![]() |
The result was delete. Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:29, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Non-notable businessman. Searches for him pull up a lot of unrelated Ralph Webers (string: "Ralph weber" consultant) as well as name-drops and quotables. The article is also extremely bare on sources and would be even if the sources proffered weren't all useless, being his website, a blog, and two YouTube videos which appear to me to be copyright violations of some stripe. — A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 23:56, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:32, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
This just doesn't have WP:SIGCOV. It's a directory-type listing for a comedy club. The sourcing is all local. No WP:GNG here. Marquardtika ( talk) 20:49, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:32, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Sources are entirely not WP:RS. A BEFORE search finds some quotes in RS but nothing covering the subject of the article herself. Fails GNG. Chetsford ( talk) 23:34, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:33, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Non-notable subject that fails WP:BASIC notability standards. Searches for independent, reliable sources with significant coverage have provided nothing. Coverage found consists of fleeting passing mentions, name checks and brief quotations, none of which establish notability. North America 1000 23:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:34, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Non-notable subject that fails WP:BASIC. Searches for independent, reliable sources are only providing minor passing mentions, brief quotations and name checks, none of which establish notability. No significant coverage appears to exist at all in said necessary sources. Primary sources found are not usable to establish notability. North America 1000 22:43, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
WP:ROUTINE coverage in hyper-local sources only, not notable. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 22:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:37, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Previously deleted here and here. Article is obviously promotional; references in the article aren't reliable/significant; don't see evidence of notability via WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. GirthSummit (blether) 22:07, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
an app that is distributed commercially or supported by businesses is a commercial product. Sources used for such apps should satisfy the breadth and depth of coverage required for a standalone commercial product article, and gives a link to WP:NCORP. Brosix is distributed commercially, so it's clear that NCORP guidelines apply. You can read the guidance there for yourself, but right upfront it says
No matter how "important" editors may personally believe an organization to be, it should not have a stand-alone article in Wikipedia unless reliable sources independent of the organization have discussed it.We need significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable, secondary sources, or we have nothing to build an article around. Only one of the sources currently in the article appears to be usable; if better ones could be found, a better article could be written, but we need the sources first. GirthSummit (blether) 12:50, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
The service is designed to allow streamlined inter-office communication without the risk of being hacked or losing sensitive information as a result of leaks.and
One of the oldest Instant Messengers available, Brosix is currently used by several global corporations, private universities, and public governmental organizations such as Xerox, Harvard University, Georgia Department of Community Health, and many more, the weight given to product features (which includes the security section) relative to other kinds of information (e.g. reviews, objective history) and the inclusion of information generally thought trivial (funding rounds). Fixing all this would require a substantial reworking of the article in my opinion. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 16:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
The service is designed to allow streamlined inter-office communication without the risk of being hacked or losing sensitive information as a result of leaks.I can easily fix it to make it sound less commercial. I'll have a look into it immediately. The sentence
One of the oldest Instant Messengers available, Brosix is currently used by several global corporations, private universities, and public governmental organizations such as Xerox, Harvard University, Georgia Department of Community Health, and many morehas been purposefully added to assert its notability and meet WP:NSOFT - something that so far nobody wanted to take into account even if it seems very important to me. Stating why this tool may have had some form of significance is a requirement, this is not a sentence slapped there to say "it's a great product".
The result was delete. Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:38, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
nn singer tagged since 2010 Staszek Lem ( talk) 21:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Non-notable author. I was able to find one brief review of one of his books [1], but far from meeting WP:NAUTHOR. b uidh e 21:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment, heres another in The Journal of Slavic Military Studies. Coolabahapple ( talk) 22:39, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
The result was keep. Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Platitudinous dictionary article. Devoid of useful content Rathfelder ( talk) 19:55, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
The result was merge to Scorpion (Marvel Comics). Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:44, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:GNG. Is linked in the body of three articles. Namenamenamenamename ( talk) 19:54, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
The result was keep. Consensus for Keep, given that though it wasn't policy, the discussion of it was sufficient to provide notability. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear ( talk) 21:22, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Was never an official plan according to CNBC Џ 12:38, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
The result was keep. Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:48, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
No claims of notability, sole referenced is a dead link, tried to Google for sources and found nothing. Article appears to be about a monthly magazine, which may not be notable at all, and geared to a local community. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:04, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of Masters of Evil members. As noted in the discussion the article is not backed by any RS sources. Which means it fails WP:V and there is nothing to merge. Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:51, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:GNG. Is linked by three non-list articles in passing mention. Character appears eight times, according to Marvel Wikia. Namenamenamenamename ( talk) 17:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. The issues I nominated this for was sourcing and the basic research I had done had not uncovered any reliable ones. Other editors more persistent than me have managed to find sources, rendering the point which I listed this on moot. (non-admin closure) [ Username Needed 10:45, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
WP:GNG [ Username Needed 14:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
The result was merge to List of Inhumans. Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:54, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:GNG. Character appears four times, according to Marvel Wikia. Too minor to be merged. Namenamenamenamename ( talk) 16:37, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 15:22, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Article on an American academic that describes his publications. GNG fail. I could be wrong, but a search turned up very little on him. He is a director of an institute, and I'm aware that some academic chair positions equate to notability. On the other hand, the only claim to notability I can see here is that he has published articles, which is true of all academics. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 14:23, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 16:14, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm unconvinced that much has changed since the previous AFD. I can find plenty of mentions of the guy in the press e.g. [21] [22] [23] but they all have the distinct air of promotional churnalism to them and are very thin on biographical details. This is probably the best source I can find but again it reads like a press release e.g. including the ridiculous claim that he's read 30,000 books (10 a week for his entire life). The claims made in those sources that he is a renowned expert do not appear to be verifiable from reputable sources. SmartSE ( talk) 13:50, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
The result was merge to Buckethead. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 15:21, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Fails WP:NBAND. -- wooden superman 12:42, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 16:09, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. The subject in question was not extensively covered by reliable sources AdrianGamer ( talk) 12:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 16:13, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
No lasting notability. Just an old tax evasion case, and some gossip about escorting. Fails WP:ANYBIO. — JFG talk 12:23, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 16:13, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Nothing to indicate that WP:NACTOR or WP:BIO are met. SmartSE ( talk) 10:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 16:13, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines WP:POLITICIAN (not an elected member of parliament) and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful. Saqib ( talk) 10:15, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 16:12, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
This is an unreferenced BLP of a lawyer. There are some inline links but none of these are any help in establishing notability, as they're either dead, not independent or links to the homepages of organisations he's associated with. Searches aren't finding any in-depth, independent coverage of him which we need for a BLP. Neiltonks ( talk) 09:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 16:12, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Non-notable film. Fails WP:NF. SL93 ( talk) 09:11, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 16:12, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
No significant coverage per WP:NF. SL93 ( talk) 09:09, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Agree. Could only find 1 newspaper reference (via ProQuest: 'Embracing the horror',Syvret, Paul. The Courier - Mail; Brisbane, Qld. [Brisbane, Qld]06 Nov 2008: 39.) and it was not substantial. Cabrils ( talk) 21:16, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 16:12, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Non-notable subject PepperBeast (talk) 01:36, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 16:11, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Lacks coverage in independent, reliable sources. Cordless Larry ( talk) 05:05, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 16:11, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
trivial investment company; no evidence of notability under NCORP DGG ( talk ) 05:15, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Article was virtually identical to the previously deleted version under a different title. WP:G4'd, salted, user warned not to recreate it. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:39, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Fails WP:NWEB and undersourced in tone which probably will fail the WP:GNG. Sheldybett ( talk) 05:28, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
The result was Speedy deleted per G7 by Athaenara ( non-admin closure) Breawycker ( talk to me!) 20:08, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
It seems that this is a name specific to the musical. "Usnavi" already redirects to In the Heights. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 03:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Lafayette Baguette talk 22:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 10:25, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
A non-notable subject that fails WP:BASIC. Source searches are providing no significant coverage in independent reliable sources, and virtually no coverage in said sources at all. North America 1000 21:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 09:56, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Non-notable subject, whereby the article qualifies for deletion per WP:BLP1E, the subject being notable only for one event. The only significant coverage about the subject is concerning his leaving a position of employment (e.g. article). Other coverage is limited to fleeting passing mentions, name checks and quotations, none of which confer notability. North America 1000 03:03, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 09:54, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Non-notable music producer. Google search finds that he exists, and is publicized on social media, and finds this article. Google search does not find any independent coverage. The only reference in this article makes a passing mention of the subject. Notability is not inherited from working with anyone who has an article. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:18, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 09:51, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Fails WP:NPOL nor is he notable as a military member. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:38, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 09:50, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
A non-notable subject that does not meet WP:BASIC. Coverage in independent, reliable sources is limited to quotations and name checks; WP:BEFORE searches have provided no significant coverage at all. Furthermore, the article is entirely dependent upon primary sources, which do not establish notability. North America 1000 21:22, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 09:50, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
No claim to any notability and no evidence of any notability. The single source is a self made family tree with the same reliability as a blog. Fails WP:GNG Velella Velella Talk 21:47, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 09:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
A non-notable subject that fails WP:BASIC. Source searches are providing absolutely no significant coverage in independent reliable sources, and hardly any coverage at all. The article is entirely reliant upon primary sources, which do not establish notability. North America 1000 22:26, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. czar 03:07, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Inconsequential university club. I cannot find any in-depth coverage. Not even meriting a passing mention at University of Oxford #Clubs and societies. The club website link goes to the 'Oxford University Dancesport Club' page! Fails WP:ORG. Delete. Just Chilling ( talk) 01:24, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
The result was speedy Delete G5/g11 (non-admin closure) Praxidicae ( talk) 20:58, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
No indication of notability per WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. ... discospinster talk 01:24, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. If the nominator is not satisfied with the posted sources, feel free to renominate again after few weeks or months. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 10:41, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
While the article has some sources, it appears to lack any notable coverage, with any notable coverage being primarily focused on the car instead of the individual in question.
As such, I am hoping to receive outside input on the notability of this article, and also air the possibility of rather than an outright delete the relevant content is transferred to an article about the various "Aussie Invader's" NoCOBOL ( talk) 14:48, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 09:43, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:GNG. Page is linked in the body of two articles, and the character appears seven times according to Marvel Wikia. Namenamenamenamename ( talk) 09:19, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 09:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
A non-notable subject that qualifies for deletion per WP:BLP1E. The article itself is mostly dependent upon primary sources, with five out of the seven sources being so. Per WP:BEFORE searches, remaining coverage in independent, reliable sources is is limited to routine announcements about the subject's becoming a general board member of the Relief Society of the LDS church. North America 1000 21:01, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 09:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Nominating at this for deletion to due to a lack of sources that show its notability here on Wikipedia. GamerPro64 00:25, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Delete, unless those wishing to keep it can add appropriate sources within the remaining time frame. Nightscream ( talk) 15:03, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 09:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
There is a strong question as to the subject's notability. While he has won some awards from a notable institution, these are shared and so I do not believe satisfy the requirements of WP:ANYBIO.
He has been involved in the creation of several relatively notable works, but I do not believe they hold sufficient notability to meet the requirements under WP:DIRECTOR.
If he does not meet the criteria for notability under any of those then I do not believe he meets the criteria under WP:GNG. None of the references provided in the article are suitable for establishing this (IMDB, TVGuide), and some are not suitable at all (docuWiki). A search does bring up a few articles mentioning him, but either he is the author [30] or is only mentioned in passing by an article discussing his current project. [31] [32] [33] [34]
However, given the combined awards, programs and passing coverage, I am not certain he doesn't meet the required standards of WP:N. If he does, however, then the article needs significant work to bring it up to a standard reasonable for inclusion on Wikipedia. NoCOBOL ( talk) 12:22, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 09:11, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Not an expert in publishing, but this article exclusively cites the website of Andrew Malcolm (author), and appears to consist of WP:OR/ WP:SOAPBOXING. I have removed similar content from the Malcolm article. Endymion.12 ( talk) 22:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. postdlf ( talk) 12:45, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Outdated list of products - a lot of content already removed including prices in US dollars (from 2007!). HD DVD technology may be historic but to list every single product would violate WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE as well as this list essentially being a product catalogue. Article stems on from recently deleted article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of HD DVD releases (2nd nomination) Ajf773 ( talk) 10:32, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for considering to not delete this content. Listings including prices was very useful and not "indiscriminate" but very particularly useful as a tool to help immediately identity what products were high-end and harder to find and which products were common. Perhaps this should have been pointed out in the article and the prices more clearly linked to sources and the reason for their inclusion made clear in the article.
Honestly I think fighting for the article's retension and trying to explain why the topic is notable seems like a lost cause. Sooner or later new editors will arbitrarily decide old tech isn't their thing and just delete the articles. Sooner or later it's trashed again so why bother? The whole wikipedia system seems run as a tyranny of arbitrary hierarchical editorial control. This article list is very small considering the short life of the technology so it's not like a list that continually grows. If the most popular models were only listed as examples back in the main article it would bloat that article which is possibly why it became its own article. The list article could definitely be improved by dividing it up into Popular, and Less Popular if we can find support links (besides the price reference implications) but again, why do the work if it's just going to be trashed on a editor's feel of what they think is notable that day? It seems odd that natural science articles get a pass for listing genus and species, e.g. home page linked article [3] but if the subject is retro-tech suddenly an editor can easily decide "not notable" - yet more people dealt with the technologies on this list over this Wader bird. Sure the bird understanding is probably more important long-term but if the issue is "notability" then short lists of older tech, demonstrating exact nature of moderate breadth of different manufacturers supporting the tech, the length -- i.e. lifespan of the particular tech (year introduced), rarity (pricing) of the tech, etc. all seem notable. But not notable to people who don't care about the particular technology. Too bad we aren't bird lovers, where some lists are okay [4] Best wishes Dcsutherland ( talk) 04:16, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
References
![]() |
The result was delete. Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:29, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Non-notable businessman. Searches for him pull up a lot of unrelated Ralph Webers (string: "Ralph weber" consultant) as well as name-drops and quotables. The article is also extremely bare on sources and would be even if the sources proffered weren't all useless, being his website, a blog, and two YouTube videos which appear to me to be copyright violations of some stripe. — A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 23:56, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:32, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
This just doesn't have WP:SIGCOV. It's a directory-type listing for a comedy club. The sourcing is all local. No WP:GNG here. Marquardtika ( talk) 20:49, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:32, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Sources are entirely not WP:RS. A BEFORE search finds some quotes in RS but nothing covering the subject of the article herself. Fails GNG. Chetsford ( talk) 23:34, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:33, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Non-notable subject that fails WP:BASIC notability standards. Searches for independent, reliable sources with significant coverage have provided nothing. Coverage found consists of fleeting passing mentions, name checks and brief quotations, none of which establish notability. North America 1000 23:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:34, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Non-notable subject that fails WP:BASIC. Searches for independent, reliable sources are only providing minor passing mentions, brief quotations and name checks, none of which establish notability. No significant coverage appears to exist at all in said necessary sources. Primary sources found are not usable to establish notability. North America 1000 22:43, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
WP:ROUTINE coverage in hyper-local sources only, not notable. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 22:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:37, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Previously deleted here and here. Article is obviously promotional; references in the article aren't reliable/significant; don't see evidence of notability via WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. GirthSummit (blether) 22:07, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
an app that is distributed commercially or supported by businesses is a commercial product. Sources used for such apps should satisfy the breadth and depth of coverage required for a standalone commercial product article, and gives a link to WP:NCORP. Brosix is distributed commercially, so it's clear that NCORP guidelines apply. You can read the guidance there for yourself, but right upfront it says
No matter how "important" editors may personally believe an organization to be, it should not have a stand-alone article in Wikipedia unless reliable sources independent of the organization have discussed it.We need significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable, secondary sources, or we have nothing to build an article around. Only one of the sources currently in the article appears to be usable; if better ones could be found, a better article could be written, but we need the sources first. GirthSummit (blether) 12:50, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
The service is designed to allow streamlined inter-office communication without the risk of being hacked or losing sensitive information as a result of leaks.and
One of the oldest Instant Messengers available, Brosix is currently used by several global corporations, private universities, and public governmental organizations such as Xerox, Harvard University, Georgia Department of Community Health, and many more, the weight given to product features (which includes the security section) relative to other kinds of information (e.g. reviews, objective history) and the inclusion of information generally thought trivial (funding rounds). Fixing all this would require a substantial reworking of the article in my opinion. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 16:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
The service is designed to allow streamlined inter-office communication without the risk of being hacked or losing sensitive information as a result of leaks.I can easily fix it to make it sound less commercial. I'll have a look into it immediately. The sentence
One of the oldest Instant Messengers available, Brosix is currently used by several global corporations, private universities, and public governmental organizations such as Xerox, Harvard University, Georgia Department of Community Health, and many morehas been purposefully added to assert its notability and meet WP:NSOFT - something that so far nobody wanted to take into account even if it seems very important to me. Stating why this tool may have had some form of significance is a requirement, this is not a sentence slapped there to say "it's a great product".
The result was delete. Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:38, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
nn singer tagged since 2010 Staszek Lem ( talk) 21:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Non-notable author. I was able to find one brief review of one of his books [1], but far from meeting WP:NAUTHOR. b uidh e 21:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment, heres another in The Journal of Slavic Military Studies. Coolabahapple ( talk) 22:39, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
The result was keep. Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Platitudinous dictionary article. Devoid of useful content Rathfelder ( talk) 19:55, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
The result was merge to Scorpion (Marvel Comics). Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:44, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:GNG. Is linked in the body of three articles. Namenamenamenamename ( talk) 19:54, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
The result was keep. Consensus for Keep, given that though it wasn't policy, the discussion of it was sufficient to provide notability. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear ( talk) 21:22, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Was never an official plan according to CNBC Џ 12:38, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
The result was keep. Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:48, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
No claims of notability, sole referenced is a dead link, tried to Google for sources and found nothing. Article appears to be about a monthly magazine, which may not be notable at all, and geared to a local community. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:04, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of Masters of Evil members. As noted in the discussion the article is not backed by any RS sources. Which means it fails WP:V and there is nothing to merge. Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:51, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:GNG. Is linked by three non-list articles in passing mention. Character appears eight times, according to Marvel Wikia. Namenamenamenamename ( talk) 17:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. The issues I nominated this for was sourcing and the basic research I had done had not uncovered any reliable ones. Other editors more persistent than me have managed to find sources, rendering the point which I listed this on moot. (non-admin closure) [ Username Needed 10:45, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
WP:GNG [ Username Needed 14:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
The result was merge to List of Inhumans. Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:54, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:GNG. Character appears four times, according to Marvel Wikia. Too minor to be merged. Namenamenamenamename ( talk) 16:37, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 15:22, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Article on an American academic that describes his publications. GNG fail. I could be wrong, but a search turned up very little on him. He is a director of an institute, and I'm aware that some academic chair positions equate to notability. On the other hand, the only claim to notability I can see here is that he has published articles, which is true of all academics. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 14:23, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 16:14, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm unconvinced that much has changed since the previous AFD. I can find plenty of mentions of the guy in the press e.g. [21] [22] [23] but they all have the distinct air of promotional churnalism to them and are very thin on biographical details. This is probably the best source I can find but again it reads like a press release e.g. including the ridiculous claim that he's read 30,000 books (10 a week for his entire life). The claims made in those sources that he is a renowned expert do not appear to be verifiable from reputable sources. SmartSE ( talk) 13:50, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
The result was merge to Buckethead. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 15:21, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Fails WP:NBAND. -- wooden superman 12:42, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 16:09, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. The subject in question was not extensively covered by reliable sources AdrianGamer ( talk) 12:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 16:13, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
No lasting notability. Just an old tax evasion case, and some gossip about escorting. Fails WP:ANYBIO. — JFG talk 12:23, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 16:13, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Nothing to indicate that WP:NACTOR or WP:BIO are met. SmartSE ( talk) 10:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 16:13, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines WP:POLITICIAN (not an elected member of parliament) and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful. Saqib ( talk) 10:15, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 16:12, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
This is an unreferenced BLP of a lawyer. There are some inline links but none of these are any help in establishing notability, as they're either dead, not independent or links to the homepages of organisations he's associated with. Searches aren't finding any in-depth, independent coverage of him which we need for a BLP. Neiltonks ( talk) 09:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 16:12, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Non-notable film. Fails WP:NF. SL93 ( talk) 09:11, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 16:12, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
No significant coverage per WP:NF. SL93 ( talk) 09:09, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Agree. Could only find 1 newspaper reference (via ProQuest: 'Embracing the horror',Syvret, Paul. The Courier - Mail; Brisbane, Qld. [Brisbane, Qld]06 Nov 2008: 39.) and it was not substantial. Cabrils ( talk) 21:16, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 16:12, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Non-notable subject PepperBeast (talk) 01:36, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 16:11, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Lacks coverage in independent, reliable sources. Cordless Larry ( talk) 05:05, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 16:11, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
trivial investment company; no evidence of notability under NCORP DGG ( talk ) 05:15, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Article was virtually identical to the previously deleted version under a different title. WP:G4'd, salted, user warned not to recreate it. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:39, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Fails WP:NWEB and undersourced in tone which probably will fail the WP:GNG. Sheldybett ( talk) 05:28, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
The result was Speedy deleted per G7 by Athaenara ( non-admin closure) Breawycker ( talk to me!) 20:08, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
It seems that this is a name specific to the musical. "Usnavi" already redirects to In the Heights. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 03:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Lafayette Baguette talk 22:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 10:25, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
A non-notable subject that fails WP:BASIC. Source searches are providing no significant coverage in independent reliable sources, and virtually no coverage in said sources at all. North America 1000 21:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 09:56, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Non-notable subject, whereby the article qualifies for deletion per WP:BLP1E, the subject being notable only for one event. The only significant coverage about the subject is concerning his leaving a position of employment (e.g. article). Other coverage is limited to fleeting passing mentions, name checks and quotations, none of which confer notability. North America 1000 03:03, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 09:54, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Non-notable music producer. Google search finds that he exists, and is publicized on social media, and finds this article. Google search does not find any independent coverage. The only reference in this article makes a passing mention of the subject. Notability is not inherited from working with anyone who has an article. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:18, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 09:51, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Fails WP:NPOL nor is he notable as a military member. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:38, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 09:50, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
A non-notable subject that does not meet WP:BASIC. Coverage in independent, reliable sources is limited to quotations and name checks; WP:BEFORE searches have provided no significant coverage at all. Furthermore, the article is entirely dependent upon primary sources, which do not establish notability. North America 1000 21:22, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 09:50, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
No claim to any notability and no evidence of any notability. The single source is a self made family tree with the same reliability as a blog. Fails WP:GNG Velella Velella Talk 21:47, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 09:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
A non-notable subject that fails WP:BASIC. Source searches are providing absolutely no significant coverage in independent reliable sources, and hardly any coverage at all. The article is entirely reliant upon primary sources, which do not establish notability. North America 1000 22:26, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. czar 03:07, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Inconsequential university club. I cannot find any in-depth coverage. Not even meriting a passing mention at University of Oxford #Clubs and societies. The club website link goes to the 'Oxford University Dancesport Club' page! Fails WP:ORG. Delete. Just Chilling ( talk) 01:24, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
The result was speedy Delete G5/g11 (non-admin closure) Praxidicae ( talk) 20:58, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
No indication of notability per WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. ... discospinster talk 01:24, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. If the nominator is not satisfied with the posted sources, feel free to renominate again after few weeks or months. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 10:41, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
While the article has some sources, it appears to lack any notable coverage, with any notable coverage being primarily focused on the car instead of the individual in question.
As such, I am hoping to receive outside input on the notability of this article, and also air the possibility of rather than an outright delete the relevant content is transferred to an article about the various "Aussie Invader's" NoCOBOL ( talk) 14:48, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 09:43, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:GNG. Page is linked in the body of two articles, and the character appears seven times according to Marvel Wikia. Namenamenamenamename ( talk) 09:19, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 09:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
A non-notable subject that qualifies for deletion per WP:BLP1E. The article itself is mostly dependent upon primary sources, with five out of the seven sources being so. Per WP:BEFORE searches, remaining coverage in independent, reliable sources is is limited to routine announcements about the subject's becoming a general board member of the Relief Society of the LDS church. North America 1000 21:01, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 09:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Nominating at this for deletion to due to a lack of sources that show its notability here on Wikipedia. GamerPro64 00:25, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Delete, unless those wishing to keep it can add appropriate sources within the remaining time frame. Nightscream ( talk) 15:03, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 09:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
There is a strong question as to the subject's notability. While he has won some awards from a notable institution, these are shared and so I do not believe satisfy the requirements of WP:ANYBIO.
He has been involved in the creation of several relatively notable works, but I do not believe they hold sufficient notability to meet the requirements under WP:DIRECTOR.
If he does not meet the criteria for notability under any of those then I do not believe he meets the criteria under WP:GNG. None of the references provided in the article are suitable for establishing this (IMDB, TVGuide), and some are not suitable at all (docuWiki). A search does bring up a few articles mentioning him, but either he is the author [30] or is only mentioned in passing by an article discussing his current project. [31] [32] [33] [34]
However, given the combined awards, programs and passing coverage, I am not certain he doesn't meet the required standards of WP:N. If he does, however, then the article needs significant work to bring it up to a standard reasonable for inclusion on Wikipedia. NoCOBOL ( talk) 12:22, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 09:11, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Not an expert in publishing, but this article exclusively cites the website of Andrew Malcolm (author), and appears to consist of WP:OR/ WP:SOAPBOXING. I have removed similar content from the Malcolm article. Endymion.12 ( talk) 22:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. postdlf ( talk) 12:45, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Outdated list of products - a lot of content already removed including prices in US dollars (from 2007!). HD DVD technology may be historic but to list every single product would violate WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE as well as this list essentially being a product catalogue. Article stems on from recently deleted article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of HD DVD releases (2nd nomination) Ajf773 ( talk) 10:32, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for considering to not delete this content. Listings including prices was very useful and not "indiscriminate" but very particularly useful as a tool to help immediately identity what products were high-end and harder to find and which products were common. Perhaps this should have been pointed out in the article and the prices more clearly linked to sources and the reason for their inclusion made clear in the article.
Honestly I think fighting for the article's retension and trying to explain why the topic is notable seems like a lost cause. Sooner or later new editors will arbitrarily decide old tech isn't their thing and just delete the articles. Sooner or later it's trashed again so why bother? The whole wikipedia system seems run as a tyranny of arbitrary hierarchical editorial control. This article list is very small considering the short life of the technology so it's not like a list that continually grows. If the most popular models were only listed as examples back in the main article it would bloat that article which is possibly why it became its own article. The list article could definitely be improved by dividing it up into Popular, and Less Popular if we can find support links (besides the price reference implications) but again, why do the work if it's just going to be trashed on a editor's feel of what they think is notable that day? It seems odd that natural science articles get a pass for listing genus and species, e.g. home page linked article [3] but if the subject is retro-tech suddenly an editor can easily decide "not notable" - yet more people dealt with the technologies on this list over this Wader bird. Sure the bird understanding is probably more important long-term but if the issue is "notability" then short lists of older tech, demonstrating exact nature of moderate breadth of different manufacturers supporting the tech, the length -- i.e. lifespan of the particular tech (year introduced), rarity (pricing) of the tech, etc. all seem notable. But not notable to people who don't care about the particular technology. Too bad we aren't bird lovers, where some lists are okay [4] Best wishes Dcsutherland ( talk) 04:16, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
References