The result was keep. Seems like a convincing NPROF #3 case here. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 16:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Not notable Rathfelder ( talk) 23:04, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. The more detailed source analysis by delete !voters carries the day. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 16:14, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Article has been notability-tagged since 2011 and is all OR. Sources are a personal letter and a broken link. Quick search only turns-up some blogs and other pages on a different person having the same name. Agricola44 ( talk) 16:04, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
The result was keep. Team pages can be redirected as seen fit, if a discussion is warranted on redirecting team pages it can be started on the talk page. J04n( talk page) 18:29, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
No in-depth independent coverage. Does not satisfy general notability guidelines or sports notability. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:26, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Powers, the league is in its early stages with the season beginning in January. Many of the teams ie. Albany Patroons, Yakima Sun Kings competed in the CBA a notable league, played in major sports markets etc. The league's president Dave Magley was the commissioner of the NBL Canada and the coaches are former NBA players. Syracusestorm ( talk) 02:24, 2 November 2017 (UTC) T 20:40, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. If someone has a target to selectively merge the content of the page to I would be happy to userfy it to them J04n( talk page) 18:34, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Not notable. Fails WP:GNG and WP:V, all sources are press releases. FockeWulf FW 190 ( talk) 19:17, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
This page describes a software product as it is represented by the company that manufactures it. The page is not supposed to claim that the information provided by the company is necessarily accurate. It can only verify that the company says what it says about the program. There was no scientific research conducted with the purpose to verify that the features that the developer company claims Remote Utilities has really exist. ConradSallian ( talk) 19:39, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
There are both press-releases and independent reviews. If press-releases are the problem and independent reviews aren't, then the references to press-releases should be removed. Although, strictly speaking, the fact that certain information (such as feature descriptions) comes from the manufacturer does not necessarily mean that the manufacturer is an "unreliable source". Similarly, the fact that information comes from an independent review does not necessarily mean that that independent source is reliable. ConradSallian ( talk) 19:57, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
The result was keep. The Bushranger One ping only 00:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Fails tennis nsports and tennis project guidelines. No main draws played in the WTA, No Fed Cup, no jr top 3 ranking, no minor league participation... nothing. She is not notable for anything tennis related. Is she notable for martial arts? You'd have to ask that project. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 19:09, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Utah's 3rd congressional district special election, 2017. A clear redirect preferred under WP:OUTCOMES exists, so I am going ahead and closing this as a redirect per WP:NOTBURO. The Bushranger One ping only 00:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
WP:NPOL; not independently notable outside of 2017 special election and news coverage thereof Mélencron ( talk) 18:46, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. WP:SNOW. The Bushranger One ping only 03:05, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
I didn't found anything significant (in Bengali or English). No evidence of notability. Fails WP:GNG. Aftabuzzaman ( talk) 18:14, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. The Bushranger One ping only 07:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Other than affiliated sources I can find little independent, reliable coverage to suggest this passes WP:GNG. Currently it's just a WP:YELLOWPAGES entry. DrStrauss talk 17:09, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 00:26, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Fails WP:COMPOSER and WP:GNG Domdeparis ( talk) 16:02, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 00:26, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Clearly fails WP:GNG. Non-notable businessman. Störm (talk) 15:25, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. If anyone wants this to be userified, ping me - this should be a very intriguing and noteworthy subject, one of the 'forgotten parts' of World War II, yet...well, here we are, with an article that, as it is, has come to this. The Bushranger One ping only 07:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
The article is unsourced and there is a lack of significant coverage for the subject. -- Tavix ( talk) 15:21, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 07:16, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Appears to be a attempt to create an urban legend with little evidence that is has caught on. ©Geni ( talk) 17:42, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 00:25, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Per
WP:2DABS: If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is not needed—it is sufficient to use a hatnote on the primary topic article, pointing to the other article.
The hatnotes on the pages listed on the disambiguation page are sufficient, which makes the disambiguation page unnecessary —
MRD2014
Talk •
Edits •
Help!
02:25, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Delete per WP:2DABS. Boleyn ( talk) 13:54, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SKCRIT6. Feel free to renominate after it is removed from the main page. (non-admin closure) Jdcomix ( talk) 17:08, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
This is a content fork of Declaration of Independence of Catalonia - that is, it needlessly duplicates content better covered there and in related articles such as Catalan independence referendum, 2017, 2017 Spanish constitutional crisis and Catalonia. There's no need to repeat the same, relatively limited facts concerning the recent political shenanigans in Catalonia in multiple (possibly contradictory) articles.
Moreover, recent events indicate that this self-declared state has no substance to it: it does not effectively control its claimed territory, and it does not seem to have a functioning government or other institutions. Basically, all that can be said about it is the fact that independence was declared, Spain set various legal and constitutional procedures in motion, and the leading separatists fled abroad. These events can all be better covered, with appropriate context, in the other articles mentioned at the outset. Sandstein 16:45, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if it exists; it matters if it has media coverage, which it does). Also, that someone has been intent on trying to copy-paste info from this article to Declaration of Independence of Catalonia doesn't turn this one into a fork of that one. That article covers the specific resolution and should be limited to it (whoever is turning it into a copy-paste of info of Catalan Republic (2017) is doing the wrong thing). If anything, it's that article which should be merged into this one if people think there should not be two articles covering these topics, as the scope of Catalan Republic (2017) is larger than just the independence declaration. But copy-pasting content from here over there to argue that this one should be removed because this info has been put there is non-sense. Impru20 ( talk) 16:53, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Delete (with merge of content to the declaration). For 3 days a Republic did not exist. So the name in and of itself is a blatant case of wp:recentism, wp:toosoon and wp:crystal ball. This is the stupid thing with rapid and immediate creation of articles that are in reality little more than stubs, or should be subsections of more encompassing articles. Koncorde ( talk) 17:06, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
The result was keep. Consensus is clear. bd2412 T 01:02, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Not much coverage found. Can't be notable for being a professor. Fails WP:NPROF. Störm (talk) 16:32, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 07:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Subject fails WP:BASIC and WP:CREATIVE. While I have declined an A7 nom on the basis of their claimed awards, I find them to be minor and non-notable, thus failing to establish WP:N. Ad Orientem ( talk) 15:12, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 07:14, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
merely namechecking in the RS doesn't makes one notable enough to warrant a WP entry. none of the source discuss the subject in detail except noting him as an activist. some cited sources are not RS. Saqib ( talk) 15:10, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete and redirect to TT Games Publishing. The Bushranger One ping only 00:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
looks like a disabiguation page with one link -- Aunva6 talk - contribs 14:31, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn by nominator in the form of a Keep !vote, with no outstanding !votes to delete. The Bushranger One ping only 00:31, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
For the reasons described at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Panadura Sports Club single-appearance players, this article should be deleted. A single entry seems deficient in a sport that requires no less than eleven to play a game.
Rhadow (
talk)
14:03, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 07:14, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Not sure why speedy was removed, but publishing company that fails WP:GNG. Only sources are their books, highlighting that they are the publisher and passing mentions with no coverage. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:42, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. The Bushranger One ping only 07:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Small, local organization with no notable accomplishments, let alone any reliable and verifiable sources to support a claim of notability. Alansohn ( talk) 11:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 07:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Fails WP:ANYBIO, the only references provided are social networking sites and a personal website. The article’s original creator and one of the main contributors, Ramesh.shanmuganathan has a WP:COI, as the article is about him. The article was previously deleted (via Speedy) in 2009 but was re-created by a different user. Ramesh.shanmuganathan has removed a previous PROD notice without making any improvements and continues to edit this article. Dan arndt ( talk) 11:28, 1 November 2017 (UTC) Dan arndt ( talk) 11:28, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 07:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable record label, fails WP:NCORP, could not find obvious sources, also all the listed artists are redlinks. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 10:20, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
The result was keep. This one is close, but there's just enough to tip it over to the 'keep' side of the Mendoza line. The Bushranger One ping only 07:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Magnolia677 ( talk) 23:15, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 00:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Deprodded unreferenced biography, with little to no claims of WP:N Sadads ( talk) 16:55, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Peterkingiron He was a Bishop in
here.Think it can be expanded.It states He was the President of the India-Burma-Ceylon Bible Society.
Pharaoh of the Wizards (
talk)
20:39, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. The Bushranger One ping only 00:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Can't be notable being participant in Asian games. Fails WP:SPORTBASIC. No coverage in WP:RS so fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 15:48, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 00:20, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Not much in WP:RS or Google Books. Can't be solely notable based on 4th in level award e.g. Tamgha-e-Imtiaz. We can't write much without WP:OR. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 15:34, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. The Bushranger One ping only 00:20, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Not much to his credit. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 15:23, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 00:20, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable art director. No in-depth coverage in reliable sources to establish notability per WP:GNG, only a few passing mentions and crew listings. GermanJoe ( talk) 12:32, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. I don't think an extra relist will help here. ansh 666 20:24, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
References are currently blogs or non-notable sources. WP:BEFORE showed much the same. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 04:41, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
The result was keep. The Bushranger One ping only 00:19, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Fails WP:NALBUM. Also fails WP:GNG, little significant coverage ( Gsearch). DrStrauss talk 11:45, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete and redirect to Sindhi workies#Hatta varnka. The Bushranger One ping only 07:10, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
A quick search for the subject of the article yielded no results except for a discussion on a forum that mentioned Indian nationalist conspiracy theories which mentioned the script as a "theory, mentions of the article in categories etc., and the article itself. There is insufficient evidence to assert that the subject of the article really exists. As such, it fails WP:GNG Hazarasp ( talk) 09:59, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
The result was keep. The Bushranger One ping only 07:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Per source searches, this subject does not meet WP:BASIC. Available sources are either primary or are only providing short routine quotes from the subject and passing mentions. North America 1000 08:54, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Keep: The subject of the article, Ted E. Brewerton, was a general authority seventy for quite a few years. As a high-ranking official in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, he held a wide variety of positions within the Church and is notable for that reason. Some may try to say that, because the only sources cited in the article are LDS publications that there are notability issues, but this is no different than information about a member of a Catholic diocese coming primarily from resources related to Catholicism. For those and other reasons, I strongly oppose the motion to delete this article. -- Jgstokes ( talk) 21:56, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Additional evidentiary support: Here are the results on Brewerton I found as a result of running a simple search on the Deseret News website. Note that many of the sources originally appeared in the Church News, which was separate and distinct from the Deseret News until recently, when the two merged. Between the three search results, I hope I have proven relevancy. If more is needed, please let me know. I also look forward to what everyone else has to say on this as well, whether for or against this deletion. Thank you. -- Jgstokes ( talk) 04:15, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
But it is precisely these same sources put out by the LDS Church that establish notabilityCompletely disagree with this. Someone or something is not notable on Wikipedia just because its parent organization has the resources to publish a lot of material about it. Notability is about significant coverage in sources independent of the subject. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:53, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Comment: I appreciate the consideration shown to me regarding this discussion, particularly in granting me additional time to find sources that would qualify the subject of the article under the sufficient coverage guidelines. That said, because of health-related challenges since my last comment, I have not yet been able to do that research. I apologize for that. But I have requested comment on notability guidelines for General Authority Seventies on the Wikipedia page regarding significant coverage. I apologize for my not having been able to do the necessary research. I will watch this AfD discussion for additional comments on this issue, and will try to do the necessary research this weekend. Just wanted to pass all that along. Thanks again. -- Jgstokes ( talk) 05:06, 3 November 2017 (UTC) Request for comment: After receiving kindly additional direction on this matter, I have discovered that the relevant place to discuss general notability standards for LDS general authority seventies is here, where I have requested comment from the community. For those involved in this discussion that would like to participate in that one, I would appreciate it. -- Jgstokes ( talk) 22:43, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 07:07, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Per source searches, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. North America 1000 07:41, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. The Bushranger One ping only 07:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, as per source searches. Could be redirected to DJ Sonny. North America 1000 06:29, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
The result was redirect to LL Cool J. The Bushranger One ping only 07:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Has received some minor routine coverage and passing mentions, but after source searches, does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Could be redirected to LL Cool J. North America 1000 06:27, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. The Bushranger One ping only 07:03, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Per source searches, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. North America 1000 06:24, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. The Bushranger One ping only 07:03, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH, as per source searches. North America 1000 06:22, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. The Bushranger One ping only 07:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Per source searches, does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. North America 1000 06:20, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
The result was keep. Seems like there is a compelling case that GNG is met, which is enough to keep an article even if NPROF isn't met (and that isn't so clear in this AfD). Now it looks like the present state of the article and its sourcing are questionable (unduly promotional, apparently, and the sources too pundit-ey) so I'll tag for cleanup. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 16:19, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Someone who has barely left college and who is absolutely not notable as an academic, with her hundred or so citations according to Google Scholar (mostly from co-authored works). Her position of research associate is the most junior position possible, and ranks below an American assistant professor, for example. The article is already tagged for lacking notability on the French Wikipedia, where it is noted that the article was created on several different Wikipedia editions at the same time last autumn (apparently it was deleted on the Dutch Wikipedia since then). This leads me to conclude that this is a case of cross-wiki spam. Tataral ( talk) 06:10, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Keep It could use more sources, but I don't see a problem with her notability. @ Kmhkmh: - you might have forgotten we don't use the Daily Mail anymore. Doug Weller talk 18:04, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Comment: I think the discussion is starting to miss its target a bit. We have now several posts repeatedly claiming that Shaw doesn't pass WP:NACADEMIC/WP:PROF. However that was never in dispute and the argument for notability was never based on that. So let me iterate again, that the argument for notability rests on her being a popular pundit in the mainstream media and a book author, that is in particular WP:GNG, WP:NEXIST and WP:BASIC. I.e. the discussion should focus on those and whether they are passed or not. Imho they are and let me reiterate why. Over the last 2-3 years Shaw has been repeatedly covered by various mainstream media outlets in at least 4 different and in at least 2 languages (US, Canada, UK, Germany). She was one of main experts/pundit used/interviewed in 2 major documentaries on human memory (on PBS-Nova and 3sat). There are plenty of publications about her herself, her book and with her serving as an expert/advisor on memory. I've linked a list of examples publication already further up.
Now there was the argument about her being clever at self marketing. While that might be true (at least it looks that way to me) that isn't really our, that is WP's, concern as long as that happens outside of WP. WP merely assesses the external result/state, that whether somebody has reached sufficient media coverage or passed other thresholds, that generate encyclopedic interest/interest for readers to look them up in a reference work. But how that external state was reached does not really matter, i.e. whether it was by clever self marketing, chance, doing groundbreaking research or committing an infamous crime doesn't really matter. Encyclopedic notability serves the information/knowledge interest of readers, it is not a reward for hard work or good behaviour.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 12:42, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 07:03, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Not notable, article reads kind of promotional, can't find sources. Article was created by SPA. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 03:41, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 11:49, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
fails WP:GNG. I could not find significant coverage for this including its alternate name "Leicester Short Film Festival". LibStar ( talk) 02:36, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 00:19, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
essentially promotional, and by an undeclared paid editor. If anyone wants to use G11/G5 I won't object. DGG ( talk ) 02:15, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:47, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Only given claim to notability is an unverifiable claim to have been nominated for a Grammy. Only evidence I can find to support the claim comes from the band's own website. Attempts to verify the nomination against an independent source met no success. Ham tech person 00:05, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. As mentioned, 'no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can actually find some evidence of it being in operation'. The Bushranger One ping only 00:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Radio station whose operational status is entirely unverifiable. Although the owner was granted a CRTC license in 2014, I've been able to find not a hint of verification anywhere that it ever actually started broadcasting: not a shred of reliable source coverage, no website, not even a listing in the town's local business directory. And we have a conflict between the two initial sources, Canadian Radio News (a far-from-reliable social media feed that posts radio and television startup and shutdown announcements) and RECNetworks, about what the station's call sign even is or was -- so I went to the definitive source for resolving such a conflict, Industry Canada's Spectrum Management database, and neither of the claimed call signs is assigned to any radio station at all. My working assumption right now is that the station didn't manage to ever actually make it to air at all -- a common problem which is precisely why WP:NMEDIA was tightened up a few years ago to require that we wait until a new radio station is verifiably on the air before we start the article. So no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can actually find some evidence of it being in operation that I'm somehow missing, but in the meantime if we can't verify it we can't keep it. Bearcat ( talk) 02:01, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 04:10, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai ( talk) 06:49, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
The result was Withdrawn by nominator. Withdrawn with no non-!Keep votes extant. (Disclosure: I commented on procedure in this AfD, but did not !vote, and due to the nature of the result I do not believe that this is a violation of WP:INVOLVED. If another feels otherwise please feel free to revert and re-close.) The Bushranger One ping only 07:00, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Unsourced with one external link to race website. No indication of significance. Upjav ( talk) 03:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Comment My main criticism of the AFD is that the proposer seems to have done no work into finding anything out about the race. Worth noting WP:NTRACK. Refers to a road race that "has been held over a unique course or distance consistently over a period of 25 years." The Dartmoor Discovery is only 20 years old so would not strictly satisfy the criteria. Also worth noting that many of the races in List of ultramarathons probably do not meet the WP:TRACK criteria either, so it seems an arbitrary AFD rather than one as part of a well thought-out and discussed strategy. Nigej ( talk) 10:29, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. bd2412 T 01:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
There are zero reviews on this topic on pubmed. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=%22Addiction+suppression%22 Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 01:39, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
The result was keep. The Bushranger One ping only 00:16, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Appears to fail WP:NFILM. Found no sources establishing notability. This article was previously deprodded. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk, contribs) 01:29, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. The Bushranger One ping only 06:58, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Fails WP:NMUSIC criteria, no major releases on notable label. Also fails WP:GNG. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 01:16, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 00:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable person's bio. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 15:51, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
The result was keep. A Train talk 07:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Sources do not prove notability. Most are at best passing mentions or affiliated. Fails WP:ANYBIO Domdeparis ( talk) 16:37, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Consensus to delete following relisting. The Bushranger One ping only 03:02, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
promotional essay. There are sources, but NOT ADVOCACY is more basic. DGG ( talk ) 22:27, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. No consensus for deletion Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 23:30, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Article breaches WP:WHYN: "We require the existence of at least one secondary source so that the article can comply with Wikipedia:No original research's requirement that all articles be based on secondary sources." RexxS ( talk) 13:01, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
We require that all articles rely primarily on third-party or independent sources. Almost all of the content is sourced to school's own website. -- RexxS ( talk) 22:54, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is, including schools." That's the project-wide consensus. Just because it's a secondary school, that does not make it automatically notable. And even if it were notable, policy still requires that the article is based primarily on independent sources, not simply extracts from the school's own website. -- RexxS ( talk) 15:26, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Guidelines are sets of best practices that are supported by consensus." Please read WP:STICKTOSOURCES, which is policy:
"If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it."And why don't you read WP:OR? – specifically:
"Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources ... Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability."It definitely does say exactly what I clearly think it does. No article that relies wholly or principally on the subject's own website as its source is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. -- RexxS ( talk) 15:40, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
"Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES should be added to the Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, as it is an accurate statement of the results but promotes circular reasoning."You need to get yourself up to date if you're going to contribute constructively to deletion discussions. I trust you'll be able to explain to the closer why your completely unsupported opinion should be given any weight at all in the face of the policies, guidelines and project-wide consensus I've shown you. -- RexxS ( talk) 19:02, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
"If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it". WP:PAG is quite clear about that:
"if a guideline appears to conflict with a policy, editors may assume that the policy takes precedence". Your argument is not supported by policy, and unlike your policy-free assertion, I've quoted the policy that supports my position. The policy is clear: No sources found = no article. It is pure nonsense to argue that some sources might exist and expect objectors to prove a negative. No, the article needs to be based primarily of secondary sources; it isn't; it has no right to be on Wikipedia. -- RexxS ( talk) 14:52, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed
Any other use of the article ... namespace that is contrary to the established separate policy for that namespace
Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist.Consensus has changed and you need to accept that. -- RexxS ( talk) 10:53, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 04:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable book series by non-notable authors. Lacking in any coverage reliable or otherwise that I can find. Fails WP:GNG, Wikipedia:Notability (books) CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:32, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 06:49, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Not notable Natureium ( talk) 15:39, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 04:03, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Doubtful notability. The referencing is very weak. I have tried to find better, but all the Google hits I have found are for another Arpita Mukherjee, a singer. Maproom ( talk) 16:59, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
*Keep
See
Fame Gurukul
Marvellous
Spider-Man
17:36, 7 November 2017 (UTC) The article exists with different name.
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 00:10, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable SEO company. Citations are a mix of "fastest growing" lists, advertorials, business partner lists, etc. No significant coverage. Citations are peppered into the article to increase reference count, but rarely actually verify the facts cited. Borderline spam. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 17:31, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
The result was no consensus to delete. Low-participation discussion with neither interest nor consensus after an extended time. The article can, of course, be nominated for deletion again at some future point, but I note that some improvement has been made since this discussion was initiated. bd2412 T 00:51, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable, most references fail reliability per WP:UGC ViperSnake151 Talk 15:55, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 00:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
This individual has not attracted sufficient in-depth coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:BIO. SmartSE ( talk) 19:56, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
The result was keep. Seems like a convincing NPROF #3 case here. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 16:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Not notable Rathfelder ( talk) 23:04, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. The more detailed source analysis by delete !voters carries the day. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 16:14, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Article has been notability-tagged since 2011 and is all OR. Sources are a personal letter and a broken link. Quick search only turns-up some blogs and other pages on a different person having the same name. Agricola44 ( talk) 16:04, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
The result was keep. Team pages can be redirected as seen fit, if a discussion is warranted on redirecting team pages it can be started on the talk page. J04n( talk page) 18:29, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
No in-depth independent coverage. Does not satisfy general notability guidelines or sports notability. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:26, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Powers, the league is in its early stages with the season beginning in January. Many of the teams ie. Albany Patroons, Yakima Sun Kings competed in the CBA a notable league, played in major sports markets etc. The league's president Dave Magley was the commissioner of the NBL Canada and the coaches are former NBA players. Syracusestorm ( talk) 02:24, 2 November 2017 (UTC) T 20:40, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. If someone has a target to selectively merge the content of the page to I would be happy to userfy it to them J04n( talk page) 18:34, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Not notable. Fails WP:GNG and WP:V, all sources are press releases. FockeWulf FW 190 ( talk) 19:17, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
This page describes a software product as it is represented by the company that manufactures it. The page is not supposed to claim that the information provided by the company is necessarily accurate. It can only verify that the company says what it says about the program. There was no scientific research conducted with the purpose to verify that the features that the developer company claims Remote Utilities has really exist. ConradSallian ( talk) 19:39, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
There are both press-releases and independent reviews. If press-releases are the problem and independent reviews aren't, then the references to press-releases should be removed. Although, strictly speaking, the fact that certain information (such as feature descriptions) comes from the manufacturer does not necessarily mean that the manufacturer is an "unreliable source". Similarly, the fact that information comes from an independent review does not necessarily mean that that independent source is reliable. ConradSallian ( talk) 19:57, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
The result was keep. The Bushranger One ping only 00:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Fails tennis nsports and tennis project guidelines. No main draws played in the WTA, No Fed Cup, no jr top 3 ranking, no minor league participation... nothing. She is not notable for anything tennis related. Is she notable for martial arts? You'd have to ask that project. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 19:09, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Utah's 3rd congressional district special election, 2017. A clear redirect preferred under WP:OUTCOMES exists, so I am going ahead and closing this as a redirect per WP:NOTBURO. The Bushranger One ping only 00:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
WP:NPOL; not independently notable outside of 2017 special election and news coverage thereof Mélencron ( talk) 18:46, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. WP:SNOW. The Bushranger One ping only 03:05, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
I didn't found anything significant (in Bengali or English). No evidence of notability. Fails WP:GNG. Aftabuzzaman ( talk) 18:14, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. The Bushranger One ping only 07:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Other than affiliated sources I can find little independent, reliable coverage to suggest this passes WP:GNG. Currently it's just a WP:YELLOWPAGES entry. DrStrauss talk 17:09, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 00:26, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Fails WP:COMPOSER and WP:GNG Domdeparis ( talk) 16:02, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 00:26, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Clearly fails WP:GNG. Non-notable businessman. Störm (talk) 15:25, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. If anyone wants this to be userified, ping me - this should be a very intriguing and noteworthy subject, one of the 'forgotten parts' of World War II, yet...well, here we are, with an article that, as it is, has come to this. The Bushranger One ping only 07:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
The article is unsourced and there is a lack of significant coverage for the subject. -- Tavix ( talk) 15:21, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 07:16, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Appears to be a attempt to create an urban legend with little evidence that is has caught on. ©Geni ( talk) 17:42, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 00:25, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Per
WP:2DABS: If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is not needed—it is sufficient to use a hatnote on the primary topic article, pointing to the other article.
The hatnotes on the pages listed on the disambiguation page are sufficient, which makes the disambiguation page unnecessary —
MRD2014
Talk •
Edits •
Help!
02:25, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Delete per WP:2DABS. Boleyn ( talk) 13:54, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SKCRIT6. Feel free to renominate after it is removed from the main page. (non-admin closure) Jdcomix ( talk) 17:08, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
This is a content fork of Declaration of Independence of Catalonia - that is, it needlessly duplicates content better covered there and in related articles such as Catalan independence referendum, 2017, 2017 Spanish constitutional crisis and Catalonia. There's no need to repeat the same, relatively limited facts concerning the recent political shenanigans in Catalonia in multiple (possibly contradictory) articles.
Moreover, recent events indicate that this self-declared state has no substance to it: it does not effectively control its claimed territory, and it does not seem to have a functioning government or other institutions. Basically, all that can be said about it is the fact that independence was declared, Spain set various legal and constitutional procedures in motion, and the leading separatists fled abroad. These events can all be better covered, with appropriate context, in the other articles mentioned at the outset. Sandstein 16:45, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if it exists; it matters if it has media coverage, which it does). Also, that someone has been intent on trying to copy-paste info from this article to Declaration of Independence of Catalonia doesn't turn this one into a fork of that one. That article covers the specific resolution and should be limited to it (whoever is turning it into a copy-paste of info of Catalan Republic (2017) is doing the wrong thing). If anything, it's that article which should be merged into this one if people think there should not be two articles covering these topics, as the scope of Catalan Republic (2017) is larger than just the independence declaration. But copy-pasting content from here over there to argue that this one should be removed because this info has been put there is non-sense. Impru20 ( talk) 16:53, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Delete (with merge of content to the declaration). For 3 days a Republic did not exist. So the name in and of itself is a blatant case of wp:recentism, wp:toosoon and wp:crystal ball. This is the stupid thing with rapid and immediate creation of articles that are in reality little more than stubs, or should be subsections of more encompassing articles. Koncorde ( talk) 17:06, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
The result was keep. Consensus is clear. bd2412 T 01:02, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Not much coverage found. Can't be notable for being a professor. Fails WP:NPROF. Störm (talk) 16:32, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 07:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Subject fails WP:BASIC and WP:CREATIVE. While I have declined an A7 nom on the basis of their claimed awards, I find them to be minor and non-notable, thus failing to establish WP:N. Ad Orientem ( talk) 15:12, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 07:14, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
merely namechecking in the RS doesn't makes one notable enough to warrant a WP entry. none of the source discuss the subject in detail except noting him as an activist. some cited sources are not RS. Saqib ( talk) 15:10, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete and redirect to TT Games Publishing. The Bushranger One ping only 00:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
looks like a disabiguation page with one link -- Aunva6 talk - contribs 14:31, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn by nominator in the form of a Keep !vote, with no outstanding !votes to delete. The Bushranger One ping only 00:31, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
For the reasons described at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Panadura Sports Club single-appearance players, this article should be deleted. A single entry seems deficient in a sport that requires no less than eleven to play a game.
Rhadow (
talk)
14:03, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 07:14, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Not sure why speedy was removed, but publishing company that fails WP:GNG. Only sources are their books, highlighting that they are the publisher and passing mentions with no coverage. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:42, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. The Bushranger One ping only 07:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Small, local organization with no notable accomplishments, let alone any reliable and verifiable sources to support a claim of notability. Alansohn ( talk) 11:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 07:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Fails WP:ANYBIO, the only references provided are social networking sites and a personal website. The article’s original creator and one of the main contributors, Ramesh.shanmuganathan has a WP:COI, as the article is about him. The article was previously deleted (via Speedy) in 2009 but was re-created by a different user. Ramesh.shanmuganathan has removed a previous PROD notice without making any improvements and continues to edit this article. Dan arndt ( talk) 11:28, 1 November 2017 (UTC) Dan arndt ( talk) 11:28, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 07:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable record label, fails WP:NCORP, could not find obvious sources, also all the listed artists are redlinks. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 10:20, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
The result was keep. This one is close, but there's just enough to tip it over to the 'keep' side of the Mendoza line. The Bushranger One ping only 07:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Magnolia677 ( talk) 23:15, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 00:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Deprodded unreferenced biography, with little to no claims of WP:N Sadads ( talk) 16:55, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Peterkingiron He was a Bishop in
here.Think it can be expanded.It states He was the President of the India-Burma-Ceylon Bible Society.
Pharaoh of the Wizards (
talk)
20:39, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. The Bushranger One ping only 00:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Can't be notable being participant in Asian games. Fails WP:SPORTBASIC. No coverage in WP:RS so fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 15:48, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 00:20, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Not much in WP:RS or Google Books. Can't be solely notable based on 4th in level award e.g. Tamgha-e-Imtiaz. We can't write much without WP:OR. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 15:34, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. The Bushranger One ping only 00:20, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Not much to his credit. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 15:23, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 00:20, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable art director. No in-depth coverage in reliable sources to establish notability per WP:GNG, only a few passing mentions and crew listings. GermanJoe ( talk) 12:32, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. I don't think an extra relist will help here. ansh 666 20:24, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
References are currently blogs or non-notable sources. WP:BEFORE showed much the same. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 04:41, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
The result was keep. The Bushranger One ping only 00:19, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Fails WP:NALBUM. Also fails WP:GNG, little significant coverage ( Gsearch). DrStrauss talk 11:45, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete and redirect to Sindhi workies#Hatta varnka. The Bushranger One ping only 07:10, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
A quick search for the subject of the article yielded no results except for a discussion on a forum that mentioned Indian nationalist conspiracy theories which mentioned the script as a "theory, mentions of the article in categories etc., and the article itself. There is insufficient evidence to assert that the subject of the article really exists. As such, it fails WP:GNG Hazarasp ( talk) 09:59, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
The result was keep. The Bushranger One ping only 07:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Per source searches, this subject does not meet WP:BASIC. Available sources are either primary or are only providing short routine quotes from the subject and passing mentions. North America 1000 08:54, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Keep: The subject of the article, Ted E. Brewerton, was a general authority seventy for quite a few years. As a high-ranking official in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, he held a wide variety of positions within the Church and is notable for that reason. Some may try to say that, because the only sources cited in the article are LDS publications that there are notability issues, but this is no different than information about a member of a Catholic diocese coming primarily from resources related to Catholicism. For those and other reasons, I strongly oppose the motion to delete this article. -- Jgstokes ( talk) 21:56, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Additional evidentiary support: Here are the results on Brewerton I found as a result of running a simple search on the Deseret News website. Note that many of the sources originally appeared in the Church News, which was separate and distinct from the Deseret News until recently, when the two merged. Between the three search results, I hope I have proven relevancy. If more is needed, please let me know. I also look forward to what everyone else has to say on this as well, whether for or against this deletion. Thank you. -- Jgstokes ( talk) 04:15, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
But it is precisely these same sources put out by the LDS Church that establish notabilityCompletely disagree with this. Someone or something is not notable on Wikipedia just because its parent organization has the resources to publish a lot of material about it. Notability is about significant coverage in sources independent of the subject. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:53, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Comment: I appreciate the consideration shown to me regarding this discussion, particularly in granting me additional time to find sources that would qualify the subject of the article under the sufficient coverage guidelines. That said, because of health-related challenges since my last comment, I have not yet been able to do that research. I apologize for that. But I have requested comment on notability guidelines for General Authority Seventies on the Wikipedia page regarding significant coverage. I apologize for my not having been able to do the necessary research. I will watch this AfD discussion for additional comments on this issue, and will try to do the necessary research this weekend. Just wanted to pass all that along. Thanks again. -- Jgstokes ( talk) 05:06, 3 November 2017 (UTC) Request for comment: After receiving kindly additional direction on this matter, I have discovered that the relevant place to discuss general notability standards for LDS general authority seventies is here, where I have requested comment from the community. For those involved in this discussion that would like to participate in that one, I would appreciate it. -- Jgstokes ( talk) 22:43, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 07:07, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Per source searches, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. North America 1000 07:41, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. The Bushranger One ping only 07:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, as per source searches. Could be redirected to DJ Sonny. North America 1000 06:29, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
The result was redirect to LL Cool J. The Bushranger One ping only 07:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Has received some minor routine coverage and passing mentions, but after source searches, does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Could be redirected to LL Cool J. North America 1000 06:27, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. The Bushranger One ping only 07:03, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Per source searches, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. North America 1000 06:24, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. The Bushranger One ping only 07:03, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH, as per source searches. North America 1000 06:22, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. The Bushranger One ping only 07:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Per source searches, does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. North America 1000 06:20, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
The result was keep. Seems like there is a compelling case that GNG is met, which is enough to keep an article even if NPROF isn't met (and that isn't so clear in this AfD). Now it looks like the present state of the article and its sourcing are questionable (unduly promotional, apparently, and the sources too pundit-ey) so I'll tag for cleanup. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 16:19, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Someone who has barely left college and who is absolutely not notable as an academic, with her hundred or so citations according to Google Scholar (mostly from co-authored works). Her position of research associate is the most junior position possible, and ranks below an American assistant professor, for example. The article is already tagged for lacking notability on the French Wikipedia, where it is noted that the article was created on several different Wikipedia editions at the same time last autumn (apparently it was deleted on the Dutch Wikipedia since then). This leads me to conclude that this is a case of cross-wiki spam. Tataral ( talk) 06:10, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Keep It could use more sources, but I don't see a problem with her notability. @ Kmhkmh: - you might have forgotten we don't use the Daily Mail anymore. Doug Weller talk 18:04, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Comment: I think the discussion is starting to miss its target a bit. We have now several posts repeatedly claiming that Shaw doesn't pass WP:NACADEMIC/WP:PROF. However that was never in dispute and the argument for notability was never based on that. So let me iterate again, that the argument for notability rests on her being a popular pundit in the mainstream media and a book author, that is in particular WP:GNG, WP:NEXIST and WP:BASIC. I.e. the discussion should focus on those and whether they are passed or not. Imho they are and let me reiterate why. Over the last 2-3 years Shaw has been repeatedly covered by various mainstream media outlets in at least 4 different and in at least 2 languages (US, Canada, UK, Germany). She was one of main experts/pundit used/interviewed in 2 major documentaries on human memory (on PBS-Nova and 3sat). There are plenty of publications about her herself, her book and with her serving as an expert/advisor on memory. I've linked a list of examples publication already further up.
Now there was the argument about her being clever at self marketing. While that might be true (at least it looks that way to me) that isn't really our, that is WP's, concern as long as that happens outside of WP. WP merely assesses the external result/state, that whether somebody has reached sufficient media coverage or passed other thresholds, that generate encyclopedic interest/interest for readers to look them up in a reference work. But how that external state was reached does not really matter, i.e. whether it was by clever self marketing, chance, doing groundbreaking research or committing an infamous crime doesn't really matter. Encyclopedic notability serves the information/knowledge interest of readers, it is not a reward for hard work or good behaviour.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 12:42, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 07:03, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Not notable, article reads kind of promotional, can't find sources. Article was created by SPA. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 03:41, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 11:49, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
fails WP:GNG. I could not find significant coverage for this including its alternate name "Leicester Short Film Festival". LibStar ( talk) 02:36, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 00:19, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
essentially promotional, and by an undeclared paid editor. If anyone wants to use G11/G5 I won't object. DGG ( talk ) 02:15, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:47, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Only given claim to notability is an unverifiable claim to have been nominated for a Grammy. Only evidence I can find to support the claim comes from the band's own website. Attempts to verify the nomination against an independent source met no success. Ham tech person 00:05, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. As mentioned, 'no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can actually find some evidence of it being in operation'. The Bushranger One ping only 00:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Radio station whose operational status is entirely unverifiable. Although the owner was granted a CRTC license in 2014, I've been able to find not a hint of verification anywhere that it ever actually started broadcasting: not a shred of reliable source coverage, no website, not even a listing in the town's local business directory. And we have a conflict between the two initial sources, Canadian Radio News (a far-from-reliable social media feed that posts radio and television startup and shutdown announcements) and RECNetworks, about what the station's call sign even is or was -- so I went to the definitive source for resolving such a conflict, Industry Canada's Spectrum Management database, and neither of the claimed call signs is assigned to any radio station at all. My working assumption right now is that the station didn't manage to ever actually make it to air at all -- a common problem which is precisely why WP:NMEDIA was tightened up a few years ago to require that we wait until a new radio station is verifiably on the air before we start the article. So no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can actually find some evidence of it being in operation that I'm somehow missing, but in the meantime if we can't verify it we can't keep it. Bearcat ( talk) 02:01, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 04:10, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai ( talk) 06:49, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
The result was Withdrawn by nominator. Withdrawn with no non-!Keep votes extant. (Disclosure: I commented on procedure in this AfD, but did not !vote, and due to the nature of the result I do not believe that this is a violation of WP:INVOLVED. If another feels otherwise please feel free to revert and re-close.) The Bushranger One ping only 07:00, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Unsourced with one external link to race website. No indication of significance. Upjav ( talk) 03:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Comment My main criticism of the AFD is that the proposer seems to have done no work into finding anything out about the race. Worth noting WP:NTRACK. Refers to a road race that "has been held over a unique course or distance consistently over a period of 25 years." The Dartmoor Discovery is only 20 years old so would not strictly satisfy the criteria. Also worth noting that many of the races in List of ultramarathons probably do not meet the WP:TRACK criteria either, so it seems an arbitrary AFD rather than one as part of a well thought-out and discussed strategy. Nigej ( talk) 10:29, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. bd2412 T 01:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
There are zero reviews on this topic on pubmed. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=%22Addiction+suppression%22 Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 01:39, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
The result was keep. The Bushranger One ping only 00:16, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Appears to fail WP:NFILM. Found no sources establishing notability. This article was previously deprodded. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk, contribs) 01:29, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. The Bushranger One ping only 06:58, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Fails WP:NMUSIC criteria, no major releases on notable label. Also fails WP:GNG. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 01:16, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 00:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable person's bio. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 15:51, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
The result was keep. A Train talk 07:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Sources do not prove notability. Most are at best passing mentions or affiliated. Fails WP:ANYBIO Domdeparis ( talk) 16:37, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. Consensus to delete following relisting. The Bushranger One ping only 03:02, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
promotional essay. There are sources, but NOT ADVOCACY is more basic. DGG ( talk ) 22:27, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. No consensus for deletion Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 23:30, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Article breaches WP:WHYN: "We require the existence of at least one secondary source so that the article can comply with Wikipedia:No original research's requirement that all articles be based on secondary sources." RexxS ( talk) 13:01, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
We require that all articles rely primarily on third-party or independent sources. Almost all of the content is sourced to school's own website. -- RexxS ( talk) 22:54, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is, including schools." That's the project-wide consensus. Just because it's a secondary school, that does not make it automatically notable. And even if it were notable, policy still requires that the article is based primarily on independent sources, not simply extracts from the school's own website. -- RexxS ( talk) 15:26, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Guidelines are sets of best practices that are supported by consensus." Please read WP:STICKTOSOURCES, which is policy:
"If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it."And why don't you read WP:OR? – specifically:
"Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources ... Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability."It definitely does say exactly what I clearly think it does. No article that relies wholly or principally on the subject's own website as its source is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. -- RexxS ( talk) 15:40, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
"Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES should be added to the Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, as it is an accurate statement of the results but promotes circular reasoning."You need to get yourself up to date if you're going to contribute constructively to deletion discussions. I trust you'll be able to explain to the closer why your completely unsupported opinion should be given any weight at all in the face of the policies, guidelines and project-wide consensus I've shown you. -- RexxS ( talk) 19:02, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
"If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it". WP:PAG is quite clear about that:
"if a guideline appears to conflict with a policy, editors may assume that the policy takes precedence". Your argument is not supported by policy, and unlike your policy-free assertion, I've quoted the policy that supports my position. The policy is clear: No sources found = no article. It is pure nonsense to argue that some sources might exist and expect objectors to prove a negative. No, the article needs to be based primarily of secondary sources; it isn't; it has no right to be on Wikipedia. -- RexxS ( talk) 14:52, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed
Any other use of the article ... namespace that is contrary to the established separate policy for that namespace
Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist.Consensus has changed and you need to accept that. -- RexxS ( talk) 10:53, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 04:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable book series by non-notable authors. Lacking in any coverage reliable or otherwise that I can find. Fails WP:GNG, Wikipedia:Notability (books) CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:32, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 06:49, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Not notable Natureium ( talk) 15:39, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 04:03, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Doubtful notability. The referencing is very weak. I have tried to find better, but all the Google hits I have found are for another Arpita Mukherjee, a singer. Maproom ( talk) 16:59, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
*Keep
See
Fame Gurukul
Marvellous
Spider-Man
17:36, 7 November 2017 (UTC) The article exists with different name.
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 00:10, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable SEO company. Citations are a mix of "fastest growing" lists, advertorials, business partner lists, etc. No significant coverage. Citations are peppered into the article to increase reference count, but rarely actually verify the facts cited. Borderline spam. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 17:31, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
The result was no consensus to delete. Low-participation discussion with neither interest nor consensus after an extended time. The article can, of course, be nominated for deletion again at some future point, but I note that some improvement has been made since this discussion was initiated. bd2412 T 00:51, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable, most references fail reliability per WP:UGC ViperSnake151 Talk 15:55, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 00:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
This individual has not attracted sufficient in-depth coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:BIO. SmartSE ( talk) 19:56, 24 October 2017 (UTC)