![]() |
< 27 January | 29 January > |
---|
The result was speedy keep. Stifle (talk) 17:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of notability, at least not sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG or especially not enough to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (academics). GrapedApe (talk) 23:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. with a leave for speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 18:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All sources that I found for this tribe point back to Wikipedia. Unverifiable. SL93 (talk) 00:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was early closure as speedy keep -- The Anome (talk) 11:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dicdef, OR, unsourced beyond dictionaries. Tagged for maintenance for 3+ years with no improvement. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Kubigula (talk) 04:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of notability. State Trooper killed in the line of duty. Per WP:VICTIM, subject is only known for being a victim of a crime. Wikipedia is additionally not the place for a memorial. Nothing to indicate notability here through topical or general notability guidelines. Sources are merely a bunch of redundant articles about his death and how he died. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 21:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was already deleted under G4 by Graeme Bartlett. (non-admin closure) — Abhishek Talk 03:34, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rahul Mothiya (Talk2Me|Contribs) 20:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep Non-admin closure. Safiel (talk) 03:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable person. Poorly written article that cites no reliable sources. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 20:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Most people would prefer first attempting to rewrite it so that it sounds a bit more meaningful. Sandstein 08:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Partial attempt to explain concerns below - please also see article and form own opinion:
I'm not convinced this article is encyclopaedic or needed - it's clear that "business requirements" is a term that is often used in a business environment (as confirmed by an easy web search). If one takes the (obvious?) definition "business requirements are things a business needs to do or be able to do" is the article needed?.
There are multiple issues arising from lack of references, ie - is this not just a "two word pair" on which an essay has been written?, does an accepted definition even exist? Is this WP:OR or just a well written essay (not actually suitable for an encyclopaedia)?
Use of jargon, and lack of a lead suitable for layman complicate analysis. This really reads like a jargon heavy MBA dissertation - I'm not convinced that this is a topic suitable for encyclopedia (ie why is this not covered in the article Business), or that the coverage is encyclopedic - my view is that this is a "meta article" attempting to define business related jargon.
(rhetorical examples) what about articles on "business technology" "business computing" "business networking", "business relations" etc etc. it creates a never ending list - also see the "see also" section of this article that links to many more articles with similar or related issues - to be honest I see a developing issue with what I would call "business fan cruft" - the danger is the reader is lost in a sea of jargon - that may have already happened. If people agree with my concerns I think a whole raft of similarly written articles may need to be looked at. How do I say bullshit - totally obfuscated article - nominator suggests may not actually be written in english.
Comment I chose this article to AfD because it seemed at least a potential "real article" - I've already "prodded" many lesser articles, and there still are many left - eg Knowledge process outsourcing, Value process management, Agent-based computational finance, Human interaction management, Business process improvement, Business process illustration, Value grid - that have similar or different issues - it's a random list - some are better than others - one issue here is the extent of it - please start at Category:Business and browse downwards - maybe 25% or more of the articles have serious issues? And I'd estimate 10% might fail a WP:PROD, more an AfD - that's a problem.
The result was Delete. A redirect to Taiwan, if wanted, can be created separately. Fram (talk) 15:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As a Taiwanese editor, I have never heard of this term. Google ("Taiwan island group", "台灣群島", "台灣島群") does not turn up significant usage of the phrase as a formal, well-defined geographical term in reliable sources. wctaiwan (talk) 13:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Article significantly expanded. 203.145.92.175 (talk) 01:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
´Delete as strongly POVious and/or nonsense. --Matthiasb (talk) 22:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Nominator withdrew the nomination. No arguments to delete the article have been presented, other than by the nominator. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000(talk) 05:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable despite a long TV run. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why is Colin Tarrant (who died today) the only one of The Bill cast being considered for deletion? There are several on there not being considered deletion who have only had a short/minor role in the series and haven't done anything else before or since. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.230.151 (talk) 00:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable and no references to assert notability. Shrike (talk) 18:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Zach Slater. And delete. Redirect target can be changed as desired. Sandstein 08:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article is written like a biography of a fictional character, and WP:PLOT may take this article so seriously. After reading this character's profile, this character lasted for two years, and no impact from this character was made. No books that cover this character were made, no news about him were made, and no academic researches about him were made. Even if the previously deleted revisions have been restored after copyright issues were resolved, there is no study about him. He may have been significant as the son of Zach Slater, but he had done other malicious things to people that may not justify merger to "Zach Slater". No one, however, for five years after his death has taken him so seriously. Plus, he is different from James Scott, the portrayer. DGG may have good valid analyses on fictional characters, but this case is different. James Scott's interview about this character won't hold up water, and neither do soap recaps. George Ho (talk) 01:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I hope this AFD doesn't turn into a battle: see WP:BATTLEFIELD. --George Ho (talk) 13:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep (nominator withdrew; non-admin closure). StAnselm (talk) 20:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Author and pastor with no evidence of notability. Can find nothing of note from news sources of Google Scholar. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Refocus and move. There is consensus that as a biography, this lacks notability, but the farmhouse is found to be notable. I am moving it to Abraham Brian farm house for now per Diego's suggestion, but no consensus for any particular name can be found in this AfD, so don't take this closure as an argument not to move anywhere else.Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fails to meet the notability guidelines for biographies. Apparently the only reason this article was created was that the subject owned a farm on a Civil War battlefield. Nothing else to distinguish him from any other farmer on other ACW battlefields. Wild Wolf (talk) 16:09, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Brady photo and the 1985 rediscovery of biaxially tapered shakes roofing
Matthew Brady photographed the house shortly after the Battle of Gettysburg. In 1985, the photograph led to the rediscovery of a roofing technique used in Germanic settlements up to the end of the 1800s. Initially believed to be clay tiles, a closer examination of the photograph determined the roofing to be the so-called biaxially tapered shakes. Further analysis of 19th-century photos found 16 additional such roofs around the Gettysburg area.[4]
The result was keep. Consensus is that the content should be kept. Whether that is best done by merger can be resolved outside of this AfD.--Kubigula (talk) 04:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I found nothing to show notability for this software. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 15:26, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Feel free to ask me for a copy of the deleted content if you want to perform a merge. Deryck C. 12:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I found no notability. This software fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 15:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 17:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A complete mess of an article — and, as a result of it being a complete mess, I can't discern any notability from therein. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 20:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 08:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I found nothing to verify these two sentences. Fails WP:V. SL93 (talk) 19:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Closed with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This subject fails WP:ORG. I hoped to find information that would pass criteria at WP:NGO, but I found very little in-depth coverage by solidly reliable sources, and lots of mentions in articles by interrelated nonprofits that struck me as promotional. The "sister project" that might make this group international fails to bring this separately named and administered organization closer to notability. Nothing about this subject's coverage or activities easily satisfies WP:BASIC or WP:ORG. JFHJr (㊟) 07:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've added references to sources that have no connection to Prison-Ashram Project or its parent organization, Human Kindness Foundation. I believe this satisfies the "significant coverage" guideline. There are more sources available, but I don't want to clutter up the article just to add more sources. If specific sources that I've added seem too closely related to Prison-Ashram Project, I will replace them with others, so if the current version is not satisfactory, please let me know which sources you object to. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hope4444 (talk • contribs) 15:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Prison Ashram Project and Bo Lozoff are worthy of Wikipedia, but their current entries don't give the topics justice. I'm afraid I don't have the time to beef them up, provide history and context, etc., right now. Espertus (talk) 19:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. It has been demonstrated that WP:CRYSTAL does not apply (see Lugnuts). Absent the application of that policy, the discussion resolves around a difference of editorial opinion as to whether it is presently appropriate to have an article on the subject. That opinion is evenly split. Mkativerata (talk) 05:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a year and a half since the last afd, but the same rationale still applies. There is still insufficient information available for this article to be notable. It will be in the future, but not now. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Closed with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Zero refs, zero gnews hits. The best I can find is limited snippet mention in gbooks, but that does not seem to confer sufficient notability for a stand-alone article. Created by an SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 09:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Nomination withdrawn. I've fixed the promotional wording, and notability doesn't seem to be problematic. Non-admin closure. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 17:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy G11 tag removed by a third-party on the grounds that the article is "not promotional." Yet it is promotional. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 16:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 03:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. Little coverage of subject by reliable sources. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Almost all of the sources are self-published sites (gram ponante, rebecca gin, tiny nibbles) or just plain unreliable (fleshbot, mishka). The AVN mention is scant. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Article by Rebecca Gin was published in No Magazine (http://www.nomagazine.co.nz/) and Tiny Nibbles is the personal site of Violet Blue, a published author and sex educator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.230.80.158 (talk) 08:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Profile article in NO Magazine was published and in circulation with a distribution of roughly 15,000 in print. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.220.77.140 (talk) 07:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to The Orange Book: Reclaiming Liberalism. Sandstein 08:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable concept with no significant coverage in secondary sources. Anything useful, if there is any, could be merged into The Orange Book: Reclaiming Liberalism. SupernovaExplosion (talk) 16:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree strongly, the term Orange Book liberalism is becoming increasingly used with many sources demonstrating this as a term, with no other term with a Wikipedia article being a synonym. A good example of such a source would be this news article http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12310041 this well known blog http://www.nextleft.org/2010/05/coming-battle-for-liberalism.html article from prospect magazine http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2010/06/who-are-the-liberal-democrats/ Total Politics http://www.totalpolitics.com/opinion/157732/would-alliance-work-between-labour-and-the-lib-dems.thtml Total Politics again http://www.totalpolitics.com/blog/159167/can-tim-farron-ride-to-his-partyand39s-rescue.thtml Daily Telegraph http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/julianastle/100077413/did-the-orange-book-pave-the-way-to-coalition-with-the-conservatives/ Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jun/23/liberal-traditions-and-true-colours? etc. If you really want, I can find some more? --Purple1342 (talk) 16:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would tend to disagree with that too as there is significant difference between the book and the ideology, the book merely helped spark it. One does not simply merge the liberalism article into the On Liberty article as they are broadly the same thing. The principle should stand here. Give the article time to expand and become more separate from the Orange Book one. --Purple1342 (talk) 19:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Excluded the SPA's !vote. (non-admin closure) Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An almost word for word recreation of a previously debated and subsequently deleted article. Taseriouslyta (talk) 14:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 08:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First version was speedily deleted for copyright violation. Same user (a new user who has only worked for this article) recreated it without the copyright violation, but without offering any independent RS. This was also marked for speedy deletion, but another user removed the tag because an album was notable. However, it is not notable because of this album designer, and I cannot find any independent reviews or articles in English or Japanese which talk about the notability of this design or of him as an artist. Fails WP:ARTIST. Michitaro (talk) 13:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Kubigula (talk) 04:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An educator with a thoroughly unremarkable career, not remotely passing WP:PROF (nor the WP:GNG). I could find no citations on Google scholar. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was soft delete. per lack of discussion, and the possibility of sources under a different name in a different language Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unimportant bank, that is "proposed" to be made. Contested prod. Whenaxis about | talk 22:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This chess book does not seem notable enough to be worth its own article. It can be merged in List of chess books instead. SyG (talk) 11:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mkativerata (talk) 05:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PROD was contested in August 2011. Fails WP:GNG as having not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and WP:NFOOTBALL as having not appeared in a fully professional league. Mattythewhite (talk) 00:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. the original research should either be sourced or removed, but the subject is notable. The rest is not up to AfD. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article is pure research, and basically unsalvageable.
Would be nice if someone recreated it in accordance with WP policies sometime.
Mathglot (talk) 00:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Consensus is that we are not a dictionary. Sandstein 08:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Even if it was, this article is mostly original research, written in an un-encyclopedic manner and getting a lot of things just plain wrong. Anon 10:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Sandstein 08:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is this article, Abutilon × hybridum, noteworthy? It describes a nebulous "idea" of a taxon, not a real taxon; and even then it is not one that occurs in nature. None of the reliable sources have ever said "I've seen this myself", and described it. Everyone is referring to someone else. A quick Google search shows there is zero affinity of purported specimens; it is just being widely used as a fancy latin version of "hybrid". Even the article itself has two pictures which are definately not from the same nothospecies. So first reason: notability; second reason: impossible to ever reliably source. Any objection to deletion? --Tom Hulse (talk) 09:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy deleted (CSD G12) by Jimfbleak. Non admin closure. "Pepper" @ 16:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Promotional in tone; does not support the subject's notability. ZZArch talk to me 09:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 17:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's a vague claim to notability, in that they may have been one of the earliest Colombian death metal bands. However, I can find no reliable sources to back this up. They never released an album, never did any significant touring, and have significant coverage in independent, third party sources... comprehensively fails WP:MUSIC. Probably a cool band to name-drop when discussing the good ol' tape-trading days, but has no notability here. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 14:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Deryck C. 23:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Recreated after speedy. Seems like vanity spam. I have more than an inkling that this subject does not meet WP:BIO. Seems to have written a lot of articles but little is available written about him Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Deryck C. 12:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I found no significant coverage for this fraternity. Fails WP:ORG. SL93 (talk) 21:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I added links to two books on the subject of Alpha Omega Theta via Google Books. One referencing actor Steve Buscemi's membership in AOT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.86.43 (talk) 02:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Nobody supports deleteion. The debate is between redirect, merge or keep; and that is a discussion to be had on the article talk page. Sandstein 08:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are three issues.
(1) Every statement is based on primary sources. The Watch Tower Society is a reasonable source on information on its own doctrines, but the issue here is the lack of secondary sources that demonstrate notability to the extent that the subject warrants a separate article. The relevant information here has already been merged with the Jehovah's Witness beliefs article uner the "Salvation" subheading.
(2) Additionally, the second paragraph of "The anointed" section, which constitutes almost half that section, drifts into a discussion about the Governing Body’s perceived opinion towards the validity of the claim of some that they are anointed. The statement that the Governing Body "cast doubt on other members’ claims of being anointed" is an interpretation, and therefore arguably a synthesis of opinion.
(3) The "Jonadabs" section is also irrelevant in an article that otherwise has no claim to portray the history of the salvation doctrine.
Those three factors, particularly the fact that the relevant statements of notability about the salvation doctrine are sufficiently covered at the "Beliefs" article, combine to make this article redundant. BlackCab (talk) 08:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't see that there is anything left to merge, and barely a need for a redirect. BlackCab (talk) 11:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. No consensus to delete. Most prefer a renaming, although it is not clear what to. Sandstein 08:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The incorrect use of the term "translucent" in describing pellicle mirrors in SLR-like cameras is an invention of Sony marketing. The only substantive sources listed in the article are Sony advertising.
delete as a non-notable marketing term. They're not normally called single-lens translucent cameras, not even by Sony: acording to their official site it's a "Sony a77 DSLR Camera", or according to the first reference of the article which in full is "Check out the amazing autofocus capabilities of the Alpha a55, Sony’s latest DSLR camera".--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 16:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fails notability guidelines. Till I Go Home (talk) 07:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Though sources have been added, none of those are independent. Even if they were from partners, they're still not independent. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No indication of notability, does not seem to meet WP:GNG. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 07:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Svengoolie. Deryck C. 23:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very close to G11. Unsourced BLP. Seems to fail WP:N CharlieEchoTango (contact) 07:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a non-notable youth competition. There is insufficient coverage for this article to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 06:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. I will say yes to the deletion of this article BUT once I get any dates for the tournament or any team news that CAN be proven through a reference then I will recreate the article. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 18:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It actually does receive a lot of coverage in India but only during the season which looking at other youth leagues it seems that way to (example being the 2011–12 Premier Academy League which was created in October when coverage about it started). If you look at sites like thehardtackle.com, indianfootballnetwork.com and the-aiff.com you will see that the competition does get some coverage but I do understand and I am open to deletion of the article for now till the first game is completed and reported. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 19:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Blatant hoax. Fences&Windows 16:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced article from 2009. Unable to find any information about this supposed material after a lengthy search. Definitely feels like a WP:HOAX. France3470 (talk) 06:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Really concerned about this - an independent researcher, mostly writing about his famous relatives, almost entirely published by a company that solicits authors/self-publishers. Next to nothing of note on GScholar/Gbooks except his own works & obscure other titles. Plenty at GSearch but most of it relates to self-published or obscure sites. I am treating the "D" of AfD here as "discussion". I really need more eyes on this one. Sitush (talk) 05:49, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete (CSD G4). --Bongwarrior (talk) 14:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete per WP:NFF Gaijin42 (talk) 05:01, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. Nominator doesn't present any rationale for deletion and not outstandig !votes for deletion. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 17:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2 page split from unmanageably large Index of MS-DOS games where a 26 page split already exists (starting at Index of MS-DOS games (A) with nav between pages); 2 page split remains unmanageably large. GILO A&E⇑ 04:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but 26 splits are too much. 2 splits no. If you want I can make 4/3 splits. Alancito10t (talk) 04:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic, because... It was divided by letters (A, B, C, D, etc.). But it was difficult to read. So i thought that if I put it in only one article, it were be more easy to read. It was, but it was heavy (about 10-15 sec to load). So i thought to split this article in two. Index of MS-DOS games (A-M) and Index of MS-DOS games (N-Z). Although I have a problem: with an administrator permission, I want to delete:
Index of MS-DOS games (A) Index of MS-DOS games (B) Index of MS-DOS games (C) Index of MS-DOS games (D) Index of MS-DOS games (E) Index of MS-DOS games (F) Index of MS-DOS games (G) Index of MS-DOS games (H) Index of MS-DOS games (I) Index of MS-DOS games (J) Index of MS-DOS games (K) Index of MS-DOS games (L) Index of MS-DOS games (M) Index of MS-DOS games (N) Index of MS-DOS games (O) Index of MS-DOS games (P) Index of MS-DOS games (Q) Index of MS-DOS games (R) Index of MS-DOS games (S) Index of MS-DOS games (T) Index of MS-DOS games (U) Index of MS-DOS games (V) Index of MS-DOS games (W) Index of MS-DOS games (X) Index of MS-DOS games (Y) Index of MS-DOS games (Z) Index of MS-DOS games (0–9)
If you like my changes (Index of MS-DOS games (A-M)/Index of MS-DOS games (N-Z)/Index of MS-DOS games ) we can delete this pages, because it wont be necessary. Please answer! Thanks to all Alancito10t (talk) 04:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. Nominator doesn't present any rationale for deletion and not outstandig !votes for deletion. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 17:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2 page split from unmanageably large Index of MS-DOS games where a 26 page split already exists (starting at Index of MS-DOS games (A) with nav between pages); 2 page split remains unmanageably large. GILO A&E⇑ 04:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but 26 pages are too much. 2 pages no. If you want I can make 4/3. Alancito10t 15:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.250.173.150 (talk)
The result was keep. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Small-time undergraduate improv troupe. Basically, this is a student club. No third party sources, per WP:GNG. Just having notable former members doesn't confer notability. GrapedApe (talk) 03:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy keep, nominator withdraws nomination and no other delete !votes. (non-admin closure)Quasihuman | Talk 20:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fails to meet WP:NBOOK; neither significant coverage found nor won a major award. Nat Gertler (talk) 03:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Withdrawn by nom. (non-admin closure) Nolelover Talk·Contribs 16:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:PROF. Has one publication (don't know how important it is) and was a professor. Google News search comes up with zilch. Bbb23 (talk) 02:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable musician. Thekillerpenguin (talk) 02:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. No one, except the nominator, advocates deletion of the article. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 17:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nonnotable philosopnical neotheory nearly no links beyond wikipedia mirrors and author's works. Lom Konkreta (talk) 01:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Nomination withdrawn. Sandstein 08:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no special mention of a "2012 Hong Kong anti-mainlander conflicts" as a separate, notable event in the sources; could be original research. (However, the part on protesting Kong Qingdong's remarks is a notable and ongoing event, and it should be merged into Kong Qingdong.) ZZArch talk to me 01:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Isaac Air Freight. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
see also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foolish Guys ... to Confound the Wise
This album lacks substantial RS coverage. Tagged for zero refs for 3 years, without improvement. Epeefleche (talk) 01:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Fulton County School System. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 17:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable primary school. Proposing redirect to community, as is the standard outcome for elementary schools. tedder (talk) 01:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Fulton County School System. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 17:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable primary school. Proposing redirect to Fulton County School System. I attempted this, but my redirect reverted, so I'm bringing it to AFD. tedder (talk) 01:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 08:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 01:01, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 17:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 08:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot find any RS coverage of this person in gbooks or gnews. Tagged for its lack of refs since September. Created by an SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 00:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Kubigula (talk) 05:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does not support the family's notability. ZZArch talk to me 00:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Current version does not support the subject's notability. ZZArch talk to me 00:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]