The result was delete. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 03:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fails the general notability guideline as it doesn't have any reliable third party sources which give it significant coverage of notability, no does the article establish as to how the site is notable other then "Radio Today is the leading radio website in Australasia according to the independent Alexa rankings" which has a link to the Radio Today site but even if it was cited with Alexa, it is trivial and was created by an editor who has a COI. Bidgee (talk) 23:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was '. userfied to User:Some indian sou/List of Twitter users in India Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:22, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. I know it's WP:BITEy to AFD an article so soon after creation, but I think this one either needs to be nipped in the bud, or given the all-clear to proceed, as it sets a precedent for 203 other countries. I was tempted to just redirect this to Use of Twitter by public figures, but I'm sure it will just be reverted, so bringing it here for discussion. I'm sure the arguments are familiar, given the number of ...on Twitter discussions there have been. To be useful this would be unmanageably large, while to be kept to a size that doesn't crash every browser, every single name on the list will be an arbitrary value-judgement - the majority of celebrities now have a twitter account, and a population of 1 billion makes for a lot of celebrities. If Twitter turns out to be a flash-in-the-pan like Myspace this list will be pointless; if it continues to spread this list will be no more useful than List of people by name was. And yes, that redlink really did once used to be blue. Mogism (talk) 21:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to While We're Up (band). (non-admin closure) —JmaJeremy✆✎ 22:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a recently dead musician. The band he was in is of questionable notability, but he's pretty clearly not for two reasons. One is that notability is not inherited. The other is that the only thing he could be individually notable for is his death, and WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:BLP1E (per WP:BDP) apply.- Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 20:53, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Early close, could have been speedied probably, too :) SarahStierch (talk) 21:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No notability is present or asserted. Also there are no reliable sources present or available -- no arm's-length third-party expert sources that state that Mr. Hilton has any notability with respect to other members of his profession. Ubelowme U Me 20:48, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 23:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable training barn for horses; there are no hits for "Eagle Valley Equestrian" on Google News or News archives, while Google Books hits predate EVE's founding and are thus false positives. CtP (t • c) 20:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —JmaJeremy✆✎ 00:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a hockey player who fails WP:GNG, but PROD was contested on the grounds that she played for the Norwegian national hockey team and passes WP:NHOCKEY. However, a simple google search only shows some stats-sites and some article in the local paper ringblad.no, which means that the article fails WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:23, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter (chat) @ 22:25, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable book. No independent refs. No evidence of meeting WP:NBOOK. PROD removed by creator who said it was a classic based on claims made on the publishers' website (see talk page). Also pointed to this review which appears to be a strongly partisan website rather than a mainstream reviewer of books. Google books gives 13 hits for the term "Proletarian Nights" including some hits which are not about the book. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:03, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Proletarian Nights, the title of the new Verso English edition, is a more literal translation of the original French edition - La nuit des proletaires - than the title of the first English edition Nights of Labour. A colleague suggests this title might have been used because of a USA resonance to Nights of Labor. Confusing I know but I think the new title is a more accurate translation of the original. I think you have unnecessarily diminished my summary/synopsis. An significant book needs to be represented with more detailed and interesting content or Wikipedia just becomes very bland. Szczels (talk) 22:34, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I take your point. and thanks for all the formatting work etc. The page looks good as a beginning. Its about time there was something up about this book. Szczels (talk) 13:38, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep: no deletion rationale whatsoever. Mephistophelian (talk) 19:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pim Rijkee (talk) 19:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. No prejudice against recreating as a redirect. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 00:00, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The claims of notability are a little thin, and besides, the sourcing is zero. If references were added, we might be better able to evaluate, but until that happens, we cannot accept any of the assertions made. - Biruitorul Talk 18:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. That being said, I will individually create redirects to Pentangle as Mr Stradivarius raises a very solid point. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:54, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The band Pentangle has no less than 18 compilation albums that have been released since the band's breakup. Pentangle didn't have a particularly large output, so these albums tend to have similar track lists, with songs like "Once I Had a Sweetheart" and "Pentangling" appearing on nearly all of these compilations. Some of them are no more than reissues of earlier compilations under a different name. None achieved any notable sales, recognition, or anything else that would qualify them under WP: NALBUMS, as they are essentially just cash-ins on the band's fan base. I'm not sure what could have motivated the creation of articles for nearly all of these compilations, save a misconception that Wikipedia is supposed to serve as a discography of sorts, but none of them have significant info beyond each release's copyright year and track list, despite having been on WP for over five years. A Pentangle discography article could hold this info just as easily. At any rate, upkeeping individual articles for every single Pentangle compilation strikes me as ludicrously overkill. NukeofEarl (talk) 17:53, 23 August 2012 (UTC) I am nominating all the Pentangle compilation articles as a group. Here are the others:[reply]
--NukeofEarl (talk) 18:23, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete and redirect. JmaJeremy's comment that the article started life as a redirect and should be returned to it is true...except the redirect was at Indian sports. Sgxi moved Indian sports to Indian Sports Teams & Players midway through his creation of this article; that is the logical return-to-redirect, not this term. Therefore I have deleted Indian Sports Teams & Players and recreated as a redirect Indian sports, redirecting to Sport in India, its original target. The Bushranger One ping only 02:13, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A completely unencyclopaedic article. I know using 'unencyclopaedic' is a circular argument but this article really doesn't make any sense. It contains some cherry picked national teams and sports-persons of India, maintaining their records. Wikipedia is not a directory, and I don't think given content can be merged with any correlated articles (like sport in India). — Bill william comptonTalk 16:48, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to List of Telugu Brahmins. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 00:39, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reason Saran9999 (talk) 13:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC) Reasons for asking to delete arise as the article is promoting Religion (Caste actually) unnecessarily and creating disharmony in Indian Society Norms! As per the Wiki, reasons are G10 and G11 Totally delete this page and in future, stop encouraging such communal or religious pages! — Saran9999 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The result was delete. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 00:40, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable type of "data carrier". — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Delete !voters have indicated that no reliable, independent sources are available and thus notability has not been shown. Although I agree that a merge might be nice per PRESERVE, there is at present no applicable target and a fairly clear consensus that the content is not worth an independent article. I am not against userfying this if someone wants to work on it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:59, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No indication of this browser's notability: the search in Google Books, Google News and duckduckgo (Sputnik KHTML query proved to return most relevant results) returns either this article's clones or fan sites, forums and other kinds of self-publsihed works. Same goes for references in the article with exception of the fan magazine's interview with browser's developer (which is a primary source, and doesn't indicate notability as such).
The talk page and previous AfD discussion contain some discussion of notability with implication of historical significance (see WP:NSOFT § Inclusion criterion #4), based on the fact that there was a period of time when this browser was the only "modern" browser for MorphOS platform, though the article lists other MorphOS browsers with nearly identical feature set in several of them.
Overall, I propose deletion of the article per WP:N and WP:NOT (particularly WP:NOTDIR). Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. SarahStierch (talk) 21:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not-notable, single website-sourced. Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 15:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 01:26, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Self-Promotional, and not-notable outside of the "burning man community" and his own promotional affairs. Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 14:14, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. The article definitely needs some help, but consensus seems to be clearly keep. (non-admin closure) —JmaJeremy✆✎ 02:44, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reason The whole article seems like a resume , i really doubt the notabality of the person . most of the sources linked to papers states of being a participatory in an event ! !! . and also most of the articles stated in the news papers does not have any neutral tone nor any news may be a work of personnel marketing executive as it only speaks about her company and what it does and about her fathers legacy. it seems an editor has been sock puppeting to add information to the article and the reason for blocking him seems to be that he confirmed that he was payed for changing the article please refer to link and new link so please contribute if you think it is important to be kept , also please keep in mind on future possibilities if teams are hired to make changes in wiki for google page ranking(seo) Shrikanthv (talk) 13:06, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1) attended queen mary school in Mumbai, 2) attended H.R college of commerce and communication 3) made course on game theory and strategic thinking at the London School of Economics.(and prooving this from giving reference from list of particpatory details in an event ) 4) won award 1 & 2 "not" refering to any official list (e.g IT People's IT Woman Leadership Award own by her refering to a page were "some one " has made an interview with her ) but where is the offical award page ? 5) not ever involved in any news or events that is known to Indian public.
I guess all this above are going against Wikipedia:No original research as, if we are considering the newspaper online article as a primary source there are no secoundary or any other source to confirm this . (E.g this also means if i am able to publish some article in newpapers about my conquest in olympics , i will be able to write an article about myself saying olympics names "ss" as youngest one to be in top 25 athletes in the world. )
Was really against the above things and not against paid editors adding content. But i am ok if the AFD comes out as keep , as this will set standards on the quality of reference that can be used i8n future Shrikanthv (talk) 10:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 13:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
no notabilty, likes self promotion Esteban (talk) 12:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was BLP close. I'm going to use the administrator page protection tool, not the administrator deletion tool, here. The text in this revision of the article at hand is identical to the text in this old revision of Gopal Goyal Kanda, which latter has already had to be reworked for copyright violations. Let's do all this in one place, with the one article. I'm reverting to this revision of the page and protecting it for a month. By then it should be apparent whether sources exist for writing a biography of this person, rather than an article all about a police investigation and some other person masquerading as a biography. Uncle G (talk) 22:41, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Significant BLP vios. The subject of the article committed suicide and her death is being probed by the police and there is no coverage outside of the death. The death is also being covered primarily in the context of one of the suspects who is a state politician. An e.g. of the BLP vios: the article states "Using his money power and political muscle kanda got Geetika's facebook account deactivated.[12]" while the reference says no such thing. Delete and hopefully snow/speedy as this is becoming a coattrack for BLP vios on Gopal Goyal Kanda. —SpacemanSpiff 12:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. There is consensus that deletion is warranted due to BLP issues. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 03:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a BLP nightmare; it is already under indefinite protection due to BLP violations. A linked category is currently under CfD, while a similar article was deleted by AfD in March 2012. GiantSnowman 11:26, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Before deleting this list, we need to understand how Indian criminal justice system works. Anyone can accuse anyone which could lead to First Information Report (FIR) being filed against some person. But, that FIR first needs to be investigated by either an investigating agency (or even by a private person. See 2G spectrum scam and Subramanian Swamy). After investigation is complete, a chargesheet is filed which is a formal document of accusation including supporting evidence. After this, the court gives opportunity to the accused to defend against the charges and then court applies its own mind and decides whether there is any prima facie case against the accused, If yes, charges are said to be framed against the person, if no, then the chargesheet is quashed at that stage itself. After that, trial begins (if accused pleads not guilty). Finally, after all the arguments, etc the court comes to a conclusion and pronounces the verdict (which could be challenged in superior courts). At each stage, accused can approach higher courts (right up to supreme court) to quash the charges, if they are untrue they would be accordingly quashed. Even after approaching so many courts if someone is not discharged, there is a strong reason to believe that the charges and evidence are credible (which is why courts are proceeding with the case). Based on this, it is not fair to drop all these stages and just include final conviction stage. Plus, they are clearly mentioned as being "charges" and not "conviction". AgniKalpa (talk) 23:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. There is a consensus that NSA documents alone are not enough to demonstrate notability. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 15:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article has no open sources. The three references listed include a caveat that they are classified. It is mentioned in some documents online referencing military radio equipment, but there is no description of its operation. In addition, there may be a concern about unreviewed classified information here. 226Tridenttalk 16:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 13:28, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:GNG and is probably not notable. A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 08:22, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note to administrators: Please delete the Lee Lynch(Singer) page. I am the creator of this page and I am also Lee Lynch's son. The article was intended as a reference to those wishing to read about him but I am fed up with the constant tampering with this article and the stupid messages attached to it by Wikipedia robots that I would need a degree in science to understand. Indeed, Wikipedia instructions are so complex and ridiculous that I don't even know if I'm posting this message in the correct place.
Lee Lynch passed away on 22nd July and this robotic interference is frankly an insult to his memory. The Wikipedia system seems to operate on a 'you've got to prove it' basis, citations needed, references needed blah blah blah. Well, no I do not and if the Wikipedia process is unable to accept the article in the nature it is intended then I would prefer it not to be there at all. We have an excellent website for those that want to read about Dad which is a far better source of information and a far better tribute to his memory.
Phil Lynch — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vcmazz (talk • contribs) 16:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It is an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia for which I wrote an accurate article, only to have it interfered with by robots and other people that don't know what they are talking about. For this reason I would like it removed please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vcmazz (talk • contribs) 15:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Consensus for keep has been established twice within 30 days. (non-admin closure) —JmaJeremy✆✎ 03:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable expert, with STILL not the slightest shred of evidence that her 'expertise' isn't entirely self-styled. CalendarWatcher (talk) 07:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 13:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This may be a systemic bias issue but there is nothing at GSearch, GBooks or GNews to indicate that this writer meets the requirements of WP:AUTHOR/WP:GNG. Sitush (talk) 07:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was moved by The Rambling Man- no need for this anymore. My apologies for bringing this up. (non-admin closure)A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 14:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The page is absolutely empty and I want to move the page here from Kumar parakala. I hope it can be done quickly. A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 07:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 13:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An actress that does not meet the notability requirements for actors and entertainers. She has only had very few, bit roles, as indicated by the filmography, most of which were uncredited. Most of them are as extras (IE "football fan", "Fashion Show Guest" and other unnamed background characters), and the two roles listed as being in films are greatly exaggerated. Her role in "Teen Spirit" was not a "featured role". In fact, her role in the movie was so minor that she was not even mentioned in the article for that film until the author of this page added her into the credits section. Her role in Piranha DD was an uncredited minor role as well. There are also no reliable sources discussing this individual in any meaningful way as well. The PROD was removed by the page creator with the argument that "she needs a page", but I'm going to have to disagree and say that no, she doesn't. Rorshacma (talk) 07:34, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Buckethead discography. No prejudice against changing the redirect target to an article about the "pikes" series, if the series can be proven to pass WP:GNG. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 04:10, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and protect due to lack of notability in accordance with WP:NALBUMS. Non-notable, uncharted album only digitally released on artist's bandcamp website. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 06:30, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Sources support WP:GNG and WP:PRODUCT. (non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 08:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Removed PROD due to previous AFD. PROD reason was "no third-party sources, notability not demonstrated in any way" Article is essentially unchanged since previous afd. Illia Connell (talk) 05:03, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 13:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reason from deleted PROD: "College magazine. No evidence of anything beyond this" Appears to be abandoned, orphan, non-notable article. All refs and ELs appear dead. No secondary sources found on Google. Illia Connell (talk) 04:56, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 13:25, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Found only tangential name-drops, no reliable sources. Only notability is that he hangs out with the Black Eyed Peas now and then. Did nothing else of note at all. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 13:23, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CORPDEPTH. The article has five references. References 1, 3, and 4 are promotional and not independent of the subject. Reference 2 (PC Magazine May 2002) is problematic. No page number or article title is given. In fact, there were two issues of PC Magazine published in May 2002 [25]. So which one was it? I’ve looked at both issues online and could not find any mention of Neuron Games, but I cannot rule out a brief mention. (Another possibility is that the reference is plain wrong.) Reference 5 (GamePro Magazine Jan. 2003) does not supply page number or article title, and it was not available to me online. This reference is used to support a claim about a game that already has its own article. It does not seem that the reference (assuming the reference is correct) is in-depth coverage of the company itself. I have also done a Google News archive search on Neuron Games and found very little—a couple of interviews in blogs, and a passing mention in a local newspaper [26]. Logical Cowboy (talk) 04:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn with no votes to delete. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 21:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Outdated and unreferenced affair (a press release is no reliable source). Fails WP:V. The Banner talk 03:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 07:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No reliable sources documenting this website can be found. The assertion that Wikipedia editors consider it to be a reliable source is original research at best (while it is mentioned on WP:GOODCHARTS, its use on good or featured articles is discouraged because of licensing issues). Its authorship is anonymous, its licensing uncertain, its copyright status dubious, and, above all, there are no reliable sources making direct reference to this website. —Kww(talk) 03:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 07:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity bio of non-notable local politician, created and principally edited by the subject of the article. Subject fails general notability guideline and WP:POLITICIAN -- Rrburke (talk) 02:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. The Bushranger One ping only 02:16, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot tell if he is notable: the current references do not seem reliable, but it's not my field. I had previously G11'd a much cruder version,which is why I happened to notice this.) DGG ( talk ) 00:43, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Randy Bettis should positively not be deleted from Wikipedia. He is making great strides in his career, has just released his 8th studio album for Disney's GayDays and has co-produced the new musical, The Groove Factory, which premiered in New York City on July 23, part of the 2012 New York Musical Theatre Festival. He is influential and should stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apworldny (talk • contribs) 13:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 07:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 02:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 07:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 02:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 07:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 02:13, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 07:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 02:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. There is agreement that this passes WP:NFOOTY. (As a side-note, the article could do with some clearing up for neutrality.) — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 10:42, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 02:03, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 10:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of the sources listed, none of them are reliable. 1, 2 and 4 aren't reliable sources. 5 isn't really a source at all, and 3 doesn't exist anymore. I've had a look for more reliable sources and can't find them. Delete per WP:GNG. I did think about whether a redirect Rich Internet application might be reasonable, but the title seems so needlessly extravagant and implausible a search term, I'm not sure there's much point. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. No prejudice against recreation due to the low level of participation in the debate. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 09:57, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No reliable sources to establish notability per WP:GNG. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 07:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Company, with only a short mention in one short huff post article. The company seems to be very active with online media (publishing blogs, twitter, facebook, etc), and is probably pushing for SEO. However, aside from those types of SEO-related links, I can't find an incredible amount on this company via searching that would meet WP:N. I'd encourage other editors to look as well before !voting to see if I've missed anything. — Jess· Δ♥ 18:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 23:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article seems to be autobiographical; notability not established despite request dating to 2009; no answer to allegation of autobiography attached to page. JoshuSasori (talk) 04:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 07:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The references do not seem to support notability for the organization, and the content is mostly the promotion give-away of explaining why the overall subject is important, which is true enough . DGG ( talk ) 00:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 07:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very small local sorority, with less than 10 chapters. Not affiliated with any recognized umbrella organization, not recognized by National Panhellenic Conference. Article has zero sources and is far below the general notability standard. GrapedApe (talk) 01:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Dudjom Lingpa. The Bushranger One ping only 02:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fails all WP:BKCRIT & WP:PLOT#1, no secondary sources cited or available, permanent orphan (1 incoming link) KGF0 ( T | C ) 01:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 14:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the recipients are not notable. Sources are merely promotional or incidental local coverage. Doesn't seem like a notable topic. Contested prod. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 07:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This band appears to fail GNG. I could be wrong though, as my Spanish isn't too swift. SarahStierch (talk) 05:39, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 23:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unable to find reliable secondary sources which evidence the notability of this academic--writings by him, yes, references to him, not easily so. Language issues in play, reliable secondary sources would be welcome. j⚛e deckertalk 22:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 09:40, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable singer. There seems to be zero coverage in reliable sources. Contested prod. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:39, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE The Bushranger One ping only 07:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Notability (or lack thereof). The adjectives used herein suggest puffery, and the absence of reputable or independent references does no good to establish this band's impact. The albums too are without references or statements as to their importance. Qwerty Binary (talk) 16:39, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 23:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article should be deleted. There was never a Maria of Bohemia who was Tsaritsa of Bulgaria. Boleslaus I of Bohemia and Biagota's daughter was Mlada who became an abbess under the name of Maria; she never married. The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 07:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. I would suggest individual nominations if anyone feels like renominating. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:16, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A "fictional equation that serves as a MacGuffin in comic books" with no sources other than comic books, i.e. a plot device with zero real-world significance. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages because these are all items in the same limited comic universe with the same notability issues:
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 14:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Violates WP:NOT specifically Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information Ryan Vesey 14:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable block, can easily just be brought up in the main article. ViperSnake151 Talk 20:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable, which isn't unusual for a 1 year old company. Two of the sources aren't reliable, the other two are not significant. Since there is no real claim of notability, it is borderline A7, but it won't hurt to wait 7 days to discuss before deleting. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
May not meet notability guidelines. Tad Lincoln (talk) 01:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. The Bushranger One ping only 23:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Near-empty article which is a biography of a living person with no evidence of any kind of achievement or notability beyond a role as a voice actor. JoshuSasori (talk) 23:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:06, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is an un-notable album released by the legacy records division of sony music. Legacy Records has released one of these for virtually every artist signed to sony music, re-hashing previous singles to provide an album which is not marketed by the artist or record label. There is no information beyond the track listing thus not meeting WP:NMUSIC. This article contains a generalisation of information providing nothing substantial. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 00:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]