< 17 October | 19 October > |
---|
The result was speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G3 by User:Ironholds. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone find a reference for this topic (I mean this title with this meaning)? I couldn't. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
After some more googling, the actually notable "R peak" topic is something about ECGs, and it's not "cargo cult" at all. [1] Tijfo098 (talk) 19:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. ‑Scottywong| confess _ 16:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just passing this along after declining a PROD since there have been at least three of them over the history of this article. Primary concern relevant to AfD seem to be that the subject does not meet notability guidelines. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 23:44, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deletion was declined and removed; this article isn't important enough or notable enough to have an article. It seems to be a local mall. TBrandley 23:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please take into account this mall is in New Zealand. While a mall of this size may not be notable in the USA/UK, this is reasonably signifcant in New Zealand. It serves a suburb of around 20,000. I can't find any more sources yet, although Isn't the newspaper article enough? I really don't think it's fair to delete this just because there are too many malls on Wikipedia. The other think is, it would be hard to say the mall isn't notable without having been there (which I have done). Maybe it's only a New Zealand thing, but this mall really is the centre of the community. It is the most significant thing in the suburb. No disrespect meant, but I don't think it is appropriate to comment on what the mall is/isn't ('It is a local mall!') without having been there. And the only two people who HAVE been there have said it is notable. Videomaniac29 (talk) 03:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PLEASE, tell me how to find a more notable source. Very rarely will there be a notable source about anything in New Zealand, other than the local paper. I know this mall is notable enough, but there just isn't the media coverage in NZ as there is elsewhere. Many NZ articles solely use local papers as sources, and they are not up for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PoppingCandyTexas (talk • contribs) 03:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have recently added a new source. ('but just one source regarding itself isn't notable enough') So it no longer solely contains self-regarding sources. I doubt there'd be anymore sources, but I'll post here if I find one. Videomaniac29 (talk) 04:01, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just found a source from major NZ newspaper. Quotes from it: 'Papamoa is Tauranga's fastest growing suburb and thousands of people visit the plaza every day. Tauranga's population is forecast to grow to 150,000 residents over the next 20 years. The plaza's immediate catchment encompasses 17,000 residents and a higher than average median income for the Bay of Plenty region. During the summer holidays turnover takes a huge surge when the immediate catchment swells with up to 216,000 visitors.' To me, that seems notable enough. Please tell me if you think it isn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Videomaniac29 (talk • contribs) 04:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have added more info backed up by several more sources, among them the NZ Herald, one of the widely distributed papers in NZ. That proves it is notable. Could you please consider removing deletion requests now because I made the article in Good Faith, and now it is backed up my numerous notable sources. For an NZ articles, it has well above average sources. Videomaniac29 (talk) 04:14, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But as it no longer violates Wikipedia's policy of notability, could this be closed quite soon, so the article becomes 'normal'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Videomaniac29 (talk • contribs) 04:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well the thing is, I made and saved the basic part of the article. Then, as I was typing up improvements and extra bits, I noticed it was up for deletion, so I ceased improving the article because my effort would have been wasted if it was deleted. That's why I am wanting this discussion to end ASAP, because I've added the requireed sources to make it notable. When this ends, I will continue improving the article, but until this ends, I'm not willing to improve it, in case it gets deleted. Videomaniac29 (talk) 00:30, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IMPORTANT...READ: I have changed my mind, and started improving the article. I have added a lot more sources, and a lot more content. There is absolutely no way this article breaches Wikipedia's Notability Guidlines. I am therefore asking if this discussion could be closed, and the article returned to normal. Videomaniac29 (talk) 01:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. ‑Scottywong| spill the beans _ 16:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no evidence of notability due to insufficient information about the subject and I haven't found any relevant sources with Google News India. Considering the article mentions "1920s", it is certainly possible that any sources may not be English or Internet-based. Although A. N. S. Raghavan and N. S. Raghavan are both businesspeople, there isn't any evidence to suggest they are related. Considering the article claims he was a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI), I searched but found nothing relevant. I found recent news articles for a B. Raghavan but, like N. S. Raghavan, there isn't any evidence of relation. As I mentioned, if this person truly existed, it is likely that useful sources are not English and I wish there was a native name to expand my search but there isn't. I should note that I have watched this article since June 2012 and, unsurprisingly, the article hasn't received any activity or improvement. SwisterTwister talk 23:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy keep due to malformed submission. Nominator, please read Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Nominating_article.28s.29_for_deletion before nominating this article or others. SwisterTwister talk 23:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article gives an unpleasant impression of double standard policy concerning notability on Wikipedia. It took me 5 weeks to demonstrate the notability of Jean-Paul Herteman who is the most important person in French Aerospace. Wikipedians should be able to apply to themselves the tough criteria of notability they apply to people outside Wikipedia. Euroflux (talk) 19:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Keep votes are unconvincing because none provide sources that discuss the subject of "clubs and societies of Royal College, Colombo", as required per WP:LISTN. Sources that discuss individual clubs and societies, while great for individual articles on the clubs, don't support a list article like this one. ‑Scottywong| converse _ 17:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pure WP:SCHOOLCRUFT. Clubs at an elementary, junior, and senior high school do not deserve their own page. Note that I'm not even proposing a merge, because the majority of this isn't even important enough to be listed on the main article (Royal College, Colombo), and it's almost entirely unsourced anyway. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedily deleted at author's request. Achowat (talk) 13:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]
Non-notable, just a news story per WP:NOT#NEWS and fails to meet any of the criteria in Wikipedia:WikiProject Earthquakes/notability guidelines Mikenorton (talk) 22:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. ‑Scottywong| chatter _ 17:03, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:GNG, founder of a really small party (5.688 votes in 2008) whose higher seat is a member in a third-level political assembly in Italy Vituzzu (talk) 22:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PS: the pages has been created and then (mainly) maintained by him, who is supposed to join this afd soon.--Vituzzu (talk) 22:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. ‑Scottywong| verbalize _ 17:03, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable musical release. No evidence of charting. No evidence of awards. No evidence of long-form professional reviews. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. ‑Scottywong| prattle _ 17:03, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable musical release. No evidence of charting. No evidence of awards. No evidence of long-form professional reviews. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. ‑Scottywong| converse _ 17:38, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone else doubtful as to whether this fruit actually exists? Searching (example, example) turns up nothing of relevance, just false positives. Furthermore, I find it improbable that a fruit has some use in a a massage. CtP (t • c) 21:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy keep. Contrary to Euroflux's notability and reliable sources claim, the article contains a BBC News reference which is widely considered as a reliable source, as well as Financial Times links. (non-admin closure) SwisterTwister talk 03:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This person lacks notability ; no reliable sources ; the content of the article is obscure...
This stub is an orphan : no equivalent on the French WP whereas he is supposed to be an alumnus of Centrale Paris and INSEAD, no equivalent on the Moroccan WP, nor on the Austrian WP....
A dubious stub... Euroflux (talk) 16:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) -- Lord Roem (talk) 04:25, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unnotable person, none of the material here is cited, and a Google search doesn't turn up anything noteworthy. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:40, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PROD removed. New article for a non-notable feast/celebration. Drmies (talk) 20:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The once source that was supplied (since removed) was to a wiki. Unable to find any reliable sources discussing the drink in a significant manner. Found several blogs that have the recipe but those are not reliable sources and just finding a recipe does not automatically confer notability. SQGibbon (talk) 19:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 22:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A single closed church building in Manhattan is hardly notable. Furthermore, a google search reveals that there are several St Jerome's Churches in Manhattan. I was unable to find any substantial secondary source coverage of this particular building, and do not see any reason for it to be included. It is possible that we may want to put the information into the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York article, but don't really see a reason to do so. ReformedArsenal (talk) 19:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:37, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
X-factor UK is being televised and encouraging a rash of articles about the contestants before they achieve independent notability. This case is unusual, because the article is about a 2011 self-published album by a current X-Factor contestant, released for download 12 months before anyone knew of her. It gets several recent mentions in the press, because it had to be removed from I-Tunes. Maybe the best (and only) mention in any depth is this recent article. The track 'Last Night' has probably had significantly more coverage because it was sung during the audition stage of X-factor. I would argue that the album, in comparison, has been largely unnoticed. Does not meet WP:NMUSIC criteria. Sionk (talk) 20:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: It does meet WP:NMUSIC criteria. The album has peaked to number 22 on the UK Albums Chart and number 72 on the Irish Albums Chart and does meet WP:NMUSIC. The album has also received coverage. Greenock125 (talk) 17:07, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: This is a charting album which would have done even better, had it not been deleted: "Spraggan’s independently released 2011 album, Top Room At The Zoo...is also the sixth biggest selling album of the week" Gnu andrew (talk) 06:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedied following page blanking by author. Peridon (talk) 18:38, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Autobiographical article claiming notability as a Mauritian model who has appeared on the cover of Vogue, but no verification can be found for this or any other claims of notability, other than unreliable self-published sites. Images available of Soukhee as a Vogue cover model appear to be self-created photo-shop fakes. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:22, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 22:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According to Notability (organizations and companies)
"If a company is notable, information on its products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself, unless the company article is so large that this would make the article unwieldy."
Beyond that, the article has been primarily created and maintained by the producers of this software. In addition, the company itself is not notable enough to merit its own Wikipedia article... otherwise I would suggest merging the article into the broader company article.ReformedArsenal (talk) 17:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 22:36, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:36, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This page contains no actual discussion, has a cherry-picked and unexplained list of features, and only lists three software packages out of at least dozens (and possibly hundreds) in use.} Thouis.r.jones (talk) 16:49, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:36, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The player has been in a fully pro league in turkish 3rd division for 31 matches. Turkish 3rd division is a fully professional league. As it clearly published that turkish 3rd division is a fully professional league. This is the official rule paper of the divison. and here it declres that turkish 3rd division is a fully proffessional league. Just same as turkish super league, turkish first division or turkish second division. http://www.tff.org/Resources/TFF/Documents/000013/TFF/STATULER/TFF3Lig-Statusu-Son.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plexus14 (talk • contribs) 02:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was SPEEDY DELETE, empty list so no substantive content. postdlf (talk) 16:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A list of only two entries— one red-link and another is up for speedy. Infinitesimal chance that this article will ever be populated to satisfy the criteria of stand-alone lists. — Bill william comptonTalk 16:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete (G1: Patent nonense, meaningless or incomprehensible) by Jimfbleak (talk · contribs)
Insupportable list of non-notable facts, created as original research and which could only be maintained through further original research. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. There's a significant enough group of editors here who believe the topic is worthwhile that the possible linkfarming is convincingly a cleanup problem rather than a deletion problem. Renaming is possible, though I'm not sure there's a consensus here for it. Since it's essentially a "how do we organise the content" question, I thus have to give a lot of weight to the headcount. WilyD 06:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be a WP:LINKFARM. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Consumerization. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is nothing more than a dictionary definition of a term that is used widely in the IT industry, but with widely varying meanings depending on the context. No verification can be found for the author's claim that he invented the term. PROD declined by author. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. The argument that it passes WP:N are hard to overcome. NOTNEWS is much trickier - how can one evaluate the long-term significance of a event that happened a week ago? I can't see the case that it's "routine news reporting" the way baseball games, horroscopes, or traffic reports are - one would need to make a compelling case, which isn't done here. There is, I think, a sufficient consensus that the phrase and subsequent meme should be mentioned either in an article, or in an article about the second debate (which appears to be merged into an article about all the debates at the moment). I can't tell which from this discussion, because both positions rely strongly on guessing what may come, partisan assertions. The argument that it's POV to merely have an article on the topic would need a compelling argument, not just a straightforward assertion, given that the sources come from across the political spectrum. If it was only far left sources repeating it, I would be inclined to give that position serious weight - not so much when it's the Globe & Mail. As with every article, merger remains an editorial possibility if a local consensus agrees to it (since people often ask this be stated explicitly). I wasn't able to detect a trend that way in the discussion - but it's tricky, because the sources kept appearing as the discussion continued, which may have changed the calculus is a way that a discussion like this, with much heat but little light, didn't illuminate. WilyD 07:37, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is nothing more than Silly season garbage that is highly unlikely to last any longer than the lame Big Bird issue from a few days prior. This is an attempt by the left to attack Mitt Romney and push the continued fictional "War on Womnen". As such, the use of WP to push political memes is highly inappropriate, however if for some crazy reason this becomes something huge it can be added at a later time. At a very maximum this should be covered in the presidential debate article as it is not worthy of its own page. Arzel (talk) 12:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
merge into an appropriate article. If there's a separate article on the debate, that'd be a good destination, otherwise, the article on the 2012 Presidential Race. Its obvious based on NOTNEWS that a separate article isn't warranted. But given that its received mainstream media coverage (NBCNews.com had an article, I assume its already in this article), so its reasonable to have a paragraph or so somewhere, and to have the phrase not be a red-link. Umbralcorax (talk) 14:26, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This has gone on long enough. Go back to your corners. Tarc (talk) 01:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
The result was keep, nomination withdrawn. NAC. Cliff Smith 18:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary disambiguation page. The first entry is a red link. The second entry is a stretch to say that anyone searching "YIH" would be looking for that topic. The third and fourth would be red links if the entries were done properly (Yih (surname), Yih (given name)). The fifth entry has no related article (and really, if someone is searching about the number 1, they are not going to search "Yih"). Finally, the last entry can be dealt with by a redirect (since none of the other entries on this page are proper search terms). Singularity42 (talk) 11:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Being bold and closing this one - merge is complete and the album appears to fail WP:NALBUMS. Thanks for merging it Gbawden! SarahStierch (talk) 22:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article has already been tagged for notability, it is unsourced and is by an artist who has also been tagged for notability. IMO this EP doesn't merit an article of its own Gbawden (talk) 10:18, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge. I intend to take a rather extreme approach to this merger, probably nothing more than a abbreviated version of the lead. If there is anything else of encyclopedic value, which at a glance I doubt, it can be pulled from the page history for additional merging. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
[reply]
A vast article , in enormous detail, about a fictional football team who are part of an obscure manga. No out-world notability, no sourcing. There is one reference here for the whole article, and that's just the fictional text, not even fan-world commentary. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:00, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to industrial relations. Content may be merged at editorial discretion. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Already covered in Employment. Any expansion should happen there if there is something missing from that article (with reliable sources, not one self-published by the article creator). Fails WP:OR as the only source is the article creator's own blog, from which the article is basically copied. This leads to the suspicion that this article was created solely for the purpose of promoting the creator's blog. Harry the Dog WOOF 08:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Spammy/promotional article about non-notable company. Biker Biker (talk) 06:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Martin Sargent. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:35, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Little-known, canceled podcast fails to meet WP:N, WP:WEB, and WP:RS. Survived previous AFD with no consensus (only one "weak keep" vote). Should be deleted. -- Wikipedical (talk) 04:41, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. sources are pretty weak, but not obviously a huge failure of WP:N, and the headcount is balanced. WilyD 06:51, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No independent reliable sources that establish notability under WP:GNG or WP:ORG. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:41, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 10:58, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:N Go Phightins! (talk) 02:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) -- Lord Roem (talk) 17:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. Has no visible verifiable references from reliable sources (only ref is self-published). Contested PROD. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 03:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) -- Lord Roem (talk) 03:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Has no visible verifiable references from reliable sources (the only references are self-published). Contested PROD. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 03:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawing Nomination - restored previous version of article, that seems better. Mdann52 (talk) 22:23, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to read like an advert, and is badly sourced. Mdann52 (talk) 18:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Jenks24 (talk) 10:57, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Advertisement Willrocks10 Speak to me 15:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. that was an eyefull to read.. SarahStierch (talk) 22:41, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable corporation Orange Mike | Talk 01:18, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The company lacks significant secondary coverage as required under WP:GNG and also lacks WP:CORPDEPTH. No significant secondary-source coverage could be found in a search. Additionally I have doubts about the claims under the "awards" section: the company is said to have won Microsoft Developer Partner of the Year in 2008 and 2009 and was a runner-up in another category those same years. This listing of 2008 winners from Microsoft makes no mention of the company. I could be looking at the wrong set of awards, but I think this still fails the normal notability test. Batard0 (talk) 10:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:Notability. A passing mention in a Seattle P-I editorial [53] is the only coverage I could find in Questia, HighBeam, Gale, and ProQuest. Here is brief mention in a local blog. What's lacking is sustained coverage in major news media, or books and journals, where Mobility Education is the main subject. Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:47, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Unanimous WilyD 06:53, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable company, nearly all of the current references are primary or insufficient. Nearly all of the results that Google News found are press releases with two non-English links, but they (the non-English links) appear to be insufficient. Unfortunately, Google News archives also provided press releases. The best source I have found is this D Magazine article, mentioning information that is currently displayed, the 1996 establishment, 2007 award, and something new, "Alt-N’s server is now the fifth most-used in the world" which may be notable, but this appears to be the only useful source. Google Books found one small mention here and two mentions through another book here. A possibility is redirecting the article to their product, MDaemon.
However, Google News results for MDaemon also show press releases. Google News archives for the product revealed one useful source here and the other results are non-English so I wouldn't know how useful those are. Although it appeared that MDaemon was a popular product, I have found more press releases than useful sources so both Alt-N and MDaemon may be non-notable. Any thoughts? SwisterTwister talk 04:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was KEEP per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) AutomaticStrikeout 23:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]