The result was keep. Clear consensus to keep the article, the sources seem reasonable. ( non-admin closure) ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 00:32, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Doesn't seem to meet notability criteria for movies. Nerd1a4i ( talk) 23:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:56, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Non-notable business. Note that the page was recently blanked, but the previous version had little to offer. Derek Andrews ( talk) 22:47, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Ask The Doctor. There appears to be a general consensus that the subject does not pass WP:BASIC but consensus is not as clear on whether or not to delete or redirect. IMO the argument for redirection seems stronger and in the end redirects are cheap. Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:19, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Non-notable individual. I suggest delete and redirect to Ask The Doctor. SmartSE ( talk) 22:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:57, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
This looks like a WP:NEO to me. None of the references provided seem to confirm that this is a term in common use. I don't see anything of much use in a websearch or a a book search either, apart from the two words being used naturally alongside one another. Derek Andrews ( talk) 22:29, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:58, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
No earthly significance, save perhaps as the subject of a novice editor's 1st try. Mark Dask 21:27, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:58, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
No notability. This is more appropriate for Linked-In Ratel ( talk) 21:25, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Ra.One. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki ( π, ν) 01:04, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Nothing to show any lasting notability beyond the film. This should be merged and redirected to the main film article. Ravensfire ( talk) 20:59, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki ( π, ν) 01:11, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
delete it as poor sourced and promotion material about her — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.40.48.206 ( talk) 17:21, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was no consensus defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:21, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Notability seems below the bar. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 09:46, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 18:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Not sure that this particular brothel owner is notable. There is a mention however at "The Past as Prelude: New Orleans, 1718-1968" book (available at Google Books) describing the person as "May Tuckerman, who ran the best known parlor house in the District". Bbarmadillo ( talk) 20:55, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. czar 21:36, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Not notable. Doesn't pass WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO M A A Z T A L K 12:31, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was keep. Strong consensus that the subject passes GNG which is the basis for determining notability. Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:25, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Contested PROD Tag. Subject fails WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:GNG, in addition the article is largely copied from his Colts Bio with earwig ranking a violation as 94 percent likely. Church Talk 19:32, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was keep. Spartaz Humbug! 14:07, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Non-notable actor, fails WP:NACTOR. Only trivial mentions of the subject in question. This might be WP:TOSOON, for now the subject in question does not warrant a standalone article on Wikipedia. FITINDIA 04:32, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was no consensus defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. If this were a vote count it would end as a keep but honestly the only comment that cited policy/guidelines was the OP's nominating statement. Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Non notable company. Does not satisfy WP:NORG or WP:ORGDEPTH . Hagennos ❯❯❯ Talk 06:34, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Keep. This is notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anitta Pitta ( talk • contribs) 23:20, 8 February 2018 (UTC) — Anitta Pitta ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Deletion is not warranted. McKesson sold System C in 2014 back to its orginal owners and they (McKesson) have no share or interest in the company. https://www.insidermedia.com/insider/midlands/115922- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:7422:4600:8538:2141:ABD8:BB32 ( talk) 11:09, 9 February 2018 (UTC) — 2A02:C7F:7422:4600:8538:2141:ABD8:BB32 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete per nom, has no encyclopedic value. Shellwood ( talk) 23:25, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Keep. The article is now notable due to changes made. Ldemignot ( talk) 11:55, 14 February 2018 (UTC) — Ldemignot ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep: System C employs over 600 people in the UK at 10 offices. It is the largest UK based developer of software for healthcare and social care. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwironmonger ( talk • contribs) 11:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC) — Jwironmonger ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The result was no consensus. Michig ( talk) 07:33, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Non-notable music producers. Lack of significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG & WP:MBIO. — Za wl 10:06, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Actually notable, and do not fail WP:MBIO, see criteria 1, 2, 12 (live broadcast on national french radio "Fun Radio" on 31/01/2018). How does it fail WP:GNG ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elekktronix ( talk • contribs) 20:54, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Found a video posted by the official Fun Radio facebook page ( https://www.facebook.com/PartyFunOff/videos/1938982079462651/), should i add it to the article or it's not "reliable"? I think Beatport top 100 still is an international music chart. Still fulfill more than 1 criteria of WP:MBIO, no reason for deletion. 07:55, 17 February 2018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elekktronix ( talk • contribs)
The result was no consensus defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:37, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Ownby's claim to notability is as the "International Commissioner" of the Boy Scouts of America, making him a member of the World Scout Committee, but the single citation given for that fact fails to list him as a member of that body, and it is not clear that membership on that body would be sufficient notability anyway. Insufficient significant sources available; most sources are mere mentions in passing or entries in a list. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 14:42, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:31, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
I declined a speedy/salt request because I don't think this is unambiguous. Google news turns up quite a few articles, but they are in Czech, which I don't read, and I can't tell if they are quality sources. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Krampus in popular culture. This was not the easiest close, but I do think the weight of argument based on guidelines and policy is against the article. That said where redirection is a reasonable option that is normally the course vice outright deletion. Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:47, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
No claim to notability. This musical only seemed to be relevant locally JDDJS ( talk) 04:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Routine sources would lack such literary analysis.
I prefer retention because I believe the subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. But if editors disagree, the policy-based action to take is a merge to Krampus in popular culture in lieu of deletion per WP:PRESERVE.
The result was delete. Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:00, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
lotys of promotional references, but not actual notability DGG ( talk ) 08:41, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
^ "Allset Raises $5 Million To Help Diners Order Ahead When They Eat Out". Forbes. 17 October 2017. Retrieved 27 November 2017. Jump up ^ "Allset | crunchbase". www.crunchbase.com. Retrieved 27 November 2017. Jump up ^ "Allset raises $5M to help restaurants deliver a more efficient dining experience". TechCrunch. 17 October 2017. Retrieved 27 November 2017. Jump up ^ "Allset raises $5 million to cut wait times at restaurants". VentureBeat. 17 October 2017. Retrieved 27 November 2017.
As far as I can tell this company is notable and simply naming actual numbers is not "promotional" (reality isn't spam, that would be like that mentioning that Ireen Wüst won silver at the Pyongchang Winter Olympics is "promotional"), Wikipedia isn't a place to advertise but we should also be able to distinguish between what is an advertisement and what isn't an advertisement. -- Donald Trung ( Talk) ( Articles) 10:25, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:32, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
I've tried to cleanup this promotional bio/. I think it's hopeless. DGG ( talk ) 18:20, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 01:03, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
No demonstration of notability. Cannot find independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Kioj156 ( talk) 17:33, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. czar 21:38, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
No demonstration of notability. Cannot find independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Kioj156 ( talk) 17:22, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:32, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Non-notable record label. While there are other labels closely resembling this, I couldn't find anything significant on this. The website is also non-functional. MT Train Talk 17:46, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 01:04, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Fairly obvious above that article is being used to WP:PROMO this NN, now seemingly defunct, event and that the editors in question are WP:NOTHERE to build WP. Kioj156 ( talk) 17:09, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:33, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Fairly obvious above that article is being used to WP:PROMO this event and that the editors in question are WP:NOTHERE to build WP. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warwick Economics Summit for previous discussion. Kioj156 ( talk) 17:16, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 01:07, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Fairly obvious above that article is being used to WP:PROMO this NN, now seemingly defunct, event and that the editors in question are WP:NOTHERE to build WP. Kioj156 ( talk) 17:00, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 01:09, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Article de-PRODded by creator without stated reason. PROD reason still stands: "A (minor) grant from MPI is not enough for notability: Non-notable publisher of as yet non-notable scientific journals." Hence: delete. Randykitty ( talk) 16:59, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 09:06, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Article de-PRODded by creator without justification given. PROD reason still stands: "Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases (ESCI is not selective), no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Hence: delete. Randykitty ( talk) 16:57, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Comment, there's now a fork also a draft of this at
Draft:SciPost Physics.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
17:35, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was merge to LSE Students' Union. czar 21:39, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
No demonstration of notability. Cannot find independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV and seems to breach WP:NOTADVERTISING. Kioj156 ( talk) 16:38, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:23, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
No demonstration of notability. Cannot find independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Kioj156 ( talk) 16:27, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 01:31, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Non-notable business. MT Train Talk 16:07, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 01:11, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
How is this person notable again? I mean seriously? Just because his sister is famous? As a producer? It seems like someone from her company created this article. Just because someone is co-producing a film with a family member, it doesn't make the other person notable enough to have a mention in an encylopedia. I was thinking to do this since a very long time. In the media also, Clean Slate films' films gather coverage because of Anushka Sharma not her brother. I think it's high time to delete the article. I am sure Anushka Sharma is responsible for that company and the talent which are attracted towards that company and not her brother. A token credit as a producer does not count. I don't see articles on Hiroo Johar, whose credit include over 10 super successful films. I think it's enough that the company has its article but this man? He is not notable. Krish | Talk 15:59, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 01:13, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Virtually no references to back up any claim of notability (within the article or otherwise) London Hall ( talk) 15:26, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SKCRIT#1. The nominator has withdrawn their nomination and there are no other arguments for deletion or redirection. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 21:05, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Fails WP:Music and WP:GNG. Could not find any references online either. London Hall ( talk) 15:21, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Cooking Vinyl. Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Doesn't satisfy WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. MT Train Talk 14:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Killiondude ( talk) 07:49, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure what happened here. All the various names seem to be for some sort of development project in Mogadishu, not a village. At the very least this needs some WP:TNT. Mangoe ( talk) 14:37, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Trade show. Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:33, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Unreferenced arbitrary list of events Rathfelder ( talk) 14:25, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 01:34, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
All chemicals compounds must meet the general notability guideline. This is not a notable chemical compound. There are zero references in PubMed and nothing about the compound found in SciFinder. A google search doesn't turn up anything more than database listings and unreliable websites (such as recreational drug use discussion forums). In light of WP:RS and WP:V, there is nothing more that can be said about this than it merely exists. ChemNerd ( talk) 14:06, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was keep. Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:33, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Notability seems questionable... several PR/bizjournal sources, and no obvious claim to notability. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 14:02, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 01:15, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Unreferenced and devoid of useful content Rathfelder ( talk) 12:21, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 01:16, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
An article on this company was turned down at AfC for lack of notability. The creator of this version's username reveals an undeclared conflict of interest. No references. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 12:18, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 11:57, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Apart from the article title being a curious misunderstanding of a notation indicating uncertainty of classification, it seems the source only describes Pinus yorkshirensis and no other species of Pinus, and describes no "(?) Pinus". As such this is either WP:OR, a hoax, or some clumsy attempt without meaningful content. cyclopia speak! 11:07, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was keep. Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:37, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
He may have a life outside of Fresh Off the Boat, but I see no other significant roles (for him) or notable statements about him. I'd accept "Merge back" as an outcome, but an AfD gets more eyes. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:58, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. No dissenting comments. The one rather long and rambling "comment" did not in any way address the subject of the AfD discussion but rather seemed to be a political op-ed. Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:42, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Unsourced article with an arbitrary collection of society topics. While there seems to be a high level overlap between some agenda items of e.g. the United Nations or WEF, the terms "global policy" or "global priorities" seem arbitrary. There is no evidence of those agenda items being called or agreed as "global policy". As such, propose deletion as essay, original research and/or opinion piece. See also Talk:Global policy. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 09:59, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Comments The arguments against this article seem to fall under the categories of political realism, where 'there is no global policy, only global politics' is the thesis. But political realism is just one point of view, and exists in opposition to an equally valid school of thought, namely idealism. The argument that realism is valid and idealism is not is out of place in favoring one point-of-view. The argument that this is redundant with international relations is inaccurate, as international relations is a general topic, wheras here there is an idea of being specific in naming specific goals and strategies. The argument that development goals is the proper place for this has weight, but that's not an article yet, and it simply redirects to Millenium Development Goals. The UN has a top place in setting such goals, but there are other entities as well who should contribute to the mix, plus the UN is compromised on a fundamental level by the UK and other anti-democratic entities, who don't honor some of the basic idealistic goals that are common on a global level. One could complain that the idea of global policy and goals is inherently democratic and therefore biased against hereditary government, but thats the point, that part of world political reality is the universal validaty of democracy. - Inowen ( talk) 22:42, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 01:17, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Not able to establish notability as per WP:NAUTHOR or WP:GNG. There is no credible claim of notability in the article, technically A7 applies here, however, I believe discussion is better option since the article is up for 1 year and has been edited by several users. Hitro talk 08:58, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. I am not seeing any clear Keep arguments and this has already been relisted. Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:46, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Non-notable record label. Fails WP:GNG & WP:CORP. Lack of significant coverage of reliable sources. — Za wl 15:04, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 01:39, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
No notability. Not a single reference was found online other than circular reference to the WP page. Mercy11 ( talk) 18:54, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was no consensus defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. One keep + the OP's delete. Article has been relisted w/o further comment. It's time to move on. Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:49, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Not a notable topic on its own. If included at all it would be as part of the Personal Development article. NerudaPoet ( talk) 20:54, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was keep. I am seeing a strong argument for passing GNG based on SIGVOV. Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:55, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Non-notable individual lacking support to establish notability. reddogsix ( talk) 22:06, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 07:38, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
An idiom, and a famous line from Good Will Hunting, but there's nothing that justifies an encyclopedia article here. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 07:02, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Noting the copyright violation concerns. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 01:21, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Non-notable county politician. Fails WP:POLITICIAN like the others. Also another copy and paste job from his official county biography [17] Rusf10 ( talk) 05:39, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
I am also nominating the following related pages for basically the same notability reason, although they look like they've been edited enough so they no longer appear to be plagiarized:
The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Harsh Rathod 04:49, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
This article contains no references. It is a stub. The poster image used is also not real one. Harsh Rathod 04:40, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
This article contains personal viewpoints and notability issues. See the music section in it. Neither music nor the film is notable. Harsh Rathod 05:16, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Strong Keep - film is very famous and well known in india for its suggestive content..ALSO, not having a popular music as deletion criteria is strange..this film was never meant to be musical...its a mild sex comedy..and what make nominator feel that poster is not real?"personal viewpoint"?? :-)) the film Also has IMDB page -- http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0395453/... many wikipedia film articles are based only on IMDB...
I ask for proof on these statements: 1. From Soundtrack section: "Music was not very notable." 2. From track listing: "Alka Yagnik uncredited" Harsh Rathod 07:12, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
comment-- @ Harsh Rathod, WE already have your vote as nominator... please delete your additional vote of "strong delete" it doesn't serve any purpose to vote again and again...ALSO, not having a popular music as deletion criteria is strange..this film was never meant to be musical...its a mild sex comedy..and what make nominator feel that poster is not real?"personal viewpoint"?? :-)) the film Also has IMDB page -- http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0395453/... many wikipedia film articles are based only on IMDB... thanks, Adamstraw99 ( talk) 08:22, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
--- "not done", you should have deleted your double vote before writing "done" here ..again, "poor editing" and "poor english" are not criteria for deletion.. we must contribute to improve English and editing in this article instead of trying to delete the entire article ... thanks
Adamstraw99 (
talk)
09:24, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
-- Read and try to understand the first comment in this thread by MarnetteD... also, there are hundreds of indian films without popular music... Ek Ruka Hua Faisla is one such example which did not have even a single song...why don't you nominate it also on the same grounds??..thanks Adamstraw99 ( talk) 10:09, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
-- it does not matter (or nobody gives a damn) whether you stay put to your "firm decision" or not..... Sadly, this article does not meet the wikipedia community requirement for deletion.... I will leave it here for Admins to decide... thanks --
Adamstraw99 (
talk)
13:57, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. This discussion was previously closed as keep and then reopened for additional discussion. Since that time, I don't think the discussion has progressed any closer to a consensus. With more than three weeks of discussion already, keeping this open longer is unlikely to be productive. In terms of the weight of arguments, I think there is a preponderance in favor of keeping the article; however, I don't think it rises to the level of being clearly for keeping. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 13:19, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
A man's religion has nothing to do with his awards. Christianity discovered none of modern science's achievements, it was peoople who discovered it. Other religions should be spared, as They have very less entries, ranging from 11-193. But, this is a very long list with 427 people. Nobel Prize was originated by a christian person, It is given by two 99% xtian dominated countries, It is mostly given to North Americans and Europeans, majority of whom happens to be christian. Almost, 75% of all winners are christians. So, there's nothing special if a Nobel laureate happens to be christian. It is special, if a non-christian gets this award. Moreover, similar article List of Hindu Nobel laureates was deleted following a discussion eariler. Most wikipedians consented a delete and they showed the reason that a person's religious identity doesn't make any sense to his achievements So, why should this article exist? মাখামাখি ( talk) 15:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
"is a very long list with 427 people". But that is a matter that can be solved by following WP:SPLITLIST, it is not a reason for deletion. Is
"75% of all winners are christians. So, there's nothing special if a Nobel laureate happens to be christian"a secondary deletion argument? If yes, I don't buy it; sources show that this list is a valid, encyclopedic cross-categorization. Sam Sailor 08:03, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
I have relisted in part because I realize I am non-neutral and would do better to give an opinion. DGG ( talk ) 04:58, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
I just wanted to remind everyone that the list of Nobel prizes are not just about the sciences, the Peace and Literature prizes are part of the picture too. I do find the references mentioned earlier in the discussion quite interesting since they do discuss the correlation of religion and the Nobel laureates (which is what the list is about - people who happen to have a particular ultimate worldview), not about causation. So it has notability already because of the sources clearly discuss such an intersection of both in terms of correlations. It is not like editors are manually connecting the two variables, the sources do that connecting themselves and even do some analysis of the correlations to some extent. I don't think anyone here is saying that being a religious person or not will lead to any Nobel prize (most people on earth will not earn a Nobel prize). Causation and correlation are two different things and all the lists of the same nature seem to just make observations on correlations, not discuss causation for people becoming a laureate. Causes are too complex for becoming a laureate - including serendipity being an important factor, but causations are not what lists do. Lists are not really arguments for causation of anything, they merely are correlations discussed in sources (like the ones above do). Just a few thoughts. Huitzilopochtli1990 ( talk) 23:45, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. czar 21:41, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Non-notable government official; according to archives.org Rooney was never the acting deputy secretary of labor during 2017 or 2018. Corky 04:36, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was speedily deleted under criterion G11. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:52, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Pro forma nomination, after TonyBallioni's PROD tag was removed by an obvious sock. Original rationale was: "Created by UPE socks in violation of the TOU. Violates WP:NOTSPAM." GAB gab 04:09, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:56, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Declined CSD G6 (unnecessary disambiguation page). Orphaned disambiguation page ending in (disambiguation) where a WP:PTOPIC exists ( Camp Stoneman), and there is only one other topic with the same name ( Camp Stoneman, DC). feminist ( talk) 04:07, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 01:25, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Article does not demonstrate notability, and appears to be promotional. Initially I marked for speedy deletion, but this article has existed for a year, so I would like to get additional input here. Prodego talk 04:01, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was Keep. Discussion of where to take the article from here can continue on the article's talk page. Michig ( talk) 07:42, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
While courageous, her anti-Nazi resistance work does not merit an article. Her marginal involvement in the 20 July plot does not rise to even WP:ONEEVENT. Clarityfiend ( talk) 02:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 01:26, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:GNG for events on Wikipedia. The event has limited coverage in media and is unclear if it is of any significance. Importantly, the page was created by an editor who is the organizer for the event and seems to have a heavy COI. Adamgerber80 ( talk) 01:40, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was Speedy Keep nom withdrawn, no delete !votes. ( non-admin closure) Icewhiz ( talk) 13:23, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
No real sources. All sources link to fake or archived webpages on alternative sites. Lbparker40 ( talk) 00:18, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
No indication of notability; the given sources do not satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH and largely do not exist in any appreciable detail. Those that do are press releases or web archives, user-submitted content without editorial oversight, and not reliable third-party sources. Lbparker40 ( talk) 00:18, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. czar 21:42, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Totally unreferenced, excluding the quote. A low-quality stub. Seems impossible to find any source. — Sanmosa 15:17, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was keep. Clear consensus to keep the article, the sources seem reasonable. ( non-admin closure) ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 00:32, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Doesn't seem to meet notability criteria for movies. Nerd1a4i ( talk) 23:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:56, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Non-notable business. Note that the page was recently blanked, but the previous version had little to offer. Derek Andrews ( talk) 22:47, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Ask The Doctor. There appears to be a general consensus that the subject does not pass WP:BASIC but consensus is not as clear on whether or not to delete or redirect. IMO the argument for redirection seems stronger and in the end redirects are cheap. Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:19, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Non-notable individual. I suggest delete and redirect to Ask The Doctor. SmartSE ( talk) 22:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:57, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
This looks like a WP:NEO to me. None of the references provided seem to confirm that this is a term in common use. I don't see anything of much use in a websearch or a a book search either, apart from the two words being used naturally alongside one another. Derek Andrews ( talk) 22:29, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:58, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
No earthly significance, save perhaps as the subject of a novice editor's 1st try. Mark Dask 21:27, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:58, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
No notability. This is more appropriate for Linked-In Ratel ( talk) 21:25, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Ra.One. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki ( π, ν) 01:04, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Nothing to show any lasting notability beyond the film. This should be merged and redirected to the main film article. Ravensfire ( talk) 20:59, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki ( π, ν) 01:11, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
delete it as poor sourced and promotion material about her — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.40.48.206 ( talk) 17:21, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was no consensus defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:21, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Notability seems below the bar. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 09:46, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 18:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Not sure that this particular brothel owner is notable. There is a mention however at "The Past as Prelude: New Orleans, 1718-1968" book (available at Google Books) describing the person as "May Tuckerman, who ran the best known parlor house in the District". Bbarmadillo ( talk) 20:55, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. czar 21:36, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Not notable. Doesn't pass WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO M A A Z T A L K 12:31, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was keep. Strong consensus that the subject passes GNG which is the basis for determining notability. Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:25, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Contested PROD Tag. Subject fails WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:GNG, in addition the article is largely copied from his Colts Bio with earwig ranking a violation as 94 percent likely. Church Talk 19:32, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was keep. Spartaz Humbug! 14:07, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Non-notable actor, fails WP:NACTOR. Only trivial mentions of the subject in question. This might be WP:TOSOON, for now the subject in question does not warrant a standalone article on Wikipedia. FITINDIA 04:32, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was no consensus defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. If this were a vote count it would end as a keep but honestly the only comment that cited policy/guidelines was the OP's nominating statement. Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Non notable company. Does not satisfy WP:NORG or WP:ORGDEPTH . Hagennos ❯❯❯ Talk 06:34, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Keep. This is notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anitta Pitta ( talk • contribs) 23:20, 8 February 2018 (UTC) — Anitta Pitta ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Deletion is not warranted. McKesson sold System C in 2014 back to its orginal owners and they (McKesson) have no share or interest in the company. https://www.insidermedia.com/insider/midlands/115922- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:7422:4600:8538:2141:ABD8:BB32 ( talk) 11:09, 9 February 2018 (UTC) — 2A02:C7F:7422:4600:8538:2141:ABD8:BB32 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete per nom, has no encyclopedic value. Shellwood ( talk) 23:25, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Keep. The article is now notable due to changes made. Ldemignot ( talk) 11:55, 14 February 2018 (UTC) — Ldemignot ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep: System C employs over 600 people in the UK at 10 offices. It is the largest UK based developer of software for healthcare and social care. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwironmonger ( talk • contribs) 11:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC) — Jwironmonger ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The result was no consensus. Michig ( talk) 07:33, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Non-notable music producers. Lack of significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG & WP:MBIO. — Za wl 10:06, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Actually notable, and do not fail WP:MBIO, see criteria 1, 2, 12 (live broadcast on national french radio "Fun Radio" on 31/01/2018). How does it fail WP:GNG ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elekktronix ( talk • contribs) 20:54, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Found a video posted by the official Fun Radio facebook page ( https://www.facebook.com/PartyFunOff/videos/1938982079462651/), should i add it to the article or it's not "reliable"? I think Beatport top 100 still is an international music chart. Still fulfill more than 1 criteria of WP:MBIO, no reason for deletion. 07:55, 17 February 2018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elekktronix ( talk • contribs)
The result was no consensus defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:37, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Ownby's claim to notability is as the "International Commissioner" of the Boy Scouts of America, making him a member of the World Scout Committee, but the single citation given for that fact fails to list him as a member of that body, and it is not clear that membership on that body would be sufficient notability anyway. Insufficient significant sources available; most sources are mere mentions in passing or entries in a list. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 14:42, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:31, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
I declined a speedy/salt request because I don't think this is unambiguous. Google news turns up quite a few articles, but they are in Czech, which I don't read, and I can't tell if they are quality sources. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Krampus in popular culture. This was not the easiest close, but I do think the weight of argument based on guidelines and policy is against the article. That said where redirection is a reasonable option that is normally the course vice outright deletion. Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:47, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
No claim to notability. This musical only seemed to be relevant locally JDDJS ( talk) 04:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Routine sources would lack such literary analysis.
I prefer retention because I believe the subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. But if editors disagree, the policy-based action to take is a merge to Krampus in popular culture in lieu of deletion per WP:PRESERVE.
The result was delete. Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:00, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
lotys of promotional references, but not actual notability DGG ( talk ) 08:41, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
^ "Allset Raises $5 Million To Help Diners Order Ahead When They Eat Out". Forbes. 17 October 2017. Retrieved 27 November 2017. Jump up ^ "Allset | crunchbase". www.crunchbase.com. Retrieved 27 November 2017. Jump up ^ "Allset raises $5M to help restaurants deliver a more efficient dining experience". TechCrunch. 17 October 2017. Retrieved 27 November 2017. Jump up ^ "Allset raises $5 million to cut wait times at restaurants". VentureBeat. 17 October 2017. Retrieved 27 November 2017.
As far as I can tell this company is notable and simply naming actual numbers is not "promotional" (reality isn't spam, that would be like that mentioning that Ireen Wüst won silver at the Pyongchang Winter Olympics is "promotional"), Wikipedia isn't a place to advertise but we should also be able to distinguish between what is an advertisement and what isn't an advertisement. -- Donald Trung ( Talk) ( Articles) 10:25, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:32, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
I've tried to cleanup this promotional bio/. I think it's hopeless. DGG ( talk ) 18:20, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 01:03, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
No demonstration of notability. Cannot find independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Kioj156 ( talk) 17:33, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. czar 21:38, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
No demonstration of notability. Cannot find independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Kioj156 ( talk) 17:22, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:32, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Non-notable record label. While there are other labels closely resembling this, I couldn't find anything significant on this. The website is also non-functional. MT Train Talk 17:46, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 01:04, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Fairly obvious above that article is being used to WP:PROMO this NN, now seemingly defunct, event and that the editors in question are WP:NOTHERE to build WP. Kioj156 ( talk) 17:09, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:33, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Fairly obvious above that article is being used to WP:PROMO this event and that the editors in question are WP:NOTHERE to build WP. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warwick Economics Summit for previous discussion. Kioj156 ( talk) 17:16, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 01:07, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Fairly obvious above that article is being used to WP:PROMO this NN, now seemingly defunct, event and that the editors in question are WP:NOTHERE to build WP. Kioj156 ( talk) 17:00, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 01:09, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Article de-PRODded by creator without stated reason. PROD reason still stands: "A (minor) grant from MPI is not enough for notability: Non-notable publisher of as yet non-notable scientific journals." Hence: delete. Randykitty ( talk) 16:59, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 09:06, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Article de-PRODded by creator without justification given. PROD reason still stands: "Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases (ESCI is not selective), no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Hence: delete. Randykitty ( talk) 16:57, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Comment, there's now a fork also a draft of this at
Draft:SciPost Physics.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
17:35, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was merge to LSE Students' Union. czar 21:39, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
No demonstration of notability. Cannot find independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV and seems to breach WP:NOTADVERTISING. Kioj156 ( talk) 16:38, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:23, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
No demonstration of notability. Cannot find independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Kioj156 ( talk) 16:27, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 01:31, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Non-notable business. MT Train Talk 16:07, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 01:11, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
How is this person notable again? I mean seriously? Just because his sister is famous? As a producer? It seems like someone from her company created this article. Just because someone is co-producing a film with a family member, it doesn't make the other person notable enough to have a mention in an encylopedia. I was thinking to do this since a very long time. In the media also, Clean Slate films' films gather coverage because of Anushka Sharma not her brother. I think it's high time to delete the article. I am sure Anushka Sharma is responsible for that company and the talent which are attracted towards that company and not her brother. A token credit as a producer does not count. I don't see articles on Hiroo Johar, whose credit include over 10 super successful films. I think it's enough that the company has its article but this man? He is not notable. Krish | Talk 15:59, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 01:13, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Virtually no references to back up any claim of notability (within the article or otherwise) London Hall ( talk) 15:26, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SKCRIT#1. The nominator has withdrawn their nomination and there are no other arguments for deletion or redirection. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 21:05, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Fails WP:Music and WP:GNG. Could not find any references online either. London Hall ( talk) 15:21, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Cooking Vinyl. Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Doesn't satisfy WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. MT Train Talk 14:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Killiondude ( talk) 07:49, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure what happened here. All the various names seem to be for some sort of development project in Mogadishu, not a village. At the very least this needs some WP:TNT. Mangoe ( talk) 14:37, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Trade show. Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:33, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Unreferenced arbitrary list of events Rathfelder ( talk) 14:25, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 01:34, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
All chemicals compounds must meet the general notability guideline. This is not a notable chemical compound. There are zero references in PubMed and nothing about the compound found in SciFinder. A google search doesn't turn up anything more than database listings and unreliable websites (such as recreational drug use discussion forums). In light of WP:RS and WP:V, there is nothing more that can be said about this than it merely exists. ChemNerd ( talk) 14:06, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was keep. Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:33, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Notability seems questionable... several PR/bizjournal sources, and no obvious claim to notability. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 14:02, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 01:15, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Unreferenced and devoid of useful content Rathfelder ( talk) 12:21, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 01:16, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
An article on this company was turned down at AfC for lack of notability. The creator of this version's username reveals an undeclared conflict of interest. No references. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 12:18, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 11:57, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Apart from the article title being a curious misunderstanding of a notation indicating uncertainty of classification, it seems the source only describes Pinus yorkshirensis and no other species of Pinus, and describes no "(?) Pinus". As such this is either WP:OR, a hoax, or some clumsy attempt without meaningful content. cyclopia speak! 11:07, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was keep. Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:37, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
He may have a life outside of Fresh Off the Boat, but I see no other significant roles (for him) or notable statements about him. I'd accept "Merge back" as an outcome, but an AfD gets more eyes. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:58, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. No dissenting comments. The one rather long and rambling "comment" did not in any way address the subject of the AfD discussion but rather seemed to be a political op-ed. Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:42, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Unsourced article with an arbitrary collection of society topics. While there seems to be a high level overlap between some agenda items of e.g. the United Nations or WEF, the terms "global policy" or "global priorities" seem arbitrary. There is no evidence of those agenda items being called or agreed as "global policy". As such, propose deletion as essay, original research and/or opinion piece. See also Talk:Global policy. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 09:59, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Comments The arguments against this article seem to fall under the categories of political realism, where 'there is no global policy, only global politics' is the thesis. But political realism is just one point of view, and exists in opposition to an equally valid school of thought, namely idealism. The argument that realism is valid and idealism is not is out of place in favoring one point-of-view. The argument that this is redundant with international relations is inaccurate, as international relations is a general topic, wheras here there is an idea of being specific in naming specific goals and strategies. The argument that development goals is the proper place for this has weight, but that's not an article yet, and it simply redirects to Millenium Development Goals. The UN has a top place in setting such goals, but there are other entities as well who should contribute to the mix, plus the UN is compromised on a fundamental level by the UK and other anti-democratic entities, who don't honor some of the basic idealistic goals that are common on a global level. One could complain that the idea of global policy and goals is inherently democratic and therefore biased against hereditary government, but thats the point, that part of world political reality is the universal validaty of democracy. - Inowen ( talk) 22:42, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 01:17, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Not able to establish notability as per WP:NAUTHOR or WP:GNG. There is no credible claim of notability in the article, technically A7 applies here, however, I believe discussion is better option since the article is up for 1 year and has been edited by several users. Hitro talk 08:58, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. I am not seeing any clear Keep arguments and this has already been relisted. Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:46, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Non-notable record label. Fails WP:GNG & WP:CORP. Lack of significant coverage of reliable sources. — Za wl 15:04, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 01:39, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
No notability. Not a single reference was found online other than circular reference to the WP page. Mercy11 ( talk) 18:54, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was no consensus defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. One keep + the OP's delete. Article has been relisted w/o further comment. It's time to move on. Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:49, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Not a notable topic on its own. If included at all it would be as part of the Personal Development article. NerudaPoet ( talk) 20:54, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was keep. I am seeing a strong argument for passing GNG based on SIGVOV. Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:55, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Non-notable individual lacking support to establish notability. reddogsix ( talk) 22:06, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 07:38, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
An idiom, and a famous line from Good Will Hunting, but there's nothing that justifies an encyclopedia article here. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 07:02, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Noting the copyright violation concerns. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 01:21, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Non-notable county politician. Fails WP:POLITICIAN like the others. Also another copy and paste job from his official county biography [17] Rusf10 ( talk) 05:39, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
I am also nominating the following related pages for basically the same notability reason, although they look like they've been edited enough so they no longer appear to be plagiarized:
The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Harsh Rathod 04:49, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
This article contains no references. It is a stub. The poster image used is also not real one. Harsh Rathod 04:40, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
This article contains personal viewpoints and notability issues. See the music section in it. Neither music nor the film is notable. Harsh Rathod 05:16, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Strong Keep - film is very famous and well known in india for its suggestive content..ALSO, not having a popular music as deletion criteria is strange..this film was never meant to be musical...its a mild sex comedy..and what make nominator feel that poster is not real?"personal viewpoint"?? :-)) the film Also has IMDB page -- http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0395453/... many wikipedia film articles are based only on IMDB...
I ask for proof on these statements: 1. From Soundtrack section: "Music was not very notable." 2. From track listing: "Alka Yagnik uncredited" Harsh Rathod 07:12, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
comment-- @ Harsh Rathod, WE already have your vote as nominator... please delete your additional vote of "strong delete" it doesn't serve any purpose to vote again and again...ALSO, not having a popular music as deletion criteria is strange..this film was never meant to be musical...its a mild sex comedy..and what make nominator feel that poster is not real?"personal viewpoint"?? :-)) the film Also has IMDB page -- http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0395453/... many wikipedia film articles are based only on IMDB... thanks, Adamstraw99 ( talk) 08:22, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
--- "not done", you should have deleted your double vote before writing "done" here ..again, "poor editing" and "poor english" are not criteria for deletion.. we must contribute to improve English and editing in this article instead of trying to delete the entire article ... thanks
Adamstraw99 (
talk)
09:24, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
-- Read and try to understand the first comment in this thread by MarnetteD... also, there are hundreds of indian films without popular music... Ek Ruka Hua Faisla is one such example which did not have even a single song...why don't you nominate it also on the same grounds??..thanks Adamstraw99 ( talk) 10:09, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
-- it does not matter (or nobody gives a damn) whether you stay put to your "firm decision" or not..... Sadly, this article does not meet the wikipedia community requirement for deletion.... I will leave it here for Admins to decide... thanks --
Adamstraw99 (
talk)
13:57, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. This discussion was previously closed as keep and then reopened for additional discussion. Since that time, I don't think the discussion has progressed any closer to a consensus. With more than three weeks of discussion already, keeping this open longer is unlikely to be productive. In terms of the weight of arguments, I think there is a preponderance in favor of keeping the article; however, I don't think it rises to the level of being clearly for keeping. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 13:19, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
A man's religion has nothing to do with his awards. Christianity discovered none of modern science's achievements, it was peoople who discovered it. Other religions should be spared, as They have very less entries, ranging from 11-193. But, this is a very long list with 427 people. Nobel Prize was originated by a christian person, It is given by two 99% xtian dominated countries, It is mostly given to North Americans and Europeans, majority of whom happens to be christian. Almost, 75% of all winners are christians. So, there's nothing special if a Nobel laureate happens to be christian. It is special, if a non-christian gets this award. Moreover, similar article List of Hindu Nobel laureates was deleted following a discussion eariler. Most wikipedians consented a delete and they showed the reason that a person's religious identity doesn't make any sense to his achievements So, why should this article exist? মাখামাখি ( talk) 15:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
"is a very long list with 427 people". But that is a matter that can be solved by following WP:SPLITLIST, it is not a reason for deletion. Is
"75% of all winners are christians. So, there's nothing special if a Nobel laureate happens to be christian"a secondary deletion argument? If yes, I don't buy it; sources show that this list is a valid, encyclopedic cross-categorization. Sam Sailor 08:03, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
I have relisted in part because I realize I am non-neutral and would do better to give an opinion. DGG ( talk ) 04:58, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
I just wanted to remind everyone that the list of Nobel prizes are not just about the sciences, the Peace and Literature prizes are part of the picture too. I do find the references mentioned earlier in the discussion quite interesting since they do discuss the correlation of religion and the Nobel laureates (which is what the list is about - people who happen to have a particular ultimate worldview), not about causation. So it has notability already because of the sources clearly discuss such an intersection of both in terms of correlations. It is not like editors are manually connecting the two variables, the sources do that connecting themselves and even do some analysis of the correlations to some extent. I don't think anyone here is saying that being a religious person or not will lead to any Nobel prize (most people on earth will not earn a Nobel prize). Causation and correlation are two different things and all the lists of the same nature seem to just make observations on correlations, not discuss causation for people becoming a laureate. Causes are too complex for becoming a laureate - including serendipity being an important factor, but causations are not what lists do. Lists are not really arguments for causation of anything, they merely are correlations discussed in sources (like the ones above do). Just a few thoughts. Huitzilopochtli1990 ( talk) 23:45, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. czar 21:41, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Non-notable government official; according to archives.org Rooney was never the acting deputy secretary of labor during 2017 or 2018. Corky 04:36, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was speedily deleted under criterion G11. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:52, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Pro forma nomination, after TonyBallioni's PROD tag was removed by an obvious sock. Original rationale was: "Created by UPE socks in violation of the TOU. Violates WP:NOTSPAM." GAB gab 04:09, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:56, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Declined CSD G6 (unnecessary disambiguation page). Orphaned disambiguation page ending in (disambiguation) where a WP:PTOPIC exists ( Camp Stoneman), and there is only one other topic with the same name ( Camp Stoneman, DC). feminist ( talk) 04:07, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 01:25, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Article does not demonstrate notability, and appears to be promotional. Initially I marked for speedy deletion, but this article has existed for a year, so I would like to get additional input here. Prodego talk 04:01, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was Keep. Discussion of where to take the article from here can continue on the article's talk page. Michig ( talk) 07:42, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
While courageous, her anti-Nazi resistance work does not merit an article. Her marginal involvement in the 20 July plot does not rise to even WP:ONEEVENT. Clarityfiend ( talk) 02:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 01:26, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:GNG for events on Wikipedia. The event has limited coverage in media and is unclear if it is of any significance. Importantly, the page was created by an editor who is the organizer for the event and seems to have a heavy COI. Adamgerber80 ( talk) 01:40, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was Speedy Keep nom withdrawn, no delete !votes. ( non-admin closure) Icewhiz ( talk) 13:23, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
No real sources. All sources link to fake or archived webpages on alternative sites. Lbparker40 ( talk) 00:18, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
No indication of notability; the given sources do not satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH and largely do not exist in any appreciable detail. Those that do are press releases or web archives, user-submitted content without editorial oversight, and not reliable third-party sources. Lbparker40 ( talk) 00:18, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. czar 21:42, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Totally unreferenced, excluding the quote. A low-quality stub. Seems impossible to find any source. — Sanmosa 15:17, 24 February 2018 (UTC)