The result was delete. -- BDD ( talk)
Author of a single book, which, according to WorldCat, is found in only 34 libraries.
The claimed praise in this obviously promotional article cannot be verified. Sullivan is not on the faculty of Stanford, though she was associated with them once, and the material is not on her blog. The other items cannot be found either--I assume they were book jacket blurbs or the equivalent--I can find them nowhere except the publishers web site. Tho not mentioned in the article, it was [1] reviewed in the TLS] which is the only thing of any significance . I don't think this is enough for notability of the author or the book. querystring=will+le+fleming§ionId=1797&p=tls] The book is not exactly self-published, but the publisher has never published anything else.
His other novels remain unpublished DGG ( talk ) 23:26, 14 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- BDD ( talk) 18:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Does not meet criteria of WP:NACTOR or WP:BIO. I am unable to find significant discussion of the subject in multiple reliable sources. Google search brings up social media and blogs. He has not appeared in any films yet. ... discospinster talk 23:11, 14 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 19:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC) reply
DePRODded. Fails WP:GNG - could not find WP:RS. Someone might need to check for Russian sources, but to me just seems like an experimental prototype that never went into production. Ansh 666 23:03, 14 June 2013 (UTC) reply
I tried to find a Russian source. Got nothing either. DrunkSquirrel ( talk) 02:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Minnesota gubernatorial election, 2014. See WP:POLOUTCOMES. -- BDD ( talk) 18:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC) reply
No sign of independent sources with in-depth coverage. Note that the Forbes article appears to have been cut and pasted from here which is clearly not independent. Wikipedia:POLITICIAN and established practice is pretty clear that publicity generated as part of a political nomination doesn't count. Stuartyeates ( talk) 21:07, 14 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Here is a "notable businessman" source * [3] -- Billybob2002 ( talk) 02:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted by User:Acroterion under criterion G11. ( non-admin closure) • Gene93k ( talk) 00:10, 15 June 2013 (UTC) reply
This article's reference is only their website. I believe this article is only here for promoting a company. I don't find any references to a reliable source. Ghostboy1997 ( talk) 20:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:45, 22 June 2013 (UTC) reply
I'm an Ender's Game fan myself, but this article is entirely sourced to OSC and the Ender's Game series. It falls severely afoul of 'in-universe' style writing and doesn't contain any evidence of real world notability or significance. v/r - T P 20:16, 14 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. SarahStierch ( talk) 16:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC) reply
This article doesn't fit the notability guidelines, I didn't thought about it enough when I created it, sorry Lubeca2013 ( talk) 18:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 19:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC) reply
PRODded with reasoning of "Non-notable NCAA college basketball coach - fails WP:NCOLLATH." DePRODded because "Removing prod due to faulty nomination rationale. NCOLLATH specifically applies to college players, not coaches, and is inapplicable here." Faulty de-PROD reasoning refuted here (sorry if I'm a bit blunt). Original rationale still stands. Ansh 666 18:26, 14 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) czar · · 18:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC) reply
No references or sources. Most of the entries in the article are red links. The orphan status of the article suggests that it is not linked to and so not needed. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- BDD ( talk) 18:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Appears to be a biography of a person known for only one event. Even in question appears to be a standard human interest story in which a exemption was made, and appears to have little chance of either resulting in a) any changes in circumstances or regulations or b) any lasting notability. Terri Schiavo she ain't. Sceptre ( talk) 17:49, 14 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus to delete. Without prejudice to a trim and move, as proposed below. -- Y not? 15:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC) reply
No reliable sources. Only recently established. Luciandrei ( talk) 19:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 19:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC) reply
This armed robbery would seem to fall under WP:NOT NEWS. DGG ( talk ) 17:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to May Isang Pangarap. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:46, 22 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Article is in an awful state already and a quick Google search comes up with some viable results (but fails WP:ENT). This is why I'm not marking this for speedy deletion. Insulam Simia ( talk) 12:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- BDD ( talk) 19:02, 21 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The article contents fail WP:SPORTSEVENT in that they lack well-sourced prose discussing the event and do not assert the event's notability. The events also appear to fail WP:GNG as coverage of the events are WP:ROUTINE fight announcements and results. TreyGeek ( talk) 16:23, 14 June 2013 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:
The result was delete. -- BDD ( talk) 19:18, 21 June 2013 (UTC) reply
WP:BLP1E. Also, as it is the article is a horrid violation of WP:BLPREMOVE. Shii (tock) 12:32, 30 May 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- BDD ( talk) 19:22, 21 June 2013 (UTC) reply
See list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan/Historical people. A quick search of Google books shows no support. The stub article does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject. Enkyo2 ( talk) 18:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Comment - As context, does it make sense to compare Amakasu Kagetsugu and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amakasu clan? --Enkyo2 12:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Comment - Date Sanemoto (伊達実元) wasn't fictional. His father's attempt to make him heir of the Uesugi by having Uesugi Sadazane adopt him led to the Tenbun War (天文の乱). He was also the father of Date Shigezane, who is notable. I don't know if that qualifies Sanemoto himself as notable, though. Cckerberos ( talk) 14:28, 9 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. This is clearly quite a tough call, especially given how polarized the debate is. I'm therefore going to make a few comments on my close. When an editor alleges that an article has no reliable sources to establish notability, the onus is then on those wishing to keep the article to provide the discussion with sources. Doncram makes some interesting arguments to support keeping the article, which suggest that there must be secondary sources available offline due to it being on the Los Angeles Historic-Cultural monuments list. However, he has not provided any sources. AfD is not about speculation - We must resort to firm evidence in these discussions. As there has been no evidence provided, I must give these comments less weight. alf laylah wa laylah makes an important suggestion that a designation as a LAHC monument confers notability - If others had agreed with this, I would have closed this AfD as keep. However, the numerous users wishing to delete the article suggest that this does not automatically confer notability, and the article must pass the general notability guideline in order for the article to remain. I am persuaded by this point, and this is something that those wishing to keep the article have failed to rebut. As such, I conclude that the consensus is to delete the article. This is without prejudice to anyone putting a redirect in place to List of Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monuments in the Wilshire and Westlake areas or List of Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monuments in South Los Angeles, whichever it is decided is the correct list. Further, should anyone wish to merge the content, I am happy to userfy the article in order for histories to be merged. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Not notable enough for a standalone article. The property is designated historic by the city, but not by the National Register of Historic Places which would make it automatically notable. The only reference provided is generic and not specific to this property. Everything in this article is already duplicated in the article Victoria Park, Los Angeles. I considered proposing a redirect to that article, but IMO the name "Craftsman Mansion" is too generic to use as a redirect. MelanieN ( talk) 16:41, 26 May 2013 (UTC) reply
Comment Several here have asserted that only national registers matter for Wikipedia. Since when? That is just not true, there is no such finding in Wikipedia. Ask, if you wish, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Historic sites, which I and others founded to cover local, national, international historic registers. There is absolutely no such finding.
And, redirecting this article to the List-article, which itself includes redlinks and bluelinks linking to individual listing topics, doesn't make sense. You don't complete out a list article by converting every redlink into a link back to the same list-article. -- do ncr am 12:12, 28 May 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC) reply
mid level kerala state civil service bureaucrat. Uncletomwood ( talk) 09:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. -- BDD ( talk) 19:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Not assertion of notability other than "this thing existed at one point". No real content of this article and no liklihood it will ever have any.
UnrepentantTaco (
talk) 15:13, 14 June 2013 (UTC) [Edit reverted as per
WP:BE and
[7].
Unscintillating (
talk) 02:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)]
reply
The result was keep. No prejudice towards a merge discussion. Mark Arsten ( talk) 19:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:GNG. No out of universe notability. JJ98 ( Talk) 02:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Secret account 21:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC) reply
There is no topic here beyond what can be easily covered in the Chinatown article. If there was a phenomenon called "second Chinatown" then where are the books, papers and articles about it? The various instances of "second Chinatown" that I have found in book sources are mentioned in passing only; it is just as often chronological than geographical. (This article assumes only geographical.) Any city that can boast two Chinatowns, one main/original and one secondary/later one, can be described in the Chinatown article. Binksternet ( talk) 13:58, 14 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Unverifiable crystal balling. No idea whether it is a hoax, wishful thinking, or insider information, but as far as I can tell, none of this has been confirmed (or even rumoured for the most part) in any sources. Fails WP:V completely. Fram ( talk) 13:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy deleted per A7 by INeverCry ( talk · contribs). Note that the article was moved to Zarrin Ghazal Co. after this AfD was opened. At the time of closure Zarrin ghazal was tagged for G8 (redirect to invalid target). Non-admin closure. — KuyaBriBri Talk 17:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Possible WP:NOTE issue Josh1024 ( talk) 13:26, 14 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:44, 22 June 2013 (UTC) reply
non-notable - upon carrying out due diligence, it appears that there are no reliable third party articles about Obelisk International. This is supported by the improper referencing on the article, whereby none of the references even mention Obelisk International and seem to simply be websites of reputable organisations which either just talk about Brazilian social housing or aren't relevant to the subject at all. In no way do any of them demonstrate Obelisk International's notability. Samstreet133 ( talk) 09:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Merging the content to one or more other pages is a possibilty, but that's a whole other discussion - as far as AFD goes, the consensus seems to be Keep. Yunshui 雲 水 11:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The contents of the article are already present in some existing articles like Stranded Pakistanis, 1971 Bangladesh genocide etc. Hence the article is totally redundant and should be deleted. Also, none of the sources claim this as persecution, the page was a created as a POV fork as the creator threatened before. -- Zayeem (talk) 18:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC) reply
So, as now you have clarified yourself, It seems debatable... Now, considering your statement, that the things have been already put up there, It would be good to collect all such scattered information into one article. Repetetions do not matter then, I suggest you see this.— Шαмıq ☪ тαʟκ✍ @ 18:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC) reply
For your attention, In 1971 Bangladeshis were called by
Tikka Khan and
Yahya Khan as culprits. On the other hand Mir Abdul Aziz and Malik Ghulam Jilani named them as victims! They all were pakistani! and it is your choice to find out who was right and neutral!
another thing! I have no problem to show the negative situation of Bangladesh! but it should be fair and neutral, almost in the near of reality! Samudrakula ( talk) 22:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC) reply
"The main motive to create this article is to present anti-bangladeshi propaganda!" That there is enough evidence of a conflict of interest from these pov pushers Zayeem and co 86.151.237.220 ( talk) 10:58, 11 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Off-topic |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
*Keep Per Mard and IP arguments very well sourced and informative article.
Kratos007745757 (
talk) 11:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC) Sock of Nangparbat
Zayeem
(talk) 18:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
reply
*Keep After much consideration and review I believe this article is relevant and appropriate it covers human rights issues which are still on going despite claims by Zayeem et al BBC has recently produced articles and documentaries on the plight of Biharis I have read a few this year. Zayeem giving someone the right to vote while they live in horrid conditions does not make things better I am surprised there are people out there who still believe Biharis are not be persecuted when up to date sources from neutral avenues claim otherwise it is a well referenced article and any attempt to delete is pure
WP:CENSOR as for Zayeem et al your arguments hold very little water and personally to me sound like
WP:IDONTLIKEIT (please do not take this personally) the other articles of which you speak of are not sufficient to fully state the issue and so the topic in my opinion is worthy of a stand alone article.
RameshJain9 (
talk) 08:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC) Sock of Nangparbat
Zayeem
(talk) 18:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
reply
*Comment^^Strange how nationalists do not understand what human rights abuses are then in their desperation accuse others of being single purpose accounts. Do Armanj et al even have an ounce of neutrality within them?. You wave around a single OP-ED source as the word of god do not make me laugh Persecution does not have to be a pogrom I understand this article may be hurting your bangla nationalism but this is a reality of Biharis in your nation. Zayeem armanJ etc are all Bangladeshi nationalists and beyond that I don't see how they could ever see the truth of the sources provided disgusting behaviour unfortunately many Bengalis are still playing the victims since 1971 this is not the case any more get over it and be neutral for once.
RameshJain9 (
talk) 12:28, 19 June 2013 (UTC) Sock of Nangparbat
Zayeem
(talk) 18:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
*Note Even though certain users such as Armanj are trying to divert the AFD by shoving sources here and there to add weight in their argument those two sources are miniscule compared to these :^ Moss, Peter (2005). Secondary Social Studies For Pakistan. Karachi: Oxford University Press. p. 93.
ISBN
9780195977042. Retrieved June 10, 2013.
reply
Reliable sources
|
---|
^ Google books ^ a b Zehra, Batool. "The other side of history". Tribune.com.pk. Retrieved 2013-05-25. ^ a b "Chronology for Biharis in Bangladesh". The Minorities at Risk (MAR) Project. Retrieved 27 March 2013. ^ a b Statistics Of Pakistan's Democide ^ Siddiqui 1990, p. 153. ^ A. R. Siddiqui, East Pakistan - the Endgame: An Onlooker's Journal 1969-1971, Oxford University Press, 2004, p. 171. ^ (Al Helal 2003, pp. 263–265) ^ James Heitzman and Robert Worden (eds), ed. (1989). "Pakistan Period (1947–71)". Bangladesh: A Country Study. Government Printing Office, Country Studies US. ISBN 0-16-017720-0. Retrieved 2007-06-16. ^ a b c M. R. Biju (2010). Developmental Issues in Contemporary India. Concept Publishing Company. pp. 246–. ISBN 978-81-8069-714-2. Retrieved 10 June 2013. ^ a b Hamoodur Rahman Commission, Chapter 2, Paragraph 33 ^ "3 MILLION Slaughtered Sheik MUJIB Charges 'Greatest Massacre'" The Portsmouth Herald, Monday, 17 January 1972, Portsmouth, New Hampshire ^ Hill et al, page 13 ^ Chatterji - Spoils of partition. Page 166 ^ Vazira Fazila-Yacoobali Zamindar (1 January 2007). The Long Partition and the Making of Modern South Asia: Refugees, Boundaries, Histories. Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0-231-13846-8. Retrieved 7 June 2013. ^ "Two-Nation Theory Exists". Pakistan Times.[dead link] ^ Carlo Caldarola (1982). Religions and societies, Asia and the Middle East. Walter de Gruyter. ISBN 978-90-279-3259-4. "... Hindu and Muslim cultures constitute two distinct, and frequently antagonistic, ways of life, and that therefore they cannot coexist in one nation ..." ^ Metcalf & Metcalf 2006, pp. 221–222 ^ "Two Nation Theory: The Myth, The Reality". Story of Pakistan. Retrieved 2013-06-07. ^ a b Brad K. Blitz; Maureen Lynch (1 January 2011). Statelessness and Citizenship: A Comparative Study on the Benefits of Nationality. Edward Elgar Publishing. pp. 117–. ISBN 978-1-84980-899-6. Retrieved 10 June 2013. ^ Nalini Natarajan; Emmanuel Sampath Nelson (1 January 1996). Handbook of Twentieth-Century Literatures of India. Greenwood Publishing Group. pp. 256–. ISBN 978-0-313-28778-7. Retrieved 10 June 2013. ^ "PRC Wants Urgent Steps for Biharis’ Repatriation", Arab News ^ "MQM demands issuance of CNICs to Biharis-2004", Dawn, 8 February 2004 ^ The Guardian ^ "Bangladesh State and the Refugee Phenomenon - The Bihari Refugees", South Asia Forum for Human Rights ^ "Citizens of Nowhere: The Stateless Biharis of Bangladesh", Refugees International 2006 report ^ Refugees International (see below) ^ "Musharraf wraps up Bangladesh visit", BBC News, 31 July 2002 ^ a b c d Christian Gerlach (14 October 2010). Extremely Violent Societies: Mass Violence in the Twentieth-Century World. Cambridge University Press. pp. 148–. ISBN 978-1-139-49351-2. Retrieved 30 March 2013. ^ a b Qutubuddin Aziz (1974). Blood and tears. Publications Division, United Press of Pakistan. Retrieved 4 June 2013. ^ "Controversial book accuses Bengalis of 1971 war crimes". BBC News. 5 June 2013. ^ "Massacre of Biharis in Bangladesh". The Age. March 15, 1972. Retrieved 2013-06-04. ^ Saikia, Yasmin (2011). Women, War, and the Making of Bangladesh: Remembering 1971. Duke University Press. p. 41. ISBN 978-0-8223-5038-5. ^ a b Gerlach, Christian (2010). Extremely Violent Societies: Mass Violence in the Twentieth-Century World (1st ed.). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-70681-0. ^ Bennett Jones, Owen (2003). Pakistan: eye of the storm (2nd revised ed.). Yale University Press. p. 171. ISBN 978-0-300-10147-8. ^ a b "Bangla Biharis weary of wait to migrate to Pakistan". Rediff.com. Retrieved 2013-06-05. ^ Shah, Mehtab Ali (1997). The Foreign Policy of Pakistan: Ethnic Impacts on Diplomacy 1971-1994. I.B.Tauris. ISBN 1860641695. ^ "Will Nitish's visit boost Biharis in Pakistan?". Times of India. Retrieved 2013-06-05. ^ "Biharis of Bangladesh, World Directory of Minorities". Faqs.org. Retrieved 2013-05-25. ^ http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/study-abroad/100714/bangladesh-ethnic-persecution-bihari-bengali ^ a b http://www.scientificjournals.org/journals2008/articles/1313.pdf ^ "Vote for 'stranded Pakistanis'", BBC News, 6 May 2003 ^ Mixed feelings over Bihari ruling - BBC News 28 May, 2003 ^ "Bangladesh: Stateless Biharis Grasp for a Resolution and Their Rights", Refugees International ^ "Court rules that young Biharis are Bangladesh citizens". Reuters. 19 May 2008. ^ a b "Citizenship for Bihari refugees". BBC News. 19 May 2008. ^ "Citizenship for Bihari refugees". BBC News. 2008-05-19. 7407757. Retrieved 2008-05-21. |
These 47 sources clearly illustrate what is going on in Bangladesh no matter how much Armanj trys to divert the AFD yet again
RameshJain9 (
talk) 12:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC) Sock of Nangparbat
Zayeem
(talk) 18:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
reply
*Suggestion: Well the above user is obviously full of garbage going around in circles stating the same thing over and over my keep vote above explains how this article is tremendously necessary however much it irks nationalist vandals it is a legitimate article end of discussion I do not feel the need to argue with brain dead nationalists.
RameshJain9 (
talk) 16:40, 19 June 2013 (UTC) Sock of Nangparbat
Zayeem
(talk) 18:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
reply
:The next time you accuse me of socking we will meet in ANI just because more people clearly want this article to stay doesn't mean the world is conspiring against you.
RameshJain9 (
talk) 18:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
reply
The main opposition would appear to be the following:
I will note that the decision to completely remove the Refugee crisis section from Stranded Pakistanis was exactly the kind of thing WP:POINT warns against. However, at this point, it would appear that the content of this article has grown rather extensive, and so if lack of size and comprehensiveness were reasons to bar such an article, those arguments are no longer strong and this topic appears to be turning into its own kind of thing. It would no longer be appropriate to paste all of this information into 1971_Bangladesh_genocide#Violence_against_Biharis or Stranded Pakistanis#Refugee crisis
As to the second point, it would appear that in fact, quite a few of the cited sources characterize the Biharis' treatment as persecution. Some of the examples are cited here in this discussion. The Tribune article about writer Aquila Ismail explicitly says, "But curiously, little has been written about the persecution faced by the Biharis."
The article does not claim that the violence of 1971 continues to today. The lead identifies the 1971 persecution of that time period as its main subject and later details the "Aftermath" of discrimination against Biharis living in Bangladesh who wish to repatriate to Pakistan. It would completely make sense to view their discrimination as a kind of "persecution", but the article does not say that the violence of the 40s and 70s is currently occurring.
I will just finally say that the opposition to this article needs to be more finely focused. If you object to the article's entire existence, why debate any particular aspect of it? That is to say: If an article should be rejected because it makes false and redundant claims, why even talk about writing it in a way that would remove its bias? Ender and Peter 22:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Mark Arsten ( talk) 20:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC) reply
May be hoax Josh1024 ( talk) 12:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC) reply
May be hoax Josh1024 ( talk) 12:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 20:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD. Fails WP:MUSIC, no substantive coverage by reliable third party sources. SFK2 ( talk) 05:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Failure to meet those criteria meanly an article it's flagged as must be kept. His increasing popularity while still in the early stage of his career might justify this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.67.238.29 ( talk) 02:41, 12 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Found him on Facebook. Should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.199.212 ( talk) 07:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:49, 22 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Does not assert notability, no reliable sources, fails WP:BAND. Boogerpatrol ( talk) 11:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:50, 22 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Non-notable group, most releases appear to be online only, little third party coverage. Earlier version speedied during AFD: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King Felix. Hairhorn ( talk) 19:23, 6 June 2013 (UTC) reply
King Felix on nme (music news website)
[1]
King Felix official music video with over 300,000 views and comments for a single video.
[2]
Gene93k is believed to be abusing the topic King Felix. Reasoning: multiple source proof of king felix sources moved and ignored by user Gene93k on multiple entries. example published magazine bunker hill reference post of king felix music repeatedly denied by user Gene93k. This leads to reasoning that Gene93k is vandalising/abusing information on this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwoulddawforyou ( talk • contribs) — Iwoulddawforyou ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
King Felix in downtown Los angeles new years eve headlining event. [3]v=10151143774430107&set=vb.206548683433&type=3&theater official videos King Felix in bunker hill magazine and flyer for events - [4] [5]
king felix in bunker hill magazine printed magazine release March issue- https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=229810457112942&set=a.103976523029670.6443.100002519680841&type=1&theater and original print - [6]
famous artist steve aoiki also in bunker hill magazine. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=407823168433&set=a.440797878433.231693.206548683433&type=3&theater steve aoki also headlined a bunker hill event. [7]
lana del ray cover of march issue King Felix was in, https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150613162048434&set=a.442087218433.233908.206548683433&type=1&relevant_count=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Retro-ranma ( talk • contribs) 13:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC) — Retro-ranma ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Retro-ranma ( talk • contribs) 11:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC) reply
This Goup does hold notability. released tracks on multiple record labels, porcs records, itchy tasty records, and group in union with ascap registration with songs home free, medicinal hookers,
physical albums are out example http://www.amazon.com/01-King-Felix-Touching-Original/dp/B009ZRX4DO http://www.discogs.com/King-Felix-The-Healing-Code/release/4566188 as well as legitimate online retailer beatport.com group also performs regularly in los angles and other areas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.104.73 ( talk) 05:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC) — 76.168.104.73 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
most releases appear to be online only, Again This is not true, I have linked physical copies to King Felix's albums on discogs, amazon and more already. and again stated numerous sources on their impact and
interaction with the edm community.
here are more images if need i found in commons http://www.google.com/imgres?start=416&safe=off&biw=1536&bih=794&tbs=sur:f&tbm=isch&tbnid=rCx5rYcF2i2JqM:&imgrefurl=http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:KingFelixMusic.png&docid=Z72BVsIcydzsKM&itg=1&imgurl=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b5/KingFelixMusic.png&w=1920&h=1080&ei=QVGyUaqKCsmxiQLetIGQCg&zoom=1&ved=1t:3588,r:44,s:400,i:136&iact=rc&dur=307&page=15&tbnh=168&tbnw=295&ndsp=29&tx=184&ty=67
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://userserve-ak.last.fm/serve/500/87638311/King%2BFelix%2Bimage.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.last.fm/music/King%2BFelix&h=500&w=500&sz=40&tbnid=i0-wk2xjG5FNLM:&tbnh=96&tbnw=96&zoom=1&usg=__RMlDUB5r8ZRRayc5s9h9aEngKhk=&docid=Ri9m3dnjggd6FM&sa=X&ei=RVKyUbWGLOb_igLFhIDgBg&ved=0CD8Q9QEwBDgK&dur=181— Preceding unsigned comment added by Retro-ranma ( talk • contribs)
Iwoulddawforyou ( talk) 21:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 20:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Creator removed my tag for G11 and then a new tag was placed for G2 but was declined. I am starting an AfD. This is advertising/promotion page only (G11) and is not a notable company. Tyros1972 Talk 10:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 11:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not for speculation. Tyros1972 Talk 09:22, 14 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 00:32, 23 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Band lacks notability. The battle of the bands is not a major competition ( Rockstar Uproar Festival Jaegermeister Battle of the Bands looks blue linked because parts of it are seperately linked). Band lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Article has a lot of sources but none are reliable sources that provide any depth of coverage about this band. Note the Colorado Gazette piece is about Rockstar Energy Drink “Uproar Festival” and only has a few short sentences about missing most of The Sammus Theory "and barely made it to see the next band, The Sammus Theory," ... "I will say from what I did hear though, that both openers did more than their share to get the festivities kicked off in a very traditionally heavy way. Props to you both, and an even bigger thank you to, The Sammus Theory, for actually not acting like rock-stars, and instead, hanging out talking with fans and signing anything until they were literally “sun burned red” from being out in the crowd for so long. Frigging awesome guys – mad props to you!". Not significant coverage. A seach found nothing better. duffbeerforme ( talk) 08:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 17:43, 25 June 2013 (UTC) reply
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 with the rationale Information removed making reference to Perkovic as a "former player" in order to comply with terms (ie. never having played a full professional game) to avoid deleting this page. This does not change the fact that he has received insufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG and does not meet WP:NSPORT as player or as a manager. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 08:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was : Speedily deleted as a blatant hoax. A reality show where the losers would be expelled from the class and from the country? Yes, right. - Mike Rosoft ( talk) 07:49, 15 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Since maintenance tags I placed keep getting removed instead of anything being improved with this article, I am opening an AfD since it's been up long enough and it cannot be removed. This article does not seem to meet wiki notability standards and I am unable to find any RS. Tyros1972 Talk 08:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Secret account 21:51, 22 June 2013 (UTC) reply
fails WP:GNG. could not find any indepth coverage of these relations. most of the article is based on the Kazakh honorary consulate website. neither country has a resident ambassador, trade is low at USD$7.3 million, and sure 7,000 Filipinos work in Kazakhstan but that's a tiny proportion of the 9.4 million Overseas Filipinos. LibStar ( talk) 07:58, 14 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 20:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC) reply
I came across this one after looking at another article and unfortunately despite the claims in this article, I wasn't able to find where this person is as notable as they would need to be in order to remain on Wikipedia. The current state of the article is different than what it originally looked like, but then I was trying pretty hard to cull any of the obituary-type prose and find some notability. Other than one or two brief mentions here and there, I can't really find where she's all that notable. She's mentioned in this link as a "leading trompe l'oeil artist", but I can find nothing else that mentions her in this light and we need more than one news article (that reads a lot like a press release) to really show that someone is actually a leading figure in something. There's a brief mention of her in a book about her stuff as far as a museum goes, but I can't tell if it was a permanent exhibition, a temporary one, or even if it's the same person at all. All I get is a brief snapshot of a page. Other than that we have the assertion of some awards, none of which I can really find a mention of outside of this page or outside of the primary source. I feel a little bad nominating both this page and the one for her grandson at the same time, but neither person seems to have any real notability here. If anyone can dig something up I'd be most obliged, but I don't really think there's notability here. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 04:05, 31 May 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete-- Ymblanter ( talk) 04:02, 22 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The politician has not won a public office nor has attained notability through an Award or other checks. He is holding a position in a political party but does not satisfy the notability criteria Townblight ( talk) 02:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC) reply
DeleteAs per nominator Uncletomwood ( talk) 16:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Also, will rename: Khok Sung, Nakhon Ratchasima. ( non-admin closure) czar · · 17:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC) reply
This is some sort of reference to the geography of Thailand, perhaps, but what it is exactly is unclear and unsourced. Gamaliel ( talk) 17:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination ( non-admin closure) czar · · 17:31, 21 June 2013 (UTC) reply
I don't think this passes WP:NOT NEWS DGG ( talk ) 04:05, 31 May 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. In 29 days, we've had four comments (including the nominator), all with different opinions as to what should be done to the article, as such, there is clearly no consensus to do anything. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC) reply
No reliable secondary reference to assure the credibility of the article. Benedictdilton ( talk) 18:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete-- Ymblanter ( talk) 06:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC) reply
non notable midlevel civil servant.a similar deleted page can be looked at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Upendra Tripathy (2nd nomination) Uncletomwood ( talk) 11:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn ( non-admin closure) czar · · 11:04, 15 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Non-notable company. The article has no reliable sources, and Google search doesn't turn up much outside of their own press releases. The article's main claim to notability appears to be that the company is endorsed by Mrs. Obama and/or the US Congress. I don't believe that is true. They may have lobbied for laws that would block competition from stale unhealthy vending machines, and they certainly applauded its passage, but there is nothing notable about a company being pleased when an act of government helps boost its market share by kneecapping its competitors. Kilopi ( talk) 06:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 20:22, 21 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Article about a web-based application. Only one independent source is available, providing minimal coverage of the subject. Fails WP:NSOFT. - Mr X 20:16, 6 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Added second independent source to article. -- Tz718 ( talk) 21:36, 6 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was withdrawn-- Ymblanter ( talk) 06:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Withdrawn by nominator --- Redirecting to Awadh since all of the four proposed regions already exist in Wikipedia as historical regions. Thanks, Anand ( talk page) 20:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Proposed Indian district that is unlikely to happen in the near future Thanks, Anand ( talk page) 07:00, 14 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 20:21, 21 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Per page moves specified here: Talk:Pacific_Motorway_(Sydney–Newcastle)#Move_Proposal. Article now contains redundant information as Pacific Motorway (Sydney–Newcastle) and Pacific Motorway (Ewingsdale–Brisbane) now exist, and a disambiguation page will be created at Pacific Motorway. All information here has been merged into the appropriate articles. Marcnut1996 ( talk) 06:58, 14 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. This was a tough call, but essentially we have 2 people wishing to delete the article and 2 people wishing to keep the article. Essentially the users wishing to delete argue there are no secondary sources, those wishing to keep argue there are. As such, I believe that there is no consensus to either keep or delete this article. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Non-notable student society, in fact more like a statement for a student society which is no different to every other university societies, in fact a billion miles, let alone nowhere as notable to even its own rowing societies.
All sources are from its own student magazines and therefore with reliable third party sources Donnie Park ( talk) 15:02, 30 May 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep. Nominator withdrew discussion. Rs chen 7754 07:21, 15 June 2013 (UTC) reply
No highway does not exists like Interstate 570 (although it had its
AFD was deleted a year ago and deleted again), since there's no announcement , logs or construction date. Nothing but speculation.
JJ98 (
Talk) 06:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
reply
Also nominating for the same reason since it does not exist, although it appeared Google Maps, but nothing has been signed:
The result was no consensus. Per Wikipedia:Deletion process#No quorum Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC) reply
article is nearly WP:ALLPLOT, and no indication of notability of this particular episode. if you were to remove the plot, the continuity trivia section, and the cultural references trivia section, you would be left with a single episode review. Frietjes ( talk) 20:11, 30 May 2013 (UTC) reply
The episode is notable in the fact it gives the entire backstory as to why the plot of the series itself exists. The plot can be made much more concise but isn't the goal to eventually provide information on all the episodes of a show such as other series see How I Met Your Mother, M*A*S*H, etc. Comedian1018 ( talk)
What else would need to be added for the article to stay as a standalone page? Comedian1018 ( talk)
The result was redirect to List of stars in Corona Australis. I'm working on the assumption that those wishing to delete are ambivalent to the article being redirected. If not, please come and see me on my talk page and we can discuss it. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO. Although some Google Scholar hits do turn up for the various designations of this star, they are all purely in passing or in a large list. StringTheory11 ( t • c) 02:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Drmies ( talk) 04:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC) reply
fails WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN. This article was created as a first major edit of a new account on 8 June, and maybe no coincidence that this is created less than 3 months till the Australian federal election, 2013 . he is a candidate and that does not mean automatically notable, I've found a few mentions of comments made by him as a candidate, but that in itself does not establish notability. LibStar ( talk) 01:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. The consensus here seems to be relatively evenly split between merge/redirect and keep. On top of that, we have a significant number of users suggesting the AfD is unbundled. As such, it's extremely unclear what the consensus is, as such I'm closing this as no consensus. I would suggest that individual articles be renominated individually so each article can be judged on its own merits. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC) reply
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
This group nomination constitutes the remaining membership of the International Council of 13 Indigenous Grandmothers, which is also nominated for deletion. (Several members are already separately nominated, and two do not have articles.) The problem all around is the same: the only real sources are publications of the council itself or its sponsoring organization, or in some instances other self-published sources. There is a decided lack of real third party sourcing excepting a very few fugitive references. I will admit that I haven't read each article in great detail, and that a few may well have some notability independent of membership in this group; if they be identified I will split them out into separate nominations or remove them entirely. But it seems unnecessary to subject everyone to a blow-by-blow deletion of each. Mangoe ( talk) 19:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC) reply
It has been a great honor to work closely with the International Council of Thirteen Indigenous Grandmothers in crafting this book. [....] I have done my best to express what I have heard and learned from the Grandmothers, but my ability to act as a bridge or translator to a wider audience is, to a certain extent, hindered by the limits of my own understanding and experience. [....] Finally, though my name appears on the cover of this book, the words of wisdom expressed within it are not mine, and I do not lay claim to them.
As the primary point of contention appears to be the notability or not of these individuals, separate from the group, I have posted notice of this AFD to the notability noticeboard. Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard#13_grandmothers_AFD Gaijin42 ( talk) 17:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The women inflame the air with sage ...
Sisters Rita and Beatrice Long Visitor Holy Dance
invoke an end to Star Wars, 3rd grade gangs, bedroom rape
Chant of babies from un-united states of Fallujah, Kabul,
Phoenix, Katmandu. The grandmothers share
words their elders didn’t — suicide, diabetes, radioactive
Seek Windows and webs that suspend age, that
mid-wife old ladies into shamans, laps into lap-tops
One grandma teaching another how mushrooms absorb
petroleum spills, how dollars green into trees, roots
detox crystal meth ... [1]
Til, where on earth do you get the idea that one passing reference to a person in a source means that they deserve to have an article on Wikipedia? I could find many more references to myself and possibly to my next door neighbour. Paul B ( talk) 21:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. No prejudice towards recreation when the relevant guidelines are met. Mark Arsten ( talk) 17:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC) reply
PROD contested for this reason – Consensus has been in the past that a player making an appearance for a fully pro side in a competitive game meets the spirit (if not the letter of the law) of WP:NFOOTY regardless of the opposition (i.e. playing non-fully pro sides in cup games). That is not true. In order for a player to meet WP:NFOOTBALL by making a competitive cup appearance, both clubs have to be fully pro. Lopez's cup appearance came against a PDL club, which is not fully pro. Therefore he still fails WP:NFOOTBALL. He also fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. – Michael ( talk) 00:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- BDD ( talk)
Author of a single book, which, according to WorldCat, is found in only 34 libraries.
The claimed praise in this obviously promotional article cannot be verified. Sullivan is not on the faculty of Stanford, though she was associated with them once, and the material is not on her blog. The other items cannot be found either--I assume they were book jacket blurbs or the equivalent--I can find them nowhere except the publishers web site. Tho not mentioned in the article, it was [1] reviewed in the TLS] which is the only thing of any significance . I don't think this is enough for notability of the author or the book. querystring=will+le+fleming§ionId=1797&p=tls] The book is not exactly self-published, but the publisher has never published anything else.
His other novels remain unpublished DGG ( talk ) 23:26, 14 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- BDD ( talk) 18:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Does not meet criteria of WP:NACTOR or WP:BIO. I am unable to find significant discussion of the subject in multiple reliable sources. Google search brings up social media and blogs. He has not appeared in any films yet. ... discospinster talk 23:11, 14 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 19:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC) reply
DePRODded. Fails WP:GNG - could not find WP:RS. Someone might need to check for Russian sources, but to me just seems like an experimental prototype that never went into production. Ansh 666 23:03, 14 June 2013 (UTC) reply
I tried to find a Russian source. Got nothing either. DrunkSquirrel ( talk) 02:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Minnesota gubernatorial election, 2014. See WP:POLOUTCOMES. -- BDD ( talk) 18:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC) reply
No sign of independent sources with in-depth coverage. Note that the Forbes article appears to have been cut and pasted from here which is clearly not independent. Wikipedia:POLITICIAN and established practice is pretty clear that publicity generated as part of a political nomination doesn't count. Stuartyeates ( talk) 21:07, 14 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Here is a "notable businessman" source * [3] -- Billybob2002 ( talk) 02:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted by User:Acroterion under criterion G11. ( non-admin closure) • Gene93k ( talk) 00:10, 15 June 2013 (UTC) reply
This article's reference is only their website. I believe this article is only here for promoting a company. I don't find any references to a reliable source. Ghostboy1997 ( talk) 20:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:45, 22 June 2013 (UTC) reply
I'm an Ender's Game fan myself, but this article is entirely sourced to OSC and the Ender's Game series. It falls severely afoul of 'in-universe' style writing and doesn't contain any evidence of real world notability or significance. v/r - T P 20:16, 14 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. SarahStierch ( talk) 16:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC) reply
This article doesn't fit the notability guidelines, I didn't thought about it enough when I created it, sorry Lubeca2013 ( talk) 18:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 19:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC) reply
PRODded with reasoning of "Non-notable NCAA college basketball coach - fails WP:NCOLLATH." DePRODded because "Removing prod due to faulty nomination rationale. NCOLLATH specifically applies to college players, not coaches, and is inapplicable here." Faulty de-PROD reasoning refuted here (sorry if I'm a bit blunt). Original rationale still stands. Ansh 666 18:26, 14 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) czar · · 18:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC) reply
No references or sources. Most of the entries in the article are red links. The orphan status of the article suggests that it is not linked to and so not needed. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- BDD ( talk) 18:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Appears to be a biography of a person known for only one event. Even in question appears to be a standard human interest story in which a exemption was made, and appears to have little chance of either resulting in a) any changes in circumstances or regulations or b) any lasting notability. Terri Schiavo she ain't. Sceptre ( talk) 17:49, 14 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus to delete. Without prejudice to a trim and move, as proposed below. -- Y not? 15:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC) reply
No reliable sources. Only recently established. Luciandrei ( talk) 19:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 19:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC) reply
This armed robbery would seem to fall under WP:NOT NEWS. DGG ( talk ) 17:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to May Isang Pangarap. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:46, 22 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Article is in an awful state already and a quick Google search comes up with some viable results (but fails WP:ENT). This is why I'm not marking this for speedy deletion. Insulam Simia ( talk) 12:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- BDD ( talk) 19:02, 21 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The article contents fail WP:SPORTSEVENT in that they lack well-sourced prose discussing the event and do not assert the event's notability. The events also appear to fail WP:GNG as coverage of the events are WP:ROUTINE fight announcements and results. TreyGeek ( talk) 16:23, 14 June 2013 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:
The result was delete. -- BDD ( talk) 19:18, 21 June 2013 (UTC) reply
WP:BLP1E. Also, as it is the article is a horrid violation of WP:BLPREMOVE. Shii (tock) 12:32, 30 May 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- BDD ( talk) 19:22, 21 June 2013 (UTC) reply
See list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan/Historical people. A quick search of Google books shows no support. The stub article does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject. Enkyo2 ( talk) 18:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Comment - As context, does it make sense to compare Amakasu Kagetsugu and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amakasu clan? --Enkyo2 12:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Comment - Date Sanemoto (伊達実元) wasn't fictional. His father's attempt to make him heir of the Uesugi by having Uesugi Sadazane adopt him led to the Tenbun War (天文の乱). He was also the father of Date Shigezane, who is notable. I don't know if that qualifies Sanemoto himself as notable, though. Cckerberos ( talk) 14:28, 9 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. This is clearly quite a tough call, especially given how polarized the debate is. I'm therefore going to make a few comments on my close. When an editor alleges that an article has no reliable sources to establish notability, the onus is then on those wishing to keep the article to provide the discussion with sources. Doncram makes some interesting arguments to support keeping the article, which suggest that there must be secondary sources available offline due to it being on the Los Angeles Historic-Cultural monuments list. However, he has not provided any sources. AfD is not about speculation - We must resort to firm evidence in these discussions. As there has been no evidence provided, I must give these comments less weight. alf laylah wa laylah makes an important suggestion that a designation as a LAHC monument confers notability - If others had agreed with this, I would have closed this AfD as keep. However, the numerous users wishing to delete the article suggest that this does not automatically confer notability, and the article must pass the general notability guideline in order for the article to remain. I am persuaded by this point, and this is something that those wishing to keep the article have failed to rebut. As such, I conclude that the consensus is to delete the article. This is without prejudice to anyone putting a redirect in place to List of Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monuments in the Wilshire and Westlake areas or List of Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monuments in South Los Angeles, whichever it is decided is the correct list. Further, should anyone wish to merge the content, I am happy to userfy the article in order for histories to be merged. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Not notable enough for a standalone article. The property is designated historic by the city, but not by the National Register of Historic Places which would make it automatically notable. The only reference provided is generic and not specific to this property. Everything in this article is already duplicated in the article Victoria Park, Los Angeles. I considered proposing a redirect to that article, but IMO the name "Craftsman Mansion" is too generic to use as a redirect. MelanieN ( talk) 16:41, 26 May 2013 (UTC) reply
Comment Several here have asserted that only national registers matter for Wikipedia. Since when? That is just not true, there is no such finding in Wikipedia. Ask, if you wish, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Historic sites, which I and others founded to cover local, national, international historic registers. There is absolutely no such finding.
And, redirecting this article to the List-article, which itself includes redlinks and bluelinks linking to individual listing topics, doesn't make sense. You don't complete out a list article by converting every redlink into a link back to the same list-article. -- do ncr am 12:12, 28 May 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC) reply
mid level kerala state civil service bureaucrat. Uncletomwood ( talk) 09:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. -- BDD ( talk) 19:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Not assertion of notability other than "this thing existed at one point". No real content of this article and no liklihood it will ever have any.
UnrepentantTaco (
talk) 15:13, 14 June 2013 (UTC) [Edit reverted as per
WP:BE and
[7].
Unscintillating (
talk) 02:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)]
reply
The result was keep. No prejudice towards a merge discussion. Mark Arsten ( talk) 19:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:GNG. No out of universe notability. JJ98 ( Talk) 02:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Secret account 21:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC) reply
There is no topic here beyond what can be easily covered in the Chinatown article. If there was a phenomenon called "second Chinatown" then where are the books, papers and articles about it? The various instances of "second Chinatown" that I have found in book sources are mentioned in passing only; it is just as often chronological than geographical. (This article assumes only geographical.) Any city that can boast two Chinatowns, one main/original and one secondary/later one, can be described in the Chinatown article. Binksternet ( talk) 13:58, 14 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Unverifiable crystal balling. No idea whether it is a hoax, wishful thinking, or insider information, but as far as I can tell, none of this has been confirmed (or even rumoured for the most part) in any sources. Fails WP:V completely. Fram ( talk) 13:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy deleted per A7 by INeverCry ( talk · contribs). Note that the article was moved to Zarrin Ghazal Co. after this AfD was opened. At the time of closure Zarrin ghazal was tagged for G8 (redirect to invalid target). Non-admin closure. — KuyaBriBri Talk 17:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Possible WP:NOTE issue Josh1024 ( talk) 13:26, 14 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:44, 22 June 2013 (UTC) reply
non-notable - upon carrying out due diligence, it appears that there are no reliable third party articles about Obelisk International. This is supported by the improper referencing on the article, whereby none of the references even mention Obelisk International and seem to simply be websites of reputable organisations which either just talk about Brazilian social housing or aren't relevant to the subject at all. In no way do any of them demonstrate Obelisk International's notability. Samstreet133 ( talk) 09:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Merging the content to one or more other pages is a possibilty, but that's a whole other discussion - as far as AFD goes, the consensus seems to be Keep. Yunshui 雲 水 11:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The contents of the article are already present in some existing articles like Stranded Pakistanis, 1971 Bangladesh genocide etc. Hence the article is totally redundant and should be deleted. Also, none of the sources claim this as persecution, the page was a created as a POV fork as the creator threatened before. -- Zayeem (talk) 18:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC) reply
So, as now you have clarified yourself, It seems debatable... Now, considering your statement, that the things have been already put up there, It would be good to collect all such scattered information into one article. Repetetions do not matter then, I suggest you see this.— Шαмıq ☪ тαʟκ✍ @ 18:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC) reply
For your attention, In 1971 Bangladeshis were called by
Tikka Khan and
Yahya Khan as culprits. On the other hand Mir Abdul Aziz and Malik Ghulam Jilani named them as victims! They all were pakistani! and it is your choice to find out who was right and neutral!
another thing! I have no problem to show the negative situation of Bangladesh! but it should be fair and neutral, almost in the near of reality! Samudrakula ( talk) 22:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC) reply
"The main motive to create this article is to present anti-bangladeshi propaganda!" That there is enough evidence of a conflict of interest from these pov pushers Zayeem and co 86.151.237.220 ( talk) 10:58, 11 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Off-topic |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
*Keep Per Mard and IP arguments very well sourced and informative article.
Kratos007745757 (
talk) 11:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC) Sock of Nangparbat
Zayeem
(talk) 18:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
reply
*Keep After much consideration and review I believe this article is relevant and appropriate it covers human rights issues which are still on going despite claims by Zayeem et al BBC has recently produced articles and documentaries on the plight of Biharis I have read a few this year. Zayeem giving someone the right to vote while they live in horrid conditions does not make things better I am surprised there are people out there who still believe Biharis are not be persecuted when up to date sources from neutral avenues claim otherwise it is a well referenced article and any attempt to delete is pure
WP:CENSOR as for Zayeem et al your arguments hold very little water and personally to me sound like
WP:IDONTLIKEIT (please do not take this personally) the other articles of which you speak of are not sufficient to fully state the issue and so the topic in my opinion is worthy of a stand alone article.
RameshJain9 (
talk) 08:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC) Sock of Nangparbat
Zayeem
(talk) 18:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
reply
*Comment^^Strange how nationalists do not understand what human rights abuses are then in their desperation accuse others of being single purpose accounts. Do Armanj et al even have an ounce of neutrality within them?. You wave around a single OP-ED source as the word of god do not make me laugh Persecution does not have to be a pogrom I understand this article may be hurting your bangla nationalism but this is a reality of Biharis in your nation. Zayeem armanJ etc are all Bangladeshi nationalists and beyond that I don't see how they could ever see the truth of the sources provided disgusting behaviour unfortunately many Bengalis are still playing the victims since 1971 this is not the case any more get over it and be neutral for once.
RameshJain9 (
talk) 12:28, 19 June 2013 (UTC) Sock of Nangparbat
Zayeem
(talk) 18:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
*Note Even though certain users such as Armanj are trying to divert the AFD by shoving sources here and there to add weight in their argument those two sources are miniscule compared to these :^ Moss, Peter (2005). Secondary Social Studies For Pakistan. Karachi: Oxford University Press. p. 93.
ISBN
9780195977042. Retrieved June 10, 2013.
reply
Reliable sources
|
---|
^ Google books ^ a b Zehra, Batool. "The other side of history". Tribune.com.pk. Retrieved 2013-05-25. ^ a b "Chronology for Biharis in Bangladesh". The Minorities at Risk (MAR) Project. Retrieved 27 March 2013. ^ a b Statistics Of Pakistan's Democide ^ Siddiqui 1990, p. 153. ^ A. R. Siddiqui, East Pakistan - the Endgame: An Onlooker's Journal 1969-1971, Oxford University Press, 2004, p. 171. ^ (Al Helal 2003, pp. 263–265) ^ James Heitzman and Robert Worden (eds), ed. (1989). "Pakistan Period (1947–71)". Bangladesh: A Country Study. Government Printing Office, Country Studies US. ISBN 0-16-017720-0. Retrieved 2007-06-16. ^ a b c M. R. Biju (2010). Developmental Issues in Contemporary India. Concept Publishing Company. pp. 246–. ISBN 978-81-8069-714-2. Retrieved 10 June 2013. ^ a b Hamoodur Rahman Commission, Chapter 2, Paragraph 33 ^ "3 MILLION Slaughtered Sheik MUJIB Charges 'Greatest Massacre'" The Portsmouth Herald, Monday, 17 January 1972, Portsmouth, New Hampshire ^ Hill et al, page 13 ^ Chatterji - Spoils of partition. Page 166 ^ Vazira Fazila-Yacoobali Zamindar (1 January 2007). The Long Partition and the Making of Modern South Asia: Refugees, Boundaries, Histories. Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0-231-13846-8. Retrieved 7 June 2013. ^ "Two-Nation Theory Exists". Pakistan Times.[dead link] ^ Carlo Caldarola (1982). Religions and societies, Asia and the Middle East. Walter de Gruyter. ISBN 978-90-279-3259-4. "... Hindu and Muslim cultures constitute two distinct, and frequently antagonistic, ways of life, and that therefore they cannot coexist in one nation ..." ^ Metcalf & Metcalf 2006, pp. 221–222 ^ "Two Nation Theory: The Myth, The Reality". Story of Pakistan. Retrieved 2013-06-07. ^ a b Brad K. Blitz; Maureen Lynch (1 January 2011). Statelessness and Citizenship: A Comparative Study on the Benefits of Nationality. Edward Elgar Publishing. pp. 117–. ISBN 978-1-84980-899-6. Retrieved 10 June 2013. ^ Nalini Natarajan; Emmanuel Sampath Nelson (1 January 1996). Handbook of Twentieth-Century Literatures of India. Greenwood Publishing Group. pp. 256–. ISBN 978-0-313-28778-7. Retrieved 10 June 2013. ^ "PRC Wants Urgent Steps for Biharis’ Repatriation", Arab News ^ "MQM demands issuance of CNICs to Biharis-2004", Dawn, 8 February 2004 ^ The Guardian ^ "Bangladesh State and the Refugee Phenomenon - The Bihari Refugees", South Asia Forum for Human Rights ^ "Citizens of Nowhere: The Stateless Biharis of Bangladesh", Refugees International 2006 report ^ Refugees International (see below) ^ "Musharraf wraps up Bangladesh visit", BBC News, 31 July 2002 ^ a b c d Christian Gerlach (14 October 2010). Extremely Violent Societies: Mass Violence in the Twentieth-Century World. Cambridge University Press. pp. 148–. ISBN 978-1-139-49351-2. Retrieved 30 March 2013. ^ a b Qutubuddin Aziz (1974). Blood and tears. Publications Division, United Press of Pakistan. Retrieved 4 June 2013. ^ "Controversial book accuses Bengalis of 1971 war crimes". BBC News. 5 June 2013. ^ "Massacre of Biharis in Bangladesh". The Age. March 15, 1972. Retrieved 2013-06-04. ^ Saikia, Yasmin (2011). Women, War, and the Making of Bangladesh: Remembering 1971. Duke University Press. p. 41. ISBN 978-0-8223-5038-5. ^ a b Gerlach, Christian (2010). Extremely Violent Societies: Mass Violence in the Twentieth-Century World (1st ed.). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-70681-0. ^ Bennett Jones, Owen (2003). Pakistan: eye of the storm (2nd revised ed.). Yale University Press. p. 171. ISBN 978-0-300-10147-8. ^ a b "Bangla Biharis weary of wait to migrate to Pakistan". Rediff.com. Retrieved 2013-06-05. ^ Shah, Mehtab Ali (1997). The Foreign Policy of Pakistan: Ethnic Impacts on Diplomacy 1971-1994. I.B.Tauris. ISBN 1860641695. ^ "Will Nitish's visit boost Biharis in Pakistan?". Times of India. Retrieved 2013-06-05. ^ "Biharis of Bangladesh, World Directory of Minorities". Faqs.org. Retrieved 2013-05-25. ^ http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/study-abroad/100714/bangladesh-ethnic-persecution-bihari-bengali ^ a b http://www.scientificjournals.org/journals2008/articles/1313.pdf ^ "Vote for 'stranded Pakistanis'", BBC News, 6 May 2003 ^ Mixed feelings over Bihari ruling - BBC News 28 May, 2003 ^ "Bangladesh: Stateless Biharis Grasp for a Resolution and Their Rights", Refugees International ^ "Court rules that young Biharis are Bangladesh citizens". Reuters. 19 May 2008. ^ a b "Citizenship for Bihari refugees". BBC News. 19 May 2008. ^ "Citizenship for Bihari refugees". BBC News. 2008-05-19. 7407757. Retrieved 2008-05-21. |
These 47 sources clearly illustrate what is going on in Bangladesh no matter how much Armanj trys to divert the AFD yet again
RameshJain9 (
talk) 12:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC) Sock of Nangparbat
Zayeem
(talk) 18:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
reply
*Suggestion: Well the above user is obviously full of garbage going around in circles stating the same thing over and over my keep vote above explains how this article is tremendously necessary however much it irks nationalist vandals it is a legitimate article end of discussion I do not feel the need to argue with brain dead nationalists.
RameshJain9 (
talk) 16:40, 19 June 2013 (UTC) Sock of Nangparbat
Zayeem
(talk) 18:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
reply
:The next time you accuse me of socking we will meet in ANI just because more people clearly want this article to stay doesn't mean the world is conspiring against you.
RameshJain9 (
talk) 18:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
reply
The main opposition would appear to be the following:
I will note that the decision to completely remove the Refugee crisis section from Stranded Pakistanis was exactly the kind of thing WP:POINT warns against. However, at this point, it would appear that the content of this article has grown rather extensive, and so if lack of size and comprehensiveness were reasons to bar such an article, those arguments are no longer strong and this topic appears to be turning into its own kind of thing. It would no longer be appropriate to paste all of this information into 1971_Bangladesh_genocide#Violence_against_Biharis or Stranded Pakistanis#Refugee crisis
As to the second point, it would appear that in fact, quite a few of the cited sources characterize the Biharis' treatment as persecution. Some of the examples are cited here in this discussion. The Tribune article about writer Aquila Ismail explicitly says, "But curiously, little has been written about the persecution faced by the Biharis."
The article does not claim that the violence of 1971 continues to today. The lead identifies the 1971 persecution of that time period as its main subject and later details the "Aftermath" of discrimination against Biharis living in Bangladesh who wish to repatriate to Pakistan. It would completely make sense to view their discrimination as a kind of "persecution", but the article does not say that the violence of the 40s and 70s is currently occurring.
I will just finally say that the opposition to this article needs to be more finely focused. If you object to the article's entire existence, why debate any particular aspect of it? That is to say: If an article should be rejected because it makes false and redundant claims, why even talk about writing it in a way that would remove its bias? Ender and Peter 22:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Mark Arsten ( talk) 20:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC) reply
May be hoax Josh1024 ( talk) 12:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC) reply
May be hoax Josh1024 ( talk) 12:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 20:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD. Fails WP:MUSIC, no substantive coverage by reliable third party sources. SFK2 ( talk) 05:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Failure to meet those criteria meanly an article it's flagged as must be kept. His increasing popularity while still in the early stage of his career might justify this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.67.238.29 ( talk) 02:41, 12 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Found him on Facebook. Should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.199.212 ( talk) 07:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:49, 22 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Does not assert notability, no reliable sources, fails WP:BAND. Boogerpatrol ( talk) 11:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:50, 22 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Non-notable group, most releases appear to be online only, little third party coverage. Earlier version speedied during AFD: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King Felix. Hairhorn ( talk) 19:23, 6 June 2013 (UTC) reply
King Felix on nme (music news website)
[1]
King Felix official music video with over 300,000 views and comments for a single video.
[2]
Gene93k is believed to be abusing the topic King Felix. Reasoning: multiple source proof of king felix sources moved and ignored by user Gene93k on multiple entries. example published magazine bunker hill reference post of king felix music repeatedly denied by user Gene93k. This leads to reasoning that Gene93k is vandalising/abusing information on this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwoulddawforyou ( talk • contribs) — Iwoulddawforyou ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
King Felix in downtown Los angeles new years eve headlining event. [3]v=10151143774430107&set=vb.206548683433&type=3&theater official videos King Felix in bunker hill magazine and flyer for events - [4] [5]
king felix in bunker hill magazine printed magazine release March issue- https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=229810457112942&set=a.103976523029670.6443.100002519680841&type=1&theater and original print - [6]
famous artist steve aoiki also in bunker hill magazine. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=407823168433&set=a.440797878433.231693.206548683433&type=3&theater steve aoki also headlined a bunker hill event. [7]
lana del ray cover of march issue King Felix was in, https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150613162048434&set=a.442087218433.233908.206548683433&type=1&relevant_count=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Retro-ranma ( talk • contribs) 13:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC) — Retro-ranma ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Retro-ranma ( talk • contribs) 11:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC) reply
This Goup does hold notability. released tracks on multiple record labels, porcs records, itchy tasty records, and group in union with ascap registration with songs home free, medicinal hookers,
physical albums are out example http://www.amazon.com/01-King-Felix-Touching-Original/dp/B009ZRX4DO http://www.discogs.com/King-Felix-The-Healing-Code/release/4566188 as well as legitimate online retailer beatport.com group also performs regularly in los angles and other areas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.104.73 ( talk) 05:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC) — 76.168.104.73 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
most releases appear to be online only, Again This is not true, I have linked physical copies to King Felix's albums on discogs, amazon and more already. and again stated numerous sources on their impact and
interaction with the edm community.
here are more images if need i found in commons http://www.google.com/imgres?start=416&safe=off&biw=1536&bih=794&tbs=sur:f&tbm=isch&tbnid=rCx5rYcF2i2JqM:&imgrefurl=http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:KingFelixMusic.png&docid=Z72BVsIcydzsKM&itg=1&imgurl=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b5/KingFelixMusic.png&w=1920&h=1080&ei=QVGyUaqKCsmxiQLetIGQCg&zoom=1&ved=1t:3588,r:44,s:400,i:136&iact=rc&dur=307&page=15&tbnh=168&tbnw=295&ndsp=29&tx=184&ty=67
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://userserve-ak.last.fm/serve/500/87638311/King%2BFelix%2Bimage.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.last.fm/music/King%2BFelix&h=500&w=500&sz=40&tbnid=i0-wk2xjG5FNLM:&tbnh=96&tbnw=96&zoom=1&usg=__RMlDUB5r8ZRRayc5s9h9aEngKhk=&docid=Ri9m3dnjggd6FM&sa=X&ei=RVKyUbWGLOb_igLFhIDgBg&ved=0CD8Q9QEwBDgK&dur=181— Preceding unsigned comment added by Retro-ranma ( talk • contribs)
Iwoulddawforyou ( talk) 21:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 20:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Creator removed my tag for G11 and then a new tag was placed for G2 but was declined. I am starting an AfD. This is advertising/promotion page only (G11) and is not a notable company. Tyros1972 Talk 10:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 11:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not for speculation. Tyros1972 Talk 09:22, 14 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 00:32, 23 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Band lacks notability. The battle of the bands is not a major competition ( Rockstar Uproar Festival Jaegermeister Battle of the Bands looks blue linked because parts of it are seperately linked). Band lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Article has a lot of sources but none are reliable sources that provide any depth of coverage about this band. Note the Colorado Gazette piece is about Rockstar Energy Drink “Uproar Festival” and only has a few short sentences about missing most of The Sammus Theory "and barely made it to see the next band, The Sammus Theory," ... "I will say from what I did hear though, that both openers did more than their share to get the festivities kicked off in a very traditionally heavy way. Props to you both, and an even bigger thank you to, The Sammus Theory, for actually not acting like rock-stars, and instead, hanging out talking with fans and signing anything until they were literally “sun burned red” from being out in the crowd for so long. Frigging awesome guys – mad props to you!". Not significant coverage. A seach found nothing better. duffbeerforme ( talk) 08:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 17:43, 25 June 2013 (UTC) reply
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 with the rationale Information removed making reference to Perkovic as a "former player" in order to comply with terms (ie. never having played a full professional game) to avoid deleting this page. This does not change the fact that he has received insufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG and does not meet WP:NSPORT as player or as a manager. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 08:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was : Speedily deleted as a blatant hoax. A reality show where the losers would be expelled from the class and from the country? Yes, right. - Mike Rosoft ( talk) 07:49, 15 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Since maintenance tags I placed keep getting removed instead of anything being improved with this article, I am opening an AfD since it's been up long enough and it cannot be removed. This article does not seem to meet wiki notability standards and I am unable to find any RS. Tyros1972 Talk 08:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Secret account 21:51, 22 June 2013 (UTC) reply
fails WP:GNG. could not find any indepth coverage of these relations. most of the article is based on the Kazakh honorary consulate website. neither country has a resident ambassador, trade is low at USD$7.3 million, and sure 7,000 Filipinos work in Kazakhstan but that's a tiny proportion of the 9.4 million Overseas Filipinos. LibStar ( talk) 07:58, 14 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 20:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC) reply
I came across this one after looking at another article and unfortunately despite the claims in this article, I wasn't able to find where this person is as notable as they would need to be in order to remain on Wikipedia. The current state of the article is different than what it originally looked like, but then I was trying pretty hard to cull any of the obituary-type prose and find some notability. Other than one or two brief mentions here and there, I can't really find where she's all that notable. She's mentioned in this link as a "leading trompe l'oeil artist", but I can find nothing else that mentions her in this light and we need more than one news article (that reads a lot like a press release) to really show that someone is actually a leading figure in something. There's a brief mention of her in a book about her stuff as far as a museum goes, but I can't tell if it was a permanent exhibition, a temporary one, or even if it's the same person at all. All I get is a brief snapshot of a page. Other than that we have the assertion of some awards, none of which I can really find a mention of outside of this page or outside of the primary source. I feel a little bad nominating both this page and the one for her grandson at the same time, but neither person seems to have any real notability here. If anyone can dig something up I'd be most obliged, but I don't really think there's notability here. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 04:05, 31 May 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete-- Ymblanter ( talk) 04:02, 22 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The politician has not won a public office nor has attained notability through an Award or other checks. He is holding a position in a political party but does not satisfy the notability criteria Townblight ( talk) 02:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC) reply
DeleteAs per nominator Uncletomwood ( talk) 16:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Also, will rename: Khok Sung, Nakhon Ratchasima. ( non-admin closure) czar · · 17:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC) reply
This is some sort of reference to the geography of Thailand, perhaps, but what it is exactly is unclear and unsourced. Gamaliel ( talk) 17:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination ( non-admin closure) czar · · 17:31, 21 June 2013 (UTC) reply
I don't think this passes WP:NOT NEWS DGG ( talk ) 04:05, 31 May 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. In 29 days, we've had four comments (including the nominator), all with different opinions as to what should be done to the article, as such, there is clearly no consensus to do anything. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC) reply
No reliable secondary reference to assure the credibility of the article. Benedictdilton ( talk) 18:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete-- Ymblanter ( talk) 06:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC) reply
non notable midlevel civil servant.a similar deleted page can be looked at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Upendra Tripathy (2nd nomination) Uncletomwood ( talk) 11:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn ( non-admin closure) czar · · 11:04, 15 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Non-notable company. The article has no reliable sources, and Google search doesn't turn up much outside of their own press releases. The article's main claim to notability appears to be that the company is endorsed by Mrs. Obama and/or the US Congress. I don't believe that is true. They may have lobbied for laws that would block competition from stale unhealthy vending machines, and they certainly applauded its passage, but there is nothing notable about a company being pleased when an act of government helps boost its market share by kneecapping its competitors. Kilopi ( talk) 06:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 20:22, 21 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Article about a web-based application. Only one independent source is available, providing minimal coverage of the subject. Fails WP:NSOFT. - Mr X 20:16, 6 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Added second independent source to article. -- Tz718 ( talk) 21:36, 6 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was withdrawn-- Ymblanter ( talk) 06:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Withdrawn by nominator --- Redirecting to Awadh since all of the four proposed regions already exist in Wikipedia as historical regions. Thanks, Anand ( talk page) 20:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Proposed Indian district that is unlikely to happen in the near future Thanks, Anand ( talk page) 07:00, 14 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 20:21, 21 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Per page moves specified here: Talk:Pacific_Motorway_(Sydney–Newcastle)#Move_Proposal. Article now contains redundant information as Pacific Motorway (Sydney–Newcastle) and Pacific Motorway (Ewingsdale–Brisbane) now exist, and a disambiguation page will be created at Pacific Motorway. All information here has been merged into the appropriate articles. Marcnut1996 ( talk) 06:58, 14 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. This was a tough call, but essentially we have 2 people wishing to delete the article and 2 people wishing to keep the article. Essentially the users wishing to delete argue there are no secondary sources, those wishing to keep argue there are. As such, I believe that there is no consensus to either keep or delete this article. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Non-notable student society, in fact more like a statement for a student society which is no different to every other university societies, in fact a billion miles, let alone nowhere as notable to even its own rowing societies.
All sources are from its own student magazines and therefore with reliable third party sources Donnie Park ( talk) 15:02, 30 May 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep. Nominator withdrew discussion. Rs chen 7754 07:21, 15 June 2013 (UTC) reply
No highway does not exists like Interstate 570 (although it had its
AFD was deleted a year ago and deleted again), since there's no announcement , logs or construction date. Nothing but speculation.
JJ98 (
Talk) 06:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
reply
Also nominating for the same reason since it does not exist, although it appeared Google Maps, but nothing has been signed:
The result was no consensus. Per Wikipedia:Deletion process#No quorum Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC) reply
article is nearly WP:ALLPLOT, and no indication of notability of this particular episode. if you were to remove the plot, the continuity trivia section, and the cultural references trivia section, you would be left with a single episode review. Frietjes ( talk) 20:11, 30 May 2013 (UTC) reply
The episode is notable in the fact it gives the entire backstory as to why the plot of the series itself exists. The plot can be made much more concise but isn't the goal to eventually provide information on all the episodes of a show such as other series see How I Met Your Mother, M*A*S*H, etc. Comedian1018 ( talk)
What else would need to be added for the article to stay as a standalone page? Comedian1018 ( talk)
The result was redirect to List of stars in Corona Australis. I'm working on the assumption that those wishing to delete are ambivalent to the article being redirected. If not, please come and see me on my talk page and we can discuss it. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO. Although some Google Scholar hits do turn up for the various designations of this star, they are all purely in passing or in a large list. StringTheory11 ( t • c) 02:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Drmies ( talk) 04:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC) reply
fails WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN. This article was created as a first major edit of a new account on 8 June, and maybe no coincidence that this is created less than 3 months till the Australian federal election, 2013 . he is a candidate and that does not mean automatically notable, I've found a few mentions of comments made by him as a candidate, but that in itself does not establish notability. LibStar ( talk) 01:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. The consensus here seems to be relatively evenly split between merge/redirect and keep. On top of that, we have a significant number of users suggesting the AfD is unbundled. As such, it's extremely unclear what the consensus is, as such I'm closing this as no consensus. I would suggest that individual articles be renominated individually so each article can be judged on its own merits. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC) reply
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
This group nomination constitutes the remaining membership of the International Council of 13 Indigenous Grandmothers, which is also nominated for deletion. (Several members are already separately nominated, and two do not have articles.) The problem all around is the same: the only real sources are publications of the council itself or its sponsoring organization, or in some instances other self-published sources. There is a decided lack of real third party sourcing excepting a very few fugitive references. I will admit that I haven't read each article in great detail, and that a few may well have some notability independent of membership in this group; if they be identified I will split them out into separate nominations or remove them entirely. But it seems unnecessary to subject everyone to a blow-by-blow deletion of each. Mangoe ( talk) 19:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC) reply
It has been a great honor to work closely with the International Council of Thirteen Indigenous Grandmothers in crafting this book. [....] I have done my best to express what I have heard and learned from the Grandmothers, but my ability to act as a bridge or translator to a wider audience is, to a certain extent, hindered by the limits of my own understanding and experience. [....] Finally, though my name appears on the cover of this book, the words of wisdom expressed within it are not mine, and I do not lay claim to them.
As the primary point of contention appears to be the notability or not of these individuals, separate from the group, I have posted notice of this AFD to the notability noticeboard. Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard#13_grandmothers_AFD Gaijin42 ( talk) 17:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The women inflame the air with sage ...
Sisters Rita and Beatrice Long Visitor Holy Dance
invoke an end to Star Wars, 3rd grade gangs, bedroom rape
Chant of babies from un-united states of Fallujah, Kabul,
Phoenix, Katmandu. The grandmothers share
words their elders didn’t — suicide, diabetes, radioactive
Seek Windows and webs that suspend age, that
mid-wife old ladies into shamans, laps into lap-tops
One grandma teaching another how mushrooms absorb
petroleum spills, how dollars green into trees, roots
detox crystal meth ... [1]
Til, where on earth do you get the idea that one passing reference to a person in a source means that they deserve to have an article on Wikipedia? I could find many more references to myself and possibly to my next door neighbour. Paul B ( talk) 21:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. No prejudice towards recreation when the relevant guidelines are met. Mark Arsten ( talk) 17:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC) reply
PROD contested for this reason – Consensus has been in the past that a player making an appearance for a fully pro side in a competitive game meets the spirit (if not the letter of the law) of WP:NFOOTY regardless of the opposition (i.e. playing non-fully pro sides in cup games). That is not true. In order for a player to meet WP:NFOOTBALL by making a competitive cup appearance, both clubs have to be fully pro. Lopez's cup appearance came against a PDL club, which is not fully pro. Therefore he still fails WP:NFOOTBALL. He also fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. – Michael ( talk) 00:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC) reply