![]() |
The result was userfied. De728631 (talk) 15:10, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. The only sources are either primary sources or self-published sources such as forum posts. The article has zero third-party reliable sources that show any notability. SudoGhost 23:37, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I admit Wikipedia's policies. But, the problem is HackShark Linux is a new distribution. You can see the first release date from http://sourceforge.net/projects/hacksharklinux/files/ . Indeed, it's not much popular as Fedora or Ubuntu or other distros. That's the main reason it's hardly possible to find out any reliable third party sources as its references. However, as per the official download counter at http://sourceforge.net/ we can claim that HackShark Linux is becoming popular, we don't even know the unofficial download numbers from the forums and self-published sources. We know, by time, along with higher versions it will also become a popular distro, and will reviewed by popular third party sources. Now, the question arises here, until it becomes reviewed by any popular third party sources, can't it be a part of Wikipedia? -- Orion Caspar (talk)
The result was delete. De728631 (talk) 15:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A self-published book of dubious notability. The article makes some grandiose claims about how this book was praised as the "War and Peace" of the UFO genre, however upon investigation, it would appear the only place those claims were made were in user reviews on Amazon, thus not exactly a reliable claim. The sources on this are hard to investigate: both are print-only, UFO centered publications. I am unsure of the validity of reviews from these organizations, nor of the extent of coverage either of them gave this book, but I feel that the book having no reviews in more traditional sources of book reviews is rather telling. The third source used in the article, to a page on SETI's site, is not about the book at all, and thus not a valid source. Looking for additional sources, the only place I'm finding any mention of the book is in "About the Author" sections for other things that this author wrote, both under this name and his real name (Victor Norgarde being an alias). Rorshacma (talk) 23:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. De728631 (talk) 15:05, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet notability standards at WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 22:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 04:55, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that the Malaysian 2nd division is fully pro, a claim not supported by reliable sources at WP:FPL or elsewhere. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 04:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:07, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. This could as well have been speedily deleted before per CSD A7. De728631 (talk) 15:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced article about a company that fails WP:CORPDEPTH: No significant coverage in secondary sources. A Prod was deleted by the author, without a edit comment. Ben Ben (talk) 19:01, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser TSU 01:23, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Person isn't notable. A google search for exact name gives only 6 results, one of which is this article itself. Kondi (talk) 20:12, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. None of the keep comments are in any way compatible with WP:GNG or WP:Notability (web). Someone famous blogging about it doesn't make it notable. Nor does a single article with a few sentences in one newspaper make it notable. Now, it seems like some day it may meet our guidelines, so if someone wants a copy for your userspace, please let me know and I will make one for you if you want to keep working on it. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:18, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Created by the site owner making it a big COI problem and just doesn't seem to be all that notable. Eeekster (talk) 19:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity[...]The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it – without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter.
If [...] you expect to derive monetary or other benefits or considerations from editing Wikipedia; for example, by being an owner, officer, or other stakeholder of a company or other organization about which you are writing; then you are very strongly discouraged to edit Wikipedia in areas where there is a conflict of interest that may make your edits non-neutral (biased).[...] If you have a financial interest in a topic (either as an employee, owner or other stakeholder) it is advised to provide full disclosure of your connection, and to use the "discussion" pages to suggest changes (using the {Request edit} template to request edits) rather than editing articles directly. (WP:NOPAY)
The result was redirect to University of British Columbia Faculty of Law. There is a clear consensus to merge/redirect. Since all of the referenced, relevant content already appears to be at the target, a redirect suffices. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:21, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion per WP:GNG and WP:Overcategorization. I feel a category for the Dean of a Law university has no place on Wikipedia. Peripherally, I also feel this article violates WP:IINFO and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Shashwat986 → talk 19:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Contested proposed deletion. Did this incident happen? Maybe. Is it notable? As far as anyone can tell, no. Claims of notability are made in the article but have not been substantiated. I tried a machine translation of the one external link. Google translate is usually pretty good with Hebrew but for some reson this came out the other end as unintelligible garbage. There is what appears to be a local news report about this incident on YouTube at [2]. A woman holds what appears to be a moldy chicken bone and claims it is the remains of this alien. In short, if there really was a mysterious creature that, as claimed by the article, was the subject of intense scrutiny by over fifty scientists from two prestigious institutions, would there not be more evidence than a local news story and... well whatever it is the PDF file is supposed to be. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:42, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
has sadly been charcterised as 'unreliable' by other contributors. Unless there are credible sources for this, I thinl this article should be deleted on the basis there doesn't appear to be anything like the level of coverage the claimed notability notes in the article would suggest. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Incubate; the article is now at Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Rihanna's seventh studio album. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:32, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article about the soon-to-be-named seventh studio album by barbadian recording artist Rihanna. Per WP:HAMMER and several notability issues, i think we should wait until notable information directly related to the article appears. Otherwise, this should not be created yet. — ΛΧΣ21™ 17:07, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. De728631 (talk) 15:23, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable production group. No sources found that are reliable or independent of the group. NtheP (talk) 16:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:41, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am struggling to see how this meets the requirements of WP:AUTHOR. Google searches reveal very few hits and most of those look to be of a self-published nature. As indeed does our article, where a conflict of interest seems likely. Sitush (talk) 15:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser TSU 01:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The first two references are broken; references #3,#4, #5 and #7 look like some kind of lists; reference #8 links to Wikipedia 67.169.11.79 (talk) 16:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 00:12, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Living person. Accused of complicity in a terrorist plot but no record of any conviction. No other claim to fame. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 09:57, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
*Strong delete Thanks very much for this. This guy was acquitted ("the jury accepted his defence that he was an unwitting victim of someone else's conspiracy - and that he himself had no role in what happened.) and we should definitely not have an article on him, he's had enough problems. I've added his acquittal to the article. Oh hell, looks like the guy who was acquitted is [3] but that's not the same person, although the same name, as [4], [5], [6] is it? I'll remove my edit. Dougweller (talk) 11:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination; however, editors should also feel free to try a bold redirect and see if it sticks. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 06:08, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BIO. Seems to be a vanity article--there is already an article for his company, Nass Corporation B.S.C.. Most of the sources are self-published, e.g., company websites. The exception is that he was named one of the top 300 most influential Arabs by "Arabian Business," an award which does not seem to reach the level of WP:ANYBIO. A Google News archive search shows a bunch of articles in the Gulf Daily News that are mainly press releases about the company, with quotes attributed to his name. Logical Cowboy (talk) 04:20, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 06:03, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
After pruning this article (ALL the content was "sourced" to the subject's own work, sometimes with links to buy the book, and it made rather grandiose claims about her importance) I did the various Google searches--in Books, since she's an academic, and in News, since supposedly she is a public figure--and came up with nothing, nothing at all, with her name in both spellings, with and without middle name. What we have is a puff piece for a person who, as far as I can tell, doesn't meet the GNG or PROF. I'll stand corrected if such evidence as indices and impacts are cited, reliably. Drmies (talk) 03:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Phanerozoic (talk) 21:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In my view, the subject fails both the General notability guidelines for biographies and the Author notability guidelines. After much searching both under his full name (Rotimi Ogunjobi) and his nickname (Timi Ogunjobi), I can find no biographical information which is not self-published. Typical example. There are no reviews of his work in any independently published reliable sources. Virtually all of his work is self-published through various vanity publishers or his own online ventures one of which is Lagos Literary and Arts Journal. Note the user name of the article's creator and sole author [7]. His only independently published work appears to consist of three short stories. One appears in an anthology of "new and emerging writers" [8] published by Critical, Cultural and Communications Press (2010). One in Queen's Quarterly (2002) [9], and one in an anthology published in Nigeria (1999) [10]. Voceditenore (talk) 16:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge and redirect to List of cryptids. 11:43, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
There are references, yes, but note that all of them are from the May 21 2010 timeline, with only one from May 25, 2010. Still, the time span of the coverage is too short. All refs died out after May 2010; I can find no more before or after that period.This is just another decomposed lake animal that got a short puff of attention. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 07:04, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to List of Dragonlance characters#Renowned groups. The Bushranger One ping only 00:16, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A search for reliable, secondary sources reveals an insufficient amount of significant coverage. This article fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for fictional characters. Neelix (talk) 14:35, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:40, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PROD contested by article creator. This song fails WP:GNG and WP:NSONG - not enough significant coverage, article relies on song reviews etc. and has no real importance, has not charted or won any major awards. GiantSnowman 07:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was procedural close. --BDD (talk) 19:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]
Article written like curriculum vitae/resume, possible conflict of interest as the creator's username is similar to the article title. jfd34 (talk) 14:30, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have requested a speedy delete of this article, it meets the criteria under CSD A7 --JetBlast (talk) 14:48, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Prod reason was "WP:NOTTRAVEL: "Wikipedia is not the place to recreate content more suited to entries in hotel or culinary guides, travelogues, and the like." If there is anything notable about the hotel beyond being a hotel, the article should state this and focus on this. As it stands, this is a WP:NOT violation." The article was subsequently improved, but the additions so far are unsourced speculation[11] and a one-line mention in one book[12]. Looking at available sources, the same thing is mentioned in two other books, also as an extremely passing mention. Other sources for this hotel are many travel guides. Apart from those short mentions, covered by NOTTRAVEL, I haven't found a single source that gives any attention to the Bristol Hotel. Many mentions (similar to "X stayed at the Bristol Hotel"), but not a single source where the Bristol Hotel, or events at it, are the focus of significant attention. Fram (talk) 14:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We don't mean literally that its architecture is somehow fascinating and discussed in books, we mean it is a "notable historic structure" which if you look back through the archives is clearly of note to Gibraltar's history, especially its war functions.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:29, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. No prejudice towards a future merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod (with as reason "I don't do prods", for what it's worth). Nominated because "No indication of why this is supposed to be a notable road. No sources about the road are provided, only very passing mentions." Looking at the article and looking for further sources reveals that this road has some buildings, including at one time a school; has had work being done to it over the years, and that there live people, are located clubs, touristic companies, 2 parking spaces for disabled people, and that there was a minor dispute about the removal of parking spaces. Basically, this reads like virtually any other city or town street in the world. Fails WP:N. Fram (talk) 13:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A google map view actually shows it to be one of the major roads of Gibraltar see here. I'd imagine there would be plenty of resources in Gibraltar library or government documents which could be used to expand this fully.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:07, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It does mildly amuse me that nobody, with the exception of perhaps one or two Gibraltar fellows perhaps, could have given a monkey's testicle about this article but for the Gibraltarpedia scandal. It would be the sort of article that would grow mould and need a jolly good dusting when somebody new bothered to edit it in like 2019. So yeah, if it was truly notable it would probably have got more edits and expanded at some point... But that's the case with most wikipedia articles. Even some of the worlds most famous rockin streets like Sunset Strip are in dire condition and poorly edited though.. Probably more amusing or downright worrying is that Sunset Strip is unsourced and this has 32 sources LOL!! But it is a fact that the vast majority of the world could not give a barbary ape's right nostril about this road.. But that's the case with villages in rural Turkey and the Solomon Islands... Alcatraz Federal Penitentiary however has had over 19,000 hits already within a few weeks of me creating it.. "take pleasure in the accumulation of information for its own sake" is exactly why we accumulate articles such as this and villages for the sake that somebody somewhere might want to read about it and get the same pleasure that wikipedia has a half decent article on something rather obscure. I don't know about other wikipedia but for me that's one of the most enjoyable aspects of the project that we are not paper and can explore a gigantic range of topics within reason if sourceable and for me decent articles on architectural pieces.roads etc which are not exactly high importance helps broaden this appeal and demonstrates what we could potentially cover. For me projects like Monmouthedia and Gibraltarpedia do exactly this and seek to bring lesser notable buildings and roads into coverage. I think its exciting to try to cover towns in this way and would like to see every settlement on the planet working towards a detailed coverage of their towns. Should we perhaps focus on getting major world streets up to GA status first? Absolutely. But wikipedia will always be built in a higgledy piggledy fashion with some bizarre choices for articles started at the expense of far more notable content which gets sidelined. But above all it is rather impressive how many sources have been found mentioning the road even if not in extensive detail..♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ever ate a Birdseye Waffle Fram? Looks just like the cellhouse doors of Alcatraz funnily enough. Well I've been guilty of the same sort of thing... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:34, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have saved at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Flat Bastion Road a version of the article how it should really look like, with all incorrect sources, unreliable sources, or sources not about the road or anything on the road removed. It drops to 13 sources instead of 32. Most of those are rather trivial or in passing as well. Where is the notability? Where are the centuries of history? Where is the role this road has played in Gibraltar's past or present? What makes this a major road? Fram (talk) 07:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. De728631 (talk) 12:16, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NRU. Insufficient reliable secondary source coverage. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 18:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed recently that some of the lower leagues did not have articles. As there is no indication that there was a notability issue with the lower league articles already there (I previously had a set of non league football articles binned on notability grounds just after joining wikipedia which is why I looked for any indications of notability issues with these articles I decided to create) I decided to take the time to create starter articles for those leagues which did not have an article, consisting of an infobox, a brief introduction and a list of teams participating this season. I completed this task a few days ago. It never occurred to me that an administrator would propose binning all of them (worded as a "broader-scope article", presumably one article which would result in all of my articles being deleted) despite there being no actual breach of any wikipedia rules or guidelines regarding English rugby union leagues. If these articles are binned this would be the second time that a lot of my work was deleted and this time it would not be due to any previously set rules about notability. It would make me think that no matter what contribution I make or article I create, it seems destined for the bin and that would make it very likely this time that I would leave wikipedia because here I haven't actually broken any rules.(Rillington (talk) 16:49, 22 September 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Regarding the comparison between non league football and lower league rugby made in the post, all of the leagues eight to the bottom of the Midlands and Yorkshire divisions are semi-regional leagues, even at the bottom level of the pyramid and the teams at the bottom of the SE and SW divisions are either semi-regional or county-wide leagues whereas the football leagues at the lower reaches of the non league pyramid are much more localised than county-wide leagues.(Rillington (talk) 16:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC))[reply]
The result was merge to Žanamari Lalić. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 05:57, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are no signs of notability in the article (With regards to WP:BAND) ●Mehran Debate● 07:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Mark Arsten (talk) 22:35, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Having considered the relative length of the page I don't think its warranted. If this was an album it would be redirected as it didn't recieve independent coverage from third party sources. After removing the blog-like sources there would be little information left bar a quote that Scherzinger gave in an interview and the dates. The tour's recording and the set-list is not reliable sourced. The information that was reliably sourced could be noted at Killer Love#Killer Love Tour. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 23:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Mark Arsten (talk) 22:35, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This subject fails WP:GNG due to the paucity of reliable third-party sources generally; none of them gives in-depth coverage of the subject himself. Usually, this person appears in reliable sources where something else entirely is being discussed; in other words, he comments about other things which themselves may or may not be notable. Otherwise, he appears in plenty of press by his own company and associated companies, neither of which really indicate any notability. His accomplishments appear to fall far short of WP:ANYBIO. The WP:RESUME-type content has not improved since the the article was twice deleted previously: speedied and later prodded. JFHJr (㊟) 22:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:34, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable journal.I didn't found any WP:RS that discuss it. Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 11:21, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:33, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Living person. One of three brothers accused of involvement in a terrorist plot. All three were eventually released either uncharged or after acquittal. No other claim to fame. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 09:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8 Delete per BLP1E. --Nouniquenames 17:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 04:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Notability not established. (Contested speedy) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am opening this AfD discussion because the nominator, Gravityroom (talk · contribs), ran the process without realising the article had had an earlier AfD. I can't tell if this is the same article / person easily, so it's probably best to run this AfD for its course. I assume it's due to a perceived lack of notability by the nominator. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 04:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The talk page shows that the validity of this article has been questioned several times, going back to 2006. The article starts off by stating "A British Football League is a proposed association football league in the United Kingdom that would involve the merger of clubs from the present Scottish, Welsh, and Northern Irish football league systems into the larger English football league system". However, there have never been any serious/official proposals to merge all the UK's football leagues together. Occasionally there have been vague rumblings that the biggest two Scottish clubs should relocate into the English League, leaving the rest behind, but that's not the same thing at all, and can be covered by a sentence or two in the appropriate article about football in Scotland. As there have never been any serious/advanced proposals to form a single football league for the whole UK, I don't think an article on it is merited. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:36, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Withdrawn by nominator. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
MTV Europe Music Award for Best Africa, Middle East and India Act already exists. Harsh (talk) 06:42, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I thought of merging and redirecting MTV Europe Music Award for Best Indian Act into MTV Europe Music Award for Best Africa, Middle East and India Act, but according to above I am confused. Harsh (talk) 10:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:33, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a ridiculous article, based on virtually nothing -- lack of notability per any standard is patently obvious (particularly after checking for sources -- but even before...). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Acme Corporation. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:32, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DGG ( talk ) 05:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge. Page has been merged by User:Rhain1999. (non-admin closure) ZappaOMati 00:47, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable mod of another game, lacks sufficient coverage. Slender itself appears to be notable, but this is just a mod that somebody made for it. RPGMakerMan (talk) 04:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge. Page has been merged by User:Rhain1999. (non-admin closure) ZappaOMati 00:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, lacks sufficient coverage. Can't seem to find any sufficient coverage with various Google searches. While the game Slender itself is notable, this appears to be a non-notable mod. RPGMakerMan (talk) 04:47, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:25, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:GNG. nothing in gnews or trove for this specific prize category. there is coverage for the more generic "Children's Book of the Year Award". LibStar (talk) 01:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The five prizes that make up the Children's Book of the Year Award:
-- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. An Australian Professional wrestling entertainment business that appears to fail WP:CORP. Shirt58 (talk) 13:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable journal. Article creation premature. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG Guillaume2303 (talk) 05:29, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]