![]() |
The result was withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:31, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Delete: name category with only one entry. Quis separabit? 23:55, 3 November 2016 (UTC) Quis separabit? 23:55, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 11:31, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm unable to find any substantial, in-depth coverage of this person in reliable sources as required by the notability requirements for biographies. The best sources in the current article are mentions in BBC articles about him getting blocked on youtube [2]. He has written some books, but the reviews are insufficient to meet WP:NAUTHOR. A search for other sources turned up another mention in the BBC, but still some way off what we require. SmartSE ( talk) 22:14, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Mýa discography. Sandstein 14:09, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Fails WP:NSONG, coverage is limited and doesn't seem to have charted in any country. Aoba47 ( talk) 14:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was Withdrawn by nominator. Pincrete ( talk) 20:49, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Article content is already merged with Thomas D. Rice, the creator of this character. The content is solely this character (not an archetype). Suggest redirect to Thomas D. Rice, and the DAB to point also to Rice. Pincrete ( talk) 20:39, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 11:26, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
not enough in depth secondary sources to merit a stand alone article for now thereby failing WP:GNG — Oluwa2Chainz »» ( talk to me) 20:34, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. Cerebellum ( talk) 13:26, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Does not seem to meet the organization notability guidelines or general notability. Googling this brings up few results other than the school's website(and some other schools with a similar name) Given the username of the page creator(the same name as the school) page seems intended to be promotional(though not to the degree of a speedy deletion) 331dot ( talk) 20:16, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 11:25, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
The article is not sourced and I can only find a book with this particular article title (it's a strange title by the way, containing "or"). Presumably this article is redundant per article Market research. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:13, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 11:16, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Delete: as non-notable actor. Quis separabit? 20:00, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 11:11, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Non notable bus routes, All fail GNG. – Davey2010 Talk 19:51, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was redirect to First Hampshire & Dorset. Sandstein 14:09, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Non notable bus route, Was created by Jurassicline who was blocked for socking, Fails GNG – Davey2010 Talk 19:46, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of bus routes in London. Sandstein 14:08, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Non notable bus route, Fails GNG. – Davey2010 Talk 19:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Consensus is for deletion. North America 1000 05:16, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
An WP:ADVERT for the college. No notability outside of the college's website. Hard to believe this has existed for more than ten years too! Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 19:39, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sam Walton ( talk) 21:31, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
A couple of attempts have been made at speedy deletion and declined, so I will take to AfD. I could go either way at this point. He is a death row inmate and online coverage seems sufficient. However, I can see how some might invoke
WP:BLP1E. I will lean to keep at this point, but I will nominate nonetheless so that the notability issue can be settled right away.
Safiel (
talk)
19:34, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete via criterion A1. {{ Nihiltres | talk | edits}} 20:50, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Finding no coverage in reliable sources for this series; fails WP:N. North America 1000 19:13, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 11:06, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Per source searches, this musician and video director has received no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to qualify for an article; does not meet WP:BASIC or WP:MUSICBIO at this time. North America 1000 18:43, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 11:04, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Per source searches, this subject has received no coverage in independent, reliable sources; does not meet WP:BASIC to qualify for an article, and finding no indication of the subject meeting WP:CREATIVE. North America 1000 18:38, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 02:59, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Source searches are providing no significant coverage to qualify an article; does not meet aspects of WP:NFILM and does not meet WP:GNG. North America 1000 18:27, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 10:57, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Per source searches, this musician has received no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to qualify for an article; does not meet WP:BASIC or WP:MUSICBIO at this time. North America 1000 18:13, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 10:56, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Per source searches, this debut album has received no significant coverage in reliable sources to qualify for an article, thus not meeting WP:GNG. The album also does not appear to meet WP:NALBUMS at this time. North America 1000 18:12, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sam Walton ( talk) 21:33, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Per source searches and source analysis, the depth of coverage this company has received is not enough to meet WP:CORPDEPTH at this time. North America 1000 18:06, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. Sam Walton ( talk) 21:35, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
It doesn't seem worthwhile to have a page about the generic concept of RDF query languages, since SPARQL (or, if you prefer SPARQL/SPARUL) has been the dominant such language since nearly the beginning. No other RDF query language has an article on the English Wikipedia, for what it's worth. All of the limited information on this page can - and already does - fit into the Resource Description Framework article. (By the way, "RDF query language" should not be confused with RDQL, which stands for "RDF Query Language", a specific - though not widely-used - such language.) Yaron K. ( talk) 20:54, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. Sam Walton ( talk) 16:46, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Per source searches, this television series does not meet WP:GNG because it has not received any significant coverage in reliable sources to qualify for an article. North America 1000 17:36, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete per WP:G12. Unambiguous copyright infringement of content at http://www.electricarticles.com/display.aspx?id=3783. North America 1000 17:24, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
WP:NOTGUIDE, no indication that this subject is notable enough for its own article LynxTufts ( talk) 16:42, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure)
I had trouble getting this article to satisfy the general notability guidelines or organization/company notability guidelines. References in the article and those found online simply have a passing mention to the school or cannot be considered reliably sourced. Garchy ( talk) 16:32, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete per A7. ( non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:41, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Unsourced article with no reliable 3rd party sources found establishing notability. Cotton2 ( talk) 16:24, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 08:55, 14 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:Magioladitis (creator) with the following rationale "Company produced 5 games all notable, send to AfD in necessary. Probably PC games epxerts can find referneces to PC magazines about the company". Well, if they can, great, but I couldn't (and neither could the creator, obviously). And if there are no refs, producing 5 video games is no better then producing 10 designs of sofas of 3 variations of a top hat - none of which is enough to satisfy any notability policy, I am afraid. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 12:56, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Non-notable political organisation. As it currently stands, it is solely self-referencing to a WP:PRIMARY source and consists of only of a list of policies, in the face of WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Also fails the primary criteria, as it has neither a depth of coverage, a broad audience, or independent sources. A WP:BEFORE search shows nothing beyond (apart from itself) Facebook, blogs, forums and YouTube (pages 1, 2 and 3). Ultimately it has not received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" so fails basic WP:GNG. Muffled Pocketed 14:50, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Yes Network. Notability not established, despite ILIKEIT and OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments. Article history still available if there is any sourced content that should be merged to the target article. Randykitty ( talk) 16:14, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. ProQuest only turns up one news article that can be considered significant coverage in the course of a 25+ year career. Only significant coverage from Google is interviews with blogs and biography pages from employers. Hirolovesswords ( talk) 13:17, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
I have to disagree with the need for reliable, independent sources when discussing a public figure who has been on television for, as you mentioned, 25+ years. She exists, even if there is little external coverage about it. Milchama ( talk) 13:39, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Keep - Easily notable. - Mlpearc ( open channel) 16:29, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 10:55, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Subject is only a senior lecturer and his work does not seem to be widely cited or significant enough in his field to pass WP:PROF. References are to works he authored. Nothing to indicate he passes the general notability guidelines either. Jbh Talk 14:30, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
References 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 all list him as an author. Reference 3 lists several works which, per the statement it is attached to, seem to be "his work on Rene Gerard" ie material he wrote. What I do not see are any works about Chris Fleming rather than by Chris Fleming. That is what would be needed to get him over the general notability requirements. To get him over the notability requirements for academics we would need to show a very high citation rate for several of his works, many reviews of his works in journals, others doing works on him, an appointment to something equivalent to the Royal Society or National Academy of Sciences. I simply can not find such sources but should they be presented I would happily withdraw this nomination.
(Please remember to sign your posts with ~~~~
. This will insert your user name and a time stamp when you save the page.)
Apologies for the "fervour." I'm an ex-PhD student of his, and I'd seen that people such as Mireille Astore and Diego Bubbio and a whole bunch of other people had pages and felt some kind of loyalty. That's the truth. But, of course, I'm happy to let this one drop. I'm a newcomer to writing for Wikipedia and so may have got things terribly wrong - it wouldn't be the first time I've got things terribly wrong! I'm worried that further defences will simply be seen as irrational outbursts. Apologies if I've wasted people's time. Obviously, I think he's worth including, but won't take up more airtime trying to establish that, and wasting others' time doing so. EggPlant — Preceding unsigned comment added by EggplantDancer ( talk • contribs) 00:29, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
(By comparison, I was looking at the profiles of Diego Bubbio and Dimitris Vardoulakis - and I can name innumerable others from other institutions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EggplantDancer ( talk • contribs) 01:16, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
I'd be really interested in the difference between Fleming's profile and the others which are seemingly comparable, and - in some cases - less notable. Could someone clarify here to help a newcomer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EggplantDancer ( talk • contribs) 01:48, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
~~~~
. This will insert your user name and a time stamp when you save the page.)
Jbh
Talk
02:02, 4 November 2016 (UTC)In the articles mentioned above I did not did into the sources so I can not speak to how well they hold up. Academics are among the hardest people to write Wikipedia biographies for because they do not often get a lot of press coverage. Generally the notability criteria are only fulfilled by late career academics. As I said earlier, Royal Society members and the like, holders of named chairs, Field's Medal winners and Nobel Lauriates or, as is often the case, those whose impact can be shown by having many highly cited works. What "many" and "highly cited" means depends on their field of study.
Also, please note that while it can be difficult for new users to accept, articles are always judged on how they stack up against Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, not against other articles. This is so common that there is even a page which explains it - WP:OTHERSTUFF. I hope this helps some. Jbh Talk 03:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Also, you will notice I have been adjusting the indent level of your replies. Talk page comments are indented/threaded to make the conversation easier to follow. This brief tutorial on editing talk pages explains how to do that. Jbh Talk 13:00, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks again, everyone. I'm loathe to raise it again, but I've randomly just found 11 people with lower h-index scores of people on Wikipedia, simply because this was supposedly a "knock down" comment just made. And yes, there's an editorial in Britain and the World which deals with Fleming's conspiracy book which I've left out, along with a bunch of other stuff, because I feel like the verdict has already been reached and nothing now could be said to reverse it, given the "fervour" of the rebuttals: "If only peacocks crowed at sunup, I would keep them and eat my chickens" says the person who accuses me of fervour. But I've put in more references, and there's many more that I could, but given that there's no consistency in how any of the criteria have been applied about "notability" - given the many examples that are easy enough to find which are far less notable, it seems pointless. ("Ah yes, the reference here in Girard's own book Mimesis and Theory says that Fleming's work is 'easily the best" book on mimetic theory,' but this is simply...um...not notable enough, you see - we must go with our objective criteria; we are very objective here"). Is this sour grapes on my behalf? Almost certainly - again, I have an agenda, no doubt about it. The point has been made above that it's not about other entries, but the fact is, if these are included (and the one's I mentioned have not been marked for deletion), then any reference to "criteria" are utterly irrelevant. (If a teacher says "you failed the exam" and you then find people who score lower than yourself and who also pass that exam, and you bring this fact to the examiner's attention, is it adequate for the examiner to say "Ah! But it's not about THEM and THEIR scores, it's about YOU and the relevant criteria?" Hardly, it seems that the term "criteria" here is so ectoplasmic that it can include - or exclude - whomever, depending on the day or the preferences of the examiner. Again, I'm beholden to my own agenda here, and I'm not hiding it (I'm one of those fawning ex-students) - but who comes to anything without an agenda? Certainly not this. Epistemologically, this is an enormously interesting area in itself (my PhD is in epistemology), and something itself worth writing about. But I now know that it doesn't really matter about the evidence I bring to bear on this. It's a pity, but the profile should probably come down sooner rather than later - it coming down later only implies a form of rational adjudication at work that is there only in name. NB. I do really appreciate people's time in explaining things to me; I feel very strongly about this, about everyone's generosity with their time and their patience with me when I've obviously been irritating; I have no desire to go on bugging anyone. I suspect, though, that Wikipedia authoring is probably best left to others, people more sympathetic to its particular form of rigour. I may well be wrong about all of this - I continue to be wrong about many things! - but I can't (yet) see how. Perhaps I should just make contributions by adding or subtracting small bits of info to (or correcting grammar of) existing pages. I'm probably too unskilled at this point to do much more than this; I was thinking of adding a page on Paul Dumouchel, but now I'm going to back away. Last Q: Why can't we just bring the page down today? EggplantDancer ( talk) 03:04, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Delete, because I think - at this stage - it's by far the funniest thing to do. EggplantDancer ( talk) 05:05, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 10:50, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
I couldn't establish that he meets WP:CREATIVE, WP:GNG or any other aspect of WP:NOTABILITY. Article (clearly promotional) claims he has a painting in The White House and that he is considered America's greatest pencil artist. I couldn't verify either claim. Boleyn ( talk) 14:30, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 10:49, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Simon doesn't seem to meet WP:CREATIVE, WP:GNG or any other aspect of WP:NOTABILITY. Has been tagged for notability for over 8 years now, hopefully we can resolve it now. Boleyn ( talk) 14:24, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 08:53, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Quote: "The newly built university is in completion phase". So probably is not notable yet: WP:TOOSOON. XXN, 19:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sam Walton ( talk) 21:37, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
No such mine exists AFAIK. See Bagla Hills for the sordid details. Clarityfiend ( talk) 00:01, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 ( talk, contribs) 20:02, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
I couldn't establish that it meets
WP:ORG,
WP:GNG or any other aspect of
WP:NOTABILITY. Although it has sources such as NY Times and USA Today, those articles do not mention this organisation. This has been tagged for notability for over 8 years, hopefully we can get it resolved now.
Boleyn (
talk)
14:14, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. No consensus especially considering the nom and first delete !vote did not re-comment after Czar presented more sources ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:48, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Inadequate references for notability The references are insubstantial or promotional. The wired one, which is the best, is nonetheless written as an advertorial. DGG ( talk ) 23:55, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 10:48, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Small store with four locations. Nothing indicating notability. Fails WP:GNG. Zackmann08 ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 00:24, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
The company was launched on October 1 2016 in Thailand, at BLÚPORT Hua Hin owned by The Mall Group, with three further stores opened at Emporium, Central Westgate, and Central Bangna owned by the Central Group over the following two weeks.This is a newly opened showroom from the looks of it. While the creator is notable, the showroom doesn't inherit that notability. I do not see enough sources for the showroom itself. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 17:12, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR Sarahj2107 ( talk) 10:47, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
He doesn't meet WP:GNG and I don't think his credits meet the requirements of WP:NACTOR. The sources in the article are his own publicity, many IMDb pages, and cast listings. Largoplazo ( talk) 11:20, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input despite two relists. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 09:50, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Deleted once before. Arguably meets WP:NBAND #9 for that "Road to V" co-award, but coverage is sparse and short on detail: most statements in the article cannot be independently verified. Could go either way, but I look at NBAND's "may be notable if" and note that "may be" doesn't mean "is". — swpb T 15:45, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Mhhossein talk 09:34, 10 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 (software) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Bgwhite with the following rationale "This is an internet standard, thus notable. However, the article needs work.". Doh that last part, but I am not aware of any policy that states that Internet standards are notable. Like everything else, they need to meet said guidelines, and I don't see how this stub does it. Further, I don't see sources that discuss this topic in-depth. At best I can see this redirected to some list. Not merged, because there is no content to speak of. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:57, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Mojo Hand ( talk) 15:22, 20 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 (software) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Bgwhite with the following rationale "There are alot of valid refs out there for this". Sadly, singe he couldn't be bothered to add them to this unrefereced articles, and I don't see anything other then a passing mention, we ended up here. If anyone can find any refs that helps this meet GNG, by showing the significance of this software (not just a passing mentions that it exists), please note this here, and explain why should we have this minor piece of code in our encyclopedia. It has benefited the company which created it, and whose representative added it here ( WP:SPA, WP:COI: User:Volomike~enwiki) enough over the past 10 years. Such spam should be speedied, not end up here. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:50, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Redirects can be recreated at editorial discretion. If Farsi sources support notability, the article can be recreated, but due to the copyright issues about this text probably not from the current text. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 09:53, 13 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 (organizations) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Bgwhite with the following rationale "Colleges at major universities are usually notable, but not all. This never should have been proded. Use AfD instead". Well, to that I can reply that declining topics that clearly fail GNG and forcing us to waste time here is what should never been done. Anyway, what we have here is your run-of-the-mill not-notable university department/college. It cites no non-primary sources, and I do not see any work that would discuss it in depth, or even mention it as an important school. With WP:PEACOCK wording like "The faculty is doubtlessly the backbone of veterinary research and education in Iran" this is just (doubtlessly) university-department promoting spam that should have been speedied, not end up wasting our time here. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:44, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 10:45, 11 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:Bgwhite with the following rationale "plenty of refs for this, including newspaper articles.". I'd like to see that "plenty of refs". The only one I see is the linked newspaper ref, which while from quality ref, is de facto just one paragraph-worth review of this podcast. I don't think that one paragraph review in an article, even in a reliable newspaper, is enough for the podcast to be notable. This doesn't meet neither the in-depth coverage requirement, nor one for multiple sources. As such, I can't agree this podcast is notable. PS. Ping User:RA0808 who nominated this for speedy before I prodded it. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:30, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 10:43, 11 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 (biographies) requirement. Since it was prodded (by User:The Anome) and deprodded before (by the creator User:Diverman who wrote way back in 2007: "this article was created as part of the WP:HOT project. i.e. there was a request to create it". Well, 10 years down the road it still looks like it did back them, this is I am sorry to say like a spammy neologism that fails GNG. I couldn't find any sources that woudl convince me otherwise, I am afraid. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:13, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was merge to StudioCanal#Background. Sam Walton ( talk) 21:37, 11 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:Bgwhite with the following rationale "Plenty of refs out there". Unfortunately, I don't see those refs - there are some mentions in passing, press releases, directory entries, and the usual assorted spam, but nothing that seems to pass cited policies. Perhaps BGwwhite will be kind enough to list and discuss those refs here (and let me repeat - discuss, not just list - please explain why those refs you found are quality refs). As far as I am concerned, as I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:39, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Sam Walton ( talk) 21:38, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Delete: as musical group which fails notability threshold by a wide margin. Unsourced, mostly OR. Quis separabit? 03:20, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 10:42, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
This would be more suitable for a draft, that can be later moved into an actual article. See WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL. TheKaphox T 12:06, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 12:55, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Fails GNG. CerealKillerYum ( talk) 14:58, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Mojo Hand ( talk) 15:31, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
This was the best mention I found in the press, so I think the topic does not pass notability guidelines, in particular WP:ORG. I would have expected mentions in the local press for such a club, and could not even find that. Tigraan Click here to contact me 15:52, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Mojo Hand ( talk) 15:33, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
I was on the verge of WP:A7-ing it, but I guess "does business in 37 countries" is a claim of notability, so here we go. The obvious problem is WP:BIO. Tigraan Click here to contact me 16:34, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 16:21, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Does not really assert notability, and one newspaper article (cited) isn't really sufficient to establish notability, I think. Delete. -- Nlu ( talk) 16:47, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 10:41, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Not notable nor referenced Rathfelder ( talk) 17:26, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Or rather, no interest... Sandstein 16:51, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Only one of the provided sources meets WP:RS, and even that is brief, and the album does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 13:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 12:06, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Subject appears to be lacking " substantial" coverage in "multiple" secondary, independent and reliable sources. Thus doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Anup [Talk] 19:25, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was redirect to The Godfather Part III. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 09:53, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
This article does not establish notability. There are a couple sources mentioning his real world basis, but nothing truly substantial. TTN ( talk) 20:21, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 16:50, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Notability tag added to article a couple of years ago, no improvement since. The article is more or less unsourced and there aren't any claims (apart from maybe two solo exhibitions) that would confer notability even if they were adequately sourced. I can't find any significant coverage, apart from possibly this article which mentions a sculpture by "Welsh sculptor" Dave Stephens (who may not even be the same person). Time for it to go, I think. It's not much use as it stands. Sionk ( talk) 11:17, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Vancouver Whitecaps FC. Clear consensus not to keep the article. Going for a redirect in case people can salvage some content. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 09:55, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Resubmitting this article for deletion discussion. My first suggestion that this league was a youth league was proven wrong, fair enough, it's an academy team/league. But I honestly do not believe that a 4th tier, amateur-level US soccer/football academy league meets WP:GNG standards on its own. Here are my arguments against this:
Now, I can agree with the opinion and would even support a Merge of this content to its respective parent club page, Vancouver Whitecaps FC. But on its own, this page fails. SanAnMan ( talk) 13:53, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 12:39, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Copied from OTRS 2016101810014724 - Raj Barr-Kumar is not a prominent American architect, or architect of note by any standard accepted measure. The voluminous curriculum vitae of awards, education and registrations are not proof of any meaningful merit, as any self-promoting architect could duplicate it. The entry is authored by someone who most likely is connected via family, pupil or being paid. All of Barr's books are vanity press , and no more than required texts that all professors publish to sell to their students. Barr, had no tenure at American University where he taught for a few years. Barr lists well known buildings as projects deceitfully, never any detail to the extent of project. Listing Embassies, Hotels and various buildings of note regardless his part (if any) and never any sources verifying what extent. One project listed on his company page, "National Cathedral", was at best a collaboration with another architect on bringing restrooms up to ADA code. That in itself is suspect that Barr had any meaningful input, but very disingenuous in promotion regardless. There are few to any actual photos "of great accomplishments" actually built, but rather his portfolio is strewn with conceptual drawings. One project noted "Altos Escondidos" was a purchase of land by his brother the principal, in Panama in about year 2007, and has yet to even show any proof of breaking ground or sales, with investors losing 100% of their capital. The project has been alleged a fraud by investors goo.gl/6eL8Np Past president of AIA, garners no illustrious recognition as this is only an organization architects pay to join (to use as promotion), not unlike the AMA for physicians. The AIA, replaces it President yearly and one only needs to research past Presidents to note that position does not make one noteworthy as an architect at all. Barr's office address is and always has been a mail drop, and shared office space type of arrangement. One only needs to verify that searching his business address and noting the multitude of businesses seeking office presence in Washington DC, using the identical address. There are no employees, engineers or architects at that address, and it is very unlikely Barr has ever had a payroll. The entry is pure fiction as to relevance of any noteworthiness, and is purely a vanity page , SURELY ORCHISTRATED BY BARR HIMSELF. Anyone in support is probably a student seeking a quid pro quo. The author needs to be vetted as badly as Barr. One only has to note the CV's of well accepted prominent American architects, probably all which would be one quarter the length as Barr likes to publish. His standing of fame in Sri Lanka, doubt that as well. Ronhjones (Talk) 00:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
1.) Fellow of the American Institute of Architects
2.) Former president of the American Institute of Architects and first person of non-European origin to hold that post in the organization's 140 year history
3.) Possibly the best know American architect of Sri Lankan decent
4.) 30 year history as a collegiate educator with a number of published works
5.) Noteworthiness as architect of record on a large number of projects in the US and internationally (I was still in the process of building the section of completed works when the article was nominated.)
As I have continued to research the individual I have come to learn that many of Barr's contributions to the practice of architecture and to the industry are philosophical and ideological rather than actually buildings. As such I added the "Advocate and volunteer" section as I continued to develop the article. Like most people, I am a volunteer editor and have never been paid for my contributions to Wikipedia. As such, I edit when I have the time. The "Works" section is the last thing I have to revise before I'd consider the article substantially complete (I've made numerous corrections and added various clarifications since the last debate, but the final overhaul is still to come). My plan is to eliminate the chart in favor of a list style format that will include a chronological listing of significant projects, and will detail specific contributions and include project partners when appropriate.
Finally, I'd like to say that there has been no attempt at subterfuge on my part. All information has been researched and referenced appropriately. I don't know anything about Barr's office situation, so I can't comment on that, but I'm also not sure what relevance that has here. While I have contributed to Wikipedia for many years, this is my first comprehensive biographical entry on Wikipedia, and I welcome discussion via the article's talk page with regards to any information which is deemed superfluous or inappropriate for inclusion per Wikipedia guidelines on biographies of living persons. Best, Bmhs823 ( talk) 03:13, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Other than that most of the new challenges seem like the same old attacks on the article subject despite prior consensus that the article passes WP:GNG. Getting tired of giving my time to Wikipedia to have it wasted by the "delete it" crew. Bmhs823 ( talk) 01:55, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
I know the person that opened it. We concur with Tiptoethrutheminefield who took the time for accepted analysis. We only wish others in Wiki who understand due diligence in research, if not architecture itself will endorse deletion. Otherwise, it makes a mockery of "Notable Architects" Why not list under World renown, we can submit several examples where the subject claims that as well. This is the point, you are not going to find any neutral esteemed architect to concur any remarkable notoriety. We still question tie of author to subject, with no answer. This is honestly not an architect anyone "neutral" interested in the field would stumble upon, let alone promote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.205.6.5 ( talk) 15:02, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Do you have any source out there that says that the person is as controversial as you have described?No, I'm not going to help you because as far as I am concerned, the sources that have shown this person meets WP:GNG and WP:NPERSON. His membership and other achievements as listed in the article sources means he is notable for inclusion as far as notability guidelines go. 2) Canvassing or deliberately asking others to join in Wikipedia discussions to support your side of the story, whether on or outside of Wikipedia, is heavily frowned upon. Would you like to confirm that you have not approached "the person" directly to ask him to submit this nomination, or otherwise asked for his involvement in this discussion? Optakeover (U) (T) (C) 10:00, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Can not find any large project noted on company web site, that was not actually designed, engineered by other than fortune 500 firms or equivalent. No third party acknowledgements of any notable completed projects. Author notes "Architect of Record" of many projects. Can those please be verified and listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.99.248 ( talk) 14:19, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
~
The result was delete. The delete arguments are more convincing than the keeps here. Policies and guidelines that are tailored to a particular situation carry more weight than those that are more general, and that is exactly what we are seeing here with WP:BLPCRIME and WP:PERP versus the sourcing arguments based on WP:GNG. It has been argued effectively below that WP:PERP and WP:BLPCRIME indicate that we should not have an article on this individual, as they have not been convicted of a crime, and so WP:DEL9 applies. If the subject is convicted in the future, then this debate can be revisited. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 06:37, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Delete. Minimally sourced WP:BLP1E of a person notable only for being charged with, but not yet convicted of, a crime. Per WP:PERP, we do not create articles about otherwise non-notable people on the basis of criminal allegations not yet proven in a court of law -- the legal and ethical sensitivities involved require us to wait until a conviction is secured. For example, the article can actually become the cause of a mistrial if we don't treat it with a level of hypervigilance much higher than "an encyclopedia that anybody can edit" can actually guarantee -- people can and do regularly smear such articles with wild WP:BLP violations and presumptions of guilty until proven innocent and other violations of Wikipedia's neutrality and personal privacy rules. No prejudice against recreation if and when he's actually found guilty of something by a court of law, but until that happens an article about him is not appropriate today. Bearcat ( talk) 19:32, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Nicholas Young is accused of being...This is precisely the problem. It is a BLP violation to keep an article on someone (particularly a low profile individual) who has not been formally convicted. This reduces the article to reporting a speculation and we don't do that. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 02:30, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Nicholas Young, 36, of Fairfax, is alleged to have tried to assist ISIS while working for the Metro Transit Police Department in Washington, D.C.should never be added to an encyclopaedia. No charges have been proved in a court and this article essentially risks harming the reputation of someone. The concern about a BLP violation overrides any other concerns here like BLP1E and such. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 02:26, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Consensus appears to be that this article should be deleted. WP:ROADOUTCOMES is the only rationale cited for keeping the article, but that specifically states that "Major, unnumbered streets... have varied outcomes." rather than the apparent inference that they are invariably kept at AfD. Number 5 7 14:37, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
(quoting a message from Rao Ravindra in 2012, who may not know the correct procedures: North Avenue, the north approach road to Rashtrapati Bhavan, New Delhi has not been renamed. It continues to be known as North Avenue (in symmetry with South Avenue, the south approach road to Rashtrapati Bhavan). All links provided in the article are dead. The article should be deleted." — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:28, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Delete it. I live in New Delhi and have travelled on this road numerous times over the past five decades. Many roads in India have been renamed over the past few decades to honour politicians or religious persons but almost no one refers to those roads by their new names. Almost everyone continues to refer to the roads by their old names except for roads that were originally named after British colonists (such as Robert Clive or Lord Cornwallis, whom the British had sent to rule India after he was defeated and imprisoned in American Colonies). The road which is the subject of this discussion is still called North Avenue by almost everyone. Ask any taxi driver in Delhi to take you to Prakash Vir Shastri Avenue and he would give you a blank look. Ask any taxi driver in Delhi to take you to North Avenue and he will immediately know where you want to go.
The Rashtrapati Bhavan (President's Palace) has one road going south from it and this road is called South Avenue and one road going north from it and this road is called North Avenue. Both N Ave and S Ave form one straight line. It makes no sense to rename the road and still more nonsense to write an article about this new name on Wikipedia. Check any online map on your computer or smart phone and you will find these two avenues but not Prakash Vir Shastri Avenue.
Moreover, the officials in the central government and the local municipal body continue to use the term "North Avenue". Both these avenues have apartments built for and allocated to members of parliament. The parliament secretariat and the estate department (which allots and maintains these apartments) always calls this road North Avenue. Quite possibly, the local body has reverted to the original name because recently I have seen the road sign on this road reading as "North Avennue".
Delete this article. It is not required.
Disclaimer: This is not to belittle Mr. Prakash Vir Shastri or his achievements. He was a good, honest and honourable member of parliament (which cannot be said of a majority of contemporary politicians in India). A Wikipedia article on him exists. But there is no need for an article on this road.
Rao Ravindra ( talk) 16:31, 17 October 2016 (UTC) Ravindra Rao 17 October 2016
North Avenue is not a major road. New Delhi is somewhat like Washington DC. The local municipal body (New Delhi Municipal Council or NDMC) has very little authority and most of its decisions have to be approved by the Administrator or the Lt. Governor both of whom report to the Central Government. Any resolution on renaming any road can be passed or adopted by NDMC but can be implemented only after it has been approved or ratified. Perhaps the resolution to which the article refers was passed by NDMC but never approved by its Administrator. I have never seen any road sign on North Avenue referring to the road as Prakash Vir Shastri Road. Even the government estate office and all government offices refer to the road as North Avenue.
Nevertheles, if this article is to be retained, it can be renamed North Avenue, New Delhi. But really there is no need for this article. There is no corresponding article on South Avenue, New Delhi. Anyway, this is not a major road. A major road emanating from Rashtrapati Bhavan is "Rajpath". And therefore there is a Wikipedia article Rajpath. Rao Ravindra ( talk) 17:16, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
North Avenue is one of several hundred minor roads in Delhi and an article about it entitled "Prakash Vir Shastri Avenue" is not worthwhile. Rao Ravindra ( talk) 13:29, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 10:40, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
This article fails to comply with multiple Wikipedia guidelines. It lacks the notability necessary for a Wikipedia article ( WP:GNG, specifically WP:COMPANY). It also contains content that is written like an advertisement ( WP:SOAP), and it is written from a biased point of view ( WP:NPOV) by someone who is likely connected to the subject ( WP:AUTO). The article was deleted under PROD and recreated with the PROD's text intact. Cabayi ( talk) 09:51, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was Redirect to Legal affairs of Donald Trump.
It's clear that this topic has generated quite a bit of media coverage, to the point where it isn't going to be deleted on notability grounds. The central issue in this discussion is WP:NOTNEWS: whether the coverage given to the subject is enough for a standalone article or doesn't indicate long term significance. This is ultimately a matter of editorial judgement and neither position on this issue is unreasonable. However far more people have come down on the side of not having a standalone article on the subject and that is the tone of the discussion below. Several people on both sides have left arguments based on accusations that the other side's actions are politically motivated, these are frankly not helpful and I have tried to ignore them.
Having established that we aren't going to have a standalone article on the subject, the other question is whether it should be included in Legal affairs of Donald Trump or not. There is substantial support/consent for a merge in the discussion below, mainly from people who don't want a standalone article, but also a few people who object to a merge. As whether to include this content in the target article and what kind of information to merge is all up to editorial discretion and can be decided outside AfD anyway, I am going to close as Redirect and let the issue of any potential merge be thrashed out on the relevant talk pages. -- Hut 8.5 19:16, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Pretty blatant hit-piece that has "coincidentally" sprung up in the week before the election. Massive WP:BLP concerns. Article's creator has admitted support for Clinton and complained about "pro-Trump bias". Don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. ¡Boz zio! 09:00, 3 November 2016 (UTC) ***Correction***: you are deliberately twisting my words! -- S I 17:21, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
References
In their data, they noticed that people often targeted pages of the opposite political persuasion. Left-leaning contributors were more likely to make changes on right-leaning Wikipedia pages, and vice versa.
Would someone mind requesting an admin to close this? There is pretty much no new discussion and it's time to move on. Mr Ernie ( talk) 21:40, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 10:36, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Source searches are only providing passing mentions in sources. This subject does not meet WP:BASIC. North America 1000 08:05, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 10:35, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Non-notable person. Primary refs only, no non-promotional reliable source coverage. -- 1Wiki8........................... ( talk) 06:44, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 10:33, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Several source searches have demonstrated that this subject does not meet WP:BASIC. Most sources that cover him are primary sources, because they are published by or affiliated with the Mormon Church, such as Ensign and Deseret News, which does not qualify notability. Non-primary sources are only providing passing mentions. North America 1000 06:09, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The Salt Lake Tribune [Salt Lake City, Utah] 06 Oct 1991: A2. ), and more similar. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 00:11, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 10:29, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Fails WP:GRIDIRON without question and does not provide sources showing it passes WP:GNG in any way either. JTtheOG ( talk) 05:12, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 15:56, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
An unknown album by an unknown singer supported by one reference that is behind a paywall. The album is not remarkable and artist is not notable. Bwabwa7 ( talk) 03:02, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 10:22, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
A non-notable doctor. The citations presented doesn't comply with WP:RS, and some of them are even dead. There is no much coverage in the news. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 02:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 10:21, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Speedy deletion per WP:G4 was declined on the grounds that previously deleted version and this version are too different justify. However, the underlying notability concerns remain. He has still not played in a fully pro league or a senior national team, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT, nor has he received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 02:07, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 10:19, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
I still confirm my PROD which motioned and emphasized having one simple local "bravery" award and having another named after her, is quite trivial and unconvincing, and it goes to state the same for Americans, because the listed sources themselves are simply trivial and unconvincing, nothing amounting to actual substance. The history also speaks for itself in that there's literally nothing else aside from this one award, which is a state award, not a major award. SwisterTwister talk 02:03, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 12:04, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
The pageant edition has no significant coverage to warrant the inclusion of the details indicated in this article. The winner is already included in the Miss Model of the World article. Richie Campbell ( talk) 02:00, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 16:50, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
The pageant edition has no significant coverage to warrant the inclusion of the details indicated in this article. The winner is already included in the Miss Model of the World article. Richie Campbell ( talk) 02:00, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 10:16, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Fails GNG. It looks like there are a lot of references but several of them are press releases. Some of them aren't even about the company at all and are about the practice of reputation management. The ones that are left are about the purchase of the brand.com domain -- which isn't something that makes the company merit an entry in an encyclopedia. The account is pretty close to an SPA too. CerealKillerYum ( talk) 14:54, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETEish given the low input. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 09:56, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Defunct organization; their official page no longer loads. Can't find any official site for the organization searching by name, or previous contact information (like phone number). No third-party references were provided originally, and none are found at this time. Mikeblas ( talk) 13:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Low participant count - feel free to renom if appropriate. ( non-admin closure) Nordic Nightfury 22:00, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
This station has been proposed since 2005. The construction and opening date have been pushed back for years and years; per WP:CRYSTALBALL, we should wait to have this article until there is more concrete evidence that this station will actually exist. Additionally, I did not locate significant coverage of the topic. James ( talk/ contribs) 03:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 10:08, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG, "Alter Ego Records" and "No Ego Records" also exist, but seem to be independent of "EGO records" Kleuske ( talk) 00:24, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
The result was withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:31, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Delete: name category with only one entry. Quis separabit? 23:55, 3 November 2016 (UTC) Quis separabit? 23:55, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 11:31, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm unable to find any substantial, in-depth coverage of this person in reliable sources as required by the notability requirements for biographies. The best sources in the current article are mentions in BBC articles about him getting blocked on youtube [2]. He has written some books, but the reviews are insufficient to meet WP:NAUTHOR. A search for other sources turned up another mention in the BBC, but still some way off what we require. SmartSE ( talk) 22:14, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Mýa discography. Sandstein 14:09, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Fails WP:NSONG, coverage is limited and doesn't seem to have charted in any country. Aoba47 ( talk) 14:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was Withdrawn by nominator. Pincrete ( talk) 20:49, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Article content is already merged with Thomas D. Rice, the creator of this character. The content is solely this character (not an archetype). Suggest redirect to Thomas D. Rice, and the DAB to point also to Rice. Pincrete ( talk) 20:39, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 11:26, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
not enough in depth secondary sources to merit a stand alone article for now thereby failing WP:GNG — Oluwa2Chainz »» ( talk to me) 20:34, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. Cerebellum ( talk) 13:26, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Does not seem to meet the organization notability guidelines or general notability. Googling this brings up few results other than the school's website(and some other schools with a similar name) Given the username of the page creator(the same name as the school) page seems intended to be promotional(though not to the degree of a speedy deletion) 331dot ( talk) 20:16, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 11:25, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
The article is not sourced and I can only find a book with this particular article title (it's a strange title by the way, containing "or"). Presumably this article is redundant per article Market research. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:13, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 11:16, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Delete: as non-notable actor. Quis separabit? 20:00, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 11:11, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Non notable bus routes, All fail GNG. – Davey2010 Talk 19:51, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was redirect to First Hampshire & Dorset. Sandstein 14:09, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Non notable bus route, Was created by Jurassicline who was blocked for socking, Fails GNG – Davey2010 Talk 19:46, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of bus routes in London. Sandstein 14:08, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Non notable bus route, Fails GNG. – Davey2010 Talk 19:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Consensus is for deletion. North America 1000 05:16, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
An WP:ADVERT for the college. No notability outside of the college's website. Hard to believe this has existed for more than ten years too! Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 19:39, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sam Walton ( talk) 21:31, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
A couple of attempts have been made at speedy deletion and declined, so I will take to AfD. I could go either way at this point. He is a death row inmate and online coverage seems sufficient. However, I can see how some might invoke
WP:BLP1E. I will lean to keep at this point, but I will nominate nonetheless so that the notability issue can be settled right away.
Safiel (
talk)
19:34, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete via criterion A1. {{ Nihiltres | talk | edits}} 20:50, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Finding no coverage in reliable sources for this series; fails WP:N. North America 1000 19:13, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 11:06, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Per source searches, this musician and video director has received no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to qualify for an article; does not meet WP:BASIC or WP:MUSICBIO at this time. North America 1000 18:43, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 11:04, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Per source searches, this subject has received no coverage in independent, reliable sources; does not meet WP:BASIC to qualify for an article, and finding no indication of the subject meeting WP:CREATIVE. North America 1000 18:38, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 02:59, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Source searches are providing no significant coverage to qualify an article; does not meet aspects of WP:NFILM and does not meet WP:GNG. North America 1000 18:27, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 10:57, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Per source searches, this musician has received no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to qualify for an article; does not meet WP:BASIC or WP:MUSICBIO at this time. North America 1000 18:13, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 10:56, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Per source searches, this debut album has received no significant coverage in reliable sources to qualify for an article, thus not meeting WP:GNG. The album also does not appear to meet WP:NALBUMS at this time. North America 1000 18:12, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sam Walton ( talk) 21:33, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Per source searches and source analysis, the depth of coverage this company has received is not enough to meet WP:CORPDEPTH at this time. North America 1000 18:06, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. Sam Walton ( talk) 21:35, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
It doesn't seem worthwhile to have a page about the generic concept of RDF query languages, since SPARQL (or, if you prefer SPARQL/SPARUL) has been the dominant such language since nearly the beginning. No other RDF query language has an article on the English Wikipedia, for what it's worth. All of the limited information on this page can - and already does - fit into the Resource Description Framework article. (By the way, "RDF query language" should not be confused with RDQL, which stands for "RDF Query Language", a specific - though not widely-used - such language.) Yaron K. ( talk) 20:54, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. Sam Walton ( talk) 16:46, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Per source searches, this television series does not meet WP:GNG because it has not received any significant coverage in reliable sources to qualify for an article. North America 1000 17:36, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete per WP:G12. Unambiguous copyright infringement of content at http://www.electricarticles.com/display.aspx?id=3783. North America 1000 17:24, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
WP:NOTGUIDE, no indication that this subject is notable enough for its own article LynxTufts ( talk) 16:42, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure)
I had trouble getting this article to satisfy the general notability guidelines or organization/company notability guidelines. References in the article and those found online simply have a passing mention to the school or cannot be considered reliably sourced. Garchy ( talk) 16:32, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete per A7. ( non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:41, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Unsourced article with no reliable 3rd party sources found establishing notability. Cotton2 ( talk) 16:24, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 08:55, 14 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:Magioladitis (creator) with the following rationale "Company produced 5 games all notable, send to AfD in necessary. Probably PC games epxerts can find referneces to PC magazines about the company". Well, if they can, great, but I couldn't (and neither could the creator, obviously). And if there are no refs, producing 5 video games is no better then producing 10 designs of sofas of 3 variations of a top hat - none of which is enough to satisfy any notability policy, I am afraid. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 12:56, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Non-notable political organisation. As it currently stands, it is solely self-referencing to a WP:PRIMARY source and consists of only of a list of policies, in the face of WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Also fails the primary criteria, as it has neither a depth of coverage, a broad audience, or independent sources. A WP:BEFORE search shows nothing beyond (apart from itself) Facebook, blogs, forums and YouTube (pages 1, 2 and 3). Ultimately it has not received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" so fails basic WP:GNG. Muffled Pocketed 14:50, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Yes Network. Notability not established, despite ILIKEIT and OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments. Article history still available if there is any sourced content that should be merged to the target article. Randykitty ( talk) 16:14, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. ProQuest only turns up one news article that can be considered significant coverage in the course of a 25+ year career. Only significant coverage from Google is interviews with blogs and biography pages from employers. Hirolovesswords ( talk) 13:17, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
I have to disagree with the need for reliable, independent sources when discussing a public figure who has been on television for, as you mentioned, 25+ years. She exists, even if there is little external coverage about it. Milchama ( talk) 13:39, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Keep - Easily notable. - Mlpearc ( open channel) 16:29, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 10:55, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Subject is only a senior lecturer and his work does not seem to be widely cited or significant enough in his field to pass WP:PROF. References are to works he authored. Nothing to indicate he passes the general notability guidelines either. Jbh Talk 14:30, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
References 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 all list him as an author. Reference 3 lists several works which, per the statement it is attached to, seem to be "his work on Rene Gerard" ie material he wrote. What I do not see are any works about Chris Fleming rather than by Chris Fleming. That is what would be needed to get him over the general notability requirements. To get him over the notability requirements for academics we would need to show a very high citation rate for several of his works, many reviews of his works in journals, others doing works on him, an appointment to something equivalent to the Royal Society or National Academy of Sciences. I simply can not find such sources but should they be presented I would happily withdraw this nomination.
(Please remember to sign your posts with ~~~~
. This will insert your user name and a time stamp when you save the page.)
Apologies for the "fervour." I'm an ex-PhD student of his, and I'd seen that people such as Mireille Astore and Diego Bubbio and a whole bunch of other people had pages and felt some kind of loyalty. That's the truth. But, of course, I'm happy to let this one drop. I'm a newcomer to writing for Wikipedia and so may have got things terribly wrong - it wouldn't be the first time I've got things terribly wrong! I'm worried that further defences will simply be seen as irrational outbursts. Apologies if I've wasted people's time. Obviously, I think he's worth including, but won't take up more airtime trying to establish that, and wasting others' time doing so. EggPlant — Preceding unsigned comment added by EggplantDancer ( talk • contribs) 00:29, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
(By comparison, I was looking at the profiles of Diego Bubbio and Dimitris Vardoulakis - and I can name innumerable others from other institutions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EggplantDancer ( talk • contribs) 01:16, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
I'd be really interested in the difference between Fleming's profile and the others which are seemingly comparable, and - in some cases - less notable. Could someone clarify here to help a newcomer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EggplantDancer ( talk • contribs) 01:48, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
~~~~
. This will insert your user name and a time stamp when you save the page.)
Jbh
Talk
02:02, 4 November 2016 (UTC)In the articles mentioned above I did not did into the sources so I can not speak to how well they hold up. Academics are among the hardest people to write Wikipedia biographies for because they do not often get a lot of press coverage. Generally the notability criteria are only fulfilled by late career academics. As I said earlier, Royal Society members and the like, holders of named chairs, Field's Medal winners and Nobel Lauriates or, as is often the case, those whose impact can be shown by having many highly cited works. What "many" and "highly cited" means depends on their field of study.
Also, please note that while it can be difficult for new users to accept, articles are always judged on how they stack up against Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, not against other articles. This is so common that there is even a page which explains it - WP:OTHERSTUFF. I hope this helps some. Jbh Talk 03:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Also, you will notice I have been adjusting the indent level of your replies. Talk page comments are indented/threaded to make the conversation easier to follow. This brief tutorial on editing talk pages explains how to do that. Jbh Talk 13:00, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks again, everyone. I'm loathe to raise it again, but I've randomly just found 11 people with lower h-index scores of people on Wikipedia, simply because this was supposedly a "knock down" comment just made. And yes, there's an editorial in Britain and the World which deals with Fleming's conspiracy book which I've left out, along with a bunch of other stuff, because I feel like the verdict has already been reached and nothing now could be said to reverse it, given the "fervour" of the rebuttals: "If only peacocks crowed at sunup, I would keep them and eat my chickens" says the person who accuses me of fervour. But I've put in more references, and there's many more that I could, but given that there's no consistency in how any of the criteria have been applied about "notability" - given the many examples that are easy enough to find which are far less notable, it seems pointless. ("Ah yes, the reference here in Girard's own book Mimesis and Theory says that Fleming's work is 'easily the best" book on mimetic theory,' but this is simply...um...not notable enough, you see - we must go with our objective criteria; we are very objective here"). Is this sour grapes on my behalf? Almost certainly - again, I have an agenda, no doubt about it. The point has been made above that it's not about other entries, but the fact is, if these are included (and the one's I mentioned have not been marked for deletion), then any reference to "criteria" are utterly irrelevant. (If a teacher says "you failed the exam" and you then find people who score lower than yourself and who also pass that exam, and you bring this fact to the examiner's attention, is it adequate for the examiner to say "Ah! But it's not about THEM and THEIR scores, it's about YOU and the relevant criteria?" Hardly, it seems that the term "criteria" here is so ectoplasmic that it can include - or exclude - whomever, depending on the day or the preferences of the examiner. Again, I'm beholden to my own agenda here, and I'm not hiding it (I'm one of those fawning ex-students) - but who comes to anything without an agenda? Certainly not this. Epistemologically, this is an enormously interesting area in itself (my PhD is in epistemology), and something itself worth writing about. But I now know that it doesn't really matter about the evidence I bring to bear on this. It's a pity, but the profile should probably come down sooner rather than later - it coming down later only implies a form of rational adjudication at work that is there only in name. NB. I do really appreciate people's time in explaining things to me; I feel very strongly about this, about everyone's generosity with their time and their patience with me when I've obviously been irritating; I have no desire to go on bugging anyone. I suspect, though, that Wikipedia authoring is probably best left to others, people more sympathetic to its particular form of rigour. I may well be wrong about all of this - I continue to be wrong about many things! - but I can't (yet) see how. Perhaps I should just make contributions by adding or subtracting small bits of info to (or correcting grammar of) existing pages. I'm probably too unskilled at this point to do much more than this; I was thinking of adding a page on Paul Dumouchel, but now I'm going to back away. Last Q: Why can't we just bring the page down today? EggplantDancer ( talk) 03:04, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Delete, because I think - at this stage - it's by far the funniest thing to do. EggplantDancer ( talk) 05:05, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 10:50, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
I couldn't establish that he meets WP:CREATIVE, WP:GNG or any other aspect of WP:NOTABILITY. Article (clearly promotional) claims he has a painting in The White House and that he is considered America's greatest pencil artist. I couldn't verify either claim. Boleyn ( talk) 14:30, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 10:49, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Simon doesn't seem to meet WP:CREATIVE, WP:GNG or any other aspect of WP:NOTABILITY. Has been tagged for notability for over 8 years now, hopefully we can resolve it now. Boleyn ( talk) 14:24, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 08:53, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Quote: "The newly built university is in completion phase". So probably is not notable yet: WP:TOOSOON. XXN, 19:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sam Walton ( talk) 21:37, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
No such mine exists AFAIK. See Bagla Hills for the sordid details. Clarityfiend ( talk) 00:01, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 ( talk, contribs) 20:02, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
I couldn't establish that it meets
WP:ORG,
WP:GNG or any other aspect of
WP:NOTABILITY. Although it has sources such as NY Times and USA Today, those articles do not mention this organisation. This has been tagged for notability for over 8 years, hopefully we can get it resolved now.
Boleyn (
talk)
14:14, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. No consensus especially considering the nom and first delete !vote did not re-comment after Czar presented more sources ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:48, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Inadequate references for notability The references are insubstantial or promotional. The wired one, which is the best, is nonetheless written as an advertorial. DGG ( talk ) 23:55, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 10:48, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Small store with four locations. Nothing indicating notability. Fails WP:GNG. Zackmann08 ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 00:24, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
The company was launched on October 1 2016 in Thailand, at BLÚPORT Hua Hin owned by The Mall Group, with three further stores opened at Emporium, Central Westgate, and Central Bangna owned by the Central Group over the following two weeks.This is a newly opened showroom from the looks of it. While the creator is notable, the showroom doesn't inherit that notability. I do not see enough sources for the showroom itself. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 17:12, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR Sarahj2107 ( talk) 10:47, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
He doesn't meet WP:GNG and I don't think his credits meet the requirements of WP:NACTOR. The sources in the article are his own publicity, many IMDb pages, and cast listings. Largoplazo ( talk) 11:20, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input despite two relists. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 09:50, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Deleted once before. Arguably meets WP:NBAND #9 for that "Road to V" co-award, but coverage is sparse and short on detail: most statements in the article cannot be independently verified. Could go either way, but I look at NBAND's "may be notable if" and note that "may be" doesn't mean "is". — swpb T 15:45, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Mhhossein talk 09:34, 10 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 (software) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Bgwhite with the following rationale "This is an internet standard, thus notable. However, the article needs work.". Doh that last part, but I am not aware of any policy that states that Internet standards are notable. Like everything else, they need to meet said guidelines, and I don't see how this stub does it. Further, I don't see sources that discuss this topic in-depth. At best I can see this redirected to some list. Not merged, because there is no content to speak of. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:57, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Mojo Hand ( talk) 15:22, 20 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 (software) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Bgwhite with the following rationale "There are alot of valid refs out there for this". Sadly, singe he couldn't be bothered to add them to this unrefereced articles, and I don't see anything other then a passing mention, we ended up here. If anyone can find any refs that helps this meet GNG, by showing the significance of this software (not just a passing mentions that it exists), please note this here, and explain why should we have this minor piece of code in our encyclopedia. It has benefited the company which created it, and whose representative added it here ( WP:SPA, WP:COI: User:Volomike~enwiki) enough over the past 10 years. Such spam should be speedied, not end up here. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:50, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Redirects can be recreated at editorial discretion. If Farsi sources support notability, the article can be recreated, but due to the copyright issues about this text probably not from the current text. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 09:53, 13 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 (organizations) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Bgwhite with the following rationale "Colleges at major universities are usually notable, but not all. This never should have been proded. Use AfD instead". Well, to that I can reply that declining topics that clearly fail GNG and forcing us to waste time here is what should never been done. Anyway, what we have here is your run-of-the-mill not-notable university department/college. It cites no non-primary sources, and I do not see any work that would discuss it in depth, or even mention it as an important school. With WP:PEACOCK wording like "The faculty is doubtlessly the backbone of veterinary research and education in Iran" this is just (doubtlessly) university-department promoting spam that should have been speedied, not end up wasting our time here. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:44, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 10:45, 11 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:Bgwhite with the following rationale "plenty of refs for this, including newspaper articles.". I'd like to see that "plenty of refs". The only one I see is the linked newspaper ref, which while from quality ref, is de facto just one paragraph-worth review of this podcast. I don't think that one paragraph review in an article, even in a reliable newspaper, is enough for the podcast to be notable. This doesn't meet neither the in-depth coverage requirement, nor one for multiple sources. As such, I can't agree this podcast is notable. PS. Ping User:RA0808 who nominated this for speedy before I prodded it. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:30, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 10:43, 11 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 (biographies) requirement. Since it was prodded (by User:The Anome) and deprodded before (by the creator User:Diverman who wrote way back in 2007: "this article was created as part of the WP:HOT project. i.e. there was a request to create it". Well, 10 years down the road it still looks like it did back them, this is I am sorry to say like a spammy neologism that fails GNG. I couldn't find any sources that woudl convince me otherwise, I am afraid. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:13, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was merge to StudioCanal#Background. Sam Walton ( talk) 21:37, 11 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:Bgwhite with the following rationale "Plenty of refs out there". Unfortunately, I don't see those refs - there are some mentions in passing, press releases, directory entries, and the usual assorted spam, but nothing that seems to pass cited policies. Perhaps BGwwhite will be kind enough to list and discuss those refs here (and let me repeat - discuss, not just list - please explain why those refs you found are quality refs). As far as I am concerned, as I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:39, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Sam Walton ( talk) 21:38, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Delete: as musical group which fails notability threshold by a wide margin. Unsourced, mostly OR. Quis separabit? 03:20, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 10:42, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
This would be more suitable for a draft, that can be later moved into an actual article. See WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL. TheKaphox T 12:06, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 12:55, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Fails GNG. CerealKillerYum ( talk) 14:58, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Mojo Hand ( talk) 15:31, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
This was the best mention I found in the press, so I think the topic does not pass notability guidelines, in particular WP:ORG. I would have expected mentions in the local press for such a club, and could not even find that. Tigraan Click here to contact me 15:52, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Mojo Hand ( talk) 15:33, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
I was on the verge of WP:A7-ing it, but I guess "does business in 37 countries" is a claim of notability, so here we go. The obvious problem is WP:BIO. Tigraan Click here to contact me 16:34, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 16:21, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Does not really assert notability, and one newspaper article (cited) isn't really sufficient to establish notability, I think. Delete. -- Nlu ( talk) 16:47, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 10:41, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Not notable nor referenced Rathfelder ( talk) 17:26, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Or rather, no interest... Sandstein 16:51, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Only one of the provided sources meets WP:RS, and even that is brief, and the album does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 13:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 12:06, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Subject appears to be lacking " substantial" coverage in "multiple" secondary, independent and reliable sources. Thus doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Anup [Talk] 19:25, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was redirect to The Godfather Part III. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 09:53, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
This article does not establish notability. There are a couple sources mentioning his real world basis, but nothing truly substantial. TTN ( talk) 20:21, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 16:50, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Notability tag added to article a couple of years ago, no improvement since. The article is more or less unsourced and there aren't any claims (apart from maybe two solo exhibitions) that would confer notability even if they were adequately sourced. I can't find any significant coverage, apart from possibly this article which mentions a sculpture by "Welsh sculptor" Dave Stephens (who may not even be the same person). Time for it to go, I think. It's not much use as it stands. Sionk ( talk) 11:17, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Vancouver Whitecaps FC. Clear consensus not to keep the article. Going for a redirect in case people can salvage some content. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 09:55, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Resubmitting this article for deletion discussion. My first suggestion that this league was a youth league was proven wrong, fair enough, it's an academy team/league. But I honestly do not believe that a 4th tier, amateur-level US soccer/football academy league meets WP:GNG standards on its own. Here are my arguments against this:
Now, I can agree with the opinion and would even support a Merge of this content to its respective parent club page, Vancouver Whitecaps FC. But on its own, this page fails. SanAnMan ( talk) 13:53, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 12:39, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Copied from OTRS 2016101810014724 - Raj Barr-Kumar is not a prominent American architect, or architect of note by any standard accepted measure. The voluminous curriculum vitae of awards, education and registrations are not proof of any meaningful merit, as any self-promoting architect could duplicate it. The entry is authored by someone who most likely is connected via family, pupil or being paid. All of Barr's books are vanity press , and no more than required texts that all professors publish to sell to their students. Barr, had no tenure at American University where he taught for a few years. Barr lists well known buildings as projects deceitfully, never any detail to the extent of project. Listing Embassies, Hotels and various buildings of note regardless his part (if any) and never any sources verifying what extent. One project listed on his company page, "National Cathedral", was at best a collaboration with another architect on bringing restrooms up to ADA code. That in itself is suspect that Barr had any meaningful input, but very disingenuous in promotion regardless. There are few to any actual photos "of great accomplishments" actually built, but rather his portfolio is strewn with conceptual drawings. One project noted "Altos Escondidos" was a purchase of land by his brother the principal, in Panama in about year 2007, and has yet to even show any proof of breaking ground or sales, with investors losing 100% of their capital. The project has been alleged a fraud by investors goo.gl/6eL8Np Past president of AIA, garners no illustrious recognition as this is only an organization architects pay to join (to use as promotion), not unlike the AMA for physicians. The AIA, replaces it President yearly and one only needs to research past Presidents to note that position does not make one noteworthy as an architect at all. Barr's office address is and always has been a mail drop, and shared office space type of arrangement. One only needs to verify that searching his business address and noting the multitude of businesses seeking office presence in Washington DC, using the identical address. There are no employees, engineers or architects at that address, and it is very unlikely Barr has ever had a payroll. The entry is pure fiction as to relevance of any noteworthiness, and is purely a vanity page , SURELY ORCHISTRATED BY BARR HIMSELF. Anyone in support is probably a student seeking a quid pro quo. The author needs to be vetted as badly as Barr. One only has to note the CV's of well accepted prominent American architects, probably all which would be one quarter the length as Barr likes to publish. His standing of fame in Sri Lanka, doubt that as well. Ronhjones (Talk) 00:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
1.) Fellow of the American Institute of Architects
2.) Former president of the American Institute of Architects and first person of non-European origin to hold that post in the organization's 140 year history
3.) Possibly the best know American architect of Sri Lankan decent
4.) 30 year history as a collegiate educator with a number of published works
5.) Noteworthiness as architect of record on a large number of projects in the US and internationally (I was still in the process of building the section of completed works when the article was nominated.)
As I have continued to research the individual I have come to learn that many of Barr's contributions to the practice of architecture and to the industry are philosophical and ideological rather than actually buildings. As such I added the "Advocate and volunteer" section as I continued to develop the article. Like most people, I am a volunteer editor and have never been paid for my contributions to Wikipedia. As such, I edit when I have the time. The "Works" section is the last thing I have to revise before I'd consider the article substantially complete (I've made numerous corrections and added various clarifications since the last debate, but the final overhaul is still to come). My plan is to eliminate the chart in favor of a list style format that will include a chronological listing of significant projects, and will detail specific contributions and include project partners when appropriate.
Finally, I'd like to say that there has been no attempt at subterfuge on my part. All information has been researched and referenced appropriately. I don't know anything about Barr's office situation, so I can't comment on that, but I'm also not sure what relevance that has here. While I have contributed to Wikipedia for many years, this is my first comprehensive biographical entry on Wikipedia, and I welcome discussion via the article's talk page with regards to any information which is deemed superfluous or inappropriate for inclusion per Wikipedia guidelines on biographies of living persons. Best, Bmhs823 ( talk) 03:13, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Other than that most of the new challenges seem like the same old attacks on the article subject despite prior consensus that the article passes WP:GNG. Getting tired of giving my time to Wikipedia to have it wasted by the "delete it" crew. Bmhs823 ( talk) 01:55, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
I know the person that opened it. We concur with Tiptoethrutheminefield who took the time for accepted analysis. We only wish others in Wiki who understand due diligence in research, if not architecture itself will endorse deletion. Otherwise, it makes a mockery of "Notable Architects" Why not list under World renown, we can submit several examples where the subject claims that as well. This is the point, you are not going to find any neutral esteemed architect to concur any remarkable notoriety. We still question tie of author to subject, with no answer. This is honestly not an architect anyone "neutral" interested in the field would stumble upon, let alone promote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.205.6.5 ( talk) 15:02, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Do you have any source out there that says that the person is as controversial as you have described?No, I'm not going to help you because as far as I am concerned, the sources that have shown this person meets WP:GNG and WP:NPERSON. His membership and other achievements as listed in the article sources means he is notable for inclusion as far as notability guidelines go. 2) Canvassing or deliberately asking others to join in Wikipedia discussions to support your side of the story, whether on or outside of Wikipedia, is heavily frowned upon. Would you like to confirm that you have not approached "the person" directly to ask him to submit this nomination, or otherwise asked for his involvement in this discussion? Optakeover (U) (T) (C) 10:00, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Can not find any large project noted on company web site, that was not actually designed, engineered by other than fortune 500 firms or equivalent. No third party acknowledgements of any notable completed projects. Author notes "Architect of Record" of many projects. Can those please be verified and listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.99.248 ( talk) 14:19, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
~
The result was delete. The delete arguments are more convincing than the keeps here. Policies and guidelines that are tailored to a particular situation carry more weight than those that are more general, and that is exactly what we are seeing here with WP:BLPCRIME and WP:PERP versus the sourcing arguments based on WP:GNG. It has been argued effectively below that WP:PERP and WP:BLPCRIME indicate that we should not have an article on this individual, as they have not been convicted of a crime, and so WP:DEL9 applies. If the subject is convicted in the future, then this debate can be revisited. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 06:37, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Delete. Minimally sourced WP:BLP1E of a person notable only for being charged with, but not yet convicted of, a crime. Per WP:PERP, we do not create articles about otherwise non-notable people on the basis of criminal allegations not yet proven in a court of law -- the legal and ethical sensitivities involved require us to wait until a conviction is secured. For example, the article can actually become the cause of a mistrial if we don't treat it with a level of hypervigilance much higher than "an encyclopedia that anybody can edit" can actually guarantee -- people can and do regularly smear such articles with wild WP:BLP violations and presumptions of guilty until proven innocent and other violations of Wikipedia's neutrality and personal privacy rules. No prejudice against recreation if and when he's actually found guilty of something by a court of law, but until that happens an article about him is not appropriate today. Bearcat ( talk) 19:32, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Nicholas Young is accused of being...This is precisely the problem. It is a BLP violation to keep an article on someone (particularly a low profile individual) who has not been formally convicted. This reduces the article to reporting a speculation and we don't do that. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 02:30, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Nicholas Young, 36, of Fairfax, is alleged to have tried to assist ISIS while working for the Metro Transit Police Department in Washington, D.C.should never be added to an encyclopaedia. No charges have been proved in a court and this article essentially risks harming the reputation of someone. The concern about a BLP violation overrides any other concerns here like BLP1E and such. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 02:26, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Consensus appears to be that this article should be deleted. WP:ROADOUTCOMES is the only rationale cited for keeping the article, but that specifically states that "Major, unnumbered streets... have varied outcomes." rather than the apparent inference that they are invariably kept at AfD. Number 5 7 14:37, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
(quoting a message from Rao Ravindra in 2012, who may not know the correct procedures: North Avenue, the north approach road to Rashtrapati Bhavan, New Delhi has not been renamed. It continues to be known as North Avenue (in symmetry with South Avenue, the south approach road to Rashtrapati Bhavan). All links provided in the article are dead. The article should be deleted." — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:28, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Delete it. I live in New Delhi and have travelled on this road numerous times over the past five decades. Many roads in India have been renamed over the past few decades to honour politicians or religious persons but almost no one refers to those roads by their new names. Almost everyone continues to refer to the roads by their old names except for roads that were originally named after British colonists (such as Robert Clive or Lord Cornwallis, whom the British had sent to rule India after he was defeated and imprisoned in American Colonies). The road which is the subject of this discussion is still called North Avenue by almost everyone. Ask any taxi driver in Delhi to take you to Prakash Vir Shastri Avenue and he would give you a blank look. Ask any taxi driver in Delhi to take you to North Avenue and he will immediately know where you want to go.
The Rashtrapati Bhavan (President's Palace) has one road going south from it and this road is called South Avenue and one road going north from it and this road is called North Avenue. Both N Ave and S Ave form one straight line. It makes no sense to rename the road and still more nonsense to write an article about this new name on Wikipedia. Check any online map on your computer or smart phone and you will find these two avenues but not Prakash Vir Shastri Avenue.
Moreover, the officials in the central government and the local municipal body continue to use the term "North Avenue". Both these avenues have apartments built for and allocated to members of parliament. The parliament secretariat and the estate department (which allots and maintains these apartments) always calls this road North Avenue. Quite possibly, the local body has reverted to the original name because recently I have seen the road sign on this road reading as "North Avennue".
Delete this article. It is not required.
Disclaimer: This is not to belittle Mr. Prakash Vir Shastri or his achievements. He was a good, honest and honourable member of parliament (which cannot be said of a majority of contemporary politicians in India). A Wikipedia article on him exists. But there is no need for an article on this road.
Rao Ravindra ( talk) 16:31, 17 October 2016 (UTC) Ravindra Rao 17 October 2016
North Avenue is not a major road. New Delhi is somewhat like Washington DC. The local municipal body (New Delhi Municipal Council or NDMC) has very little authority and most of its decisions have to be approved by the Administrator or the Lt. Governor both of whom report to the Central Government. Any resolution on renaming any road can be passed or adopted by NDMC but can be implemented only after it has been approved or ratified. Perhaps the resolution to which the article refers was passed by NDMC but never approved by its Administrator. I have never seen any road sign on North Avenue referring to the road as Prakash Vir Shastri Road. Even the government estate office and all government offices refer to the road as North Avenue.
Nevertheles, if this article is to be retained, it can be renamed North Avenue, New Delhi. But really there is no need for this article. There is no corresponding article on South Avenue, New Delhi. Anyway, this is not a major road. A major road emanating from Rashtrapati Bhavan is "Rajpath". And therefore there is a Wikipedia article Rajpath. Rao Ravindra ( talk) 17:16, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
North Avenue is one of several hundred minor roads in Delhi and an article about it entitled "Prakash Vir Shastri Avenue" is not worthwhile. Rao Ravindra ( talk) 13:29, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 10:40, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
This article fails to comply with multiple Wikipedia guidelines. It lacks the notability necessary for a Wikipedia article ( WP:GNG, specifically WP:COMPANY). It also contains content that is written like an advertisement ( WP:SOAP), and it is written from a biased point of view ( WP:NPOV) by someone who is likely connected to the subject ( WP:AUTO). The article was deleted under PROD and recreated with the PROD's text intact. Cabayi ( talk) 09:51, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was Redirect to Legal affairs of Donald Trump.
It's clear that this topic has generated quite a bit of media coverage, to the point where it isn't going to be deleted on notability grounds. The central issue in this discussion is WP:NOTNEWS: whether the coverage given to the subject is enough for a standalone article or doesn't indicate long term significance. This is ultimately a matter of editorial judgement and neither position on this issue is unreasonable. However far more people have come down on the side of not having a standalone article on the subject and that is the tone of the discussion below. Several people on both sides have left arguments based on accusations that the other side's actions are politically motivated, these are frankly not helpful and I have tried to ignore them.
Having established that we aren't going to have a standalone article on the subject, the other question is whether it should be included in Legal affairs of Donald Trump or not. There is substantial support/consent for a merge in the discussion below, mainly from people who don't want a standalone article, but also a few people who object to a merge. As whether to include this content in the target article and what kind of information to merge is all up to editorial discretion and can be decided outside AfD anyway, I am going to close as Redirect and let the issue of any potential merge be thrashed out on the relevant talk pages. -- Hut 8.5 19:16, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Pretty blatant hit-piece that has "coincidentally" sprung up in the week before the election. Massive WP:BLP concerns. Article's creator has admitted support for Clinton and complained about "pro-Trump bias". Don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. ¡Boz zio! 09:00, 3 November 2016 (UTC) ***Correction***: you are deliberately twisting my words! -- S I 17:21, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
References
In their data, they noticed that people often targeted pages of the opposite political persuasion. Left-leaning contributors were more likely to make changes on right-leaning Wikipedia pages, and vice versa.
Would someone mind requesting an admin to close this? There is pretty much no new discussion and it's time to move on. Mr Ernie ( talk) 21:40, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 10:36, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Source searches are only providing passing mentions in sources. This subject does not meet WP:BASIC. North America 1000 08:05, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 10:35, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Non-notable person. Primary refs only, no non-promotional reliable source coverage. -- 1Wiki8........................... ( talk) 06:44, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 10:33, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Several source searches have demonstrated that this subject does not meet WP:BASIC. Most sources that cover him are primary sources, because they are published by or affiliated with the Mormon Church, such as Ensign and Deseret News, which does not qualify notability. Non-primary sources are only providing passing mentions. North America 1000 06:09, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The Salt Lake Tribune [Salt Lake City, Utah] 06 Oct 1991: A2. ), and more similar. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 00:11, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 10:29, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Fails WP:GRIDIRON without question and does not provide sources showing it passes WP:GNG in any way either. JTtheOG ( talk) 05:12, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 15:56, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
An unknown album by an unknown singer supported by one reference that is behind a paywall. The album is not remarkable and artist is not notable. Bwabwa7 ( talk) 03:02, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 10:22, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
A non-notable doctor. The citations presented doesn't comply with WP:RS, and some of them are even dead. There is no much coverage in the news. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 02:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 10:21, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Speedy deletion per WP:G4 was declined on the grounds that previously deleted version and this version are too different justify. However, the underlying notability concerns remain. He has still not played in a fully pro league or a senior national team, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT, nor has he received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 02:07, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 10:19, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
I still confirm my PROD which motioned and emphasized having one simple local "bravery" award and having another named after her, is quite trivial and unconvincing, and it goes to state the same for Americans, because the listed sources themselves are simply trivial and unconvincing, nothing amounting to actual substance. The history also speaks for itself in that there's literally nothing else aside from this one award, which is a state award, not a major award. SwisterTwister talk 02:03, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 12:04, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
The pageant edition has no significant coverage to warrant the inclusion of the details indicated in this article. The winner is already included in the Miss Model of the World article. Richie Campbell ( talk) 02:00, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 16:50, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
The pageant edition has no significant coverage to warrant the inclusion of the details indicated in this article. The winner is already included in the Miss Model of the World article. Richie Campbell ( talk) 02:00, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 10:16, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Fails GNG. It looks like there are a lot of references but several of them are press releases. Some of them aren't even about the company at all and are about the practice of reputation management. The ones that are left are about the purchase of the brand.com domain -- which isn't something that makes the company merit an entry in an encyclopedia. The account is pretty close to an SPA too. CerealKillerYum ( talk) 14:54, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETEish given the low input. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 09:56, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Defunct organization; their official page no longer loads. Can't find any official site for the organization searching by name, or previous contact information (like phone number). No third-party references were provided originally, and none are found at this time. Mikeblas ( talk) 13:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Low participant count - feel free to renom if appropriate. ( non-admin closure) Nordic Nightfury 22:00, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
This station has been proposed since 2005. The construction and opening date have been pushed back for years and years; per WP:CRYSTALBALL, we should wait to have this article until there is more concrete evidence that this station will actually exist. Additionally, I did not locate significant coverage of the topic. James ( talk/ contribs) 03:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 10:08, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG, "Alter Ego Records" and "No Ego Records" also exist, but seem to be independent of "EGO records" Kleuske ( talk) 00:24, 3 November 2016 (UTC)