The result was Delete per WP:SNOW Nick-D (talk) 11:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet WP:BIO standards for notability. There are 0 Ghits other than the wikipedia page, no sources to verify notability, and the "Notable award or Honor" section of WP:ANYBIO is not applicable as the awards this person has received are awarded to nearly all people in the military. Fbifriday (talk) 23:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep, as the nominator withdrew after substantial changes were made to the article. Nominator close, as this is uncontroversial and clearly for keeps. -Airplaneman talk 00:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good faith, but there are tons of concertos in G minor, and this therefore can't redirect to just Telemann's. Airplaneman talk 23:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge.
A purely mechanical headcount shows 8 'delete' and 6 'keep' votes.[1] I therefore considered 'delete', 'keep', and 'no consensus'. However, a closer look reveals that most votes actually include the possibility for 'merge'. Most 'keep' votes are based on the argument that "Waterloo Road is a popular programme", which does not preclude a merge. None of the 'delete' votes contains an argument against merging.
No WP:RS has been given that would indicate that the school has notability outside of the programme. The programme itself is about the school, and most of the article is about episodes from the programme. There is no clear boundary between the two articles, and their names are almost identical, one being just a shorter version of the other.
The only reason brought forward for keeping this separate is that the merged article may become too long. Indeed, the existing article for the programme, Waterloo Road (TV series) is already 31k long. With this article at 21k, it looks at first glance as if the merged article would add up to 52k, which, according to WP:SIZERULE, would mean that it "[m]ay need to be divided". But the actual size will be much shorter, because the concerns about excessive detail will need to be addressed, and because there seems to be a considerable overlap between the two articles.
I also looked at the cited examples. One of them, The Chatsworth Estate (Shameless), has since been changed to a redirect and remained that way for 5 days so far. The other one, Albert Square, remains separate, but that article is not entirely comparable, since it describes a real physical existing set. — Sebastian 18:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A non-notable location in a TV programme, failing WP:INUNIVERSE, WP:NOTPLOT and WP:N with no WP:RS. GaGaOohLaLa (talk) 23:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And finally, wikipedia itself will NEVER be NOTABLE, christ you can't even use it for notability for research as it is, no matter how much you mods reckon articles need all these refrences. And if its fround upon by Uni's, Schools etc for use - you lot really have no chance of making this site "notable", no matter how much you all preech- Harleyamber (talk) 00:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is never easy to close such a contested discussion, especially when closing towards an unfavored outcome. I close this discussion not to make enemies, but because I believe it is in the best interest of this encyclopedia. On that I may be wrong, but I will qualify my decision to the best of my ability.
When a living person is tied so closely to one single event, that neutral and encyclopedic content cannot be generated from reliable sources, such a person is not fit for inclusion. Reciprocally, a subject who is recognized for mainly one, well-documented event, but has also been covered by reliable sources in one or more unrelated events, is fit for inclusion. Such a person may not be notable for their involvement in one major event, or for their involvement in a number of minor events. However, if the sum of all such events equates to reliable sourcing that allows for verifiable and neutral coverage, then the subject is notable and an independent article is justified.
Such is the case, by my furthest consideration, of Michaele Salahi. The existence of dependable sourcing outside of 2009 White House gatecrash incident thus serves to undermine arguments of WP:BLP1E. Therefore, Michaele Salahi, as a major participant in a historical event, and as a person with adequate coverage outside of that event, is, by my most earnest conclusion, notable. The result was keep. My best regards to all, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 22:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Completely non-notable woman. Only warrants an entry in the Gate-crashing article. Doesn't warrant her own entry. Note – the Tareq Salahi article is also up for deletion as it is equally non-notable. Tovojolo (talk) 23:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I vote to keep it. Single event or not, Wikipedia was the first place I went in order to find out who these folks were. They are public news enough at this point to warrant inclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.176.64.136 (talk) 20:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Teneriff (talk) 03:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As of 3 December 2009, there are now (at least) 2 separate, major-source events concerning Michaele Salahi, so that passes WP notability (no longer WP:BLP1E):
Consequently, Wikipedia cannot reject the article as a non-notable person, because of those 2 events, separated by 4 years (covered by major reliable sources).
Keep content, merge into one article on couple. No, they don't deserve to be notable, but there's no escaping it; they're the moving figures in a notable event and there's significant independent coverage of them extending beyond the event. BLP1E requires that the subject "otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual" and it's rather clear that that just isn't going to happen. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 05:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NFF. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete Unless there are much better references than those in the current article, this is not one of the cases appropriate for an exception. One of the refs says that it has not yet been financed. The other two are the barest mentions of an film about which nothing but the name of the stars and the production company is known. The rule was intended to prevent just this sort of article. It might be appropriate to mention it in the article on Goldie Hawn, sourced to the interview she gave that mentioned it as her current project. I'm not sure a redirect even is warranted at this point. The phrase I usually use to describe the situation, is "not yet notable" DGG ( talk ) 20:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC) see below DGG ( talk ) 04:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC) [reply]
The result was no consensus. No consensus on whether or not to delete or simply merge/redirect. Also, mass-nominations are procedurally flawed, as they don't allow editors to efficiently evaluate each page. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(View AfD)
Articles nominated:
CCould we add Waterloo Road Comprehensive to this? Same show, and the article suffers from the same faults as the character articles. The JPStalk to me 23:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. (G7) NW (Talk) 21:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article makes a borderline indication of importance/significance, so doesn't quite qualify for speedy deletion, but I can't find any coverage in reliable sources for either the subject or his company (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). Phil Bridger (talk) 20:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted per G5 by User:SchuminWeb. The creator of the page is now banned. Non-admin closure. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 00:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article created by a sock of Alexcas11 (talk · contribs). However, although sprinkled with more than enough fantasy elements, this article does have a bit more by way of actual truth than the norm. The article asserts that this film project was originally titled The Return of Captain Kidd, which is a film in production (IMDb link); the article even gets the proposed cast correct, although then gets the writers, producers and other details completely wrong and the new title is, per the Alexcas11 style, complete fantasy. However, although IMDb states that the film is in post-production, other sources seem to suggest that it hasn't started filming, for example this article from Screen Daily from 11 November It would seem that this film fails WP:NFF, for the moment, although of course it would more than likely become notable in the future. But failing WP:NFF combined with the obvious hoax elements (including the title (!)) in this article would suggest the best thing would be to delete and then recreate the article when sources become available in a year or two. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 20:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. NW (Talk) 20:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Material appears to be promotional in nature. WP:NOTE criteria not met. Alan (talk) 20:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a pity so much time and effort has gone into such a non-notable local-issue article. Most of the references are from a free community newspaper - these are not generally considered reliable sources, and in New Zealand they have a tendency to take sides in local issues or wage campaigns. The major metropolitan newspaper, the NZ Herald, has only run two items on the dispute in 3½ years. The lack of reliable reportage makes it difficult to ensure NPOV, and it is notable that the sole contributor to this article is a single-purpose account. I detect a pro-library bias. dramatic (talk) 20:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dramatic, i have spent a great deal of effort avoiding bias by sourcing everything written, from the council records and local paper. Just because the latter is free doesnt make it unreliable, and your claim that its a non-notable topic seems pokemonically absurd. Ditto your contrast between "local" and "major metropolitan" - in the age of the hyperlocal thats merely snobbery. So just exactly what have you detected??
As to merging.. well, I've just split it off from the Library article because that one was deemed too long.. OohAh (talk) 23:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, merely following, i get that. This is not the place to get frustrated at policies that suggest there is a hierarchy of topics to be covered. i just dont think the world, or wp, is that simple, tidy, necessary or likely. i wrote in the spirit of wp. i could get pissed at 'pet project' sneering though - what on wp aint? Just to be clear: this article is not really new, its the sub-section from the original article, almost verbatim, and it was written about 2 years ago. I note that during its writing, and since, noone objected in this way. Hence my bemusement. Somehow what was acceptable as a subsection has become untenable as an article. Be that as it may, whatever. Fit it as per policy. I'm not too fussed about the work, that's long done. Good luck. OohAh (talk) 00:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 19:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm new to this, and I checked the page you linked, but I don't understand what you're looking for. People who are using the software? Places that it has been discussed? We had an open space in EuroPython 2009 about this project. cool-RR (talk) 20:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. NW (Talk) 20:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. Speedy tag removed over and over by a series of socks, nominated for AfD in lieu of yet another speedy tag; I don't think a prod tag would last long either. Hairhorn (talk) 19:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete G11. SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Originally prodded as "not clear what exactly the product is. Certainly absolutely no evidence of notability" Creator removed prod & changed a few words - but the original prod hasn't been resolved. Skier Dude (talk) 19:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 05:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails GNG - does not compete at top tier professional level per WP:ATHLETE and fails WP:CLUB. ukexpat (talk) 18:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. No consensus to delete. Whether a merge is a good idea is not clear from this discussion and should be discussed on the relevant talk pages. Regards SoWhy 14:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No meaningful text, only garbage. Timwi (talk) 12:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Reliable sources have been shown to exist and neither chart success nor national news coverage is required by WP:V, WP:N or WP:BAND to establish notability. Regards SoWhy 14:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable band who fail WP:BAND. Only sites and refs found are fansites and myspace etc. Non relaible sorces found and tag confirms this therefore the non-notablity. AtheWeatherman 18:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete per user request. Willking1979 (talk) 18:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Subject would like the entry removed (UTC)
The result was delete. NW (Talk) 20:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Declined G11 nominee. Asserted to be non-notable software product. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. The reasons mentioned for deletion are actually either a) reasons for editing / cleanup (used for self-promotion, bad sources) or b) not valid reasons for deletion (not popular anymore, WP:JNN). The delete !voters failed to explain why the subject is not notable anymore. As such, there was no consensus for deletion. Whether cleanup is required is something that can and should be discussed at the article's talk page. Regards SoWhy 13:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable, self-promotion
Nominated for deletion because I do not believe the site is notable, and the article has a history of being used for self-promotion. Furthermore, at least two of the references appear to be just recycled press releases. A look at Alexa's traffic rankings also indicates that traffic has collapsed since the 2008 period which is cited for notability. Shritwod (talk) 16:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. NW (Talk) 20:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable author, list of works include one book published this year, and one upcoming. --SquidSK (1MC•log) 15:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And don't try to define what a notable author is. Mr Lodato is based in London, Uk. Accordingly, I would prefer it if somebody Uk based were to contest the veritability of this article. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pegasuspublishers (talk • contribs) 16:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC) — Pegasuspublishers (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The result was speedy delete. WP:IAR closure as snow/speedy/hoax. tedder (talk) 00:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Future film, far too early to know if it will meet Wikipedia notability criteria. Db-a7 speedy declined as WP:SPEEDY a7 doesn't apply to films. Hoping for a snow close without prejudice for re-creation after notability established. Doing this instead of PROD to prevent summary re-creation. Creator used a username which suggested intent was promotional. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. As the topic has been proven notable and encyclopedic, deletion is not required; rather, the article needs expansion in order to pass inclusion criteria. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deprodded; page should be moved to Wiktionary. Bwrs (talk) 09:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. NW (Talk) 20:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
speculative megaproject based on solar updraft tower that's going to fix global warming as well as generate lots of power ;there are no Gnews, book or scholar hits, and the web hits are either for the project itself or for various blogs discussing it and concluding that it's a crackpot idea. It was previously proposed to merge the two but IMO this idea isn't notable. Mangoe (talk) 14:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. NW (Talk) 20:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable community church in England. Does not pass WP:ORG. Warrah (talk) 14:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability tag has been on the page for almost a year. I have no opinion one way or the other, but would like to know what the community's stance on its notability is before possibly using its reviews in other articles. Remurmur (talk) 13:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. NW (Talk) 20:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be a non-notable neologism. Google News reveals no evidence of the word in common use and Google Scholar yields one match to an MA dissertation where the word is used in a hyphenated form in the context of a quote (and so may be a misuse or a created word). Various websites can be found using the word but these results may be circular and not reliable sources. It should be noted that a number of sources are quoted in the current text which do not actually use this word, for example Greer, Germaine (1999), The whole woman, ISBN 9780375407475. Ash (talk) 13:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Intersexphobia is a word coined by intersexed activists such as those connected with Hermaphrodites with Attitude. Just as transphobia was new to language a few years back, so is intersexphobia. There is no reason to delete this article at all. Those in the intersexed community are well aware of it's usage and need a word to describe bigotry against those who are intersexed. Thank you. VeganAgainstHatred. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VeganAgainstHatred (talk • contribs) 18:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
self published biography by non-notable racing driver GainLine ♠ ♥ 12:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 05:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a non-notable PlayStation emulator. A Google search turns up the website and a few blogs, but no reliable sources. Heavyweight Gamer (talk) 12:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What you say is simply not true. ePSXe is not as relevant as it used to be, but it is very famous and it is still very common to see it used, so I would keep the article if I were you. If the ePSXe article gets deleted, Wikipedia may as well delete the article for Bleem which is now dead, but it's part of the history of PlayStation emulation just like ePSXe is. I recommend you to read older literature about Playstation emulation, and also to go through PlayStation emulation forums. Google is not some kind of oracle, it isn't always right and you can't use it as the one and only judgment for notability.
In the end, ePSXe is definitely notable. As proof that I'm real: website : tails92.sepwich.com, email: tails92 at gmail dot com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.70.198.155 (talk) 14:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. SoWhy 13:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kind of original research. It is not sure all sources speak about the same subject. No reliable sources that speak about the subject. His name is just mention in these documents. IQinn (talk) 11:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. SoWhy 13:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, freshly released software product. Haakon (talk) 11:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. No good evidence of notability. Fences&Windows 16:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability issues raised multiple times. See Talk:The Pittie family in Pune — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPat (talk • contribs) 10:57, 26 November 2009
The result was delete. NW (Talk) 20:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No notability asserted. Registration with the Electoral Commission is not a sufficient qualification, nor is a 'passing reference' by Searchlight. No website and blog no longer updated. Ran for election once and failed miserable. Bastin 10:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
The result was delete. Seems to be unverifiable, possible hoax. Fences&Windows 16:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Article about programme asserted to have been shown on the UK television channel Bravo. However there were no sources offered or found for the existence of this programme; moreover, the date asserted for the first broadcast, 1992, was unfeasible, given that the channel didn't start broadcasting until 1993. The editor challenging the prod nomination has changed the dates to at least be consistent with the startup of the channel, but the one source offered is a page that generates a 404 (page not found error) on the Bravo website. There are no other sources found, including for the cast, crew or production company. (A brief personal observation: as far as I know, Bravo (UK) didn't have any original programming in that period of its life) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 10:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. This article was nominated unduly soon after creation, but after a week still gives no indication of notability, and the only defence amounts to WP:ILIKEIT. JohnCD (talk) 18:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would like to get opinions on this one. Does not seem very notable. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 07:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Copied from Talk:GLOBAL MIX:
The Issue of Notability As AFD Reason For the "Global Mix" Page
Music radio programs world-wide are invariably compartmentalized, i.e., they tend to cover one narrow genre or sub-genre of music. For example, they may specialize in straightahead jazz, classic rock, etc. Even those shows that profess eclecticism usually air the various sub-genres of a particular genre or related cluster of genres only (classic rock, alternative, punk, techno, world music as pop music of various countries, etc). What I consider notable about Global Mix, after having followed it for some twenty years on the air and on the Net, is the fact that it approaches music in its totality - as a compendium of every imaginable style within a single show, with a special emphasis on the quality of the selections. I have lived and traveled extensively both in America and around the world, I have listened to local radio and scoured hundreds of Internet stations, and I have yet to find the format so musically diverse as that of Global Mix. This radio program is notable because of its uniqueness in an important field of mass media, its high standards for music material inclusion, and its Internet-enabled potential for world-wide accessibility.
--Eso12 (talk) 21:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 05:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this line from the article sums things up nicely "The origins of "Heartland Rock", like that of so many genres, are as nebulous and difficult to describe as the genre's definition itself." Seems like it's just plain old light rock, rock, adult contemporary. There is an endless list of other ways to describe this "Genre". Unreferenced and no improvements for over 2 years. Ridernyc (talk) 06:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Prod reason states "Unable to find WP:RS to verify some of the claims herein." ⇒ Pickbothmanlol 22:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep (NAC) RMHED (talk) 19:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article was created by the article's publisher (the subtly named User:YaffaPublishing who has since started the new account User:Zizyphus) who has removed two prod deletion templates. There are no indications of notability, and the publisher account states that references to demonstrate notability are probably not available (see: [50]). The article was created as part of an apparent publicity campaign, with the publisher stating that they intended to create articles on all the magazines they publish (see: [51]). As there is no evidence of notability and the article was created for promotional purposes it should be deleted. Nick-D (talk) 07:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems to me that the author has realised the error of his/her ways, see [52]. The magazine is the only title in Australia on the subject which implies notability. The article is not overly promotional. Paste Let’s have a chat. 09:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Kevin (talk) 00:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails notability policies, and is an obvious self promotional résumé \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 09:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Consensus is that the articles Phil added still do not show notability. Kevin (talk) 00:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. NW (Talk) 12:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:BIO. simply being president of a company does not guarantee notability. I acknowledge that he died in 1928 so references may be harder to find but I still believe he fails WP:BIO. gnews search. also this search [53]. LibStar (talk) 01:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. SoWhy 13:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 01:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Snowball keep, NAC. Umbralcorax (talk) 03:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article fails WP:N and WP:NF, violates WP:BALL, and to conclude it's existence on Wikipedia constitutes a de facto advertisement of a film that has not yet been released. allen四names 01:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. The "crux" of this discussion is simple to identify: Does someone who is active but has not played satisfy the requirement of "competed" in WP:ATH? The guideline does not define the requirement in detail and it's obvious from this discussion that this lack of detail leads to uncertainty within the community in cases like this one. The delete !voters argue correctly that not actually playing in a game is strictly speaking not "competing" but "waiting to maybe compete". The keep !voters on the other hand have a valid point that competing does not require playing (much the same way that the second goal keeper will get a medal as well despite not playing usually) and that WP:ATH needs to be interpreted in a less strict way when it comes to sports where the player's participation can easily consist of only being ready to play (but training for it etc.). That said, there is no way to reconsile those two views of WP:ATH and neither argument is less policy-based than the other - they are simply different interpretations that are both of some validity. The question probably needs some wider discussion and a policy clarification may be needed but this AFD did not yield in a consensus for either interpretation. Regards SoWhy 13:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable practice squad NFL player. Fails WP:ATHLETE and does not otherwise pass WP:GNG. Grsz11 01:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And like I've said before, WP:ATHLETE does not cover it well enough.►Chris NelsonHolla! 17:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. NW (Talk) 20:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BIO. Insufficient significant coverage. His discovery was part of a distributed computing project meaning he just happened to be that lucky one who came upon it, which I do not believe is a notable achievement. Triplestop x3 01:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. NW (Talk) 20:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article fails Wikipedia:Notability (people) by not containing references from third-party, secondary sources. Created by a BBC producer for a BBC Radio 5Live discussion on Wikipedia (see talk page). The JPStalk to me 01:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Since all delete !votes are based on the missing sources to establish notability, there is no prejudice against recreation if notability can be demonstrated using reliable, third-party sources. Regards SoWhy 13:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article fails Wikipedia:Notability (people) by not containing references from third-party, secondary sources (all BBC refs are firmly connected to the subject). The JPStalk to me 00:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. SoWhy 13:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, local "friends of …" group. Worthy of a mention in the Baviaanskloof Wilderness Area article (when it eventually gets written!) but not worthy of their own article. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 05:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly meets Template:db-disambig criteria - redundant page. Scot clearly primary by Google hits and page views. As per MOS:DAB guidelines, The recommended practice in these situations is to place a hatnote on the primary topic article to link directly to the secondary topic. This is now in place, so the page serves no purpose. Boleyn2 (talk) 06:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted as unambiguous advertising or promotion. Non-admin closure. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 21:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article seems to only promote Eurocsys; most of the text is copy-pasted from their website. ⇒ Pickbothmanlol 00:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to The Last (album). There is clear consesensus here that the song itself does not warrant its own article, at least not at the moment. SoWhy 13:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N - There is a shortage of sources to indicate that this is a single release and not just an individual download. (This is a new PROD justification after receiving comments.) Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Greater Manchester Police . Spartaz Humbug! 05:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable firearms unit. Contains nothing that the GMP main article would cover. Has no notability as a stand alone topic. Redirect or delete. SGGH ping! 16:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Kevin (talk) 00:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 01:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Kevin (talk) 00:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An article about a random surname, no indication of its importance relative to the millions of other surnames in the world. No examples of notable Gorgones. Article started by a SPA- perhaps some guy named Gorgone. Prodded and de-prodded without effort to improve the article. Orphaned for two years. We simply do not need an article for every proper name on the planet, re: not a directory. Thanks. - IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 17:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. SoWhy 13:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does not appear to meet WP:BIO. All references that approach meeting WP:RS are from the publication where her husband Brett Leigh Dicks (nominated separately) works. --21:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC) Leivick (talk) 21:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Notability now adequately referenced. JohnCD (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested speedy. Doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO. I dream of horses (T) @ 04:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Kevin (talk) 00:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable enough for biography. User:Velvetsmog (talk) 07:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 17:43, 3 December 2009 (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)) . |
Delete - The article does not meet the criteria for notability under WP:POLITICIAN. A current Google News search of the individual’s name fails to produce any significant legitimate news references. The search results appear to be comprised mostly of material from campaign press releases or minor comments on opinion blogs. Losing an election or being unusually tall might be newsworthy, but it's not notable. Although there may have been numerous news references (of various quality) related to the campaign 3 years ago, the fact is he was not elected and thus derives no notability from that activity. Notability is also not speculative - so any notability derived from the current election would be determined only if the individual is actually elected to office (he's not even demonstrated that he could win the primary at this point). Refer to WP:NTEMP (notability is not temporary). Phenry09 (talk) 21:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]