![]() |
The result was Keep. Cavarrone 12:25, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete. Per G5 ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:43, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Article of a Footballer that fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG Inter&anthro ( talk) 22:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Joyous! | Talk 02:40, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
No notability. The notable characters have been effectively merged into the main article. Three years has passed since my last nomination, and of course nothing has been done to improve this article. All of the "good writing" here were taken from the main article when Ryulong restored the article from a redirect in his opposition to having romajis placed in footnotes. This AFD needs eyes outside of A/M project which contains loads of terrible and non-notable character lists. DragonZero ( Talk · Contribs) 09:13, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Kanga Cricket League. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 00:12, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Fails WP:NSEASONS, the competition isn't first-class cricket and most of the article is just stats/tables Joseph 2302 19:50, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Kanga Cricket League. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 00:12, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Fails WP:NSEASONS, as there is no prose about it and the league does not play first-class cricket Joseph 2302 19:48, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 09:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
As with the other similar lists, if you want to find a result from any ODI India have played in, then use Cricinfo. We're not a directory unlike them, and all we're doing here is refactoring their content. Joseph 2302 19:36, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. North America 1000 05:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Completely unreferenced article about a band that doesn't meet WP:BAND. Was removed from WP:PROD BLP due to WT:BLPPROD. Zackmann08 ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 19:25, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was redirect to VocaLink#Zapp. MBisanz talk 16:45, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Everything is promotional and nothing else. No-notability of this organization. If we have to make a Wikipedia page for being an encyclopedia in this manner. wikipedia is not a portfolio or directory of such company Light2021 ( talk) 14:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. North America 1000 05:16, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. Article tagged for more than 8 years regarding notabilty and sources. Apparently dead too, but nothing to source that either. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 13:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 00:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
This article is virtually just a list and seems poorly titled after seeing what the content on the page is. I may be jumping ahead with this but I feel like this type of article may not fit with Wikipedia's notability policy. The Ninja5 Empire ( Talk) 08:11, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of Upstairs, Downstairs (1971 TV series) characters#Gregory Wilmot. ( non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 19:03, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Two episode character without any notability. Fram ( talk) 08:33, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of Upstairs, Downstairs (1971 TV series) characters#Jack Dyson. ( non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 19:05, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Character which only appears in one episode. Lacks all notability. Fram ( talk) 08:34, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Transformers. Keeping the history in case any material can be copied over. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 16:58, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
This article does not establish notability. The sources in the article appear to be pure fluff that do not provide significant coverage on the topic. TTN ( talk) 00:47, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 09:27, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Non-notable software. Almost no independent coverage; I found one source. Largoplazo ( talk) 18:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Gul.maikat ( talk) 10:08, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Gul.maikat ( talk) 14:54, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was redirect to J._B._Priestley#Social_and_political_works. Nothing sourced to keep. Useful as redirect target. czar 05:51, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
This is a book review of what appears to be a non-notable book of reminiscences. No claim of notability, no notable content. KDS4444 ( talk) 07:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 00:14, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Does not seem to fulfill WP:GNG when you look at his "notable design" it seems anything but notable. Domdeparis ( talk) 18:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was Keep. Eventual merge could be discussed in the article's talk page, obviously. Cavarrone 12:30, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
No indication of notability and completely unreferenced. Zackmann08 ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 17:41, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 17:42, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 09:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
This article is just a list and fails WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NOTDIRECTORY Domdeparis ( talk) 17:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 09:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
This article is just a list and fails WP:NOTSTATS, WP:NOTMIRROR and WP:NOTDIRECTORY Domdeparis ( talk) 17:29, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Zackmann08 ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 18:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
No references or sources of any kind. Reads like a poorly written tourist webpage. Zackmann08 ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 17:29, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Zackmann08 ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 18:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
No references or sources of any kind. Reads like a poorly written tourist webpage. Zackmann08 ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 17:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Train Simulator (Dovetail Games). Don't usually close on one !vote however participation is low and far as I can tell all prev years so far redirect back to the above target so am closng as redirect ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 00:16, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Non notable game with no sources or any indication of notability. Zackmann08 ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 17:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 09:17, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
This article is just a list and fails WP:NOTSTATS, WP:NOTMIRROR and WP:NOTDIRECTORY Domdeparis ( talk) 17:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Zackmann08 ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 18:21, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
No references or sources of any kind. Reads like a poorly written tourist webpage. Zackmann08 ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 17:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Zackmann08 ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 18:23, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
No references or sources of any kind. Reads like a poorly written tourist webpage. Zackmann08 ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 17:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. The article is currently linked from the main page, so please re-nominate when this is no longer the case. If you believe the problem with the article is urgent, please make a post at WP:ERRORS.( non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 17:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
There is absolutely nothing encyclopedic about this article. Water bottle flipping is a trivia at best if not only a fad. I cannot see how this article participates in human knowledge in the encyclopedic sense, I don't even understand how this reached DYK and the main page. This is making Wikipedia look like any random internet website on social trivia. If we let this kind of article stay on Wikipedia, we are effectively opening the floodgate to any and all fad with no discernible end to what should be included. Iry-Hor ( talk) 16:32, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Nov. 7 DYK – This inanity was extremely annoying as a Main Page DYK. Sca ( talk) 16:38, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Jat people. MBisanz talk 16:33, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
The page belongs to Category:Jat clans, or one of its subcategories. All the pages of these categories lack the very basic notability guidelines. Failure WP:GNG. Must be discussed and deleted per WP:NOT. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 02:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy deleted as WP:G4. Just Chilling ( talk) 20:45, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Recently deleted via AfD. Non-notable artist/composer/writer etc etc with only one notable source in article, being "Rolling Stone" magazine. Google search comes up with nothing, other than website of said artist. Nordic Nightfury 16:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. North America 1000 05:41, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Subject fails to meet WP:GNG Domdeparis ( talk) 15:47, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. North America 1000 05:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
There is no notability claimed and no sources. Domdeparis ( talk) 15:45, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 09:16, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Not notable in anyway whatsoever! Domdeparis ( talk) 15:44, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. No consensus on a redirect, but definitively in favour of removing the page. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 16:59, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Non-notable, WP:MILL executive. Also WP:NOTCV. Zackmann08 ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 16:05, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 16:40, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Fails WP:FICT and specifically WP:GNG sigcov and secondary sources guidelines. Only link attributed to WP:NWSRC is hand-keyed data related to article in Variety magazine, and googling article title, magazine and date does not produce a WP:RS to verify quote.
Topic significantly detailed in List of The Facts of Life episodes article. AldezD ( talk) 16:25, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
I am also nominating the following related pages because of similar WP:FICT/WP:GNG issues:
AldezD ( talk) 16:27, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 09:15, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Lack of general notability, complete lack of sources, semi-translated, concerns for self-advertising - not to mention it is also Dimitar, not Dimiter. Either way, this is a reality TV participant and not a politician, and lacks any notability for a separate article. For comparison - among the other candidates running in this election are a clairvoyant and a former criminal. Skycycle ( talk) 15:22, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Mhhossein talk 10:03, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
I know the election will only be a couple weeks away, and I know that there is probably a 99% change of Skillicorn winning the election. However, he has not yet been elected, and he has done nothing, as of the moment, that is noteworthy enough for a Wikipedia article. Until he wins, the article should be deleted. -- 1990'sguy ( talk) 01:40, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Keep. As Bearcat says, he did win the seat. -- Andreas Philopater ( talk) 00:24, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was Speedy deleted Deleted after I speedy tagged it ( non-admin closure). SwisterTwister talk 08:30, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
May not be notable; no reliable secondary sources. Reads like an advertisement and is not possible to fix. Okamialvis ( talk) 20:29, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Joyous! | Talk 02:45, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
This is an article about a phrase used once by then Prime Minister Stephen Harper. The phrase has not been used by ethnologists. Ground Zero | t 14:45, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
KEEP cant believe no one here is actually looking for sources. I see age makes a differences here...very common term when I was young (1960-70s)......very old term ....not a new Stephen Harper term at all. Its used by our historians/ Not sure how deletion over correction will help our readers.Very bad idea to redirect this to 2015 elections. Best to get real sources to educated people here and our readers. -- Moxy ( talk) 23:57, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 09:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Delete: irreformable business/personal promotional article. Quis separabit? 02:25, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 17:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
WP:1EVENT. Everything seems to stem from Matilda and the Ramsay Bunch, Matilda and the Ramsay Bunch being the article creator. I would suggest that this be redirected, though I'm running it by here just in case I've missed something. Laun chba ller 23:12, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. It seems like the sources provided by E.M.Gregory and Unscintillating have not been contested beyond perfunctory "not notable" arguments. There does not seem to be enough support for a WP:TNT based deletion, either, and the article is already tagged for cleanup. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 10:42, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
The notability is that of the companies, and is covered adequately there. DGG ( talk ) 07:42, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Note in particular, that Tal drew wide attention when one of his companies pre-paid cards was used in the Assassination of Mahmoud Al-Mabhouh. Wall Street Journal, Hamas Killing Shines Light on Payoneer, Prepaid Cards, [17]. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 05:05, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 09:09, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Autobiographical entry fails the criteria under WP:MUSIC entirely. Karst ( talk) 22:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Metasploit Project. Seems to have a notable product, which it can be redirected to. If there are issues with article creation, this can be addressed in the future. ( non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 19:15, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
this pages adds no encyclopedia value. It is claimed as public company. still only 1 paragraph to write about like its a Bloomberg business profile. Light2021 ( talk) 08:08, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 17:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. Did not chart. Magnolia677 ( talk) 11:09, 30 October 2016 (UTC) To say the song isn't notable because the article isn't extensive is unfair. I personally remember a lot of buzz about this song, though the article needs SEVERE expansion. I still feel there's reason to keep the article, but it needs major expansion. Aleccat ( talk) 21:03, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 09:07, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
No indication or evidence of notability. PK T(alk) 21:47, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 22:04, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
This article has no sources cited. It is fancruft and listcruft of the worse kind. Take it to a Dr Who wiki if wanted, but it's not encyclopaedic. Bondegezou ( talk) 13:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 15:47, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
The content of this article, including its context appears unsuitable for Wikipedia, for not being encyclopedic. ♥ Shri Sanam Kumar ♥ 13:17, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Keep and Revise, as suggested by the article's original author. Though, why he didn't do that earlier, is beyond me. (Not an attack, but genuine puzzlement.) N. GASIETA| talk 21:36, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 09:06, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Fails WP:ORG. WP:CSD#A7 wrongly declined even though the lead sentence clearly states "JTVNews Is The News Division Of JTV". - Mr X 13:03, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 15:48, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Delete. A list like this will not be maintained long-term. I notice the "current" stats have not recently been updated. Fails WP:NOTSTATS, WP:NOTMIRROR and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Anyone wanting to see a list of these averages is better referred to one of the two main specialist sites that publish cricket statistics or, better still, to the latest Wisden or Playfair. Jack | talk page 13:53, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
I am also nominating the following related pages because the same problems arise:
No maintenance or update. Fails same criteria.
Jack |
talk page
14:46, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Keep as per Jevansen. GreenCricket (talk) 13:20, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 16:53, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Ten years later, the reasons offered for deletion in 2006 are now easier to establish because the use of the terminology remains insignificant. This article appears to represent an abuse of Wikipedia's crowd sourcing practices to promote a term activists only recently coined as "agnostic theism".
Though the general concepts have been discussed on rare occasions in philosophical publications, such as two cited in the article, the citations establish the discussion of concepts, but they do not establish a historical or significant use of the term "agnostic theism", which was only recently coined. Outside of the discussion on a blog or two, the term does not appear to have caught on in popular use and the the term has no significant philosophical history. This may be because the terminology is contradictory to most readers understanding of "agnostic" and "atheist" where the term is seen as a contradiction.
There are, multiple criteria supporting this article's deletion.
6. Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including *neologisms:...
My detailed investigation show that this article promotes a neologism.
7. Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed.
I cannot find reliable sources showing this terminology is used or accepts with ssignificant frequency or context.
I have been unsuccessful in establishing legitimate sources in academic philosophy to support the idea that the terminology "agnostic theism" is widely used, or even known.
The term "agnostic theism" (and "theistic agnosticism") is found in a couple atheist blogs and an activist author Austin Cline writing for about.com. Cline cites no history or sources to establish the use of the terminology, or that it is in significant use.
The article citations refer to sources discussing an idea that there may be an overlap between theism and one form of agnosticism, but they do not establish nor propose to establish "agnostic theism" or 'theistic agnosticism" as terminology their philosophical peers should adopt to describe the overlap they discuss. That is, the sources don't support the use of the term.
8. Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guidelines WP:N and WP:GNG
The terms the article calls a philosophical concept appear neither as subject titles nor in the content of the three accessible internet philosophy encyclopedias: Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford's Encyclopedia of Philosophy or Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
The meaning of the term agnosticism entails the rejection of both theism and atheism. This contradicts the articles lead statement saying that "agnostic theism" encompasses both theism and agnosticism.
One of the citations is a broken link. The title referred to cannot be found.
Credible and meaningful citations to the term "agnostic theism" with as described in the article do not appear to exist.
The objections to deletion in 2006 included claims that 'agnostic theism" is a "widely used term." Its use appears to be negligible on the whole, and may only appear to be "widely used" by those who search out and read the blogs and about.com.
KSci (talk) 00:25, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Another concern I have is with the existing sources. The sources support the idea, but they do not show that the concept has ever been noteworthy or that the idea of "agnostic theism" is actually in noteworthy use.This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves.
This page in a nutshell: This guideline discusses how to identify reliable sources. The policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability. This requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations.
It may be that those calling to "keep" will be more successful at finding reliable verifiable sources for "agnostic theism" as a noteworthy and support for the article's content.This page in a nutshell: Readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up. This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. Additionally, quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations.
My research on this term found no authoritative sources showing that there is notable philosophical use of the therm "agnostic theism" in philosophical resources. I also found no noteworthy sources stating that they or someone else is regarded by philosophers to be an "agnostic theist". The article only speculated that some people were "agnostic atheism' by relying on original research. With so little support and no verification that there are reliable sources discussing the topic of 'agnostic theism' the term is a neologism.
Articles on neologisms that have little or no usage in reliable sources are commonly deleted, as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term.
The single referenced source, George Hamilton Smith, is not a reliable source. He was a lay "political philosopher" without the academic credentials required to be seen as authoritative on this topic. Even if he were reliable, the citation doesn't verify because he does not tell us anything about the meaning of the term "agnostic theism," the term the citation is saying he defined."Agnostic theism, also called theistic agnosticism is the philosophical view that encompasses both theism and agnosticism. It can also mean that there is one high ruler, but it is unknowable or unknown who or what it is."
KSci (talk) 00:19, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Delete I see only three references, one of which is dead. The two that work reference agnosticism... just agnosticism, not "agnostic theism." The fact that there does not seem to be enough notability for the specific term is sufficient grounds for deletion. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 05:34, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
In response to the forgoing 'Keep' opinion, there are no third party sources that tell us about the meaning of the term 'agnostic theism'. The term and its definition appear to be a synthesis of ideas to produce a neologism. Nothing in the article is supported by reliable sources making describing a topic with this name.
From: WP:3PARTY
Every article on Wikipedia must be based upon verifiable statements from multiple third-party reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. A third-party source is one that is entirely independent of the subject being covered, e.g., a newspaper reporter covering a story that they are not involved in except in their capacity as a reporter.
See also WP:Synthesis of published material
I thank you all for your replies. I think we still need to address the question concerning compliance with Wikipedia policies about original research, reliable sources, and verifiability. It would be sincerely appreciated if someone requesting 'keep' either add the missing citations, or tell me how you think this article complies with our WP policies.
@JimWae We think we need a source saying Kierkegaard was an 'agnostic theist', we cannot draw that conclusion ourselves. I think it is original research if we coin the terms "agnostic theism' or 'theistic agnosticism' and make up our own definition for the terminology. We need reliable verifiable third party sources establishing the existance of the philosophical terminology and stating what the term means. If we make up the term and its meaning, I think we'll be creating a neologism. Please let me know why you disagree. or even better, add the citations.
@Godsy @MRD2014 I don't think the existance of agnostic atheism addresses the problem that this article cannot be supportaed by reliable, verifiable, third party sources that can bring the article into compliance with Wikipedia policies. I would greatly appreciate your views on this topic. Adding citations that address the problem would be even better and put the discussion to rest. How does this article meet notability guidelines if we can't find the requisite sources.
Thank you all for your participation.
KSci
(talk)
01:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Delete: Summary of the delete rationale: The article creates two neologisms, 'agnostic theism' and 'theistic agnosticism' using original research; there are no reliable verifiable sources using these terms or stating their meaning. These neologisms can be found only on a couple cause-related blogs and a cause-related interest writing for about.com. No independent reliable third party sources can be found using or defining these supposedly 'philosophical' terms. The article body describes the original research needed for a step by step synthesis citing controversial philosophies implied to be mainstream. No opposition views can be found representing the opposing view because the terms are too new and unknown outside of the cause. Wikipedia is the only available encyclopedia source with an article on these terms, including philosophy encyclopedias.
From "WP:Original Research" WP:OR - "all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves."
From "RWP:Reliable sources" WP:RS - "The policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations. The policy is strictly applied to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, and sections of articles—without exception..."
From "WP:Verifiability" WP:V - "Readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up. This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. Additionally, quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations."
From: "WP:Independent" WP:IS - "Identifying and using independent sources (also called third-party sources) helps editors build non-promotional articles that fairly portray the subject, without undue attention to the subject's own views. Using independent sources helps protect the project from people using Wikipedia for self-promotion, personal financial benefit, and other abuses." "Every article on Wikipedia must be based upon verifiable statements from multiple third-party reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. A third-party source is one that is entirely independent of the subject being covered, e.g., a newspaper reporter covering a story that they are not involved in except in their capacity as a reporter."
The following quote from the article text defining the topic is contrary to the above policies, a condition that cannot be corrected:
"Agnostic theism, also called theistic agnosticism is the philosophical view that encompasses both theism and agnosticism. It can also mean that there is one high ruler, but it is unknowable or unknown who or what it is."
At this time, none of the editors responding 'keep' has argued that these deficiencies can be addressed:
KSci (talk) 03:11, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
The problem is with the sources: Thanks for your comments, and I apologize for this repetition. I'd like to redirect our discussion back to addressing the actual problem. This article's subject terms 'agnostic theism' and 'theistic agnosticism' and their meanings must be attributed to reliable, verifiable, independent (third party) sources. What I found is that these terms and their meaning cannot be so attributed, but instead appear to be neologism. Neologisms are often in use by their promoters, so showing that the terms are in use doesn't address the concern that matters. Wikipedia's policies require that the terms the article is about and everything in the article must be directly attributed to reliable, verifiable, independent (third party) sources. I think there aren't any such sources for these terms. In this discussion nobody has yet to address this particular concern. Also, combining this article with another article would not address the sourcing problem either. Thanks again for your patience. KSci (talk) 20:55, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
@Rhododendrites in addition to the points you raised, a merge into agnosticism would give the content visibility to more editors so it would no longer be neglected as it appears to have been as a separate subject. What you suggest appears to be a workable alternative. KSci (talk) 03:06, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 09:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
references provided give no indication of notability-mostly trade paper mentions. this appears to be a nonnotable travel business. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 13:30, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 09:03, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
O'Kelley is not only notable for winning Miss North Carolina USA, but so much so only notable for that that the article is stuck in time. The article still says O'Kelley is a junior at North Carolina State University, which she was in 2006-2007 when the article was created, but clearly is not 10 years later. Yet she is of so little note that not only do no editors bother to change this statement, but there are no sources to update it either other than a linkedin profile, that I am only mostly sure is for the same person. Her previous win in the teen competition is so minor, we do not even have contemporary sources on it, and it appears to me that the Charlotte Observer article used as a source is probably more on O'Kelley's successor than on her. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:27, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 17:45, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Promotional article on a non-notable artist. Speedy tag removed by a technically "independent" user, but both accounts have few edits and have edited the same articles. -- Finngall talk 00:51, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 08:59, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Is this writer sufficiently notable? I don't think there is sufficient indication of it. (And as an aside, the article was created by an editor whose only edits are to this article.) Delete unless notability established. -- Nlu ( talk) 22:43, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was Speedied (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 06:47, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Nothing to show notability WP:BIO, just appears to be promotional for individual and work ( previous version for TimelineBlogs, now changes to promote GhOccasions) KylieTastic ( talk) 13:51, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was redirect to house music. ( non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 19:19, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Not notable sub genre, the article appears original research and no significant sources to indicate its notability. Redirect to house music. Karst ( talk) 10:58, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 16:42, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
The only references given are a blog and an advertisement placed by a person with conflict of interest. It should also be noted that notability is not inherited (from his father, who was a notable magician). Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
(
talk) @Robert McClenon| Hello, I have corrected the reference issues, and orphan link issues. Could you please remove the speedy deletion and close this discussion. Thank you.
Ibrahim skillz (
talk)
06:18, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. North America 1000 22:56, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Insufficient independent reliable sources with significant discussion. Most used source is a Forbes blog (see here on sorting out the kinds of things you find at Forbes) - other refs cited are also laudatory in-bubble in the online marketing hype world. I did a google search ten pages out and it is just more of the same. There aren't sufficient independent, non-Woo! sources with which we can actually write a decent, neutral, encyclopedia article on this person; we just have a WP:PROMO piece now. Jytdog ( talk) 23:07, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was redirect to 1: Nenokkadine#Soundtrack. And possibly merge from history. Sandstein 21:11, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Redundant with major relevant content already present at main article 1: Nenokkadine. Fails WP:CFORK. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 10:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The soundtrack article was created as the main article had grown too large. Oh god, what a crime. Kailash29792 ( talk) 10:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 16:37, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Delete: as insufficiently notable director. Quis separabit? 07:25, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Joyous! | Talk 03:08, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. I used an earlier version of this article as a screenshot to illustrate the WP:CORPSPAM Signpost Op-Ed I wrote last year. It was deleted, but it has been recreated since by User:Ferma with the edit summary "clearly notable". Well, I don't see it - please explain how this small company doing business as usual passes our notability criteria. Pinging User:Randykitty who added notability tag, and User:Stesmo who was also involved in editing this and noted that most of the content here is trivial (well, of course there is, because there is no in-depth coverage to speak of - company exists, and this is all we can say... WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:34, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep a clear consensus has developed that the article should be kept. (non-admin closure). TonyBallioni ( talk) 01:24, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Only one source, which looks like it was prepared by the subject, or a friend or associate of the subject BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 08:01, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Consensus is for deletion. North America 1000 00:49, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Earlier such discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of surnames 2 and WP:Unsourced and WP:OR Vin09 (talk) 07:46, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Tom Fitzgerald (ice hockey)#Personal. ( non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 14:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai ( talk) 07:00, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 08:57, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
I could not establish that this clan is WP:NOTABLE. Boleyn ( talk) 17:51, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 17:48, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai ( talk) 06:58, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 08:56, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Brian training programmes are a scam, the evidence shows that they have no actual effect. Amazingly, this distinctly promotional article instead notes that the brain is more plastic than previously imagined - which may or may not be true but is of course irrelevant to the fact that these training programmes don't work.
So I tried to make the article more neutral, but as I investigated the sources I found that those cited are churnalism - press releases printed in the newspapers without investigation or commentary - and I found no evidence of anything else that could be used instead. Guy ( Help!) 21:19, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
See https://books.google.com/books?id=7ZDIAAAAQBAJ&pg=PT49 for the chapter titled "LearningRx". The book discusses LearningRx for roughly seven pages.
The book notes:
LearningRx turns out to be the most expensive, least supported by published research, and most aggressively marketed of the four leading cognitive training programs. It bears the curious distinction of being the only one set up as a franchise, like McDonald's with independent owners running each of the eighty-three LearningRx centers in twenty countries. And neither the franchise owners nor the trainers who work for them are required to have anything more than a four-year college degree.
But hang on. LearningRx also has some unique assets, in particular that its training is offered in person, rather than on a computer, with a trainer encouraging each student to persevere—an important asset for children or adults struggling with issues of attention and focus. ... Moreover, many of the tasks that Learning Rx uses are the same kinds used by other cognitive trainers, except that they have been translated from a computer format to tabletop exercises performed with playing cards and other materials.
The article notes:
On this Wednesday evening at the Upper Montclair, N.J., outlet of LearningRx, a chain of 83 “brain training” franchises across the United States, the goal is to improve cognitive skills. LearningRx is one of a growing number of such commercial services — some online, others offered by psychologists. Unlike traditional tutoring services that seek to help students master a subject, brain training purports to enhance comprehension and the ability to analyze and mentally manipulate concepts, images, sounds and instructions. In a word, it seeks to make students smarter.
“We measure every student pre- and post-training with a version of the Woodcock-Johnson general intelligence test,” said Ken Gibson, who began franchising LearningRx centers in 2003, and has data on more than 30,000 of the nearly 50,000 students who have been trained. “The average gain on I.Q. is 15 points after 24 weeks of training, and 20 points in less than 32 weeks.”
The article notes:
Based in Colorado Springs, Colo., the LearningRx Franchise Corp. opened its first office in 2002. Today it has 40 centers across the country, including one that opened in Lake Oswego in early October, and expects to open 50 more within the next year.
Clients don't typically arrive by doctor referral. What's being sold is cognitive improvement by coaching. All clients are tested, then assigned to a trainer. Most are children and teens who face challenges with such skills as reading, concentrating and problem solving and who often have low grades, said Linda Conlee, owner of the Lake Oswego franchise.
The article notes:
She decided to enroll her children in LearningRx, a Colorado-based program that works to strengthen the brain's cognitive skills so students can learn more quickly and easily.
The program first came to Minnesota two years ago. Since then, four more LearningRx franchises have opened in the state, including the newest center in Eagan.
Although the program bills itself as beneficial for anybody, students with cognitive and learning disabilities, such as attention deficit disorder and dyslexia, are flocking to it. Some parents say the benefits are so great that their children can go off their medications.
But experts remain skeptical that a program could produce such dramatic results.
Canan Karatekin, associate professor of child development at the University of Minnesota's Institute of Child Development, said research shows it's possible to improve cognitive functions. But she says programs, like LearningRx, should be independently researched.
The article notes:
LearningRx is used for a variety of learners, including students with learning disabilities, K-12 and college students who want to improve their academic skills, adults wanting to improve their job performance and senior citizens who want to stay mentally sharp, as stated in a LearningRx Inc. flier.
...
Ken Gibson, founder of LearningRx, discovered through his research that 80 percent of learning problems are cognitive weaknesses, Winchell said.
...
The program is designed to strengthen weak underlying processing skills, including attention, working memory, processing speed, logic and reasoning, visual processing, auditory processing and long-term memory. These skills are the foundation of a student's ability to learn and are the basic mental abilities used for thinking, studying and learning, according to LearningRx.
The article notes:
LearningRx, a Colorado Springs company that operates a franchised network of 80 tutoring centers in 25 states, is just beginning to recover after a 1½-year battle with the Federal Trade Commission over whether it could back up its advertising claims with scientific studies and other research.
The company settled in May a lawsuit filed in federal court last year by the agency that alleged it "deceptively claimed their programs were clinically proven to permanently improve serious health conditions like ADHD (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder), autism, dementia, Alzheimer's disease, strokes, and concussions." The suit said LearningRx also claimed the "training substantially improved school grades and college admission test scores, career earnings, and job and athletic performance" and that its "brain training is 10 times more cost-effective than tutoring."
The settlement included a $4 million judgment against Learning Rx, though all but $200,000 was suspended, and bars the company from claiming its programs improve performance on the job or in athletics or increase cognitive function of people with age-related memory loss, dementia, Alzheimer's disease, ADHD, autism, traumatic brain injury or stroke.
...
LearningRx, formally known as LearningRx Franchise Corp., traces its roots back more than 30 years in Florida to Gibson's work as an pediatric optometrist to help his patients more easily learn to read. Gibson, who had difficulty reading as a child as a result of dyslexia, found that reading skills could be improved through "interval training" similar to what professional athletes use to raise the level of their athletic performance. He began to sell licenses for his research and reading program to other optometrists and later psychologists, numbering 500 by 2000.
The article notes:
The company behind the LearningRX “brain training” program has agreed to pay a $200,000 settlement and to stop making claims that its system is clinically proven to treat serious health conditions, or that it can dramatically improves a user’s IQ or income.
According to the complaint [PDF] filed with a federal court in LearningRx’s home state of Colorado, the company made numerous unsubstantiated claims in the marketing of its program.
Included among the allegedly unsubstantiated statements made by LearningRx are boasts about the program’s ability to boost IQs, and therefore income.
...
In settling the complaint, LearningRx denies any wrongdoing, but agrees to pay $200,000 (of a $4 million judgment against the company) and to cease making unsubstantiated claims about the performance, benefits, or efficacy of their programs. LearningRx is also barred from misrepresenting the existence or results of any tests or studies, and from providing others with the means to make the prohibited claims.
The article notes:
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has announced the developers and marketers of the LearningRx “brain training” programs have settled to pay $200,000 and agreed to stop making allegedly false and unsubstantiated claims.
The FTC had said LearningRx Franchise Corp and its CEO, Dr. Ken Gibson, made allegations that their programs were clinically proven to help with conditions like ADHD, autism, dementia, Alzheimer’s disease, strokes and concussions. The company marketed these allegations through its website and blog, as well as Facebook, Twitter, print and radio ads and direct mail pieces. The FTC believes these claims were inaccurate and therefore deceptive.
LearningRx turns out to be the most expensive, least supported by published research, and most aggressively marketed of the four leading cognitive training programs. It bears the curious distinction of being the only one set up as a franchise, like McDonald's with independent owners running each of the eighty-three LearningRx centers in twenty countries. And neither the franchise owners nor the trainers who work for them are required to have anything more than a four-year college degree....But hang on. LearningRx also has some unique assets, in particular that its training is offered in person, rather than on a computer, with a trainer encouraging each student to persevere
Based in Colorado Springs, Colo., the LearningRx Franchise Corp. opened its first office in 2002. Today it has 40 centers across the country, including one that opened in Lake Oswego in early October, and expects to open 50 more within the next year. (following information is literally about business & clients overall, not the actual company)
I'll note that even the last 2 AfDs contained these same exact sources, so that's also saying something that, if after all these years, no one could get better substance – sources 6–8 were published in 2016, which is after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LearningRx (2nd nomination) was closed 30 May 2015. The sources discuss the federal lawsuit against LearningRx for making "numerous unsubstantiated claims in the marketing of its program". The Consumerist, which focuses on "consumerism and consumers' experiences and issues with companies and corporations" (according to the Wikipedia article), does not "shoehor[n] PR along with trivial pieces about a law case".
The negative material about the lawsuit from the Federal Trade Commission surfaced one year after my rewrite in October 2016. I have updated the article to include this information.
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 15:46, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Failed verification. While there are indications of notability per WP:MUSICBIO#C2, searching for Elizabeth Troy on the Official Charts Company website yields no results. Laun chba ller 12:11, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 08:51, 15 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:Dthomsen8 with the following rationale "remove prod &c.". I don't know what &c means, there was no edit summary or talk page comment, so it was essentially a no-rationale deprod. No refs have been added, and this remains what it was - a total failure at WP:Notability (organizations). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:58, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. ( No prejudice against speedy renomination per no participation herein other than from the nominator.) North America 1000 01:49, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
I couldn't establish that it is WP:NOTABLE. Previous sources were unreliable. Boleyn ( talk) 20:21, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. The one "keep" does not establish more than passing mentions. Sandstein 20:29, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
I couldn't establish that they are WP:NOTABLE Boleyn ( talk) 19:34, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 08:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Zigzig20s with the rather unhelpful following rationale "I "otherwise" object.". Well, I already stated my arguments: this person does not seem to meet WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR. Comments? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:36, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. Consensus is that this television program is notable. North America 1000 23:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Non-notable and full of WP:REDLINKS. Zackmann08 ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 04:59, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. czar 19:30, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Non-notable company lacking non-trivial support. "References" are mostly articles by founder. Should possibly have been an A7, but another author misread the purpose of inherited. reddogsix ( talk) 04:56, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 08:40, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Page consist entirely of WP:OR by a student who goes to the school ( see this diff). Content of the page is that of a school's website. Not encyclopedic material. Zackmann08 ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 04:53, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was Keep (non-admin closure) . TonyBallioni ( talk) 01:16, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Delete: non-notable youth striker; career lasted 1991-99. Quis separabit? 04:46, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 08:39, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
A7 Material. Removed by someone for their personal reason. Now here to waste community time on this one. No depth coverage. Only for promotional and nothing else. This is being used to build many Wikipedia Spam like The Next Web , YourStory or many others. Light2021 ( talk) 03:59, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm the one who removed the speedy tag for my personal reason, and wishes to waste community time — or whatever this strange nominator is getting at. It's obviously not a speedy candidate, as being "the largest Northern European media company reporting on the development of growth companies in the region" is an assertion of notability and, if duly sourced, would probably make the publication notable. Notability of small media companies is difficult, as they are known mostly by their works, not by people writing articles about them. It is clear from a google news search [43] that the company exists, it is real, it publishes content, and other sources sometimes talk about what the company publishes. However, most of these are relatively minor, passing mentions in minor sources. In the context of an AfD, as opposed to an inapt speedy, I'll scour the sources if I have a chance to see if there are enough to support an article. Right now it's looking iffy. - Wikidemon ( talk) 05:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The country has also acquired the paraphernalia of a tech cluster, such as a celebratory blog (Arctic Startup) and a valley-related name (Arctic Valley).That's as passing as they get, and "celebratory blog" is harsh, if not downright condescending, to the company, and should be weighed accordingly.
The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 17:54, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Could not quite figure out what this guy does, but none of the sources cited seem to be actually about him. Ref no. 3, the webpage of AADCU, his main company/venture/organization/whatever, is a dead link. Googling does not produce much either. Nsk92 ( talk) 03:17, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Bgwhite for the edits, I got it to know for next article submitt. Susanzone77 ( talk) 01:53, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 08:34, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Couple of mentions from a couple of years ago for this website don't add up to notability per GNG. Drmies ( talk) 02:54, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 08:37, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
This article is not notable according to Wikipedia guidelines. It has little content and is unlikely to develop any further. It is also written very poorly and the sources are not credible. NikolaiHo ☎️ 01:57, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
{{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
19:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC)The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 08:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
I couldn't verify notability. With no reliable sources at all, best to delete this one-line stub rather than merge unverifiable info. Boleyn ( talk) 01:34, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 08:37, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:COMPANY. Unable to find any secondary sources to support notability. Magnolia677 ( talk) 01:24, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
The result was Keep. Cavarrone 12:25, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete. Per G5 ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:43, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Article of a Footballer that fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG Inter&anthro ( talk) 22:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Joyous! | Talk 02:40, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
No notability. The notable characters have been effectively merged into the main article. Three years has passed since my last nomination, and of course nothing has been done to improve this article. All of the "good writing" here were taken from the main article when Ryulong restored the article from a redirect in his opposition to having romajis placed in footnotes. This AFD needs eyes outside of A/M project which contains loads of terrible and non-notable character lists. DragonZero ( Talk · Contribs) 09:13, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Kanga Cricket League. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 00:12, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Fails WP:NSEASONS, the competition isn't first-class cricket and most of the article is just stats/tables Joseph 2302 19:50, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Kanga Cricket League. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 00:12, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Fails WP:NSEASONS, as there is no prose about it and the league does not play first-class cricket Joseph 2302 19:48, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 09:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
As with the other similar lists, if you want to find a result from any ODI India have played in, then use Cricinfo. We're not a directory unlike them, and all we're doing here is refactoring their content. Joseph 2302 19:36, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. North America 1000 05:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Completely unreferenced article about a band that doesn't meet WP:BAND. Was removed from WP:PROD BLP due to WT:BLPPROD. Zackmann08 ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 19:25, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was redirect to VocaLink#Zapp. MBisanz talk 16:45, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Everything is promotional and nothing else. No-notability of this organization. If we have to make a Wikipedia page for being an encyclopedia in this manner. wikipedia is not a portfolio or directory of such company Light2021 ( talk) 14:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. North America 1000 05:16, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. Article tagged for more than 8 years regarding notabilty and sources. Apparently dead too, but nothing to source that either. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 13:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 00:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
This article is virtually just a list and seems poorly titled after seeing what the content on the page is. I may be jumping ahead with this but I feel like this type of article may not fit with Wikipedia's notability policy. The Ninja5 Empire ( Talk) 08:11, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of Upstairs, Downstairs (1971 TV series) characters#Gregory Wilmot. ( non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 19:03, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Two episode character without any notability. Fram ( talk) 08:33, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of Upstairs, Downstairs (1971 TV series) characters#Jack Dyson. ( non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 19:05, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Character which only appears in one episode. Lacks all notability. Fram ( talk) 08:34, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Transformers. Keeping the history in case any material can be copied over. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 16:58, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
This article does not establish notability. The sources in the article appear to be pure fluff that do not provide significant coverage on the topic. TTN ( talk) 00:47, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 09:27, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Non-notable software. Almost no independent coverage; I found one source. Largoplazo ( talk) 18:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Gul.maikat ( talk) 10:08, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Gul.maikat ( talk) 14:54, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was redirect to J._B._Priestley#Social_and_political_works. Nothing sourced to keep. Useful as redirect target. czar 05:51, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
This is a book review of what appears to be a non-notable book of reminiscences. No claim of notability, no notable content. KDS4444 ( talk) 07:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 00:14, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Does not seem to fulfill WP:GNG when you look at his "notable design" it seems anything but notable. Domdeparis ( talk) 18:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was Keep. Eventual merge could be discussed in the article's talk page, obviously. Cavarrone 12:30, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
No indication of notability and completely unreferenced. Zackmann08 ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 17:41, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 17:42, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 09:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
This article is just a list and fails WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NOTDIRECTORY Domdeparis ( talk) 17:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 09:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
This article is just a list and fails WP:NOTSTATS, WP:NOTMIRROR and WP:NOTDIRECTORY Domdeparis ( talk) 17:29, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Zackmann08 ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 18:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
No references or sources of any kind. Reads like a poorly written tourist webpage. Zackmann08 ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 17:29, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Zackmann08 ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 18:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
No references or sources of any kind. Reads like a poorly written tourist webpage. Zackmann08 ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 17:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Train Simulator (Dovetail Games). Don't usually close on one !vote however participation is low and far as I can tell all prev years so far redirect back to the above target so am closng as redirect ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 00:16, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Non notable game with no sources or any indication of notability. Zackmann08 ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 17:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 09:17, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
This article is just a list and fails WP:NOTSTATS, WP:NOTMIRROR and WP:NOTDIRECTORY Domdeparis ( talk) 17:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Zackmann08 ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 18:21, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
No references or sources of any kind. Reads like a poorly written tourist webpage. Zackmann08 ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 17:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Zackmann08 ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 18:23, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
No references or sources of any kind. Reads like a poorly written tourist webpage. Zackmann08 ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 17:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. The article is currently linked from the main page, so please re-nominate when this is no longer the case. If you believe the problem with the article is urgent, please make a post at WP:ERRORS.( non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 17:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
There is absolutely nothing encyclopedic about this article. Water bottle flipping is a trivia at best if not only a fad. I cannot see how this article participates in human knowledge in the encyclopedic sense, I don't even understand how this reached DYK and the main page. This is making Wikipedia look like any random internet website on social trivia. If we let this kind of article stay on Wikipedia, we are effectively opening the floodgate to any and all fad with no discernible end to what should be included. Iry-Hor ( talk) 16:32, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Nov. 7 DYK – This inanity was extremely annoying as a Main Page DYK. Sca ( talk) 16:38, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Jat people. MBisanz talk 16:33, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
The page belongs to Category:Jat clans, or one of its subcategories. All the pages of these categories lack the very basic notability guidelines. Failure WP:GNG. Must be discussed and deleted per WP:NOT. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 02:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy deleted as WP:G4. Just Chilling ( talk) 20:45, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Recently deleted via AfD. Non-notable artist/composer/writer etc etc with only one notable source in article, being "Rolling Stone" magazine. Google search comes up with nothing, other than website of said artist. Nordic Nightfury 16:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. North America 1000 05:41, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Subject fails to meet WP:GNG Domdeparis ( talk) 15:47, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. North America 1000 05:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
There is no notability claimed and no sources. Domdeparis ( talk) 15:45, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 09:16, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Not notable in anyway whatsoever! Domdeparis ( talk) 15:44, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. No consensus on a redirect, but definitively in favour of removing the page. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 16:59, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Non-notable, WP:MILL executive. Also WP:NOTCV. Zackmann08 ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 16:05, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 16:40, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Fails WP:FICT and specifically WP:GNG sigcov and secondary sources guidelines. Only link attributed to WP:NWSRC is hand-keyed data related to article in Variety magazine, and googling article title, magazine and date does not produce a WP:RS to verify quote.
Topic significantly detailed in List of The Facts of Life episodes article. AldezD ( talk) 16:25, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
I am also nominating the following related pages because of similar WP:FICT/WP:GNG issues:
AldezD ( talk) 16:27, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 09:15, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Lack of general notability, complete lack of sources, semi-translated, concerns for self-advertising - not to mention it is also Dimitar, not Dimiter. Either way, this is a reality TV participant and not a politician, and lacks any notability for a separate article. For comparison - among the other candidates running in this election are a clairvoyant and a former criminal. Skycycle ( talk) 15:22, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Mhhossein talk 10:03, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
I know the election will only be a couple weeks away, and I know that there is probably a 99% change of Skillicorn winning the election. However, he has not yet been elected, and he has done nothing, as of the moment, that is noteworthy enough for a Wikipedia article. Until he wins, the article should be deleted. -- 1990'sguy ( talk) 01:40, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Keep. As Bearcat says, he did win the seat. -- Andreas Philopater ( talk) 00:24, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was Speedy deleted Deleted after I speedy tagged it ( non-admin closure). SwisterTwister talk 08:30, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
May not be notable; no reliable secondary sources. Reads like an advertisement and is not possible to fix. Okamialvis ( talk) 20:29, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Joyous! | Talk 02:45, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
This is an article about a phrase used once by then Prime Minister Stephen Harper. The phrase has not been used by ethnologists. Ground Zero | t 14:45, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
KEEP cant believe no one here is actually looking for sources. I see age makes a differences here...very common term when I was young (1960-70s)......very old term ....not a new Stephen Harper term at all. Its used by our historians/ Not sure how deletion over correction will help our readers.Very bad idea to redirect this to 2015 elections. Best to get real sources to educated people here and our readers. -- Moxy ( talk) 23:57, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 09:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Delete: irreformable business/personal promotional article. Quis separabit? 02:25, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 17:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
WP:1EVENT. Everything seems to stem from Matilda and the Ramsay Bunch, Matilda and the Ramsay Bunch being the article creator. I would suggest that this be redirected, though I'm running it by here just in case I've missed something. Laun chba ller 23:12, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. It seems like the sources provided by E.M.Gregory and Unscintillating have not been contested beyond perfunctory "not notable" arguments. There does not seem to be enough support for a WP:TNT based deletion, either, and the article is already tagged for cleanup. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 10:42, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
The notability is that of the companies, and is covered adequately there. DGG ( talk ) 07:42, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Note in particular, that Tal drew wide attention when one of his companies pre-paid cards was used in the Assassination of Mahmoud Al-Mabhouh. Wall Street Journal, Hamas Killing Shines Light on Payoneer, Prepaid Cards, [17]. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 05:05, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 09:09, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Autobiographical entry fails the criteria under WP:MUSIC entirely. Karst ( talk) 22:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Metasploit Project. Seems to have a notable product, which it can be redirected to. If there are issues with article creation, this can be addressed in the future. ( non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 19:15, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
this pages adds no encyclopedia value. It is claimed as public company. still only 1 paragraph to write about like its a Bloomberg business profile. Light2021 ( talk) 08:08, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 17:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. Did not chart. Magnolia677 ( talk) 11:09, 30 October 2016 (UTC) To say the song isn't notable because the article isn't extensive is unfair. I personally remember a lot of buzz about this song, though the article needs SEVERE expansion. I still feel there's reason to keep the article, but it needs major expansion. Aleccat ( talk) 21:03, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 09:07, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
No indication or evidence of notability. PK T(alk) 21:47, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 22:04, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
This article has no sources cited. It is fancruft and listcruft of the worse kind. Take it to a Dr Who wiki if wanted, but it's not encyclopaedic. Bondegezou ( talk) 13:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 15:47, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
The content of this article, including its context appears unsuitable for Wikipedia, for not being encyclopedic. ♥ Shri Sanam Kumar ♥ 13:17, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Keep and Revise, as suggested by the article's original author. Though, why he didn't do that earlier, is beyond me. (Not an attack, but genuine puzzlement.) N. GASIETA| talk 21:36, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 09:06, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Fails WP:ORG. WP:CSD#A7 wrongly declined even though the lead sentence clearly states "JTVNews Is The News Division Of JTV". - Mr X 13:03, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 15:48, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Delete. A list like this will not be maintained long-term. I notice the "current" stats have not recently been updated. Fails WP:NOTSTATS, WP:NOTMIRROR and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Anyone wanting to see a list of these averages is better referred to one of the two main specialist sites that publish cricket statistics or, better still, to the latest Wisden or Playfair. Jack | talk page 13:53, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
I am also nominating the following related pages because the same problems arise:
No maintenance or update. Fails same criteria.
Jack |
talk page
14:46, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Keep as per Jevansen. GreenCricket (talk) 13:20, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 16:53, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Ten years later, the reasons offered for deletion in 2006 are now easier to establish because the use of the terminology remains insignificant. This article appears to represent an abuse of Wikipedia's crowd sourcing practices to promote a term activists only recently coined as "agnostic theism".
Though the general concepts have been discussed on rare occasions in philosophical publications, such as two cited in the article, the citations establish the discussion of concepts, but they do not establish a historical or significant use of the term "agnostic theism", which was only recently coined. Outside of the discussion on a blog or two, the term does not appear to have caught on in popular use and the the term has no significant philosophical history. This may be because the terminology is contradictory to most readers understanding of "agnostic" and "atheist" where the term is seen as a contradiction.
There are, multiple criteria supporting this article's deletion.
6. Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including *neologisms:...
My detailed investigation show that this article promotes a neologism.
7. Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed.
I cannot find reliable sources showing this terminology is used or accepts with ssignificant frequency or context.
I have been unsuccessful in establishing legitimate sources in academic philosophy to support the idea that the terminology "agnostic theism" is widely used, or even known.
The term "agnostic theism" (and "theistic agnosticism") is found in a couple atheist blogs and an activist author Austin Cline writing for about.com. Cline cites no history or sources to establish the use of the terminology, or that it is in significant use.
The article citations refer to sources discussing an idea that there may be an overlap between theism and one form of agnosticism, but they do not establish nor propose to establish "agnostic theism" or 'theistic agnosticism" as terminology their philosophical peers should adopt to describe the overlap they discuss. That is, the sources don't support the use of the term.
8. Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guidelines WP:N and WP:GNG
The terms the article calls a philosophical concept appear neither as subject titles nor in the content of the three accessible internet philosophy encyclopedias: Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford's Encyclopedia of Philosophy or Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
The meaning of the term agnosticism entails the rejection of both theism and atheism. This contradicts the articles lead statement saying that "agnostic theism" encompasses both theism and agnosticism.
One of the citations is a broken link. The title referred to cannot be found.
Credible and meaningful citations to the term "agnostic theism" with as described in the article do not appear to exist.
The objections to deletion in 2006 included claims that 'agnostic theism" is a "widely used term." Its use appears to be negligible on the whole, and may only appear to be "widely used" by those who search out and read the blogs and about.com.
KSci (talk) 00:25, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Another concern I have is with the existing sources. The sources support the idea, but they do not show that the concept has ever been noteworthy or that the idea of "agnostic theism" is actually in noteworthy use.This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves.
This page in a nutshell: This guideline discusses how to identify reliable sources. The policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability. This requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations.
It may be that those calling to "keep" will be more successful at finding reliable verifiable sources for "agnostic theism" as a noteworthy and support for the article's content.This page in a nutshell: Readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up. This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. Additionally, quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations.
My research on this term found no authoritative sources showing that there is notable philosophical use of the therm "agnostic theism" in philosophical resources. I also found no noteworthy sources stating that they or someone else is regarded by philosophers to be an "agnostic theist". The article only speculated that some people were "agnostic atheism' by relying on original research. With so little support and no verification that there are reliable sources discussing the topic of 'agnostic theism' the term is a neologism.
Articles on neologisms that have little or no usage in reliable sources are commonly deleted, as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term.
The single referenced source, George Hamilton Smith, is not a reliable source. He was a lay "political philosopher" without the academic credentials required to be seen as authoritative on this topic. Even if he were reliable, the citation doesn't verify because he does not tell us anything about the meaning of the term "agnostic theism," the term the citation is saying he defined."Agnostic theism, also called theistic agnosticism is the philosophical view that encompasses both theism and agnosticism. It can also mean that there is one high ruler, but it is unknowable or unknown who or what it is."
KSci (talk) 00:19, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Delete I see only three references, one of which is dead. The two that work reference agnosticism... just agnosticism, not "agnostic theism." The fact that there does not seem to be enough notability for the specific term is sufficient grounds for deletion. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 05:34, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
In response to the forgoing 'Keep' opinion, there are no third party sources that tell us about the meaning of the term 'agnostic theism'. The term and its definition appear to be a synthesis of ideas to produce a neologism. Nothing in the article is supported by reliable sources making describing a topic with this name.
From: WP:3PARTY
Every article on Wikipedia must be based upon verifiable statements from multiple third-party reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. A third-party source is one that is entirely independent of the subject being covered, e.g., a newspaper reporter covering a story that they are not involved in except in their capacity as a reporter.
See also WP:Synthesis of published material
I thank you all for your replies. I think we still need to address the question concerning compliance with Wikipedia policies about original research, reliable sources, and verifiability. It would be sincerely appreciated if someone requesting 'keep' either add the missing citations, or tell me how you think this article complies with our WP policies.
@JimWae We think we need a source saying Kierkegaard was an 'agnostic theist', we cannot draw that conclusion ourselves. I think it is original research if we coin the terms "agnostic theism' or 'theistic agnosticism' and make up our own definition for the terminology. We need reliable verifiable third party sources establishing the existance of the philosophical terminology and stating what the term means. If we make up the term and its meaning, I think we'll be creating a neologism. Please let me know why you disagree. or even better, add the citations.
@Godsy @MRD2014 I don't think the existance of agnostic atheism addresses the problem that this article cannot be supportaed by reliable, verifiable, third party sources that can bring the article into compliance with Wikipedia policies. I would greatly appreciate your views on this topic. Adding citations that address the problem would be even better and put the discussion to rest. How does this article meet notability guidelines if we can't find the requisite sources.
Thank you all for your participation.
KSci
(talk)
01:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Delete: Summary of the delete rationale: The article creates two neologisms, 'agnostic theism' and 'theistic agnosticism' using original research; there are no reliable verifiable sources using these terms or stating their meaning. These neologisms can be found only on a couple cause-related blogs and a cause-related interest writing for about.com. No independent reliable third party sources can be found using or defining these supposedly 'philosophical' terms. The article body describes the original research needed for a step by step synthesis citing controversial philosophies implied to be mainstream. No opposition views can be found representing the opposing view because the terms are too new and unknown outside of the cause. Wikipedia is the only available encyclopedia source with an article on these terms, including philosophy encyclopedias.
From "WP:Original Research" WP:OR - "all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves."
From "RWP:Reliable sources" WP:RS - "The policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations. The policy is strictly applied to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, and sections of articles—without exception..."
From "WP:Verifiability" WP:V - "Readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up. This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. Additionally, quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations."
From: "WP:Independent" WP:IS - "Identifying and using independent sources (also called third-party sources) helps editors build non-promotional articles that fairly portray the subject, without undue attention to the subject's own views. Using independent sources helps protect the project from people using Wikipedia for self-promotion, personal financial benefit, and other abuses." "Every article on Wikipedia must be based upon verifiable statements from multiple third-party reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. A third-party source is one that is entirely independent of the subject being covered, e.g., a newspaper reporter covering a story that they are not involved in except in their capacity as a reporter."
The following quote from the article text defining the topic is contrary to the above policies, a condition that cannot be corrected:
"Agnostic theism, also called theistic agnosticism is the philosophical view that encompasses both theism and agnosticism. It can also mean that there is one high ruler, but it is unknowable or unknown who or what it is."
At this time, none of the editors responding 'keep' has argued that these deficiencies can be addressed:
KSci (talk) 03:11, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
The problem is with the sources: Thanks for your comments, and I apologize for this repetition. I'd like to redirect our discussion back to addressing the actual problem. This article's subject terms 'agnostic theism' and 'theistic agnosticism' and their meanings must be attributed to reliable, verifiable, independent (third party) sources. What I found is that these terms and their meaning cannot be so attributed, but instead appear to be neologism. Neologisms are often in use by their promoters, so showing that the terms are in use doesn't address the concern that matters. Wikipedia's policies require that the terms the article is about and everything in the article must be directly attributed to reliable, verifiable, independent (third party) sources. I think there aren't any such sources for these terms. In this discussion nobody has yet to address this particular concern. Also, combining this article with another article would not address the sourcing problem either. Thanks again for your patience. KSci (talk) 20:55, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
@Rhododendrites in addition to the points you raised, a merge into agnosticism would give the content visibility to more editors so it would no longer be neglected as it appears to have been as a separate subject. What you suggest appears to be a workable alternative. KSci (talk) 03:06, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 09:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
references provided give no indication of notability-mostly trade paper mentions. this appears to be a nonnotable travel business. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 13:30, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 09:03, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
O'Kelley is not only notable for winning Miss North Carolina USA, but so much so only notable for that that the article is stuck in time. The article still says O'Kelley is a junior at North Carolina State University, which she was in 2006-2007 when the article was created, but clearly is not 10 years later. Yet she is of so little note that not only do no editors bother to change this statement, but there are no sources to update it either other than a linkedin profile, that I am only mostly sure is for the same person. Her previous win in the teen competition is so minor, we do not even have contemporary sources on it, and it appears to me that the Charlotte Observer article used as a source is probably more on O'Kelley's successor than on her. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:27, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 17:45, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Promotional article on a non-notable artist. Speedy tag removed by a technically "independent" user, but both accounts have few edits and have edited the same articles. -- Finngall talk 00:51, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 08:59, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Is this writer sufficiently notable? I don't think there is sufficient indication of it. (And as an aside, the article was created by an editor whose only edits are to this article.) Delete unless notability established. -- Nlu ( talk) 22:43, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was Speedied (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 06:47, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Nothing to show notability WP:BIO, just appears to be promotional for individual and work ( previous version for TimelineBlogs, now changes to promote GhOccasions) KylieTastic ( talk) 13:51, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was redirect to house music. ( non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 19:19, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Not notable sub genre, the article appears original research and no significant sources to indicate its notability. Redirect to house music. Karst ( talk) 10:58, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 16:42, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
The only references given are a blog and an advertisement placed by a person with conflict of interest. It should also be noted that notability is not inherited (from his father, who was a notable magician). Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
(
talk) @Robert McClenon| Hello, I have corrected the reference issues, and orphan link issues. Could you please remove the speedy deletion and close this discussion. Thank you.
Ibrahim skillz (
talk)
06:18, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. North America 1000 22:56, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Insufficient independent reliable sources with significant discussion. Most used source is a Forbes blog (see here on sorting out the kinds of things you find at Forbes) - other refs cited are also laudatory in-bubble in the online marketing hype world. I did a google search ten pages out and it is just more of the same. There aren't sufficient independent, non-Woo! sources with which we can actually write a decent, neutral, encyclopedia article on this person; we just have a WP:PROMO piece now. Jytdog ( talk) 23:07, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was redirect to 1: Nenokkadine#Soundtrack. And possibly merge from history. Sandstein 21:11, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Redundant with major relevant content already present at main article 1: Nenokkadine. Fails WP:CFORK. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 10:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The soundtrack article was created as the main article had grown too large. Oh god, what a crime. Kailash29792 ( talk) 10:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 16:37, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Delete: as insufficiently notable director. Quis separabit? 07:25, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Joyous! | Talk 03:08, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. I used an earlier version of this article as a screenshot to illustrate the WP:CORPSPAM Signpost Op-Ed I wrote last year. It was deleted, but it has been recreated since by User:Ferma with the edit summary "clearly notable". Well, I don't see it - please explain how this small company doing business as usual passes our notability criteria. Pinging User:Randykitty who added notability tag, and User:Stesmo who was also involved in editing this and noted that most of the content here is trivial (well, of course there is, because there is no in-depth coverage to speak of - company exists, and this is all we can say... WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:34, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep a clear consensus has developed that the article should be kept. (non-admin closure). TonyBallioni ( talk) 01:24, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Only one source, which looks like it was prepared by the subject, or a friend or associate of the subject BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 08:01, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Consensus is for deletion. North America 1000 00:49, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Earlier such discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of surnames 2 and WP:Unsourced and WP:OR Vin09 (talk) 07:46, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Tom Fitzgerald (ice hockey)#Personal. ( non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 14:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai ( talk) 07:00, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 08:57, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
I could not establish that this clan is WP:NOTABLE. Boleyn ( talk) 17:51, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 17:48, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai ( talk) 06:58, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 08:56, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Brian training programmes are a scam, the evidence shows that they have no actual effect. Amazingly, this distinctly promotional article instead notes that the brain is more plastic than previously imagined - which may or may not be true but is of course irrelevant to the fact that these training programmes don't work.
So I tried to make the article more neutral, but as I investigated the sources I found that those cited are churnalism - press releases printed in the newspapers without investigation or commentary - and I found no evidence of anything else that could be used instead. Guy ( Help!) 21:19, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
See https://books.google.com/books?id=7ZDIAAAAQBAJ&pg=PT49 for the chapter titled "LearningRx". The book discusses LearningRx for roughly seven pages.
The book notes:
LearningRx turns out to be the most expensive, least supported by published research, and most aggressively marketed of the four leading cognitive training programs. It bears the curious distinction of being the only one set up as a franchise, like McDonald's with independent owners running each of the eighty-three LearningRx centers in twenty countries. And neither the franchise owners nor the trainers who work for them are required to have anything more than a four-year college degree.
But hang on. LearningRx also has some unique assets, in particular that its training is offered in person, rather than on a computer, with a trainer encouraging each student to persevere—an important asset for children or adults struggling with issues of attention and focus. ... Moreover, many of the tasks that Learning Rx uses are the same kinds used by other cognitive trainers, except that they have been translated from a computer format to tabletop exercises performed with playing cards and other materials.
The article notes:
On this Wednesday evening at the Upper Montclair, N.J., outlet of LearningRx, a chain of 83 “brain training” franchises across the United States, the goal is to improve cognitive skills. LearningRx is one of a growing number of such commercial services — some online, others offered by psychologists. Unlike traditional tutoring services that seek to help students master a subject, brain training purports to enhance comprehension and the ability to analyze and mentally manipulate concepts, images, sounds and instructions. In a word, it seeks to make students smarter.
“We measure every student pre- and post-training with a version of the Woodcock-Johnson general intelligence test,” said Ken Gibson, who began franchising LearningRx centers in 2003, and has data on more than 30,000 of the nearly 50,000 students who have been trained. “The average gain on I.Q. is 15 points after 24 weeks of training, and 20 points in less than 32 weeks.”
The article notes:
Based in Colorado Springs, Colo., the LearningRx Franchise Corp. opened its first office in 2002. Today it has 40 centers across the country, including one that opened in Lake Oswego in early October, and expects to open 50 more within the next year.
Clients don't typically arrive by doctor referral. What's being sold is cognitive improvement by coaching. All clients are tested, then assigned to a trainer. Most are children and teens who face challenges with such skills as reading, concentrating and problem solving and who often have low grades, said Linda Conlee, owner of the Lake Oswego franchise.
The article notes:
She decided to enroll her children in LearningRx, a Colorado-based program that works to strengthen the brain's cognitive skills so students can learn more quickly and easily.
The program first came to Minnesota two years ago. Since then, four more LearningRx franchises have opened in the state, including the newest center in Eagan.
Although the program bills itself as beneficial for anybody, students with cognitive and learning disabilities, such as attention deficit disorder and dyslexia, are flocking to it. Some parents say the benefits are so great that their children can go off their medications.
But experts remain skeptical that a program could produce such dramatic results.
Canan Karatekin, associate professor of child development at the University of Minnesota's Institute of Child Development, said research shows it's possible to improve cognitive functions. But she says programs, like LearningRx, should be independently researched.
The article notes:
LearningRx is used for a variety of learners, including students with learning disabilities, K-12 and college students who want to improve their academic skills, adults wanting to improve their job performance and senior citizens who want to stay mentally sharp, as stated in a LearningRx Inc. flier.
...
Ken Gibson, founder of LearningRx, discovered through his research that 80 percent of learning problems are cognitive weaknesses, Winchell said.
...
The program is designed to strengthen weak underlying processing skills, including attention, working memory, processing speed, logic and reasoning, visual processing, auditory processing and long-term memory. These skills are the foundation of a student's ability to learn and are the basic mental abilities used for thinking, studying and learning, according to LearningRx.
The article notes:
LearningRx, a Colorado Springs company that operates a franchised network of 80 tutoring centers in 25 states, is just beginning to recover after a 1½-year battle with the Federal Trade Commission over whether it could back up its advertising claims with scientific studies and other research.
The company settled in May a lawsuit filed in federal court last year by the agency that alleged it "deceptively claimed their programs were clinically proven to permanently improve serious health conditions like ADHD (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder), autism, dementia, Alzheimer's disease, strokes, and concussions." The suit said LearningRx also claimed the "training substantially improved school grades and college admission test scores, career earnings, and job and athletic performance" and that its "brain training is 10 times more cost-effective than tutoring."
The settlement included a $4 million judgment against Learning Rx, though all but $200,000 was suspended, and bars the company from claiming its programs improve performance on the job or in athletics or increase cognitive function of people with age-related memory loss, dementia, Alzheimer's disease, ADHD, autism, traumatic brain injury or stroke.
...
LearningRx, formally known as LearningRx Franchise Corp., traces its roots back more than 30 years in Florida to Gibson's work as an pediatric optometrist to help his patients more easily learn to read. Gibson, who had difficulty reading as a child as a result of dyslexia, found that reading skills could be improved through "interval training" similar to what professional athletes use to raise the level of their athletic performance. He began to sell licenses for his research and reading program to other optometrists and later psychologists, numbering 500 by 2000.
The article notes:
The company behind the LearningRX “brain training” program has agreed to pay a $200,000 settlement and to stop making claims that its system is clinically proven to treat serious health conditions, or that it can dramatically improves a user’s IQ or income.
According to the complaint [PDF] filed with a federal court in LearningRx’s home state of Colorado, the company made numerous unsubstantiated claims in the marketing of its program.
Included among the allegedly unsubstantiated statements made by LearningRx are boasts about the program’s ability to boost IQs, and therefore income.
...
In settling the complaint, LearningRx denies any wrongdoing, but agrees to pay $200,000 (of a $4 million judgment against the company) and to cease making unsubstantiated claims about the performance, benefits, or efficacy of their programs. LearningRx is also barred from misrepresenting the existence or results of any tests or studies, and from providing others with the means to make the prohibited claims.
The article notes:
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has announced the developers and marketers of the LearningRx “brain training” programs have settled to pay $200,000 and agreed to stop making allegedly false and unsubstantiated claims.
The FTC had said LearningRx Franchise Corp and its CEO, Dr. Ken Gibson, made allegations that their programs were clinically proven to help with conditions like ADHD, autism, dementia, Alzheimer’s disease, strokes and concussions. The company marketed these allegations through its website and blog, as well as Facebook, Twitter, print and radio ads and direct mail pieces. The FTC believes these claims were inaccurate and therefore deceptive.
LearningRx turns out to be the most expensive, least supported by published research, and most aggressively marketed of the four leading cognitive training programs. It bears the curious distinction of being the only one set up as a franchise, like McDonald's with independent owners running each of the eighty-three LearningRx centers in twenty countries. And neither the franchise owners nor the trainers who work for them are required to have anything more than a four-year college degree....But hang on. LearningRx also has some unique assets, in particular that its training is offered in person, rather than on a computer, with a trainer encouraging each student to persevere
Based in Colorado Springs, Colo., the LearningRx Franchise Corp. opened its first office in 2002. Today it has 40 centers across the country, including one that opened in Lake Oswego in early October, and expects to open 50 more within the next year. (following information is literally about business & clients overall, not the actual company)
I'll note that even the last 2 AfDs contained these same exact sources, so that's also saying something that, if after all these years, no one could get better substance – sources 6–8 were published in 2016, which is after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LearningRx (2nd nomination) was closed 30 May 2015. The sources discuss the federal lawsuit against LearningRx for making "numerous unsubstantiated claims in the marketing of its program". The Consumerist, which focuses on "consumerism and consumers' experiences and issues with companies and corporations" (according to the Wikipedia article), does not "shoehor[n] PR along with trivial pieces about a law case".
The negative material about the lawsuit from the Federal Trade Commission surfaced one year after my rewrite in October 2016. I have updated the article to include this information.
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 15:46, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Failed verification. While there are indications of notability per WP:MUSICBIO#C2, searching for Elizabeth Troy on the Official Charts Company website yields no results. Laun chba ller 12:11, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 08:51, 15 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:Dthomsen8 with the following rationale "remove prod &c.". I don't know what &c means, there was no edit summary or talk page comment, so it was essentially a no-rationale deprod. No refs have been added, and this remains what it was - a total failure at WP:Notability (organizations). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:58, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. ( No prejudice against speedy renomination per no participation herein other than from the nominator.) North America 1000 01:49, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
I couldn't establish that it is WP:NOTABLE. Previous sources were unreliable. Boleyn ( talk) 20:21, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. The one "keep" does not establish more than passing mentions. Sandstein 20:29, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
I couldn't establish that they are WP:NOTABLE Boleyn ( talk) 19:34, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 08:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Zigzig20s with the rather unhelpful following rationale "I "otherwise" object.". Well, I already stated my arguments: this person does not seem to meet WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR. Comments? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:36, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. Consensus is that this television program is notable. North America 1000 23:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Non-notable and full of WP:REDLINKS. Zackmann08 ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 04:59, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. czar 19:30, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Non-notable company lacking non-trivial support. "References" are mostly articles by founder. Should possibly have been an A7, but another author misread the purpose of inherited. reddogsix ( talk) 04:56, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 08:40, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Page consist entirely of WP:OR by a student who goes to the school ( see this diff). Content of the page is that of a school's website. Not encyclopedic material. Zackmann08 ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 04:53, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was Keep (non-admin closure) . TonyBallioni ( talk) 01:16, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Delete: non-notable youth striker; career lasted 1991-99. Quis separabit? 04:46, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 08:39, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
A7 Material. Removed by someone for their personal reason. Now here to waste community time on this one. No depth coverage. Only for promotional and nothing else. This is being used to build many Wikipedia Spam like The Next Web , YourStory or many others. Light2021 ( talk) 03:59, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm the one who removed the speedy tag for my personal reason, and wishes to waste community time — or whatever this strange nominator is getting at. It's obviously not a speedy candidate, as being "the largest Northern European media company reporting on the development of growth companies in the region" is an assertion of notability and, if duly sourced, would probably make the publication notable. Notability of small media companies is difficult, as they are known mostly by their works, not by people writing articles about them. It is clear from a google news search [43] that the company exists, it is real, it publishes content, and other sources sometimes talk about what the company publishes. However, most of these are relatively minor, passing mentions in minor sources. In the context of an AfD, as opposed to an inapt speedy, I'll scour the sources if I have a chance to see if there are enough to support an article. Right now it's looking iffy. - Wikidemon ( talk) 05:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The country has also acquired the paraphernalia of a tech cluster, such as a celebratory blog (Arctic Startup) and a valley-related name (Arctic Valley).That's as passing as they get, and "celebratory blog" is harsh, if not downright condescending, to the company, and should be weighed accordingly.
The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 17:54, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Could not quite figure out what this guy does, but none of the sources cited seem to be actually about him. Ref no. 3, the webpage of AADCU, his main company/venture/organization/whatever, is a dead link. Googling does not produce much either. Nsk92 ( talk) 03:17, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Bgwhite for the edits, I got it to know for next article submitt. Susanzone77 ( talk) 01:53, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 08:34, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Couple of mentions from a couple of years ago for this website don't add up to notability per GNG. Drmies ( talk) 02:54, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 08:37, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
This article is not notable according to Wikipedia guidelines. It has little content and is unlikely to develop any further. It is also written very poorly and the sources are not credible. NikolaiHo ☎️ 01:57, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
{{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
19:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC)The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 08:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
I couldn't verify notability. With no reliable sources at all, best to delete this one-line stub rather than merge unverifiable info. Boleyn ( talk) 01:34, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 08:37, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:COMPANY. Unable to find any secondary sources to support notability. Magnolia677 ( talk) 01:24, 7 November 2016 (UTC)