | Talk 00:43, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Although it cites plenty of WP:RS, this article is a rambling essay which is composed almost entirely of synthesis and original research, and which would need a complete rewrite to be kept. An acceptable article would be based solely on sources that discuss the pleasure-pain relationship, not based on ones that just describe individual parts of the puzzle and then assembling them via WP:SYN. The Anome ( talk) 07:59, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Meets generally accepted consensus of WP:FOOTYN, nominator has withdrawn nomination. Fenix down ( talk) 09:06, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Fails WP:N#American football/Canadian football. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 07:50, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. Joyous! | Talk 00:43, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Redundant Wikipedia:Content forking. This material can be adequately covered in the childhood section of the article on Jesus and in the article on Luke 2. The family do not return to Nazareth according to Matthew's narrative. BobKilcoyne ( talk) 07:17, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. While there is a consensus to delete, the concern voiced at the end that the discussion may have been influenced by editors' personal associations with the topic must be taken into account. It is also unusual to see a competent AfD nomination by an account with four edits to its credit. This means that the deletion is somewhat provisional, and if the article is userfied, improved and resubmitted, a new AfD should be considered as a chance to give the issue a second look. Sandstein 09:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
The article is a fine example of WP:CHERRYPICKING and propaganda. It becomes apparent after checking sources that most of the cited sources are authored by pro-Russian people, such as Sergey Markedonov and Anna Matveeva. It's now widely accepted that the pro-Kremlin propagandists have no compunction against faking facts to demonize post-Soviet states, especially those not aligned with Russia.
The very first source states that the report of the use of the slogan as state policy by Zviad Gamsakhurdia, the first president of Georgia in 1991-1992, was not a solid fact, but accusation. After further research, it was discovered that this cited source [10] states on page 101 that the slogan actually belonged to Gia Chanturia, who opposed Gamsakhurdia. While the slogan certainly existed, the article so grossly misrepresents it as a name for state policy of Georgia aimed at extermination of Georgia's ethnic minorities that it borders on hoax.
Some statements are not actually supported by the cited sources. Page 72 of this source
[11] is cited in the article, but it only mentions Kenya instead of Georgia.
Konstantine Gamsakhurdia is mentioned in the article, but the cited source
[12] doesn't even mention him. The article says that "Mixed marriages would be discouraged
" by this supposed policy and cites 4 sources, but the sources don't mention anything about prohibition of mixed marriages.
Igor Giorgadze is also cited in the article, but his cited work
[13] doesn't even mention "Georgia for Georgians."
Another fine example of falsification of sources: "This policy resulted in the decision of the South Ossetian parliament in 1989 to declare its intent to unite with North Ossetia as part of the Russian Federation.
" Gamsakhurdia, the alleged author of the policy according to this very article, did not hold any office in 1989. Then this text follows: "resulting in the revocation of South Ossetia's autonomy and the merger of the region by the Georgian authorities to Shida Kartli (literally "Interior Georgia").
" The latter sentence is supposedly backed up by Ossetian propaganda source
[14], which does not even actually mention any such slogan. The entire paragraph is a blatant violation of
WP:SYNTH.
Furthermore, the article claims that many Azeris "were forced to move from the land on which they had lived for centuries
", however, the cited book itself cites another source published in 1984. I highly doubt that anyone had heard about Georgian politician Gamsakhurdia in 1984. Furthermore, the same cited book makes claims demonizing Georgia on the same page and cites dubious Russian sources.
It's very telling that the pro-Russian creator of the article was permanently banned for abusing Wikipedia. Without further ado, deletion of this inflammatory article per WP:TNT is the only logical thing to do. To conclude, the Georgian nationalism deserves better and neutrally-written article. Integrist ( talk) 07:05, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
As long as the title remains "Georgia for Georgians", I would say keep. Entirely notable on its right. Editorial conflicts are insufficient reasons to delete this article. --
George Ho (
talk)
00:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. The assertion that the articles fail WP:BASIC was not rebutted during the discussion. Mackensen (talk) 02:12, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
It's not quite clear what these guys' claim to notability is supposed to be. They're both mid-level officials in a private organization, and have received essentially zero independent coverage. These people aren't exempt from WP:GNG, which they fail; thus, the articles should be deleted. - Biruitorul Talk 06:55, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
I am also nominating the following related page:
The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 00:50, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Not my natural field of articles but I happen to notice he's not satisfying anything listed at the rugby union notability and the WikiProject's own list, therefore there's nothing suggesting actual notability, especially by noticing the easiest part: The leagues of his teams are not the major leagues. SwisterTwister talk 05:41, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 00:50, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Fails the notability guidelines. This article is a recreation of a page previously redirected per an earlier AfD and deleted per an RfD. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk, contribs) 04:58, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 00:51, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Not seeing enough to verify notability. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 04:52, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 00:52, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Poorly sourced and trivial content. Doesn't appear to meet the criteria for lists notability. Ajf773 ( talk) 04:28, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
By "city" this may or may not mean metro area, depending on the source. Additionally, the definition of a "hotel" may vary, some sources only include corporate-owned hotels, however the information is consistent within at least one source) makes it impossible to view these as comparable values, even if it was decided that this metric is important enough to build an article around. Antepenultimate ( talk) 21:13, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. Joyous! | Talk 00:53, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Closed the first time as merge, then simultaneously discussed at Deletion Review and spun back out to a stand-alone article. Bringing back to AfD for a clean decision on whether to keep it or not. This is purely an administrative action, I have no opinion on the outcome. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:08, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. SOFTDELETE because of lack of participation. I had closed earlier as NO CONSENSUS for the same reasoning, but re-closed after User:Davey2010 pointed me to this discussion, which fits the situation here. Joyous! | Talk 01:20, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Non notable channel, Google brings up nothing at all, The article could probably be merged or redirected to Discovery_Communications#Discovery_Networks_International however I'll leave that up to the community, Anyway fails GNG. – Davey2010 Talk 22:09, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 11:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
promo The Banner talk 18:10, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. postdlf ( talk) 20:52, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
WP:NOTDIR and WP:LISTN. Many entries are unlinked. List pertains to be more of a promotional tool for Hilton Hotels. Ajf773 ( talk) 03:42, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. With only one re-creation in its history, I'm disinclined to Salt the title. Joyous! | Talk 01:00, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Not notable. Insufficient coverage in independent reliable sources. There are thousands of small businesses like this. WP is not a business directory. MB 02:21, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Certainly no consensus to delete this article. There is ongoing debate about whether the topic is best handled as a standalone article at the current title, or redirected to Snow White and The Madness of Truth. I direct interested editors to the discussion page of the article. Joyous! | Talk 01:05, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Not notable fails WP:ARTIST Shrike ( talk) 14:17, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 01:06, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Still no clear evidence of notability, after being tagged for 16 months. References include non-independent sources, such as publicity for a gallery showing her work, and sources barely mentioning her. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 19:37, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. Joyous! | Talk 22:28, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Other than having no sources, this article seems like an attempt to advocate the organization per WP:NOTADVOCATE JudeccaXIII ( talk) 20:54, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 01:06, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Not really notable at all, fails WP:GNG WP:NASTRO/ WP:NASTCRIT. Davidbuddy9 Talk 20:53, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. consensus after relisting DGG ( talk ) 19:16, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Subject fails WP:NBADMINTON criteria Domdeparis ( talk) 17:14, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 01:06, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Non-notable former program; lacks significant coverage in reliable sources, failing WP:GNG. Prod contested in 2009, not gained significant coverage since then. -- Wikipedical ( talk) 00:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC)