< 28 January | 30 January > |
---|
The result was speedy delete as a copyvio by Sphilbrick (talk · contribs). —David Eppstein (talk) 04:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Subject of article does not meet the notability standards for WP:MUSICBIO. The article seems to have been created by her or her agent as a promotional device. The are no independent secondary sources (books, magazine articles, documentaries, etc.) about her. Although her voice does appear on a Grammy-nominated CD, it is as part of a large choir ensemble (named "Conspirare"). This might qualify the ensemble as notable, but not any of the individual choir members. Quonset84 (talk) 23:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sorry, Paul Firmin, I have to disregard your opinion per WP:COI. Sandstein 09:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's no indication of notability and it seems to simply be a promotional page for the site. Yaksar (let's chat) 23:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you looked at the page it clearly states that its in Beta Testing. I know wikipedia has a dislike for all things airsoft but this page will have refs from other sources once it is live and the have it nominated for deletion is just plain stupid. -- Paul Firmin 08:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not apprear to meet Wikipedia standards for notability -Porlob (talk) 23:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Redirect to Pan-Africanism is an editorial decision. Sandstein 09:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a POV fork of Pan-Africanism it does not exist as a concept in the real world and has no life outside of Pan-Africanism. Motives for creating it are seriously unclear.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 22:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 22:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Logan Talk Contributions 00:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, 32-year old, free agent, minor league baseball pitcher who hasn't played since 2008. His 66-73 record is far from stellar and, in my opinion, does not merit an article. Alex (talk) 22:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Tone 21:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, 33-year old, free agent minor league baseball pitcher who hasn't played since 2008. He is 48-52 with a 4.54 ERA, which are far-from-stellar statistics. He doesn't merit an article. Alex (talk) 22:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 21:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unable to find coverage in any reliable sources, only Wikimirrors. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. J04n(talk page) 21:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't indicate importance or explanation for why this particular song by Boyz II Men should have an article. Jrcla2 (talk) 21:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep and redirect to Alien (franchise)#Alien Prequel. lifebaka++ 01:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Film has not yet entered production. Too soon for a page likely to be littered with rumour and speculation. magnius (talk) 20:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Regrettably, as this is a rather poor list. Stifle (talk) 10:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Way too vague a criterion. Businesses go out of business all the time. No definition for what constitutes a "failure"; we have everything from the Dixie Square Mall to redlinked businesses of dubious notability. Last AFD closed as keep because nominator was a sockpuppet. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I contacted everyone who participated in the last AFD, who wasn't here already and wasn't banned for being a sock-puppet, since they should be aware of reruns. Dream Focus 12:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Merge/redirect discussions can continue on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Logan Talk Contributions 00:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Read likes an WP:OR book report, only two citations, no content about why book is notable. Rillian (talk) 19:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 10:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Still unsourced beyond Allmusic. Article is very extensive on OR but very short on sources. Last AFD was closed as no consensus, but I feel that many !voters were misinterpreting my rationale as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. The article was substantially expanded and sourced during the AfD discussion. Sandstein 09:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No real assertion of notability here, although the book appears to be interesting — but I don't think it gives her enough notability still. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 19:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Sandstein 09:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does not warrant its own article. No other legislator has an article for legislation they have sponsored, as far as I can tell. Notable legislation already discussed in depth at Ron Paul#Legislation. NYyankees51 (talk) 19:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC) This is what we have THOMAS for. NYyankees51 (talk) 17:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article reads like an advertisement for a non-notable bodybuilder/entrepreneur. Does not fit WP:ATHLETE or WP:BIO standards. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 05:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Hayward Unified School District. Stifle (talk) 10:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article does not meet requirements for WP:NOTE OpenInfoForAll (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted per G11 (spam). Deleted twice before. User who created is apparently the presenter. -- Y not? 17:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Self published web-based children's TV show. No indication that this is show is notable per WP:GNG or WP:WEB. VQuakr (talk) 17:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 10:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Album with no evidence of notability. Albacore (talk) 17:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The article's creator moved this article into his userspace during this AFD. Therefore, I'm going to close this discussion as "delete" to reflect the consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Previously deleted through AfD. Sources provided is not sufficient to establish notability. Farhikht (talk) 16:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is this professor sufficiently notable? I don't think so, but I'm not sure. Delete unless notability shown. --Nlu (talk) 16:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 21:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article is almost exclusively a plot-only description of a fictional work and lacks references independent of the subject from third-party sources which means it doesn't meet verifiability to check notability. The article relies on primary sources and it appears to be original research by synthesis. Also, it is written with an in-universe perspective that lacks real-world perspective. It's an unneeded content fork that doesn't meet the criteria of the general notability guideline and falls into the criteria of reasons for deletion. Jfgslo (talk) 15:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:AUTHOR. All of the references are works by the subject and not the articles on him. Farhikht (talk) 14:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 19:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since the text is copy-paste of "Rise to prominence" in Ganesha and Ganesha became a FA with that text, the article is redundant. Though there was a consensus for the formation on Talk:Ganesha/Archive_5#What_this_article_needs_-imo for it's formation and the article was created on 29 September 2007. There has no major expansions since then. I raised this issue once on Talk:Historical development of Ganesha long back in 2008. Redtigerxyz Talk 14:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. There is liberty to redirect or merge to a school district if desired; such a proposal can be discussed on the talk page. Stifle (talk) 10:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This primary school fails the WP:GNG, and, as it is not a high school, is not inherently notable. Contested PROD. Prod removed without comment/reason. Ravendrop (talk) 14:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 19:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot find any mention of this organisation anywhere. The article itself doesn't give a consistent name, but Google and Google News searches for "Airline Employees Association", "Australia Employees Association" and "Australian Employees Association" all draw a blank. Trove (the National Library of Australia) gives a couple of mentions of an organisation of with a similar name from the 20's but it isn't related. There is no mention in the Australian Trade Union Archive. It is possible that this was the precursor to another union, but given the complete absence of sources available, I'm inclined to suspect a hoax here. -- Lear's Fool 13:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. GedUK 12:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Two articles covering an amateur cricket club and its grounds. Apparently very old, but I can't really find any reliable in depth coverage independent from the club's own website showing notability. Travelbird (talk) 12:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Valid reason as it took a long time to find any information regards to this amatuer cricket club, allthough with some indepth research at libraries and online libraries, I have been able to find many forms of reliable indepth coverage that you seek. If you follow this link to the British Newspaper Library you will find the valid source of information http://newspapers.bl.uk/blcs/ Leegray21 (talk) 15:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this page should be deleted, after all most local cricket clubs have history and is wikipedia not an encyclopedia of history aswell as other catergories/genres. The club does not state it plays ECB premier league and as such is not lying about being involved with any premier league in the ECB. County Division 4 as I have had a look online is an amateur league but surely still credible as a form of cricket. In regards to matches being played on the pitch Cold Harbour Lawn, could you not consider their first game as being an important match as its was against the original Hambledon Cricket Club and therefore one of the oldest clubs in the history of the game, I think if you've had a bad experience with any cricket or any club why be so damn petty and delete it from a factual source of information available freely online, if thats the case every amateur cricket club or sporting club on this site should be deleted for not having the required information that everyone is moaning about on here. At the end of the day the club has history which being 200 years is just as special as a article on a breed of dog or something similar. I'm just utterly amazed that some people just are so petty and for the sake of having an article on Wikipedia they are insisting that the club be lost to pages of history that are sadly being burnt by some people that make it their sole purpose to ruin things for others. I think if that the administrators that are dealing with this article deletion should use common sense in regards to this matter, and think what they are doing before completing what i think would be a total and utter petty matter. And I think as i said previously that people should not take to bemoaning if you've had a bad experience with this particular club, think about what you're doing and move on like any credible and proper player for instance in cricket would do when you're out...you're out so deal with it...again its just people being petty in a non important matter. 90.196.35.173 (talk) 22:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
cricket is an integral part in british culture, in an age where our culture is being slowly diluted and eradicated.
it's amazing that an amatuer club that existed BEFORE the battle of waterloo, is still going strong. It's even more amazing that it doesn't warrent a place in an opensource encylopedia, just because they have not played at the top level. it's like saying this amazing piece of english history does not matter.
it's like finding a penny coin from hundreds of years back, and chucking it in the bin, because it had no real monetery value.
Emsworth Cricket Club is one of the oldest cricket clubs in the world, and this really is worth a mention. Especially on a website, where pointless people like say, Katie Price, who has never done anything special, except exposing her genitals, gets a mention.
please reconsider this. Emsworth Cricket Club is a gem of a club, and something that every englishman should be proud of. Clubs like Emsworth are an integrial part of our english village culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malcster2 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
English Cricket and Village cricket certainly does have it's merit, but without clubs such as emsworth cc starting up all those years ago, or should i say, 2 CENTURYS AGO, there would be no cricket/village cricket. This club really is a piece of living history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.76.162 (talk) 20:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. If anyone wants this userfied to re-work into an more appropriate article ask me and I'll provide a copy. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe a set of rules in regards to the Justice System are inherintly "Notable". No sources, references, and contains only Original research. Dusti*poke* 10:26, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Punjab Juvenile Justice System Rules 2002 hereinafter referred to as the Rules have been made by the Government of the Punjab, Pakistan in 2002, for protection of juveniles in conflict with the law. The article does not include the original text or any copyrighted material of these Rules that may make this article a candidate for deletion. The article can be expanded by including (e.g.) material about the following:
For the above reasons, this article shall not be deleted and indeed expanded in scholarly manner.--182.177.145.81 (talk) 16:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 21:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actor that played minor roles in two films. Gets a lot of hits in imdb type databases (as all people ever credited in any movie do) but doesn't really seem to be notable. Travelbird (talk) 10:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Comments by Robertgreer seem to have convinced several people to !vote keep, and seems to have proved criterion #1 of WP:ENT. Because the comments have not been rebutted, I'm closing as keep. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 14:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is this ballet dancer sufficiently notable? Not as far as I can see. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 10:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 21:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The most notable facts asserted appear to be an assistant professorship and leadership of a team in a company that doesn't have a Wikipedia article. I don't see where the notability is. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 10:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. T. Canens (talk) 02:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is being an IBM VP (which appears to be the most notable thing mentioned in the article) sufficient for notability? I don't think so. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 09:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to CIH (computer virus). Tone 21:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A proposed merger to CIH (computer virus) has been there for a long time, but no one has acted on it. I don't think the article itself contains any real encyclopedic content that should be merged. Delete then redirect to CIH (computer virus) --Nlu (talk) 09:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 09:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While lots of awards are listed, the significance of the awards are not themselves shown, and thus not her notability. As it stands, delete. --Nlu (talk) 09:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Tone 19:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of works by this composer are listed, but I see no sign that any of them is notable, or she herself is. Delete unless notability established. --Nlu (talk) 09:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Logan Talk Contributions 00:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedily deleted per G7, NAC.. ukexpat (talk) 21:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Insufficiently sourced BLP, and promotional WP:PUFFERY, possibly written by the subject him/herself. No Ghits appear to be available for this Mike Emmett other than the usual social networking sites.Kudpung (talk) 09:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Mulligan book has 15 pages about me and my career and as far as articles online go, if you folks had been around actively working on the Web in 2000, you would know when the Dot Com Bubble burst, many, many companies went out of business. Servers with information about me, as well as Nando.net, were taken off line. And in the past decade, sites such as NASCAR.com (where I was the managing editor), had revamped their sites and cleaned out their servers. Articles that had been written about me were erased. Even New Media Columnist Steve Outing (SteveOuting.com), who had documented my career online and with SportsEditor.com in the 1990s, has a Web site that only goes back to 2006 with articles. The fact is this: I was the first sports editor on the Web. My boss was the first managing editor on the Web. We opened our doors in Raleigh, N.C., to other newspapers in the country because our publisher was also the chairman of AP (I assume, but cannot be sure, you know what The Associated Press is). USA TODAY, The N.Y. Times, and many other newspapers sent people to our offices in Raleigh to learn how we built and kept updating our Web site. They then took back what they learned and built sites on their own. That really did happen whether you like it, or believe it, or not. I suggest you take a look at hundreds of other articles you have about living persons. You will find those links they list are dead, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.97.234.123 (talk) 14:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Tone 19:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing in WP:MUSIC that yells out notability in this case, and the person doesn't seem notable to me. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 09:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Wikipedia does not operate on a process of "if he may be notable in a few weeks, keep". If you wish to install such a policy, do so on a discussion page; do not make up rationales contrary to policy and guidelines on individual AfDs. Ironholds (talk) 16:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Was only drafted by seattle, in the second round, in 2011, and has never played a pro game. Contested PROD, with claim that he passed a different set of GNG for college athletes, of which I can find no proof. (See talk page for PROD contester's rationale). Ravendrop (talk) 08:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The argument that serving on a military appeals court is equivalent to serving in a civilian national appellate court does not seem to be supported by policy or consensus here. Although the court itself and some of the incidents it handled are undeniably notable notability is not inherited. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Probably a nice guy but does not meet notability requirements for Wikipedia. Simply is just another lawyer who had a case that some remember but many do not. Also not notable as a politician. Just an old lawyer from the last century.
The result was delete. Tone 21:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No apparent significant coverage in WP:RS to satisfy WP:GNG. Vague assertion of "several" written scripts without the ability to verify claims, and the inability to source the statement about his works being "well received by literary critics" indicate the subject does not meet WP:AUTHOR. The lack of any verifiable biographical information (real name? date of birth?) makes this a highly unencyclopedic WP:BLP. Kinu t/c 07:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 21:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
nn neologism with no wide currency Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 07:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 21:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article appears to fail WP:WEB. Current sourcing consists of one reliable source that's only a trivial mention (only to help identify a person being quoted), and the rest is links to sections within the site. A search online and on Highbeam Research yielded nothing in the way of non-trivial reliable sources to demonstrate sufficient notability to retain the article. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 19:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Promotional material, no sources or verification of notability. Dusti*poke* 05:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to November 11. Tone 21:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:RS and I don't think there are other dates that have an article. I'm sure the number sequence is aesthetically pleasing, but what about 11/11/10? No article for that, and if it did, most the events listed in this article would happen (or did) would appear there, but be redundant if brought to a newer date? Phearson (talk) 05:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Whether or not it should be merged to Environmental law#Administration and enforcement is an editorial decision. Sandstein 09:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
none of the article listed on this dab are plausible search targets for "green police" HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 05:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Like the similar AFD of Agriculture and the Environment, this is the rare case where notability is not the main argument in favor of deletion. It has been demonstrated that the subject is already covered in numerous other articles and that those articles do a much better, more thorough job of covering the topic. It is possible this could still be useful as a redirect, maybe to an as-yet-nonexistent list of all articles that fall under this general subject, but the current version is a poorly written content fork. While poor writing in and of itself is almost never a reason to delete, it is in the case of a content fork as nothing of value is lost. Again, no prejudice against recreation in another form that directs readers to the content we already have on this subject. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deprodded with a WP:SOFIXIT rationale even though prod was 2 hours past the 7-day limit. Article is four sentences long, almost tautological and ridiculously incomplete. I think the title is far too vague to be of any use, not to mention that it just parrots stuff already at marine pollution, water pollution and other similar articles. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 04:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete, per WP:A2, which does not just apply to foreign language content. -- Lear's Fool 12:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dictonary like article Dusti*poke* 04:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
24.177.123.74 (talk) 04:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 19:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem notable per WP:BIO; no sources cited to show notability, see WP:V. NawlinWiki (talk) 04:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that concerts qualify for event notability, plus the author has explicitly put "There are no references for this article, as there have been no documents of this event, published or otherwise, created to date" in the "References" section. Bluefist talk 02:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This page has been blanked as a courtesy. |
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Logan Talk Contributions 00:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article doesn't meet Notability guidelines, nor are there any sources for verification. Dusti*poke* 02:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. No valid policy based arguments to keep are presented. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is an unsourced article that gives no reason why its subject is notable. An SPA IP user removed all tags (PROD, notability, unreferenced, orphan) without making any comments or improvements so I'm bringing it to AfD. Papaursa (talk) 02:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lutongsan (talk) 13:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC) — Lutongsan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just can't find any sources on this worth anything. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable iPhone application creation company, which fails WP:ORG. Mattg82 (talk) 02:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 21:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fails notablity for tennis as she has only won 2 10K doubles events. Therefore fails notablity. And has not won a junior GS KnowIG (talk) 08:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 19:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Administrative division. GedUK 12:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. This page is the product of banned user User:Tobias Conradi; I encountered it when one of his sock-puppets began to insist on it in a disuccion. The article is unsourced; the term, although not unknown, appears to be largely the neologism of one author; the text reads like a POV fork of administrative division; observe that the first sentence, even as it stands, is Country subdivision refers to the division of a sovereign state's territory for the sake of its administration, description or other such purpose and description by statistics (which seems to be meant) is an administrative function. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Whilst he probably doesn't meet WP:ACTOR, there is clear opinion that he does meet the GNG, which is the most important criteria GedUK 11:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced, unsourced and very poorly written. The only link it has is to Bob's Burgers FOX page. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 14:08 21 January 2011 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Paragraph 2: "Little is known of the man" / WP:N Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 15:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete Very little seems to known about this person which doesn't indicate notability. The manuscript he wrote may or may not be notable, if it is the info should be added on an article on that- Travelbird (talk) 16:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will amend the title if that is preferable - but the William Dixon (piper) article is in a similar situation - an important MS about whose author we know little beyod his name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Gibbons 3 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have done this - William Vickers manuscript is the current version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Gibbons 3 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can add a discography to the new page, of modern recordings including Vickers' tunes. The influence of this music, particularly in the folk revival in the NE from the 1960's to the present, is clear, and an article on the topic is necessary. Shifting the emphasis of the title from the man to the MS was correct however.John Gibbons 3 (talk) 13:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. The argument that "he may be notable in the future" is not and never has been valid at AfD. Ironholds (talk) 15:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contested Prod - Non-notable hockey player who has not yet established himself to meet notability requirements per WP:NHOCKEY. Larkspurs (talk) 00:53, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sources are mostly tangential mentions/incidental coverage. Dubious notability, minimal sourcing, ad-like. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 01:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 21:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure he passes WP:PROF. Tagged for Notability since 11/09. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Claims award wins but they're clearly not notable. No hits on Google Books or News in English or India stuff. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 03:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Fails WP:MUSIC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poet009 (talk • contribs) 08:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The arguments for deletion are more policy based (i.e. the need for sources) than the arguments for retention can bring forward. –MuZemike 20:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Candidate in a future party primary; no properly sourced indication of actual notability per WP:POLITICIAN (at which the bare minimum is actually holding an elected office.) Previously prodded, but the creator deprodded with the rationale that the article was "contextually similar to Tom Corbett" — if you have any explanation as to how being a candidate in a party primary for an election that's still almost two years away is even remotely "contextually similar" to being the actual sitting incumbent governor, however, I'm all ears. Delete; he can come back if he wins the nomination and/or the Senate election, but until that happens he's not entitled to use Wikipedia to promote his candidacy in the meantime. Republican or Democrat, Tea Party or not, this is not what Wikipedia is for. Bearcat (talk) 05:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. –MuZemike 20:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no topic related to the bi-gram "digital transform". See the article talk page. It's useless as a disambig, since none of things that were listed would every be sought under the name "digital transform", and it's useless as a redirect for the same reason. No good reason has been given to keep this article, but it was de-prodded. Dicklyon (talk) 07:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So far no new editors have expressed an opinion, and the none of the keeps has provided evidence of a topic. The article's creator, Lorem Ip, tried, but is clearly just relying on one peculiar mention is one book, which means nothing. And he's still flipping around on what the topic is, since his original version had a rather different idea that got shot down, and since I reverted his subsequent redirect to digital signal processing as a poor substitute for deletion. Dicklyon (talk) 07:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non exceptional/notable company, no third party refs, fails WP:CORP. Paste Let’s have a chat. 13:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. NW (Talk) 03:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely minor local poet who fails WP:AUTHOR and who does not meet the requirements of WP:BK or WP:BIO. No WP:RS whatsoever presented or available. Tagged for notability since May, 2010, without a single source added in that time. Issues of WP:AUTO and WP:COI as well. The organization founded by the subject was recently deleted at AfD. [48] Qworty (talk) 18:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Cale:Drew. –MuZemike 20:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NSONG. Logan Talk Contributions 20:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This has just been speedied, which was too hasty, then restored. Nevertheless the subject of the article does lack notability. Many of the claimed credits are for work which was not paid at all, or not at professional rates. I suggest deletion. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 21:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Slim. Thanks for that. To be safe though, I will stick to not using quotes from the presumably self-published hughallison.com and will only use a minimal amount from the (presumably also self-published) wix.com. To my understanding, re my above question, I will also remove the "Young Vic" references, as I believe that anything about the Genesis Project can be edited by the directors, in the same way that actors can edit their Spotlight/imdb pages. Unless requested otherwise, I will keep the doollee.com citations, as (having looked at the site in more detail) it seems that anyone thereon still needs to submit their work to be vetted. // Also, re the comment on your talk page, I can't find any references anywhere to the Observer/As You Like It quote (other than on Allison's website and on other wiki's so I will remove it).--TimothyJacobson (talk) 01:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have just gone back to the article. I can't find anything online where Allison gets more than a fleeting mention or a credit, so I believe that (much as it would break my heart based on the no of hours I have put in over the years working on the article) it is perhaps sensible that the piece is deleted. I also looked through several of the other Actors/Filmmakers for deletion, and I think I understand even more why the Hugh Allison one should go.--TimothyJacobson (talk) 00:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 21:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does not appear to be independently notable. No references demonstrate this to me. Merrill Stubing (talk) 07:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of notability; the company's own website tells very little about them and gives the impression that they've only recently gone online.
Note: I have removed the "AFD's for this article" template, normally present, because the previous AfD was for something else of the same name. —Soap— 00:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]