![]() |
The result was redirect to Out of the Box. The article was redirected to a disambiguation page for unrelated reasons some time after this AfD was created.
The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.
Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. (non-admin closure) jp×g 06:51, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
out of the box is an adjective, not a noun and may be suitable for wiktionary but not wikipedia - user:mtmoore321 20th sept.
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An individual who does not appear to have any notability. The article claims that he is an independent film director and musician, however upon searching, I am unable to find a single reliable source on him, either of his movies, or his band. IMDB is the only place that seems to have any information on any of them, and that, of course, is not sufficient to pass the GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 22:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep as per positive consensus and the absence of calls for deletion outside of the nominator. Admittedly, the article can use an editorial clean-up, but that's not what AfD is about. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First off this article has been nominated for deletion three times. It is not a neutral topic and is actually homophobic. While I do believe there is racism in the LGBT community I have not once seen an article on here about homophobia, biphobia or transphobia among people of color. So heres some of the problems 1) This article does not describe how racism in the LGBT community is any worse than in the general community. Whether it exists or not in the LGBT community is really not up for debate but the fact of the matter is that if it isn't greater than the general community its really not notable. 2) By not having an equivelent of sexualism in the different communites of color this topic is not falling into NPOV. Nor is it neutral anyway because it speaks of racism in the LGBT community in wikis voice. 3) It does not represent a global perspective. 4) It has not addressed various forms of racism towards hispanics, Jews and Arabs. Rainbowofpeace (talk) 22:28, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:14, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be a recently invented regional sport that is not yet discussed in any reliable 3rd party sources. Kaldari (talk) 22:30, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:15, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. No assertion of notability. No independent refs at all. Read like self promotion. Velella Velella Talk 22:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is kind of an odd one. While I am positive that such things actually existed, there's nothing to indicate that the concept presented is actually signifigant in any way. It is, quite literally, just a chest that happens to belong to a captain. I've searched for sources, and while I can find books that mention the phrase "captain's chest", none of them actually discuss the concept in any meaningful way. The second half of the article, about the supposed chest on nuclear subs, is complete speculative rumour, and I was also unable to find any references discussing the term "captain's chest" in this context as well. In short, I'm sure captain's actually owned personal chests, however I am unable to find anything to indicate that this concept is any more notable than any other object that just happens to have been owned by a sea captain. Rorshacma (talk) 22:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The one keep !vote provides nothing to rebut the point that notability has not been established. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:12, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
nn selfpromotional vanity piece, no secondary sources, heavily edited by subject Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Internet Icon. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Like the other Internet Icon contestants (Lana McKissack and The Fu Music), they do not pass the WP:GNG. The references are to YouTube, an unreliable source, and 4 of the external links are inappropriate due to WP:ELNO. ZappaOMati 00:01, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. The word "arbitrary" is thrown around a lot, but there's not really any case made that it applies. Irregardless, numbers favour keeping, and Uzma Gamal and Colapeninsula rightly point out that chronoligical article series may reasonable use arbitrary but convenient end points so my Grandma can still read them with her dialup. WilyD 15:22, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
Timeline is unneeded and is better served in Sept 11 articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim62sch (talk • contribs) 02:44, August 24, 2012
The result was delete. If at some point it becomes appropriate to write an article and you'd like this draft, see Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles WilyD 15:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable unreleased song. No charting. No independent refs. No evidence of independent coverage. Google sees many cut-and-pastes of press releases but no actual coverage. Possibly a case of WP:TOOSOON. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete a10, covered by Service (economics). NawlinWiki (talk) 21:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Completely unsourced, seems to be some sort of philosophical topic, I PRODded it and the tag was removed by the creator. Go Phightins! (talk) 21:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:01, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A neologism not used by reliable sources, deprod'ed by creator. A Google search "Points Vulture" -"In tennis, a Points Vulture is generally a player who over-inflates their ranking" which removes Wikipedia mirrors gives almost nothing of relevance except a few forum posts. It appears to be a pejorative term occasionally used by fans of other players to bash a player they don't like. Per WP:BLP I have removed unsourced claims that some named players are "points vultures". PrimeHunter (talk) 20:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC) PrimeHunter (talk) 20:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Mark Arsten (talk) 17:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
searched and can't establish this as Wikipedia-notable - e.g. hasn't been covered in several publications from notable/reliable sources Lachlan Foley (talk) 04:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete without prejudice against recreation with reliable sources. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
User:76.189.97.59 requested on my talk page that I nom this for deletion. No sources, no notability. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 20:05, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Symbolic (Death album). Albums are usually a better target than the artist for songs, as long as the album has an entry Qwyrxian (talk) 04:19, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable song. No evidence of charting. No evidence of awards. No evidence of indepth reviews. Since it appears to be of significance to the band, redirecting and mergeing to Chuck Schuldiner also seems workable. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:15, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Mark Arsten (talk) 18:01, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable artist fails WP:MUSICNOTE, self-published album, various nominations with no awards MacAddct1984 (talk • contribs) 01:47, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No independent notability shown for this album. Unsourced and little more than a track listing. I found nothing with significanct coverage of this album Nothing satisfying WP:NALBUM. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:53, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page or someone can be bold and just do it. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:GNG, possible original research; article is solely reliant on sources associated with the subject and the coining or appropriation of the term. Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:57, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:PORNBIO due to her nominations being all scene-related. Fails the general notability guidelines for not having significant reliable source coverage. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 12:01, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
searched and can't establish this as Wikipedia-notable - e.g. hasn't been covered in several publications from reliable/notable sources Lachlan Foley (talk) 04:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Mark Arsten (talk) 17:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
searched and can't establish this as Wikipedia-notable - e.g. hasn't been covered in several publications from notable/reliable sources Lachlan Foley (talk) 04:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:54, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unpublished draft of a book by a 15 year old. Article is unformatted and unreferenced. LeSnail (talk) 17:45, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 22:15, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A retired Lt. Colonel in the U.S. Army. Military career doesn't pass WP:SOLDIER. Worked as a product manager at Picatinny Arsenal while in the military One reference comes from Picatinny, other come from the military and both say he is the new incoming product manager. Currently pursing a Ph.D. while working a Picatinny as a civilian. Unable to find any references that don't come from the Army. Prod was removed because, "references from independed reliable sources were added" Bgwhite (talk) 17:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of notability (contested PROD) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Was supposedly speedied, but I think its been contested somewhat. The contestors reasoning was that it would be recreated for another time. (See the articles talk page) Nevertheless, we cannot follow that kind of logic. Policies like WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL are here for a reason, and hence we should delete this unreferenced page first. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 16:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable (most of the refs are about her husband, or are non-reliable). A previous AfD was withdrawn by its nominator. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Shrikanthv (talk) 03:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy keep. Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fails notability. This event has been covered in a blog post on the Guardian website [25] and some cycling blog posts[26] but it lacks the sustained, in depth coverage required by the notability criteria. The kind of annual events that typically have Wikipedia articles about them draw tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of participants. This event drew only 400 in 2010. Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I had checked Google News, ProQuest and General OneFile, and didn't find significant news coverage. I'd forgotten that I just got a Questia login yesterday, and found significant coverage there. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Bedtime for Democracy. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. PROD rationale was "Fails WP:NSONGS. Was never released as a single, no independent notability, no evidence of significant secondary source coverage. Nothing here but unsourced statements, no hope of ever being more than a stub.". PROD tag was removed by an IP with no reason stated. IllaZilla (talk) 14:26, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:15, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No independent sources, no indication that this passes WP:ACADEMIC or WP:BIO Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily deleted by User:Jimfbleak under criterion A7. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 10:43, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TNT.--Müdigkeit (talk) 14:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC) Müdigkeit (talk) 14:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser TSU 03:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The information is already covered in List of attacks by ASALA and Justice Commandos of the Armenian Genocide George Spurlin (talk) 13:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WilyD 15:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see any notability here. A Google search lists Nick Jacksons that are clearly not this person - a boat equipment company and an artist instead of this broadcaster. The one English-language link is a trivial mention that says nearly nothing about him. Note: If deleted, the disambiguation page Nicholas Jackson should go to, since it would not link to any articles. Ego White Tray (talk) 21:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but a promotional magazine is worthless as source or claim of notability, because it is always close to the subject. Delete.--Müdigkeit (talk) 18:43, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Initial Teaching Alphabet. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:55, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Letters of the Latin alphabet, due to its widespread use, are notable. Letters from the Initial Teaching Alphabet? I don't think so. None of the other letters of the ITA have their own articles, and the article does not appear to assert any notability. Pokajanje|Talk 23:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. What I said in the closure of the first AfD still applies, but this time the community's opinion about this article borders on a "keep" consensus, with those who consider it original research by synthesis clearly in the minority. Sandstein 12:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no evidence for notability, the page is essentially a synthesis of sources that don't even pass WP:MEDRS. CartoonDiablo (talk) 19:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A word on sources: This is a medical article meaning it has to abide by WP:MEDRS. Yes this article has a reference section but not one single reference passes MEDRS. If you removed every citation that fails MEDRS there wouldn't be an article. CartoonDiablo (talk) 02:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced biography of a non-notable individual. Has been speedily deleted 3x as a copyvio under name of Lee Shing-see. Page creator has a WP:COI. Recommend Delete or Merge into Construction Industry Council Hong Kong. GregJackP Boomer! 21:40, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. No substantial sources have been provided demonstrating notability of this particular set. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:50, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:((subst:spa|username)) ; suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)) ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)) . |
Wikipedia is not a toy catalog. Don't see any evidence this particular set of Legos is more notable than the other several dozens of sets Lego puts out every year. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:58, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, this may be too general a point for this discussion...if so, sorry! But the underlying logic pretty much applies to all the Lego product lines and many other game related materials. Consider a very narrow, special interest issue that is of relevance to only twenty scientist in the whole world - who regularly publish on the subject in learned journals. By contrast, there may be a product which millions of people buy but which is not well covered by any independent secondary source in writing (e.g. there are no doubt more journals dedicated to obscure literary criticism than to the toy market). Does that really make the first type of subject more relevant for an encyclopedia than the second? It certainly makes it easier to cover, as there are lots of ready-made references. But shouldn't the decision regarding which pages are worth keeping and working on (i.e. trying to find these reliable sources) be based to a certain extent on some notion of "popularity" or "general interest"? Drow69 (talk) 16:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Lego collectors have their own wikis. But the reference to the Dino Attack line made above is valid. Why keep one and delete the other? Drow69 (talk) 19:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus. To my dismay and two relistings, I have closed my nomination as no consensus, I may renominate the article after a few months have passed. SwisterTwister talk 02:37, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable company and I have found insufficient sources to support this article. Despite that the bizjournals.com link that the article cites contains 3 pages, the entire bizjournals article reads like an advertisement and wouldn't be useful for Wikipedia. The only nearly useful information that the article provides is the "200 customers" which most certainly could've changed, considering that the bizjournals article is from 2003. Google News provided this San Jose Mercury-News article which lists them twice to compare company rates. Google News archives provided nothing useful aside from forums and reviews. Google News archives provided articles here and here, both mentioned the company once. Surprisingly, there is a Korean news article here, considering that I am not fluent with Korean, I wouldn't know how useful that link would be. The only useful link I have found is this web.archive.org link that provides a history of the company and its founder. Google Books found one book that cited Wikipedia as the source for all of the content, which would evidently be citing ourselves. SwisterTwister talk 04:37, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What do you wait for? This article should have already been deleted.--Müdigkeit (talk) 18:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. No prejudice against a speedy renomination if someone feels that the newly added references mentioned by ElKevbo aren't up to par. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable sorority: notability not supported by independent third party references as required by WP:GNG. Not recognized by any national sorority umbrella group. Very small, fewer than 10 chapters, with a very localized footprint primarily in Texas. GrapedApe (talk) 01:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. The rationale for merging is mostly unexplained, lest one comment about the article feeling a bit light; that's a subjective judgement, so it can't really weigh strongly against the larger number of voices who disagree. Merger can be discussed locally, of course. WilyD 07:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not a notable concept or term. Disregarding the vast amounts of citationneeded tags and other inline tags (as these are editing issues), my search as per WP:BEFORE brought forth nothing to indicate that this is a suitable topic for an encyclopedia article. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 12:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 19:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hasn't received significant press coverage under WP:GNG, WP:POLITICIAN Harsh (talk) 10:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the 1960s and 70s backward class leaders did not get much publicity because of castism in India. So there is no question of press coverage but one important thing must be noted that Mr. Mukne’s voice against untouchablility was noted by Foreign AuthorKlaus Klostermaier and the author has given the reference of mukne's article published in india's leading international daily newspaper the Times of India in 1968 in his book "A Survey of Hinduism" [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anurang (talk • contribs)
May be according to Wikipedia Mr. mukne has no sufficient online citation to produce here via hyperlink but some News Paper cuttings of articles about Mukne is uploaded and Photographs are attached with this page for reference. Considering his social work he is also appointed Maharashtra State Vice President of All-India Depressed Classes League" founded by Jagjivan Ram who was Deputy Prime Minister of India. In accordance with his social work from last 40 years for depressed class work I request Wikipedia to considering Mukne in social worker category instead of Indian Politician. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anurang (talk • contribs) 23:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable "internet meme" (read: Facebook chain letter). Described by its creator as "promoting an event " on my talk page. (contested speedy) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep - y u h8 books? did a book kill ur dog or sumting? 41.204.73.15 (talk) 12:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as nonsense. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What is this!? Looks like something made up one day. A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 11:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. A number of merge comments exist, but seem to ignore the fundamental facts of the discussion. Sources dug up (by e.g., NorthAmerica1000) strongly indicate the notability of Pizza Cheese independent of Pizza (Who'da thunk it?), and thus comments to the contrary appear to be more guesses as to what one expects than an analysis of the article and situation. They therefor can't be construed to carry much weight. WilyD 15:33, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:((subst:spa|username)) ; suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)) ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)) . |
The article lists no references or sources, since December 2009. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stybn (talk • contribs)
Comment/Question Absolutely nothing wrong with the contents of the article, but don't understand why some are arguing that it should have it's own article. Would moving it to its own section on Pizza really make pizza too big? Is pizza cheese a significant topic independent of Pizza? OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:31, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Or maybe "keep" as that is the tenor of all opinions after the rewrite, but in any event the outcome is the same. Sandstein 12:18, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Short article that is almost entirely either unsourced or original research, and which I cannot foresee being salvaged to make a suitable article any time soon. The topic of the census enumeration of race, ethnicity and religion is notable, as indicated by its treatment in articles like Race and ethnicity in the United States Census and Race and ethnicity in Brazil -- neither of which is linked or discussed from this article. The comparison and discussion of such enumeration in various world jurisdictions is also likely to be notable (and controversial), but the handful of isolated factoids about 6 countries provided in this article does not come anywhere near what a comparison article ought to include. Only three facts in the article have reference citations; I flagged the U.S. fact as "fails verification", but in fact I also cannot find the Israeli fact in the cited source; I haven't tried to translate the Russian document. In summary, although there might be a notable topic here, I don't find it in this article. It would be easier to start over than to try to salvage this one.. Orlady (talk) 04:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It would be best to let this one go and hope that the concept can be built upon in the enumeration article or as a list to that article. Or combing the concept with Demographics. Or something similar as an article request.
I could see an article on Demographics & enumeration studies covering this subject and much more. For a taste, see:
Using Information from Demographic Analysis in Post-Enumeration Survey Estimation to adjust for under counts. Jrcrin001 (talk) 06:52, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No indication of notability in the article, the sole reference is to a primary source. Much of the article reads like an advert and the content suggests this individual has been involved in only a few relatively minor projects of note Fenix down (talk) 10:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Snow Keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:50, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:MUSICBIO and doesn't provide significantly reliable sources (many primary sources, many simple mentions and many unverifiable sources). Koui² (talk) 10:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again Koui: I would be happy to, not only "any" but more than "one" points listed by WP:MUSICBIO. I think whether you have not made enough research or just don't want to admit that your deletion tag was absolutely wrong, which was pointed out to you not only by my but other wikipedians including admins. Now, here are points:
AND: Latsabidsze is a team member of Onward Entertainment, NYC AND LA BASED PRODUCTION COMPANY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tibetibe (talk • contribs) 17:52, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have pointed out enough and answered your rhetoric question. Now, it's time for you to reconsider your opinion my friend.
Think that way, the pianist who is giving concerts in major concert halls such as the Berliner Philharmonie, Wigmore Hall London, etc..must not be that bad as you think, what do you think? Regards, Helen-Heller (talk) 00:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Koui²
I have created this article couple of years ago together with my colleagues we have been trying to improve it over the consecutive years. I am an editor on wikipedia and made some other contributions as well. It's been a challenging but enjoyable. I respect your opinions, however please be advised that all problems can be fixed if such exist. Just nominating article because there were couple of unreliable sources (which has been removed already by you Koui² as I see) seems to me unreasonable. I see you have already removed those unreliable sources, I don't see any reason why you put deletion tag? I think overall article is written well and again it's been written not only by me but other editors and corrected by english administrators. So, I would kindly ask you to reconsider your opinion, I thank you for your contributions and hope you can help further. If there are problems on article let's fix it all together, this is what wikipedia is about, to work together, collaborate together, find problems and solve them in a nice way. I hope you are on the same page. Thank you for your understanding! Sausa (talk) 17:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets notability requirements. However, a lot of the article reads like a resume. Not enough biographical info but heavy on the list of achievements and praise. It needs to be more balanced.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter (whisper) @ 15:19, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable song. No evidence of charting. No evidence of awards. No evidence of independent recording. One-paragraph all-music review seems to be the peak of coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:34, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fine here's a few: "Mōggio", Sheik Yerbouti (which is a NEEDED article, but needs cleaning up as well), and Raymond Kelly --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 01:07, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We have articles on all three. There is no need of an article which is about what all three actors are collectively called by media. Harsh (talk) 09:24, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ambiguous list made on nationalistic battleground mentality that is open to various interpretations. George Spurlin (talk) 08:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus. Closed by nominator, in order to allow article creator time to improve article. TFD (talk) 19:48, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Original research. While it is clear that the Polish word fałszywka means forgery in English, there is no evidence that it was used in Poland to specifically refer to "counterfeit top secret files and fake police reports produced by the Communist secret service". TFD (talk) 05:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Canadian Poetry Association. It appears there's nothing left to merge. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 08:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:GNG. nothing in gnews. nothing from major Canadian broadcaster [75]. note that only 3 winners were even notable. LibStar (talk) 03:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no encyclopedic content in this table at all. That would mean it fails per WP:INDISCRIMINATE Ryan Vesey 02:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:32, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the ((articleissues)) template on this article, which is completely accurate: it's mildly spammy (although not to the point of being speedy deleteable); it's definitely not neutral; some of it appears to be original research; both of the sources are affiliated with the organisation; it's clearly written from the point of view of someone associated with it; its tone is nowhere near unencyclopedic; and it tends to assume the truth of the message that the organisation preaches. Time to blow it up. On top of that, there appear to be zero reliable sources online (virtually all of the 60-odd pages that Google showed me were social media of some sort or another, and the rest were business listings), so WP:N is a substantial problem even if you don't believe in blowing up pages that are hopelessly lost. Nyttend (talk) 02:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:45, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
an award based on a non official website which only gives this website as a source. LibStar (talk) 00:32, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]