The result was keep. North America 1000 06:18, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
I have nominated this article for deletion for the following reason; Is it Notable? - specifically it seems of temporary interest. As the bill did not progress beyond the committee stage and will make no further progress it has no historical significance and has not received press coverage since a handful of articles in newspaper since it was proposed in 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cappo198 ( talk • contribs) 17:08, August 16, 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 07:50, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Doesn't appear to meet WP:NSCHOOL. Vermont ( talk) 01:34, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 00:48, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Fails WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:GNG, as most coverage is routine generated around roster transactions. Willsome429 ( say hey or see my edits!) 23:14, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Consensus is that a list article for this specific intersection of attributes lacks encyclopedic value, and a more comprehensive listing would be too large. RL0919 ( talk) 00:51, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Dynamic and unreferenced list that isn't being adequately maintained for utility or accuracy. Firstly, the creator of this list applied an arbitrary cutoff date to it, not adding anybody who was elected to the legislative assembly in or after 1990 even though there's no real reason to treat that year as the bright red line of irrelevance to a list of living former MPPs -- the only reason I can discern for leaving post-1990 MPPs out is that he just didn't want to actually put in any more work. (And if you want to try the argument that post-1990 MPPs are younger and thus simply expected to still be alive without having to be noted as such, well,
David Caplan's got news for you.)
Secondly, even former MPPs who are here are not actually getting removed from it when they do die; just on a partial spotcheck of random articles, I caught four people who died within the past year but were never removed from the list at all (and no, Caplan wasn't even one of them, since he was post-1990 and thus never got added here in the first place), and I'm not overly inclined to go through the entire list by myself to check for any other zombies.
And thirdly, the list is violating some very important principles of accessible design -- instead of denoting party affiliation with a small coloured box in front of the row, this is colour-blocking the whole row. But we decided at least a decade ago that we shouldn't do things this way, because people with visual impairments (colour blindness, etc.) may have difficulty reading text against saturated coloured backgrounds -- and even people without visual impairments are a bit fuckered here too, if a Liberal MPP represented a district that doesn't have an article yet. Red on red...very bad idea. (Red on orange, if an NDP MPP represented a district that doesn't have an article yet, isn't exactly a million times better either.)
This was a good faith creation at the time, but it's not worth keeping if we can't commit to maintaining or updating it consistently -- this is not such a critically important page for us to have that it would be worth keeping in a misleading and incomplete form just because bad is "better" than nothing.
Bearcat (
talk)
22:51, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 00:53, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Unreferenced personal essay Rathfelder ( talk) 22:28, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 02:35, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Promotional article for professional speaker. No evidence of meeting notability as WP:PROF or theGNG--the refs are either notices or pr, or non-independent. DGG ( talk ) 22:55, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
The result was keep. All involved agree that this article needs some improvement. There is a disagreement on how that improvement should occur but general consensus that this a notable topic that should be kept. Barkeep49 ( talk) 02:13, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Reads more like an essay-like summary of a topic than an encyclopedia article. ViperSnake151 Talk 20:05, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ~~ OxonAlex - talk 14:11, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Subject is not known for any significant roles other than Ritsuko Akizuki from Idolmaster and Kud and Little Busters. Sk8erPrince ( talk) 18:08, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
The result was merge to Kevin Nash. (non-admin closure) ~~ OxonAlex - talk 14:13, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Non notable tag team. Fails WP:GNG Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk 21:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Fenix down ( talk) 20:42, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he has played in the EFL Trophy. However, that match was not against another WP:FPL club, so it does not satisfy WP:NFOOTY. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 21:03, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
I am also nominating the following article for the same reason. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 21:04, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Meher Baba#1950s – God Speaks and automobile accidents. (non-admin closure) ~~ OxonAlex - talk 17:29, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Contested PROD. I am unable to find substantive coverage of this institution in reliable sources that are genuinely independent of the subject. The sourcing looks impressive on the face of it, but in fact consists of two self-published books, two books from publishers associated with Meher Baba, and two from authors affiliated with him. Therefore, delete. Vanamonde ( Talk) 20:25, 16 September 2019 (UTC) To be clear, I'd be fine with redirecting this, too; I'm just certain there's no material for a standalone page. Vanamonde ( Talk) 15:51, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. If she has managed to mostly stay out the media, then she will be mostly out of Wikipedia as well due to not meeting WP:GNG or other notability standards. RL0919 ( talk) 01:00, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
No indication of notability per WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Notability is not inherited like wealth, and I am unable to find multiple reliable sources that discuss her in a significant way. ... discospinster talk 20:12, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
This is fundamentally incorrect. The whole point (read the Forbes article) is that this family is incredibly secretive. Your inability to uncover their secrets does not make these billionaires unnotable. Hawerchuk ( talk) 20:18, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
She was the chair of Cargill's investment arm, and is on the board of both that company and Cargill itself. Literally one of the most-powerful businesspeople in the country. And you think that's not notable? Hawerchuk ( talk) 15:25, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Lacking independent reliable sources providing significant coverage of him as an individual. RL0919 ( talk) 01:07, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
No indication of notability per WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Notability is not inherited like wealth, and I am unable to find multiple reliable sources that discuss him in a significant way. ... discospinster talk 20:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
This is fundamentally incorrect. The whole point (read the Forbes article) is that this family is incredibly secretive. Your inability to uncover their secrets does not make these billionaires unnotable. Hawerchuk ( talk) 20:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
How does he differ in notability from his father Austen S. Cargill II, who has had a page for 6 years? Hawerchuk ( talk) 05:13, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Dailykos? Is it 2006? Hawerchuk ( talk) 18:34, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Let's not make accusations here. On first creation, the article got a speedy deletion tag. I posted a reason that it should not be subject to speedy deletion, and a different editor ignored that and deleted it. As I understand it, that should not have happened, hence I re-created the page. Hawerchuk ( talk) 04:15, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. As per the standards usually applied to political candidates, routine coverage of a Congressional race does not confer notability on all the candidates; they must either win, attract some unusual coverage beyond the routine, or already be notable for some other reason. Consensus is that none of those apply here. RL0919 ( talk) 01:13, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Previous version of this article was deleted in 2017. Nothing has changed in terms of the person's notability since then. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. – Muboshgu ( talk) 20:00, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
I added this article because I believe the original should not have been deleted to begin with. Damian Kidd is a noteworthy person because he challenged Jason Chaffetz due to his support for Donald Trump and Kidd was a part of the pushback against the current US President's policies. Adjohnbrock
Garnering national media coverage does though: Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. I've cited multiple national media outlets that covered his political run. Adjohnbrock ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:46, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Sure. But this one from the Washington Post discusses his involvement at length and even has Kidd's photo at the top. Again, I feel this sort of press coverage makes Kidd noteworthy regarding the blowback against the President in historically conservative regions of the US. Adjohnbrock —Preceding undated comment added 21:00, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 02:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Advert for the business of an also-ran athlete. Not quite notable, IMO. Killer Chihuahua 19:41, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Barkeep49 ( talk) 01:42, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
BMI Gaming does not meet GNG. They are a very small company that sells arcade machines with only 21 employees listed on their Linkedin company page. They have no press coverage from reliable 3rd party sources. The only thing that comes up on Google are social media pages, directory listings for the company, a few reviews, and inclusion on a few ranking lists. If any of you worked in B2B marketing, you would know that inclusion on rankings lists is something you pay for. It generally costs around $3000 for inclusion on some magazine's "Top 100" list. Paid media is not credible for establishing notability. I don't see how a small company that sells arcade machines meets Wikipedia's notability standards. The Chinese carry out across the street from my apartment has more press coverage than BMI Gaming and they aren't on Wikipedia. Sonstephen0 ( talk) 18:57, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ~~ OxonAlex - talk 14:15, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Résumé-like WP:BLP of an engineer, not properly sourced as clearing our notability standards for engineers. The references here are his own résumé in a Dropbox account and the self-published website of an organization he's directly affiliated with, not reliable source coverage that would establish his notability -- and while there are awards listed in the infobox (but not addressed in the body text), every award that exists is not always an automatic free pass over WP:ANYBIO: even an award still counts as a notability claim only to the extent that the award itself can be reliably sourced as a notable one, and people are not exempted from having to have any non-primary sourcing just because the article has the word "award" in it. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt Saffa Riffat from having to have much better sources than this. Bearcat ( talk) 18:51, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The result was merge to Maricopa County, Arizona#Education. (non-admin closure) ~~ OxonAlex - talk 14:15, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
WP:MILL local government position. No WP:SIGCOV besides routine wording in state statues. Willsome429 ( say hey or see my edits!) 17:39, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ~~ OxonAlex - talk 14:16, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Unremarkable Person Mdriscoll03 ( talk) 17:35, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. – Joe ( talk) 20:22, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Highly advertorialized article about a television advertising producer, not properly referenced as clearing our notability standards for that career. The notability claim here basically boils down to claims that he won awards, but every award that exists is not always an automatic WP:ANYBIO freebie that exempts a person from having to clear WP:GNG on the sources -- the difference between an award that counts as a notability-maker for its winners and an award that does not hinges specifically on whether that award gets media coverage about the award presentation or not. An award whose ceremony gets reported by the media as news makes its winners notable; an award that can be referenced only to the awarding organization's self-published press release, because media coverage about it is non-existent, does not. But this entire article is referenced only to an award organization's press release, and everything else in it is personal information added by the subject himself with no sources for any of it. Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform for people to write about themselves in an advertorialized way; it is an encyclopedia, where notability requires real reliable and independent sources. Bearcat ( talk) 16:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Lacking sufficient evidence of real-world notability. There was no discussion of a redirect, which is a common result for characters like this; if there is an appropriate target, I assume re-creation as a redirect would be OK. RL0919 ( talk) 01:39, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Non-notable fictional character TTN ( talk) 16:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
explanation of possible notability |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The licensing deal between Hasbro and Marvel for the Transformers comics gave Hasbro the copyright/trademark/legal rights to every concept and character that debuted in the series, which showed the giant robots interacting with Marvel heroes like Spider-Man. Circuitbreaker was created for Transformers, but Marvel snuck her into an issue of Secret Wars first to retain copyright to her. She became a significant character in the Transformers comic, but when the license passed on to different publishers in later decades, the copyright status played havoc with attempts to reprint the old Marvel stories. See this, this, and this for starters. Argento Surfer ( talk) 14:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC) |
The result was delete. While consensus here is to delete, should new sources be found down the road those sources could be considered for notability.. Barkeep49 ( talk) 01:39, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Biography of a person notable only as a smalltown mayor, not referenced as the subject of enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:NPOL #2. To be fair, this was actually created in 2004, a time when we accepted an article about practically anybody who had ever been mayor of anywhere because we hadn't really codified our notability standards for politicians at all yet -- but under the standards that apply in 2019, making a smalltown mayor notable enough for an article requires a lot more than just one or two pieces of cursory verification that he existed. Mayors are also not automatically notable just because they've had local infrastructure in their own town named after them, so the library and the hospital aren't notability clinchers -- but the sources here are a primary source that is not support for notability at all, a single retrospective article in the local newspaper, and a brief unsubstantive blurb about the probation of his will -- but every mayor of everywhere can always show two or three sources of this type to verify that he existed, so this is not enough to establish the permanent notability of a smalltown mayor all by itself. The key to making a smalltown mayor notable enough for an article is to show substantive and well-sourced reasons why he's much more special than most other smalltown mayors, not just to verify that he existed. Bearcat ( talk) 16:03, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. – Joe ( talk) 20:19, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Unreferenced essay. Rathfelder ( talk) 15:36, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. – Joe ( talk) 20:19, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Very technical and impenetrable and out of date. Not obviously notable Rathfelder ( talk) 15:33, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
18:40, 21 September 2019 (UTC)The result was delete. I'd be happy to draftify on request. – Joe ( talk) 20:18, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
WP:TOOSOON by a long way. The only sources are press releases, there are no known stars in the film and the producer owns the production company, so it's basically self-published. Guy ( help!) 14:19, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The result was Withdrawn. Giant Snowman 17:06, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Subject is a footballer/soccer player. Fails to satisfy WP:NSOCCER as subject has yet to played in a professional club under Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues guidelines. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 14:03, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 13:34, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
No indication of notability per WP:GNG or WP:NSOFTWARE. Google search comes up with fewer than 100 results, none of which discuss it significantly. ... discospinster talk 13:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 13:34, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Unreferenced article. Organisation may no longer exist. Rathfelder ( talk) 13:19, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The result was keep. I note that the article has been greatly expanded from its nominated version, and the nominator's concerns have been addressed. (non-admin closure) feminist ( talk) 10:56, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
No claim of importance or significance, and no independent references. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 01:35, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. – Joe ( talk) 20:16, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Originally a highly promotional article, which has been edited to remove much of the more blatant promo issues. However, I still think there's a WP:CORPDEPTH issue because, despite the copious references, they are almost all articles about a famous/interesting weapon that is being auctioned, and give a passing mention to the auction company. The only exception are a couple of small articles in trade publications, which should be taken with a huge pinch of salt given the questionable independence. Overall, a lack of reliable, independent sources covering RIA in sufficient depth, so this is a WP:NORG and WP:GNG fail. Hug syrup 10:00, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 15:58, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Yunshui 雲 水 11:33, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Not notable. There are no independent sources. Obmpeace ( talk) 16:15, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Yunshui 雲 水 11:33, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Non-notable company. Lacks WP:GNG and WP: COMPANY Beasteggs ( talk) 06:41, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The result was keep. A wider discussion on the merits of such articles may be in order elsewhere, but there is a clear consensus here that WP:NOTSTATS#3 currently allows for content like this to exist. Yunshui 雲 水 11:36, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
This - currently en.Wikipedia's largest article - is chiefly a mass of data, from original sources, which would be better uploaded to Commons as spreadsheet-compatible CSV data files. This is not what Wikipedia is for. If kept, it should be reduced to a summary of tertiary sources which in turn summarise the statistics. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
"chiefly a mass of data, from original sources, which would be better uploaded to Commons as spreadsheet-compatible CSV data files. This is not what Wikipedia is for"are you having trouble seeing? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:18, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
from original sources-bit is also false, btw: it can be easily checked that the vast majority of the sources are from websites reporting on the polls, not from self-published sources. So they are mostly not "original", actually (merely as a matter of getting all facts right, not that this would be a valid reason for deletion, actually). Impru20 talk 18:37, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context. Where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article(i.e. exactly what is done with opinion polling articles), right? Further, the argument you propose is surprising: no one would argue that List of World War II battles should be removed just because such data is "ephemeral" and since we know the actual result of the war. Impru20 talk 17:53, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
context or explanation, which is not the same. Namely, that
statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context. Where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article. This is very clear and is not subject to other interpretations, and is exactly what is done for most (if not all) opinion polling articles (including the 2012 US one). I should remind that it was you who brought NOTSTATS into the fray, so I will not make any assumptions on whether the actual writing of the policy is appropiate or not because this is not the venue for it. It should be noted that, as of currently, a massive amount of articles are abiding to that policy, so if you consider that the writing of it is an issue, it wouldn't be one of this article in particular but one affecting many others. The solution for that would be to achieve a consensus for reforming the policy, not for us to cherry-pick in a whimp (and against current policy) which articles should be deleted and which ones not. Impru20 talk 19:43, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
"Size isn't a make-or-break issue"- true; and size is also not the rationale given in the deletion nomination. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:15, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article.These statistics are too large to be placed within 2018 Italian general election so it should be in a separate article. feminist ( talk) 10:53, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete. Notability is not asserted. The article is promotional in tone. The original text is at least partially a direct copy from the company website. In addition we already have five delete !votes and no argument has been presented for keeping. Haukur ( talk) 09:34, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Company doesn't meet Wikipedia basic notability guidelines. Seems like a promotional article Doingitgimpy ( talk) 08:45, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 07:46, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
I am struggling to confirm his notability. I can see mirrors of our article (or bits of it) but little else. I would have thought that someone who was suffering from a degenerative eye condition and engaged with art would attract a lot of attention if their life was notable. The sources in the article are self-published or from the cult/sect/religion/whatever related to Meher Baba, the premises of which seem likely to be the collections "around the world" to which the article refers. We say that one of his writings - Journey Out of Darkness - was not published but simultaneously cite it, which is confusing although I did find what may be the thing here. There was a (now dead) link to South Carolina Commissions for the Blind but that seems to have been to verify that the SCCB exists, not that Ott was there. All a bit of a mess, I'm afraid, and probably the result of a creator with some sort of Meher Baba COI. Sitush ( talk) 07:27, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete. The article was speedily deleted by administrator RHaworth at 08:11, September 16, 2019 per WP:CSD#G11. Mz7 ( talk) 10:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
I am struggling to find the notability of this company in RS 10MB ( talk) 07:22, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 07:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
The subject of the article does not meet notability guidelines, failing to meet every criteria per WP:AUTHOR. KidAd ( talk) 07:05, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 07:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
I believe this page fails WP:BLPCRIME/ WP:CRIMINAL. It is a poorly sourced BLP article as well, and in-depth sources on his life do not seem readily available. HickoryOughtShirt?4 ( talk) 06:13, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 07:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Footballer who fails NFOOTY. Despite the number of references, I believe he also fails GNG as almost all of the sources are trivial transfer updates. -- BlameRuiner ( talk) 05:36, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 07:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Fails WP:ATHLETE. Inherent notability does not come from being a D1 football player. CNMall41 ( talk) 05:27, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 07:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Subject fails WP:SIGCOV as only one piece actually discusses the subject at length and even that coverage is WP:ROUTINE. Appears to be a page to promote the subject's candidacy in Canada's 2019 federal election. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 05:16, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Yunshui 雲 水 11:32, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Subject fails WP:ANYBIO. There are a lot of references but they are about his business, him giving advice, brief mentions, or unreliable. The only reference that focuses on him is a Forbes article but that was written by a contributor with no editorial oversite. CNMall41 ( talk) 05:16, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 07:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
fails WP:NGRIDIRON; fails WP:GNG Joeykai ( talk) 04:22, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The result was keep. Tone 07:43, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Non-notable actress who has only appeared in minor television roles. Contested prod. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 04:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The result was keep. Tone 07:43, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
This is basically a PSA. For a worthy cause, but still a PSA and that's WP:NOT why we're here. Created by a WP:SPA as part of a walled garden of articles related to Diono, some of which I've already deleted under WP:G11. This one is a little better, so bringing it here. None of the sources in the article are WP:INDEPENDENT or WP:SECONDARY; they're all just announcements from the entities sponsoring the event. My own searching failed to come up with anything better. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:48, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
The result was keep. Seems GNG is met. Tone 07:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Still not meeting WP:BIO or WP:AUTHOR. They have a new book out, but what appears to be coverage in the Guardian is in fact him running a "masterclass" i.e. not independent or reliable. SmartSE ( talk) 19:04, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Would it be acceptable to replace the Guardian citation with either of the following? https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/333412 or https://www.fastcompany.com/40579601/this-behavioral-designers-top-brain-hacks-for-beating-distraction ? Both reference the same information and may be considered more independent and reliable, yes? Even if those replacement citations won't work and the info about his second good needs to be removed he still qualifies as notable under WP:AUTHOR since he developed the "hook model" and has been cited a fair amount on Google scholar: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C50&q=%22Hooked%3A+How+to+build+habit-forming+products%22&btnG= Scruitineer ( talk) 13:17, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 04:08, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Just another porn performer BLP with negligible independent reliable sourcing and no legitimate assertion of notability. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. ( talk) 01:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 02:58, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Yet another porn-related BLP without independent reliable sourcing or a legitmate claim of notability. And the "lingerie shoot" story is standard porn kayfabe. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. ( talk) 01:18, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 04:08, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
This article came to my attention after I noticed several suspected WP:PAID accounts created it/worked on it. Nearly all of the references that looked like they might meet WP:RS were broken or did not mention the subject. The only one that wasn't broken, an uncredited article in India Times, looks like a press release. That article includes the sentence "He has been listed by Wikipedia as an Indian mentor, trainer and curriculum developer," which is a bit WP:CIRCULAR for a reference. OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:57, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
This discussion is ongoing at WP:ANI under Wikihounding, false_accusations |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
The result was speedy deleted as WP:G5 by User:Berean Hunter. (non-admin closure) FoxyGrampa75 ( talk) 18:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
No indication of notability per WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. ... discospinster talk 00:13, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The result was keep. North America 1000 06:18, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
I have nominated this article for deletion for the following reason; Is it Notable? - specifically it seems of temporary interest. As the bill did not progress beyond the committee stage and will make no further progress it has no historical significance and has not received press coverage since a handful of articles in newspaper since it was proposed in 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cappo198 ( talk • contribs) 17:08, August 16, 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 07:50, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Doesn't appear to meet WP:NSCHOOL. Vermont ( talk) 01:34, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 00:48, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Fails WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:GNG, as most coverage is routine generated around roster transactions. Willsome429 ( say hey or see my edits!) 23:14, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Consensus is that a list article for this specific intersection of attributes lacks encyclopedic value, and a more comprehensive listing would be too large. RL0919 ( talk) 00:51, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Dynamic and unreferenced list that isn't being adequately maintained for utility or accuracy. Firstly, the creator of this list applied an arbitrary cutoff date to it, not adding anybody who was elected to the legislative assembly in or after 1990 even though there's no real reason to treat that year as the bright red line of irrelevance to a list of living former MPPs -- the only reason I can discern for leaving post-1990 MPPs out is that he just didn't want to actually put in any more work. (And if you want to try the argument that post-1990 MPPs are younger and thus simply expected to still be alive without having to be noted as such, well,
David Caplan's got news for you.)
Secondly, even former MPPs who are here are not actually getting removed from it when they do die; just on a partial spotcheck of random articles, I caught four people who died within the past year but were never removed from the list at all (and no, Caplan wasn't even one of them, since he was post-1990 and thus never got added here in the first place), and I'm not overly inclined to go through the entire list by myself to check for any other zombies.
And thirdly, the list is violating some very important principles of accessible design -- instead of denoting party affiliation with a small coloured box in front of the row, this is colour-blocking the whole row. But we decided at least a decade ago that we shouldn't do things this way, because people with visual impairments (colour blindness, etc.) may have difficulty reading text against saturated coloured backgrounds -- and even people without visual impairments are a bit fuckered here too, if a Liberal MPP represented a district that doesn't have an article yet. Red on red...very bad idea. (Red on orange, if an NDP MPP represented a district that doesn't have an article yet, isn't exactly a million times better either.)
This was a good faith creation at the time, but it's not worth keeping if we can't commit to maintaining or updating it consistently -- this is not such a critically important page for us to have that it would be worth keeping in a misleading and incomplete form just because bad is "better" than nothing.
Bearcat (
talk)
22:51, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 00:53, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Unreferenced personal essay Rathfelder ( talk) 22:28, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 02:35, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Promotional article for professional speaker. No evidence of meeting notability as WP:PROF or theGNG--the refs are either notices or pr, or non-independent. DGG ( talk ) 22:55, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
The result was keep. All involved agree that this article needs some improvement. There is a disagreement on how that improvement should occur but general consensus that this a notable topic that should be kept. Barkeep49 ( talk) 02:13, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Reads more like an essay-like summary of a topic than an encyclopedia article. ViperSnake151 Talk 20:05, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ~~ OxonAlex - talk 14:11, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Subject is not known for any significant roles other than Ritsuko Akizuki from Idolmaster and Kud and Little Busters. Sk8erPrince ( talk) 18:08, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
The result was merge to Kevin Nash. (non-admin closure) ~~ OxonAlex - talk 14:13, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Non notable tag team. Fails WP:GNG Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk 21:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Fenix down ( talk) 20:42, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he has played in the EFL Trophy. However, that match was not against another WP:FPL club, so it does not satisfy WP:NFOOTY. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 21:03, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
I am also nominating the following article for the same reason. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 21:04, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Meher Baba#1950s – God Speaks and automobile accidents. (non-admin closure) ~~ OxonAlex - talk 17:29, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Contested PROD. I am unable to find substantive coverage of this institution in reliable sources that are genuinely independent of the subject. The sourcing looks impressive on the face of it, but in fact consists of two self-published books, two books from publishers associated with Meher Baba, and two from authors affiliated with him. Therefore, delete. Vanamonde ( Talk) 20:25, 16 September 2019 (UTC) To be clear, I'd be fine with redirecting this, too; I'm just certain there's no material for a standalone page. Vanamonde ( Talk) 15:51, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. If she has managed to mostly stay out the media, then she will be mostly out of Wikipedia as well due to not meeting WP:GNG or other notability standards. RL0919 ( talk) 01:00, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
No indication of notability per WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Notability is not inherited like wealth, and I am unable to find multiple reliable sources that discuss her in a significant way. ... discospinster talk 20:12, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
This is fundamentally incorrect. The whole point (read the Forbes article) is that this family is incredibly secretive. Your inability to uncover their secrets does not make these billionaires unnotable. Hawerchuk ( talk) 20:18, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
She was the chair of Cargill's investment arm, and is on the board of both that company and Cargill itself. Literally one of the most-powerful businesspeople in the country. And you think that's not notable? Hawerchuk ( talk) 15:25, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Lacking independent reliable sources providing significant coverage of him as an individual. RL0919 ( talk) 01:07, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
No indication of notability per WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Notability is not inherited like wealth, and I am unable to find multiple reliable sources that discuss him in a significant way. ... discospinster talk 20:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
This is fundamentally incorrect. The whole point (read the Forbes article) is that this family is incredibly secretive. Your inability to uncover their secrets does not make these billionaires unnotable. Hawerchuk ( talk) 20:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
How does he differ in notability from his father Austen S. Cargill II, who has had a page for 6 years? Hawerchuk ( talk) 05:13, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Dailykos? Is it 2006? Hawerchuk ( talk) 18:34, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Let's not make accusations here. On first creation, the article got a speedy deletion tag. I posted a reason that it should not be subject to speedy deletion, and a different editor ignored that and deleted it. As I understand it, that should not have happened, hence I re-created the page. Hawerchuk ( talk) 04:15, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. As per the standards usually applied to political candidates, routine coverage of a Congressional race does not confer notability on all the candidates; they must either win, attract some unusual coverage beyond the routine, or already be notable for some other reason. Consensus is that none of those apply here. RL0919 ( talk) 01:13, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Previous version of this article was deleted in 2017. Nothing has changed in terms of the person's notability since then. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. – Muboshgu ( talk) 20:00, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
I added this article because I believe the original should not have been deleted to begin with. Damian Kidd is a noteworthy person because he challenged Jason Chaffetz due to his support for Donald Trump and Kidd was a part of the pushback against the current US President's policies. Adjohnbrock
Garnering national media coverage does though: Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. I've cited multiple national media outlets that covered his political run. Adjohnbrock ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:46, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Sure. But this one from the Washington Post discusses his involvement at length and even has Kidd's photo at the top. Again, I feel this sort of press coverage makes Kidd noteworthy regarding the blowback against the President in historically conservative regions of the US. Adjohnbrock —Preceding undated comment added 21:00, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 02:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Advert for the business of an also-ran athlete. Not quite notable, IMO. Killer Chihuahua 19:41, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Barkeep49 ( talk) 01:42, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
BMI Gaming does not meet GNG. They are a very small company that sells arcade machines with only 21 employees listed on their Linkedin company page. They have no press coverage from reliable 3rd party sources. The only thing that comes up on Google are social media pages, directory listings for the company, a few reviews, and inclusion on a few ranking lists. If any of you worked in B2B marketing, you would know that inclusion on rankings lists is something you pay for. It generally costs around $3000 for inclusion on some magazine's "Top 100" list. Paid media is not credible for establishing notability. I don't see how a small company that sells arcade machines meets Wikipedia's notability standards. The Chinese carry out across the street from my apartment has more press coverage than BMI Gaming and they aren't on Wikipedia. Sonstephen0 ( talk) 18:57, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ~~ OxonAlex - talk 14:15, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Résumé-like WP:BLP of an engineer, not properly sourced as clearing our notability standards for engineers. The references here are his own résumé in a Dropbox account and the self-published website of an organization he's directly affiliated with, not reliable source coverage that would establish his notability -- and while there are awards listed in the infobox (but not addressed in the body text), every award that exists is not always an automatic free pass over WP:ANYBIO: even an award still counts as a notability claim only to the extent that the award itself can be reliably sourced as a notable one, and people are not exempted from having to have any non-primary sourcing just because the article has the word "award" in it. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt Saffa Riffat from having to have much better sources than this. Bearcat ( talk) 18:51, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The result was merge to Maricopa County, Arizona#Education. (non-admin closure) ~~ OxonAlex - talk 14:15, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
WP:MILL local government position. No WP:SIGCOV besides routine wording in state statues. Willsome429 ( say hey or see my edits!) 17:39, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ~~ OxonAlex - talk 14:16, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Unremarkable Person Mdriscoll03 ( talk) 17:35, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. – Joe ( talk) 20:22, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Highly advertorialized article about a television advertising producer, not properly referenced as clearing our notability standards for that career. The notability claim here basically boils down to claims that he won awards, but every award that exists is not always an automatic WP:ANYBIO freebie that exempts a person from having to clear WP:GNG on the sources -- the difference between an award that counts as a notability-maker for its winners and an award that does not hinges specifically on whether that award gets media coverage about the award presentation or not. An award whose ceremony gets reported by the media as news makes its winners notable; an award that can be referenced only to the awarding organization's self-published press release, because media coverage about it is non-existent, does not. But this entire article is referenced only to an award organization's press release, and everything else in it is personal information added by the subject himself with no sources for any of it. Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform for people to write about themselves in an advertorialized way; it is an encyclopedia, where notability requires real reliable and independent sources. Bearcat ( talk) 16:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Lacking sufficient evidence of real-world notability. There was no discussion of a redirect, which is a common result for characters like this; if there is an appropriate target, I assume re-creation as a redirect would be OK. RL0919 ( talk) 01:39, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Non-notable fictional character TTN ( talk) 16:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
explanation of possible notability |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The licensing deal between Hasbro and Marvel for the Transformers comics gave Hasbro the copyright/trademark/legal rights to every concept and character that debuted in the series, which showed the giant robots interacting with Marvel heroes like Spider-Man. Circuitbreaker was created for Transformers, but Marvel snuck her into an issue of Secret Wars first to retain copyright to her. She became a significant character in the Transformers comic, but when the license passed on to different publishers in later decades, the copyright status played havoc with attempts to reprint the old Marvel stories. See this, this, and this for starters. Argento Surfer ( talk) 14:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC) |
The result was delete. While consensus here is to delete, should new sources be found down the road those sources could be considered for notability.. Barkeep49 ( talk) 01:39, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Biography of a person notable only as a smalltown mayor, not referenced as the subject of enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:NPOL #2. To be fair, this was actually created in 2004, a time when we accepted an article about practically anybody who had ever been mayor of anywhere because we hadn't really codified our notability standards for politicians at all yet -- but under the standards that apply in 2019, making a smalltown mayor notable enough for an article requires a lot more than just one or two pieces of cursory verification that he existed. Mayors are also not automatically notable just because they've had local infrastructure in their own town named after them, so the library and the hospital aren't notability clinchers -- but the sources here are a primary source that is not support for notability at all, a single retrospective article in the local newspaper, and a brief unsubstantive blurb about the probation of his will -- but every mayor of everywhere can always show two or three sources of this type to verify that he existed, so this is not enough to establish the permanent notability of a smalltown mayor all by itself. The key to making a smalltown mayor notable enough for an article is to show substantive and well-sourced reasons why he's much more special than most other smalltown mayors, not just to verify that he existed. Bearcat ( talk) 16:03, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. – Joe ( talk) 20:19, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Unreferenced essay. Rathfelder ( talk) 15:36, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. – Joe ( talk) 20:19, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Very technical and impenetrable and out of date. Not obviously notable Rathfelder ( talk) 15:33, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
18:40, 21 September 2019 (UTC)The result was delete. I'd be happy to draftify on request. – Joe ( talk) 20:18, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
WP:TOOSOON by a long way. The only sources are press releases, there are no known stars in the film and the producer owns the production company, so it's basically self-published. Guy ( help!) 14:19, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The result was Withdrawn. Giant Snowman 17:06, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Subject is a footballer/soccer player. Fails to satisfy WP:NSOCCER as subject has yet to played in a professional club under Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues guidelines. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 14:03, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 13:34, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
No indication of notability per WP:GNG or WP:NSOFTWARE. Google search comes up with fewer than 100 results, none of which discuss it significantly. ... discospinster talk 13:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 13:34, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Unreferenced article. Organisation may no longer exist. Rathfelder ( talk) 13:19, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The result was keep. I note that the article has been greatly expanded from its nominated version, and the nominator's concerns have been addressed. (non-admin closure) feminist ( talk) 10:56, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
No claim of importance or significance, and no independent references. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 01:35, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. – Joe ( talk) 20:16, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Originally a highly promotional article, which has been edited to remove much of the more blatant promo issues. However, I still think there's a WP:CORPDEPTH issue because, despite the copious references, they are almost all articles about a famous/interesting weapon that is being auctioned, and give a passing mention to the auction company. The only exception are a couple of small articles in trade publications, which should be taken with a huge pinch of salt given the questionable independence. Overall, a lack of reliable, independent sources covering RIA in sufficient depth, so this is a WP:NORG and WP:GNG fail. Hug syrup 10:00, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 15:58, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Yunshui 雲 水 11:33, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Not notable. There are no independent sources. Obmpeace ( talk) 16:15, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Yunshui 雲 水 11:33, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Non-notable company. Lacks WP:GNG and WP: COMPANY Beasteggs ( talk) 06:41, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The result was keep. A wider discussion on the merits of such articles may be in order elsewhere, but there is a clear consensus here that WP:NOTSTATS#3 currently allows for content like this to exist. Yunshui 雲 水 11:36, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
This - currently en.Wikipedia's largest article - is chiefly a mass of data, from original sources, which would be better uploaded to Commons as spreadsheet-compatible CSV data files. This is not what Wikipedia is for. If kept, it should be reduced to a summary of tertiary sources which in turn summarise the statistics. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
"chiefly a mass of data, from original sources, which would be better uploaded to Commons as spreadsheet-compatible CSV data files. This is not what Wikipedia is for"are you having trouble seeing? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:18, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
from original sources-bit is also false, btw: it can be easily checked that the vast majority of the sources are from websites reporting on the polls, not from self-published sources. So they are mostly not "original", actually (merely as a matter of getting all facts right, not that this would be a valid reason for deletion, actually). Impru20 talk 18:37, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context. Where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article(i.e. exactly what is done with opinion polling articles), right? Further, the argument you propose is surprising: no one would argue that List of World War II battles should be removed just because such data is "ephemeral" and since we know the actual result of the war. Impru20 talk 17:53, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
context or explanation, which is not the same. Namely, that
statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context. Where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article. This is very clear and is not subject to other interpretations, and is exactly what is done for most (if not all) opinion polling articles (including the 2012 US one). I should remind that it was you who brought NOTSTATS into the fray, so I will not make any assumptions on whether the actual writing of the policy is appropiate or not because this is not the venue for it. It should be noted that, as of currently, a massive amount of articles are abiding to that policy, so if you consider that the writing of it is an issue, it wouldn't be one of this article in particular but one affecting many others. The solution for that would be to achieve a consensus for reforming the policy, not for us to cherry-pick in a whimp (and against current policy) which articles should be deleted and which ones not. Impru20 talk 19:43, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
"Size isn't a make-or-break issue"- true; and size is also not the rationale given in the deletion nomination. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:15, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article.These statistics are too large to be placed within 2018 Italian general election so it should be in a separate article. feminist ( talk) 10:53, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete. Notability is not asserted. The article is promotional in tone. The original text is at least partially a direct copy from the company website. In addition we already have five delete !votes and no argument has been presented for keeping. Haukur ( talk) 09:34, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Company doesn't meet Wikipedia basic notability guidelines. Seems like a promotional article Doingitgimpy ( talk) 08:45, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 07:46, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
I am struggling to confirm his notability. I can see mirrors of our article (or bits of it) but little else. I would have thought that someone who was suffering from a degenerative eye condition and engaged with art would attract a lot of attention if their life was notable. The sources in the article are self-published or from the cult/sect/religion/whatever related to Meher Baba, the premises of which seem likely to be the collections "around the world" to which the article refers. We say that one of his writings - Journey Out of Darkness - was not published but simultaneously cite it, which is confusing although I did find what may be the thing here. There was a (now dead) link to South Carolina Commissions for the Blind but that seems to have been to verify that the SCCB exists, not that Ott was there. All a bit of a mess, I'm afraid, and probably the result of a creator with some sort of Meher Baba COI. Sitush ( talk) 07:27, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete. The article was speedily deleted by administrator RHaworth at 08:11, September 16, 2019 per WP:CSD#G11. Mz7 ( talk) 10:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
I am struggling to find the notability of this company in RS 10MB ( talk) 07:22, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 07:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
The subject of the article does not meet notability guidelines, failing to meet every criteria per WP:AUTHOR. KidAd ( talk) 07:05, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 07:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
I believe this page fails WP:BLPCRIME/ WP:CRIMINAL. It is a poorly sourced BLP article as well, and in-depth sources on his life do not seem readily available. HickoryOughtShirt?4 ( talk) 06:13, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 07:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Footballer who fails NFOOTY. Despite the number of references, I believe he also fails GNG as almost all of the sources are trivial transfer updates. -- BlameRuiner ( talk) 05:36, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 07:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Fails WP:ATHLETE. Inherent notability does not come from being a D1 football player. CNMall41 ( talk) 05:27, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 07:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Subject fails WP:SIGCOV as only one piece actually discusses the subject at length and even that coverage is WP:ROUTINE. Appears to be a page to promote the subject's candidacy in Canada's 2019 federal election. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 05:16, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Yunshui 雲 水 11:32, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Subject fails WP:ANYBIO. There are a lot of references but they are about his business, him giving advice, brief mentions, or unreliable. The only reference that focuses on him is a Forbes article but that was written by a contributor with no editorial oversite. CNMall41 ( talk) 05:16, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 07:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
fails WP:NGRIDIRON; fails WP:GNG Joeykai ( talk) 04:22, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The result was keep. Tone 07:43, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Non-notable actress who has only appeared in minor television roles. Contested prod. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 04:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The result was keep. Tone 07:43, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
This is basically a PSA. For a worthy cause, but still a PSA and that's WP:NOT why we're here. Created by a WP:SPA as part of a walled garden of articles related to Diono, some of which I've already deleted under WP:G11. This one is a little better, so bringing it here. None of the sources in the article are WP:INDEPENDENT or WP:SECONDARY; they're all just announcements from the entities sponsoring the event. My own searching failed to come up with anything better. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:48, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
The result was keep. Seems GNG is met. Tone 07:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Still not meeting WP:BIO or WP:AUTHOR. They have a new book out, but what appears to be coverage in the Guardian is in fact him running a "masterclass" i.e. not independent or reliable. SmartSE ( talk) 19:04, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Would it be acceptable to replace the Guardian citation with either of the following? https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/333412 or https://www.fastcompany.com/40579601/this-behavioral-designers-top-brain-hacks-for-beating-distraction ? Both reference the same information and may be considered more independent and reliable, yes? Even if those replacement citations won't work and the info about his second good needs to be removed he still qualifies as notable under WP:AUTHOR since he developed the "hook model" and has been cited a fair amount on Google scholar: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C50&q=%22Hooked%3A+How+to+build+habit-forming+products%22&btnG= Scruitineer ( talk) 13:17, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 04:08, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Just another porn performer BLP with negligible independent reliable sourcing and no legitimate assertion of notability. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. ( talk) 01:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 02:58, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Yet another porn-related BLP without independent reliable sourcing or a legitmate claim of notability. And the "lingerie shoot" story is standard porn kayfabe. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. ( talk) 01:18, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 04:08, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
This article came to my attention after I noticed several suspected WP:PAID accounts created it/worked on it. Nearly all of the references that looked like they might meet WP:RS were broken or did not mention the subject. The only one that wasn't broken, an uncredited article in India Times, looks like a press release. That article includes the sentence "He has been listed by Wikipedia as an Indian mentor, trainer and curriculum developer," which is a bit WP:CIRCULAR for a reference. OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:57, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
This discussion is ongoing at WP:ANI under Wikihounding, false_accusations |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
The result was speedy deleted as WP:G5 by User:Berean Hunter. (non-admin closure) FoxyGrampa75 ( talk) 18:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
No indication of notability per WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. ... discospinster talk 00:13, 16 September 2019 (UTC)