![]() |
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 22:07, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Notability not established for this person. Article is sourced only by primary sources related to the fraternity and being one of ten original members of a fraternity is not something notability would be inherited from. Reywas92 Talk 23:56, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Consensus is that at this time she does not meet the criteria for MUSICBIO. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 12:06, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Appears to fail WP:A7, does not meet WP:N requirements for singers/musicians. Only notable event was a one-time appearance on a reality show. SanAnMan ( talk) 23:50, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Kaedyn Kashmir’s music contributions with Heart guitarist Roger Fisher latest album and his involvement with her music holds much weight. Also, her television appearance on the Great Christmas Light Fight was a full music performance on National Television. ABC actually gave her a performance credit on the show. Her name was also mentioned in the wiki article about The Great Christmas Light Fight. I didn’t add her name there but only linked it to the Kaedyn Kashmir page. What I do not see in the requirements for a singer songwriter is discography legend. She is listed on Discogs and Allmusic I will absolutely find some better citations if you don’t feel my writing and citations make her “wiki worthy” however, my links are clean and hold great weight. These are not “tabloid articles” but highly reliable sources. I hope we can agree on something here. Bebfire ( talk) 00:58, 17 March 2018 (UTC)Bebfire
Hello SanAnMan. I would like to continue to build this article and ask for some time to get my citations and information in order...post haste....for example, her last record and present one released 3/10 is Under producer Warren Huarts umbrella (Aerosmith, The Fray, Daniel Powder, Ace Frehley, James Blunt) the criteria is so close! She was also on the pop charts but I am still waiting for news articles and billboard issues to be sent to me from Seattle for citations. Honestly I dont think I was premature in moving this article, but clearly, according to the link you've displayed, it's on the edge. I truly felt I had solid citations and still maintain that her performance of an ORIGINAL Christmas song on National Television, a featured artist with credits on the show would have been sufficient. She has a good discography on Allmusic and Discogs, plus her collaboration with Roger Fisher which has not been cataloged. I hope I will be given some time to make the appropriate corrections. I'm feeling a little rusty as I have not worked on wiki for awhile. This will be my first ever article on a current young pop artist as all my articles have been about prominent well known artists from the 60's, 70's & 80's. happy editing Bebfire ( talk) 04:24, 17 March 2018 (UTC)Bebfire
I continue to add more articles, TV shows and citations to this article. Please look it over and let me know if there is anything else I can do to save this brave little article about a teen who is so inspiring! I have noted the criteria and feel I have fulfilled many of the notability requirements
Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it.
This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries[note 2] except for the following:
Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about the recording, and all advertising that mentions the recording, including manufacturers' advertising.
Articles in a school or university newspaper (or similar), in most cases.
Bebfire ( talk) 22:02, 17 March 2018 (UTC)Bebfire
The result was keep. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:04, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Completing nomination for User:220.244.118.113 - Their rationale: "I have nominated this page for deletion on the basis that this person fails the notability requirements. He has only come to broad public attention due to the recent crisis at Trinity Grammar and his role in that crisis can be adequately dealt with on that page." I am not taking a position on this AfD myself. Iffy★ Chat -- 23:15, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 08:12, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
We already have an article on the Dunelm Group. I doubt their digital marketing strategy is notable, as it seems pretty commonplace to me. Some of this article might be merged into the main article, if it were properly sourced (which it is not). Kleuske ( talk) 22:55, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments, I can completely understand why you questioned the need for this page. When I initially published this page, I had only finalised my findings on the tactics of their social media strategy, which could only be commented upon based on observation of their social media platforms – this was the reason for the lack of sources. However I have since updated and published content more relevant to Dunelm’s digital marketing strategy, making this the priority and providing more granularity into the specifics of this. I ensured that the information was accurate as well as informative by using credible sources from thought leaders in the field. I also used smart insights from Dunelm’s Marketing managers such as Sajjad Bhojani, Head of Multi Channel Marketing and Developments (June 2017), found in the latest edition of Dr Dave Chaffey and Dr FIONA Ellis-Chadwick’s book, Digital Marketing: strategy, implementation and practice. Sajjad Bhojani explicitly stated Dunelms digital marketing strategy, highlighting methods they have used and tactical steps to implement them. Although I only explicitly quoted him once, the strategies highlighted in the page are only strategies are proved to have been used. Thank you for your careful vigilance of Wikipedia and your efforts to preserve the integrity of the information shared on this platform. In line with that desire to keep Wikipedia as a credible, I have taken the effort to support my page with facts from credible sources that can be easily verified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arnold419 ( talk • contribs) 18:38, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments Shritwod.
You mention that Wikipedia should not be used as a blog or to post original research. Fisrstly, the research used within this page is secondary, all the sources are clearly stated. Secondly, under the section titled 'Wikipedia is not a blog...' on Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not, it alludes to the fact that Wikipedia should not be personal or used to promote ones brand – I have no affiliation with Dunelm.
This page is catered to those interested in strategic digital marketing in action. I explicitly illustrated how a national retailer goes from their overarching yearly strategic plan to the monthly tactical implementations. The content is not of personal opinion, or blog-like but is factual and based on thorough research which can be demonstrated in the sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arnold419 ( talk • contribs) 22:13, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:16, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
No Malaysia did not participate in the games. They don't happen until September. A failure of ACTRIAL ending. Creator has 2 edits so far. Should have been stopped or developed in Draft. This is why we need WP:ACREQ. Legacypac ( talk) 22:54, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 22:35, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Only references are primary or a link to a Google search, which does not appear to include any reliable sources.
References 1-3,4-12 are primary, 4 is a Google search that turns up little in the way of WP:RS, and 13 is a cryptic "Online interview of the administrators, 2008," which leads me to believe that that latter source could be WP:OR.
Based on this, this website does not satisfy WP:NWEB. TheSandDoctor ( talk) 22:11, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Non policy based arguments by unestablished editors are traditionally given little weight and the consensus of established editors is clear. Spartaz Humbug! 22:34, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
I did my best to clean the article up but once I removed the celebrity gossip cited to the Daily Mail, the award mill and an LA Times paid post I found all that remained was PR interview stuff. He obviously markets himself well and provides many interviews but there is nothing written about him. There was a claim in the original article that he is Fellow of the American College of Surgeons but it was not supported by the source. Based on that he does not meet General Notability Guidelines or WP:ANYBIO. Jbh Talk 22:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 22:32, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Non notable quiz contestant. None of his previous quiz appearances are notable and are just a rehash of the info on the Eggheads page. Being an Egghead doesn't seem to give notability either. Dougal18 ( talk) 21:53, 16 March 2018 (UTC) Dougal18 ( talk) 20:40, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 22:32, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Likely WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY of unremarkable DJ. No references in article, no results in a Google News search. Chetsford ( talk) 21:27, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 22:32, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
They exist, however, not much else can be found in terms of WP:RS to satisfy WP:CORP or WP:CORPDEPTH. TheSandDoctor ( talk) 21:25, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 22:32, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Not notable enough for its own article, few sources available, and I do not believe it to be notable enough for a merger with Yahoo either. TheSandDoctor ( talk) 21:18, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 22:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and notability criteria for musicians and ensembles. He is only mentioned in one of the references provided in the article. Searches turn up a few concert announcements and a single short article by a staff writer in the Pittsburgh City paper (Anonymous. "Hoy." Pittsburgh City Paper. 2003. HighBeam Research. (March 16, 2018). link. There is certainly nothing to support all of the claims made in the article which, created as the first edit of a SPA, looks suspiciously like UPE. Jbh Talk 20:50, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 22:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Promotional and indulging through use of terms such as "uses state-of-the-art electrocorticographic (ECoG) technologies" and "long history of developing sophisticated yet easy to use", whilst "world’s only commercially available" just seems like typical unsubstantiated marketing. The subject matter that the program relates to may well justify an article (if it doesn't already have one), but I see no reason for why what is essentially an advert for a product should have its own article. Page views are negligable and you can't be sure if even those are from editors being directed from the multiple issue tags. Google search, whilst returning results, doesn't establish notability for the product. Bungle ( talk • contribs) 20:32, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 22:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and notability for creative professionals. The article cites no independent, third party reliable source. Searches return many passing mentions but nothing significant written about him. Jbh Talk 20:33, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
such as personal emails, letters etc. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:36, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 22:30, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
We're not a travel guide, there's nothing notable about any of these routes, and most of it appears to be original research Ajf773 ( talk) 19:52, 16 March 2018 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because they are similar in nature to the first article:
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 22:30, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Only reference in the article is a dead link. WP:BEFORE turned up basically nothing about this series. TheSandDoctor ( talk) 19:16, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 22:29, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Previously deleted 3 times at AfD. A few new films since the last AfD, but I'm not sure any of the awards are credible or important; there's a lot of puffery and attempts at inheriting notability here. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 18:45, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 22:29, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Promotional article on non-notable individual subject to a lot of undeclared COI editing. Lacking in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources. Written in an extremely unencyclopedic tone throughout. Related to another spam article, The Watch Fund. Citobun ( talk) 04:40, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was Already redirected. Spartaz Humbug! 22:28, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Doesn't seem to meet GNG. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 18:35, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Also nominating another page on a "label":
I moved the content of these pages to /info/en/?search=Sound_level_meter#Measurements and added redirects. Thank you all for your valuable input. Phonical ( talk) 08:57, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 22:27, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Article fails WP:MUSICBIO. All references are non-RS. A BEFORE check on Google News finds only one incidental mention. Chetsford ( talk) 18:34, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 22:27, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
As stated in the WP:PROD, this fails to meet WP:NGAMES. Of the eight sources, three provide only basic database information, three are unreliable, and one is a primary source. The "see also" review referred to by the contesting editor is from a personal web page. Martin IIIa ( talk) 18:12, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete and redirect to Pac-Attack. Spartaz Humbug! 22:26, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
I looked through archive.org, and coverage of this game is conspicuously less than the previously AfD'd Cosmo Gang the Video. Existing sources in the article consist of wikis and WP:Primary sources. Martin IIIa ( talk) 18:02, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was keep. Spartaz Humbug! 22:26, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
This was draftified by
User:Boleyn, with the comment, "unref article not ready for mainspace; creator has not responded..." Has not been edited since. Since draft isn't an indefinite holding space, I've moved it back to main space and brought it to AfD to determine whether it should be kept or deleted.
Paul_012 (
talk)
05:53, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was merge to Paladin's Quest. Spartaz Humbug! 22:25, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Very straightforward: Article subject lacks coverage in notable/reliable sources. WP:PROD was contested by an editor with an extraordinarily broad interpretation of the term "significant commentary"; the article he refers to as "significant commentary" is a review of a compilation album which briefly mentions that one of the songs originates from Lennus II. Martin IIIa ( talk) 17:51, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 22:24, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Does not satisfy WP:NBAND with few sources of any type in existance. Doesn't look like any of its albums ever charted. TheSandDoctor ( talk) 16:58, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 22:23, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article concerns a footballer who appears to fail the sport-specific notability guideline because he hasn't played in a fully professional league or at [the] senior international level. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 16:58, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 22:23, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Fails WP:ENT. Few sources available, even fewer reliable. Most of the "championships" won were non-notable small-time events. TheSandDoctor ( talk) 16:35, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 22:23, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Insufficient reliable sources (found in WP:BEFORE or otherwise) to establish notability (specifically, the notability guidelines for companies and organizations). I would normally boldly redirect to the founder's article ( Kayode Ajulo), however, that seems questionable as well. Founder article reads somewhat like a CV/timeline of his life, but that is a different story. TheSandDoctor ( talk) 16:25, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 22:22, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Yet another non-notable coin. The only common occurrences I can find of Diet Bitcoin are unrelated to the actual coin itself. Brand new, not notable and aside from a few primary sources, almost nothing to be found. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:23, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Australian Centre for the Moving Image. Spartaz Humbug! 22:22, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Insufficient reliable sources (found in WP:BEFORE or otherwise) to pass GNG. The only source that covers it in some depth is primary (blog post by the commissioning institute). TheSandDoctor ( talk) 15:50, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 22:22, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Elementary schools must have to pass WP:GNG which it fails. Störm (talk) 15:46, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was keep. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 18:21, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Article makes no claim for notability/significance and consists of one sentence saying that it was a 2008 French comedy film. There are enough sources to confirm that the film exists, but it does not appear to have any notable reviews or pass WP:GNG/ WP:NFILM. TheSandDoctor ( talk) 15:37, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was No Outcome. Nominated by globally banned editor so discussion tainted. No objection to early renomination by an editor in good standing Spartaz Humbug! 22:22, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Non-notable article about a new cryptocurrency. This is
too soon at best, with the article supported largely by
original research and
unreliable sources. The article does not meet
WP:GNG or
WP:CORP notability guidelines and most certainly does not have
significant in-depth coverage. I have not found much other than
promotional hype in my pre-nomination search for sources, but I am happy to discuss any specific sources that may be relevant. (Note, this is from
my notability survey and there is a ongoing
discussion on the overall topic area.
Prince of Thieves (
talk) 15:25, 16 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per
WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --
Malcolmxl5 (
talk)
00:45, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
The version deleted at AfD was a one liner. There are other previous versions, but they were deleted because they were copyvios. Assumming the current text isn't, it doesn't look like G4 applies. -- Finlay McWalter··–· Talk 16:36, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 18:21, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Non-notable article about a new cryptocurrency. This is
too soon at best, with the article supported largely by
original research and
unreliable sources. The article does not meet
WP:GNG or
WP:CORP notability guidelines and most certainly does not have
significant in-depth coverage. I have not found much other than
promotional hype in my pre-nomination search for sources, but I am happy to discuss any specific sources that may be relevant. (Note, this is from
my notability survey and there is a ongoing
discussion on the overall topic area.
Prince of Thieves (
talk) 15:23, 16 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per
WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --
Malcolmxl5 (
talk)
00:47, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was No Outcome. Nominated by a globally banned user so this discussion is tainted. No objection to early renomination by an editor in good standing. Spartaz Humbug! 22:21, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Non-notable article about a new cryptocurrency. This is
too soon at best, with the article supported largely by
original research and
unreliable sources. The article does not meet
WP:GNG or
WP:CORP notability guidelines and most certainly does not have
significant in-depth coverage. I have not found much other than
promotional hype in my pre-nomination search for sources, but I am happy to discuss any specific sources that may be relevant. (Note, this is from
my notability survey and there is a ongoing
discussion on the overall topic area.)
Prince of Thieves (
talk) 15:23, 16 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per
WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --
Malcolmxl5 (
talk)
00:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was No Outcome. Discussion tainted from being made by a sock of a globally banned user. Lets not give them the satisfaction. No objection to early renomination by an editor in good standing. Spartaz Humbug! 22:20, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Non-notable article about a new cryptocurrency. This is
too soon at best, with the article supported largely by
original research and
unreliable sources. The article does not meet
WP:GNG or
WP:CORP notability guidelines and most certainly does not have
significant in-depth coverage. I have not found much other than
promotional hype in my pre-nomination search for sources, but I am happy to discuss any specific sources that may be relevant. (Note, this is from
my notability survey and there is a ongoing
discussion on the overall topic area.
Prince of Thieves (
talk) 15:2
2, 16 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per
WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --
Malcolmxl5 (
talk)
00:54, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Given the above, I conclude that Mazacoin is a scam that is at least indirectly making money off of some of the poorest people in the US. Wikipedia should have no place in even indirectly promoting this garbage. Smallbones( smalltalk) 16:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete and redirect to Disposal of human corpses#Criminal disposal. Spartaz Humbug! 22:16, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Police terminology. This remains a WP:DICDEF, despite a 2011 talk page discussion devoted to making it something more. Sandstein 14:27, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 22:15, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm not finding any in depth discussion in reliable sources. Even the reviews are sourced to her website. I found this, but it's trivial. Doug Weller talk 14:15, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 18:22, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Non-notable company SmartSE ( talk) 13:46, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 22:14, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
No significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and appears to be a case of WP:BLP1E. GSS ( talk| c| em) 11:39, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 18:23, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
This is verging on blatant spam, but more importantly, the subject has still not attracted substantial coverage in reliable sources as required to meet WP:BIO. SmartSE ( talk) 10:45, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was keep. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 18:24, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Band with no independent relaible sources. The refs are very niche/ blog/ press release. No other qualifications for WP:BAND Velella Velella Talk 10:34, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 18:24, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Fails GNG. No sources in article. A search on Google News returns six hits, of which the RS ones are fleeting mentions that don't pass WP:CORPDEPTH. No results in a search on JSTOR or Google Books. Chetsford ( talk) 10:33, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 18:24, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Non-notable poet, no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The sources, composed as they are of blogs and tabloids, do not meet WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. An article under the title Abhishek Kumar Amber, was deleted through an AFD discussion. It has now been recreated under this name. GSS ( talk| c| em) 10:04, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 22:12, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Subject has not attracted substantial coverage in reliable sources SmartSE ( talk) 10:03, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 22:12, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Non-notable filmmaker, no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and no sign of passing WP:CREATIVE. PROD contested by the author the following reason: I have added news items that have covered Nitin Mahajan and the IMDB page and youtube link for the trailer of Nitin Mahajan's films. The author also seems to have a close connection to the subject per their username. GSS ( talk| c| em) 09:21, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
I am also nominating the following article on the film created by the same user. GSS ( talk| c| em) 09:23, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 10:39, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
A local leader of a political party that does not meet WP:NPOL. Though his name is mentioned in several newspapers, they are all passing mentions and reflect more on the party than the subject himself. MT Train Talk 09:00, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was keep. Spartaz Humbug! 22:12, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
WP:DICTIONARY this article appears to be a definition of a word, which has not established notability beyond the fact that it has a defined meaning. Other issues with article text include primary sourcing and using Wikipedia as a source (De. Wiki) Edaham ( talk) 08:16, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 10:38, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Still not notable. Article recreated by a SPA almost immediately after previous AfD, which follows the pattern of sock/meat activity this article has always suffered from. Yes, he has won some insignificant awards from parochial organisations but he's basically a self-publicist. Sitush ( talk) 08:03, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 10:38, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
This does not appear to satisfy WP:GNG nor WP:TVSHOW. WP:BEFORE turned up far too few sources (only main thing is the official website, and even that just has a one-liner about the show, which is quoted in-article already). TheSandDoctor ( talk) 06:58, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 10:38, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
A porno series that appears to not satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NFILMS based on WP:BEFORE and reference present in article. TheSandDoctor ( talk) 06:18, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 22:10, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
No overt claims to notability. The lead says it all "1st Avenue are two streets running north–south in Portland, Oregon, in the United States." The only reference in the article is an unrelated news report about a business which has an address on the street (street only mentioned once in passing).
I read WP:ROADOUTCOMES, however, this appears to fail GNG and fall into the second major bullet point ("City streets are contested, but minor streets are generally deleted.") I believe it to be the latter. WP:BEFORE confirmed the tthe streets definitely exist, but not much else. TheSandDoctor ( talk) 05:43, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
--- Another Believer ( Talk) 21:48, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 10:37, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
The only reference here that actually would count as a secondary source, the one about President Monson and Elder Oaks presenting President Obama with his family history, has the major drawback of not mentioning Hutchins at all. The first three references in the article are in the first case misciting some individuals self-published file of references as a publication of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The whole line shows a failure to understand lots of related issues. A book being in the Library of Congress is not a sign of notability to the author, or even the book. Nothing in the article comes even close to demonstrating notability as an academic, which is what the article tries to present. Hutchins books did not have broad impact, and he was not editor-in-chief of a major publication. There are notable specialists in geneology, but Hutchins is not one of them. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:31, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 10:37, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Promotional article that does not establish product notability. Industry awards do not prove notability in industries that give awards in order to advertise. No in-depth independent coverage. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:38, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) feminist ( talk) 10:26, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Does not meet Wikipedia's eligibility (notability) criteria. Extremely limited career. Severely lacking content and multiple reliable sources. WikiMeWiki ( talk) 00:08, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 07:15, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Fails GNG. Apart from passing mentions in a couple of newspapers, there are no sources and in-depth coverage to establish notability. MT Train Talk 02:07, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was merge to Hubba Bubba. Sandstein 07:14, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
No assertion of notability Amisom ( talk) 20:36, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 07:13, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Complete lack of notability for encyclopedic purposes. Notability for Wikipedia article subjects is determined based on significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. The references here are neither reliable nor significant to anyone other than family members and members of the LDS church. Other than two obituaries, there is no newsprint coverage. The genealogical books listed in the reference titled "Books" are of interest only to genealogists, family members, ancestors. One reference link goes to a primary source cemetery records website for a county in the state of Oregon. Notability has not been established, is unlikely to ever be established, and the article is completely lacking in encyclopedic value. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:08, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 22:07, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Notability not established for this person. Article is sourced only by primary sources related to the fraternity and being one of ten original members of a fraternity is not something notability would be inherited from. Reywas92 Talk 23:56, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Consensus is that at this time she does not meet the criteria for MUSICBIO. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 12:06, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Appears to fail WP:A7, does not meet WP:N requirements for singers/musicians. Only notable event was a one-time appearance on a reality show. SanAnMan ( talk) 23:50, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Kaedyn Kashmir’s music contributions with Heart guitarist Roger Fisher latest album and his involvement with her music holds much weight. Also, her television appearance on the Great Christmas Light Fight was a full music performance on National Television. ABC actually gave her a performance credit on the show. Her name was also mentioned in the wiki article about The Great Christmas Light Fight. I didn’t add her name there but only linked it to the Kaedyn Kashmir page. What I do not see in the requirements for a singer songwriter is discography legend. She is listed on Discogs and Allmusic I will absolutely find some better citations if you don’t feel my writing and citations make her “wiki worthy” however, my links are clean and hold great weight. These are not “tabloid articles” but highly reliable sources. I hope we can agree on something here. Bebfire ( talk) 00:58, 17 March 2018 (UTC)Bebfire
Hello SanAnMan. I would like to continue to build this article and ask for some time to get my citations and information in order...post haste....for example, her last record and present one released 3/10 is Under producer Warren Huarts umbrella (Aerosmith, The Fray, Daniel Powder, Ace Frehley, James Blunt) the criteria is so close! She was also on the pop charts but I am still waiting for news articles and billboard issues to be sent to me from Seattle for citations. Honestly I dont think I was premature in moving this article, but clearly, according to the link you've displayed, it's on the edge. I truly felt I had solid citations and still maintain that her performance of an ORIGINAL Christmas song on National Television, a featured artist with credits on the show would have been sufficient. She has a good discography on Allmusic and Discogs, plus her collaboration with Roger Fisher which has not been cataloged. I hope I will be given some time to make the appropriate corrections. I'm feeling a little rusty as I have not worked on wiki for awhile. This will be my first ever article on a current young pop artist as all my articles have been about prominent well known artists from the 60's, 70's & 80's. happy editing Bebfire ( talk) 04:24, 17 March 2018 (UTC)Bebfire
I continue to add more articles, TV shows and citations to this article. Please look it over and let me know if there is anything else I can do to save this brave little article about a teen who is so inspiring! I have noted the criteria and feel I have fulfilled many of the notability requirements
Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it.
This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries[note 2] except for the following:
Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about the recording, and all advertising that mentions the recording, including manufacturers' advertising.
Articles in a school or university newspaper (or similar), in most cases.
Bebfire ( talk) 22:02, 17 March 2018 (UTC)Bebfire
The result was keep. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:04, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Completing nomination for User:220.244.118.113 - Their rationale: "I have nominated this page for deletion on the basis that this person fails the notability requirements. He has only come to broad public attention due to the recent crisis at Trinity Grammar and his role in that crisis can be adequately dealt with on that page." I am not taking a position on this AfD myself. Iffy★ Chat -- 23:15, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 08:12, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
We already have an article on the Dunelm Group. I doubt their digital marketing strategy is notable, as it seems pretty commonplace to me. Some of this article might be merged into the main article, if it were properly sourced (which it is not). Kleuske ( talk) 22:55, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments, I can completely understand why you questioned the need for this page. When I initially published this page, I had only finalised my findings on the tactics of their social media strategy, which could only be commented upon based on observation of their social media platforms – this was the reason for the lack of sources. However I have since updated and published content more relevant to Dunelm’s digital marketing strategy, making this the priority and providing more granularity into the specifics of this. I ensured that the information was accurate as well as informative by using credible sources from thought leaders in the field. I also used smart insights from Dunelm’s Marketing managers such as Sajjad Bhojani, Head of Multi Channel Marketing and Developments (June 2017), found in the latest edition of Dr Dave Chaffey and Dr FIONA Ellis-Chadwick’s book, Digital Marketing: strategy, implementation and practice. Sajjad Bhojani explicitly stated Dunelms digital marketing strategy, highlighting methods they have used and tactical steps to implement them. Although I only explicitly quoted him once, the strategies highlighted in the page are only strategies are proved to have been used. Thank you for your careful vigilance of Wikipedia and your efforts to preserve the integrity of the information shared on this platform. In line with that desire to keep Wikipedia as a credible, I have taken the effort to support my page with facts from credible sources that can be easily verified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arnold419 ( talk • contribs) 18:38, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments Shritwod.
You mention that Wikipedia should not be used as a blog or to post original research. Fisrstly, the research used within this page is secondary, all the sources are clearly stated. Secondly, under the section titled 'Wikipedia is not a blog...' on Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not, it alludes to the fact that Wikipedia should not be personal or used to promote ones brand – I have no affiliation with Dunelm.
This page is catered to those interested in strategic digital marketing in action. I explicitly illustrated how a national retailer goes from their overarching yearly strategic plan to the monthly tactical implementations. The content is not of personal opinion, or blog-like but is factual and based on thorough research which can be demonstrated in the sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arnold419 ( talk • contribs) 22:13, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:16, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
No Malaysia did not participate in the games. They don't happen until September. A failure of ACTRIAL ending. Creator has 2 edits so far. Should have been stopped or developed in Draft. This is why we need WP:ACREQ. Legacypac ( talk) 22:54, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 22:35, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Only references are primary or a link to a Google search, which does not appear to include any reliable sources.
References 1-3,4-12 are primary, 4 is a Google search that turns up little in the way of WP:RS, and 13 is a cryptic "Online interview of the administrators, 2008," which leads me to believe that that latter source could be WP:OR.
Based on this, this website does not satisfy WP:NWEB. TheSandDoctor ( talk) 22:11, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Non policy based arguments by unestablished editors are traditionally given little weight and the consensus of established editors is clear. Spartaz Humbug! 22:34, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
I did my best to clean the article up but once I removed the celebrity gossip cited to the Daily Mail, the award mill and an LA Times paid post I found all that remained was PR interview stuff. He obviously markets himself well and provides many interviews but there is nothing written about him. There was a claim in the original article that he is Fellow of the American College of Surgeons but it was not supported by the source. Based on that he does not meet General Notability Guidelines or WP:ANYBIO. Jbh Talk 22:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 22:32, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Non notable quiz contestant. None of his previous quiz appearances are notable and are just a rehash of the info on the Eggheads page. Being an Egghead doesn't seem to give notability either. Dougal18 ( talk) 21:53, 16 March 2018 (UTC) Dougal18 ( talk) 20:40, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 22:32, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Likely WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY of unremarkable DJ. No references in article, no results in a Google News search. Chetsford ( talk) 21:27, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 22:32, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
They exist, however, not much else can be found in terms of WP:RS to satisfy WP:CORP or WP:CORPDEPTH. TheSandDoctor ( talk) 21:25, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 22:32, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Not notable enough for its own article, few sources available, and I do not believe it to be notable enough for a merger with Yahoo either. TheSandDoctor ( talk) 21:18, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 22:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and notability criteria for musicians and ensembles. He is only mentioned in one of the references provided in the article. Searches turn up a few concert announcements and a single short article by a staff writer in the Pittsburgh City paper (Anonymous. "Hoy." Pittsburgh City Paper. 2003. HighBeam Research. (March 16, 2018). link. There is certainly nothing to support all of the claims made in the article which, created as the first edit of a SPA, looks suspiciously like UPE. Jbh Talk 20:50, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 22:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Promotional and indulging through use of terms such as "uses state-of-the-art electrocorticographic (ECoG) technologies" and "long history of developing sophisticated yet easy to use", whilst "world’s only commercially available" just seems like typical unsubstantiated marketing. The subject matter that the program relates to may well justify an article (if it doesn't already have one), but I see no reason for why what is essentially an advert for a product should have its own article. Page views are negligable and you can't be sure if even those are from editors being directed from the multiple issue tags. Google search, whilst returning results, doesn't establish notability for the product. Bungle ( talk • contribs) 20:32, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 22:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and notability for creative professionals. The article cites no independent, third party reliable source. Searches return many passing mentions but nothing significant written about him. Jbh Talk 20:33, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
such as personal emails, letters etc. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:36, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 22:30, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
We're not a travel guide, there's nothing notable about any of these routes, and most of it appears to be original research Ajf773 ( talk) 19:52, 16 March 2018 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because they are similar in nature to the first article:
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 22:30, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Only reference in the article is a dead link. WP:BEFORE turned up basically nothing about this series. TheSandDoctor ( talk) 19:16, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 22:29, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Previously deleted 3 times at AfD. A few new films since the last AfD, but I'm not sure any of the awards are credible or important; there's a lot of puffery and attempts at inheriting notability here. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 18:45, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 22:29, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Promotional article on non-notable individual subject to a lot of undeclared COI editing. Lacking in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources. Written in an extremely unencyclopedic tone throughout. Related to another spam article, The Watch Fund. Citobun ( talk) 04:40, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was Already redirected. Spartaz Humbug! 22:28, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Doesn't seem to meet GNG. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 18:35, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Also nominating another page on a "label":
I moved the content of these pages to /info/en/?search=Sound_level_meter#Measurements and added redirects. Thank you all for your valuable input. Phonical ( talk) 08:57, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 22:27, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Article fails WP:MUSICBIO. All references are non-RS. A BEFORE check on Google News finds only one incidental mention. Chetsford ( talk) 18:34, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 22:27, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
As stated in the WP:PROD, this fails to meet WP:NGAMES. Of the eight sources, three provide only basic database information, three are unreliable, and one is a primary source. The "see also" review referred to by the contesting editor is from a personal web page. Martin IIIa ( talk) 18:12, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete and redirect to Pac-Attack. Spartaz Humbug! 22:26, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
I looked through archive.org, and coverage of this game is conspicuously less than the previously AfD'd Cosmo Gang the Video. Existing sources in the article consist of wikis and WP:Primary sources. Martin IIIa ( talk) 18:02, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was keep. Spartaz Humbug! 22:26, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
This was draftified by
User:Boleyn, with the comment, "unref article not ready for mainspace; creator has not responded..." Has not been edited since. Since draft isn't an indefinite holding space, I've moved it back to main space and brought it to AfD to determine whether it should be kept or deleted.
Paul_012 (
talk)
05:53, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was merge to Paladin's Quest. Spartaz Humbug! 22:25, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Very straightforward: Article subject lacks coverage in notable/reliable sources. WP:PROD was contested by an editor with an extraordinarily broad interpretation of the term "significant commentary"; the article he refers to as "significant commentary" is a review of a compilation album which briefly mentions that one of the songs originates from Lennus II. Martin IIIa ( talk) 17:51, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 22:24, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Does not satisfy WP:NBAND with few sources of any type in existance. Doesn't look like any of its albums ever charted. TheSandDoctor ( talk) 16:58, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 22:23, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article concerns a footballer who appears to fail the sport-specific notability guideline because he hasn't played in a fully professional league or at [the] senior international level. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 16:58, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 22:23, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Fails WP:ENT. Few sources available, even fewer reliable. Most of the "championships" won were non-notable small-time events. TheSandDoctor ( talk) 16:35, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 22:23, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Insufficient reliable sources (found in WP:BEFORE or otherwise) to establish notability (specifically, the notability guidelines for companies and organizations). I would normally boldly redirect to the founder's article ( Kayode Ajulo), however, that seems questionable as well. Founder article reads somewhat like a CV/timeline of his life, but that is a different story. TheSandDoctor ( talk) 16:25, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 22:22, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Yet another non-notable coin. The only common occurrences I can find of Diet Bitcoin are unrelated to the actual coin itself. Brand new, not notable and aside from a few primary sources, almost nothing to be found. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:23, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Australian Centre for the Moving Image. Spartaz Humbug! 22:22, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Insufficient reliable sources (found in WP:BEFORE or otherwise) to pass GNG. The only source that covers it in some depth is primary (blog post by the commissioning institute). TheSandDoctor ( talk) 15:50, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 22:22, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Elementary schools must have to pass WP:GNG which it fails. Störm (talk) 15:46, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was keep. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 18:21, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Article makes no claim for notability/significance and consists of one sentence saying that it was a 2008 French comedy film. There are enough sources to confirm that the film exists, but it does not appear to have any notable reviews or pass WP:GNG/ WP:NFILM. TheSandDoctor ( talk) 15:37, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was No Outcome. Nominated by globally banned editor so discussion tainted. No objection to early renomination by an editor in good standing Spartaz Humbug! 22:22, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Non-notable article about a new cryptocurrency. This is
too soon at best, with the article supported largely by
original research and
unreliable sources. The article does not meet
WP:GNG or
WP:CORP notability guidelines and most certainly does not have
significant in-depth coverage. I have not found much other than
promotional hype in my pre-nomination search for sources, but I am happy to discuss any specific sources that may be relevant. (Note, this is from
my notability survey and there is a ongoing
discussion on the overall topic area.
Prince of Thieves (
talk) 15:25, 16 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per
WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --
Malcolmxl5 (
talk)
00:45, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
The version deleted at AfD was a one liner. There are other previous versions, but they were deleted because they were copyvios. Assumming the current text isn't, it doesn't look like G4 applies. -- Finlay McWalter··–· Talk 16:36, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 18:21, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Non-notable article about a new cryptocurrency. This is
too soon at best, with the article supported largely by
original research and
unreliable sources. The article does not meet
WP:GNG or
WP:CORP notability guidelines and most certainly does not have
significant in-depth coverage. I have not found much other than
promotional hype in my pre-nomination search for sources, but I am happy to discuss any specific sources that may be relevant. (Note, this is from
my notability survey and there is a ongoing
discussion on the overall topic area.
Prince of Thieves (
talk) 15:23, 16 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per
WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --
Malcolmxl5 (
talk)
00:47, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was No Outcome. Nominated by a globally banned user so this discussion is tainted. No objection to early renomination by an editor in good standing. Spartaz Humbug! 22:21, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Non-notable article about a new cryptocurrency. This is
too soon at best, with the article supported largely by
original research and
unreliable sources. The article does not meet
WP:GNG or
WP:CORP notability guidelines and most certainly does not have
significant in-depth coverage. I have not found much other than
promotional hype in my pre-nomination search for sources, but I am happy to discuss any specific sources that may be relevant. (Note, this is from
my notability survey and there is a ongoing
discussion on the overall topic area.)
Prince of Thieves (
talk) 15:23, 16 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per
WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --
Malcolmxl5 (
talk)
00:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was No Outcome. Discussion tainted from being made by a sock of a globally banned user. Lets not give them the satisfaction. No objection to early renomination by an editor in good standing. Spartaz Humbug! 22:20, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Non-notable article about a new cryptocurrency. This is
too soon at best, with the article supported largely by
original research and
unreliable sources. The article does not meet
WP:GNG or
WP:CORP notability guidelines and most certainly does not have
significant in-depth coverage. I have not found much other than
promotional hype in my pre-nomination search for sources, but I am happy to discuss any specific sources that may be relevant. (Note, this is from
my notability survey and there is a ongoing
discussion on the overall topic area.
Prince of Thieves (
talk) 15:2
2, 16 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per
WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --
Malcolmxl5 (
talk)
00:54, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Given the above, I conclude that Mazacoin is a scam that is at least indirectly making money off of some of the poorest people in the US. Wikipedia should have no place in even indirectly promoting this garbage. Smallbones( smalltalk) 16:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete and redirect to Disposal of human corpses#Criminal disposal. Spartaz Humbug! 22:16, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Police terminology. This remains a WP:DICDEF, despite a 2011 talk page discussion devoted to making it something more. Sandstein 14:27, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 22:15, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm not finding any in depth discussion in reliable sources. Even the reviews are sourced to her website. I found this, but it's trivial. Doug Weller talk 14:15, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 18:22, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Non-notable company SmartSE ( talk) 13:46, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 22:14, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
No significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and appears to be a case of WP:BLP1E. GSS ( talk| c| em) 11:39, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 18:23, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
This is verging on blatant spam, but more importantly, the subject has still not attracted substantial coverage in reliable sources as required to meet WP:BIO. SmartSE ( talk) 10:45, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was keep. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 18:24, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Band with no independent relaible sources. The refs are very niche/ blog/ press release. No other qualifications for WP:BAND Velella Velella Talk 10:34, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 18:24, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Fails GNG. No sources in article. A search on Google News returns six hits, of which the RS ones are fleeting mentions that don't pass WP:CORPDEPTH. No results in a search on JSTOR or Google Books. Chetsford ( talk) 10:33, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 18:24, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Non-notable poet, no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The sources, composed as they are of blogs and tabloids, do not meet WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. An article under the title Abhishek Kumar Amber, was deleted through an AFD discussion. It has now been recreated under this name. GSS ( talk| c| em) 10:04, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 22:12, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Subject has not attracted substantial coverage in reliable sources SmartSE ( talk) 10:03, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 22:12, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Non-notable filmmaker, no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and no sign of passing WP:CREATIVE. PROD contested by the author the following reason: I have added news items that have covered Nitin Mahajan and the IMDB page and youtube link for the trailer of Nitin Mahajan's films. The author also seems to have a close connection to the subject per their username. GSS ( talk| c| em) 09:21, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
I am also nominating the following article on the film created by the same user. GSS ( talk| c| em) 09:23, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 10:39, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
A local leader of a political party that does not meet WP:NPOL. Though his name is mentioned in several newspapers, they are all passing mentions and reflect more on the party than the subject himself. MT Train Talk 09:00, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was keep. Spartaz Humbug! 22:12, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
WP:DICTIONARY this article appears to be a definition of a word, which has not established notability beyond the fact that it has a defined meaning. Other issues with article text include primary sourcing and using Wikipedia as a source (De. Wiki) Edaham ( talk) 08:16, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 10:38, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Still not notable. Article recreated by a SPA almost immediately after previous AfD, which follows the pattern of sock/meat activity this article has always suffered from. Yes, he has won some insignificant awards from parochial organisations but he's basically a self-publicist. Sitush ( talk) 08:03, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 10:38, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
This does not appear to satisfy WP:GNG nor WP:TVSHOW. WP:BEFORE turned up far too few sources (only main thing is the official website, and even that just has a one-liner about the show, which is quoted in-article already). TheSandDoctor ( talk) 06:58, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 10:38, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
A porno series that appears to not satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NFILMS based on WP:BEFORE and reference present in article. TheSandDoctor ( talk) 06:18, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 22:10, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
No overt claims to notability. The lead says it all "1st Avenue are two streets running north–south in Portland, Oregon, in the United States." The only reference in the article is an unrelated news report about a business which has an address on the street (street only mentioned once in passing).
I read WP:ROADOUTCOMES, however, this appears to fail GNG and fall into the second major bullet point ("City streets are contested, but minor streets are generally deleted.") I believe it to be the latter. WP:BEFORE confirmed the tthe streets definitely exist, but not much else. TheSandDoctor ( talk) 05:43, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
--- Another Believer ( Talk) 21:48, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 10:37, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
The only reference here that actually would count as a secondary source, the one about President Monson and Elder Oaks presenting President Obama with his family history, has the major drawback of not mentioning Hutchins at all. The first three references in the article are in the first case misciting some individuals self-published file of references as a publication of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The whole line shows a failure to understand lots of related issues. A book being in the Library of Congress is not a sign of notability to the author, or even the book. Nothing in the article comes even close to demonstrating notability as an academic, which is what the article tries to present. Hutchins books did not have broad impact, and he was not editor-in-chief of a major publication. There are notable specialists in geneology, but Hutchins is not one of them. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:31, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 10:37, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Promotional article that does not establish product notability. Industry awards do not prove notability in industries that give awards in order to advertise. No in-depth independent coverage. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:38, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) feminist ( talk) 10:26, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Does not meet Wikipedia's eligibility (notability) criteria. Extremely limited career. Severely lacking content and multiple reliable sources. WikiMeWiki ( talk) 00:08, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 07:15, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Fails GNG. Apart from passing mentions in a couple of newspapers, there are no sources and in-depth coverage to establish notability. MT Train Talk 02:07, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was merge to Hubba Bubba. Sandstein 07:14, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
No assertion of notability Amisom ( talk) 20:36, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 07:13, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Complete lack of notability for encyclopedic purposes. Notability for Wikipedia article subjects is determined based on significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. The references here are neither reliable nor significant to anyone other than family members and members of the LDS church. Other than two obituaries, there is no newsprint coverage. The genealogical books listed in the reference titled "Books" are of interest only to genealogists, family members, ancestors. One reference link goes to a primary source cemetery records website for a county in the state of Oregon. Notability has not been established, is unlikely to ever be established, and the article is completely lacking in encyclopedic value. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:08, 16 March 2018 (UTC)