The result was keep. One two three... 20:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A non-notable Michael Jackson track that was never released as a single. I suggest it be redirected and protected to stop recreation. Pyrrhus16 23:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this article has enough reference and an interesting enough backround story to be justifiable. It is one of my favorite songs of all time and is the third most popular song from Invincible on iTunes (After You Rock My World and Heaven Can Wait). OttomanJackson (talk) 21:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with that move from single because cation to is promotional, that means it is not for sale therefore should not have the infobox single, clear example can be Stairway to Heaven or Better Than You, If not me that will change. --Eduardofoxx13 (talk) 23:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Im Partial to Delete because i have a pet peeve for articles about songs that have not charted but i am also okay to a Redirect STAT- Verse 00:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Harel | Talk to me 04:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Essay, WP:OR GregJackP (talk) 23:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. No substantial coverage in reliable third party sources. Jayjg (talk) 00:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of notability per WP:PORNBIO Tabercil (talk) 23:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 21:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am an anthroplogist and this makes no sense at all, The talk page is filled with people confused as i am. I frankly was into PROD, but decided this was better Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 21:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Non-notable definition, no sources provided. Only reference that was on point was the Urban Dictionary. GregJackP (talk) 22:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
no assertion of notability Ironholds (talk) 21:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Subject is non-notable soccer player. Player has no professional experience at any level of the game Real San Jose is an amateur team), no significant collegiate or other experience. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ATH JonBroxton (talk) 21:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CSD Spam tag repeatedly deleted (not declined), advert. GregJackP (talk) 21:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was snowball keep. –xenotalk 13:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a memorial. Long list of non-notable people noted for one event. Woogee (talk) 21:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 00:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Although I believe that this article was created in good faith, I have discovered no evidence to support any of the assertions of existence claimed by the article
There are several issues with this article. Firstly, it appears that the initial author has been under the impression that Pil'gyn refers to a specific lagoon, whereas it is a more general Chukchi word, used in numerous places throughout the area meaning the entrance to a lagoon. See Nutepelmen for an example of the use of Pyl'gin, with the usage of the word supported here (at roughly 67o 30'N, 175E). This reference includes a further example at roughly 67N, 173E.
Secondly, This reference shows that the specific lagoon in question is called Laguna Kanugto (at roughly 69N, 179E). This claim is supported by a Russian source, which confirms that the romanisation of the Russian name is at least in the same ballpark and the lagoon is definitely not called Pyl'gin.
Thirdly there is no settlement called Pil'gyn in the area. The only two settlements are the former mining settlement of Polyarny and Leningradsky. The maps both show another settlement called Notakatryn. This is most probably an old Chukchi settlement that has been liquidated or a polar station. Either way, it is not a settlement called Pil'gyn. The "geographic data" link probably refers to a weather station rather than a genuine settlement and the "adventures in Pil'gyn area" only mentions the word once and does not provide any indication that Pil'gyn is a settlement rather than a road or area within Leningradsky or Polyarny (The wetlands link does not discuss Pil'gyn at all).
Finally, there is also no mention of a settlement or municipal area called Pil'gyn here in the official law conglomerating Shmidtovsky and Iultinsky Municipal Districts.
In summary, the article needs deletion as: there is no lagoon called Pil'gyn; There is no settlement called Pil'gyn, Pil'gyn is a generic Chukchi word not confined to one place and there is no area officially called Pil'gyn in Chukotka.
I should probably also note that I am involved in the editing of Chukotka related articles, though I do not claim to be an authoritative source in any way, but I suppose it could be construed that I have an conflicting interest in this so I feel I should declare it. Fenix down (talk) 21:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. No arguments to delete besides nominator. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular T · C 16:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reads like a resume, references are not clear and not directly related to biographical information. Questionable notability. Cptmurdok (talk) 20:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Metropolitan Football League Division Five" is a long way off the radar in terms of notability. O Fenian (talk) 20:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. One two three... 20:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in the article establishes notability - a single link to the subject talking on a TV show. Has been prod'ed before, but the prod was contested. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 20:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Result was Speedy Delete G11
Raising at AfD because a speedy deletion (wrong category) has already been declined. This is clearly a WP:COATRACK advertising a photographer. Even if that was removed, there is nothing particularly notable about photography in Nanaimo as opposed to anywhere else. Delete. I42 (talk) 19:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List which fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:N. All I can find is online chatter about this long delayed project. I cannot find any WP:RS that would allow it to pass WP:N see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/War of the Independents -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 19:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Prodded (twice). Article makes no particular claim of notability for this club, and is mostly a description of summer camp-like activities. No substantive secondary sources exist in either English or Romanian. Abductive (reasoning) 19:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 00:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm concerned about the notability of this individual - has received no wider coverage in sources. &dorno rocks. (talk) 18:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article should not be deleted. This individual has been covered in magazines and TV in the UK and various websites all over the internet and is also referenced in other pages on wikipedia. If you google "Rob Mclean PES" you will see this. This individual has also been in several National Newspaper Publications. One example is here - http://www.dailystar.co.uk/posts/view/18776/You-was-robbed/.
Please remove the deletion notice on the Wikipedia page concerned. Thanks. (talk) 20:18 British Summer Time
You may be struggling to find anything of the individual in wider sources as the individual is better known as "Rob Mclean". When searching by this name you will see this individual is the first result in google images. 20:29 BST.
apologies, I thought you wanted it deleted? - pesgirl —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pesgirl (talk • contribs) 18:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep per discussion and nominator request. Materialscientist (talk) 12:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does not appear to meet either the general notability guideline (lacks significant coverage in multiple sources) or the subject specific guidelines for films. cmadler (talk) 18:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No sources and fails WP:ENT by miles. IMDb only has him listed for the beach party thing. The article has been deleted six times under this name as well as "Boo bailey". PROD contested by IP. Favonian (talk) 18:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged as having unclear notability since July 2009. It has no independant, reliable sources to assert notability. EuroPride (talk) 18:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Book that won't be released for another couple of weeks, no indication of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. One two three... 20:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Promotional article about a low-rent apartment chain, one of a set of recent articles promoting the activities of The Siegel Group. No evidence of notability apart from half a sentence in an NYT article. Fails WP:N and WP:SPAM
I am also nominating the following related pages because they are part of the same promotional push for The Siegel Group and are also about non-notable buildings:
andy (talk) 18:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.tv.com/sin-city-diaries/in-capable-hands/episode/1083576/summary.html.
It seems like there has been '"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail' WP:N, as noted in the references on the various pages. As of the Current revision of the Artisan hotel article, there are 18 or so unique references on the article, including the New York Times, the LA Times, both Vegas newspapers, local Vegas TV news, etc. Gold Spike has 14 references currently in the article, including LA Times, both Vegas papers, a trade publication, SEC filings, and more. This secondary sources seems to point to Notability under Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) "A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources". Michaelcox (talk) 08:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails WP:NPOV, fails to cite any reliable sources, and takes the form of an attack page. It is largely an opinion article and I don't see how it's inclusion could benefit Wikipedia. HarlandQPitt (talk) 18:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Its an article about a man who owned a bait shop, with a grand total of one line about the man, then a bit about his shop then the rest is about the lake his shop was near. No indication that the man or the shop are notable, most of the links have nothing to do with Johnny, neither do the references Jac16888Talk 18:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Does not meet our inclusions guidelines such as WP:PRODUCT, and does not meet WP:V, a core policy. As David V Houston noted, among the cites listed, the software is only mentioned once in passing in the only reliable source. A number of other long PDF sources did not mention the product at all. SilkTork *YES! 00:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Promotion for non-notable software product. I have been unable to find significant third-party coverage, and those given are not much more than incidental mentions. Haakon (talk) 17:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sbugs (talk) 18:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sbugs (talk) 20:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. One two three... 20:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be a target for linkspam, and also seems to promote certain forums. ANDROS1337 17:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 13:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Possible failure of WP:PORNBIO. She has only been nominated for one award, not across multiple year. Being Penthouse Pet of the Month does not satisfy notability criteria and she only appears to have appeared in one video not 'featured multiple times in notable mainstream media.' EuroPride (talk) 17:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable "pre-alpha" software - fails WP:GNG and WP:CRYSTAL. ukexpat (talk) 16:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Two things: First, "The Terminator" isn't a Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Wikipedia itself has an article over it. Second, make a search about "The Terminator" and you will get hundreds of links about the above said "The Terminator" and that too the top searches. One Harsh (talk)
The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 13:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest this article should be deleted. The actual empirical majority of the content is about its closure which was now over 8 years ago. The rest of the article references some rather niche academics at a rather middling UK University. The vast majority of UK University Sub-Departments don't have their own wiki page. Why should this? Jstriker (talk) 16:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Google searches do not yield information about this Syed Mehboob. Insufficient evidence of meeting WP:GNG or WP:BIO -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Author blanked the article, deleted for WP:CSD#G8 Snowolf How can I help? 16:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While not denigrating Maj Woodruff's service to his country, there does not seem to be anything in this biography to distinguish him from the hundreds of thousands of other brave soldiers serving our country. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Website that fails WP:N, WP:CORP, and WP:WEB. The website has no coverage of it that I can find on Google News or Google search. The article claimed that it was translated into several languages but I found that it simply had an embedded link to Google Translate to translate the page. One reviewer/writer for the website seems to be notable but the rest don't seem to be notable and work for seemingly non-notable websites. The website was created this month and may become notable but I see zero reasons that it may be now. OlYellerTalktome 14:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC) OlYellerTalktome 05:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Provides no sources. I can find no sources. Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:N. OlYellerTalktome 14:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Nebraska's 3rd congressional district. Stifle (talk) 13:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:POLITICIAN - long standing consensus is that candidates for political office who are not otherwise notable, are not notable just because they are a candidate. ukexpat (talk) 14:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Major contributor has a conflict of interest, but this page asserts notability, so it can't be speedily deleted. I'm asking the wider community on whether or not this particular article is suitable for our project - it looks much too 'promotional' for us. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 14:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stub content fork of material already in the Alain Prost and Ayrton Senna articles. --Midgrid(talk) 13:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily deleted, per CSD G7 at creator's request.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Promotion for non-notable software product. I have been unable to find any significant coverage. The somewhat generic name does not help, but they're not even the top Google hit for the term. Haakon (talk) 13:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Infomaster is an established product in Singapore. It is in the top 10 page for google.com.sg and the number one link on yahoo.com.sg for "erp software". It is one of the notable singapore developed softwares that has been around since 1987. More information on the product can be found in the Singapore Infocomm portal. http://www.infocommsingapore.sg/isg/index.php/web/content/company?show=cba&node_id=2301 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Terry.g.mason (talk • contribs) 14:11, 13 April 2010
The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 13:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Promotion for non-notable software product, article by SPA. I have been unable to find significant third-party coverage, only routine announcements, incidental mentions and download pages. Haakon (talk) 13:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For significant third-party coverage please check again the references section a blog post by Lee Schlesinger.
http://sourceforge.net/blog/endeavour-to-improve-your-development-process/
Lee Schlesinger is an IT journalist who is the social media specialist for SourceForge.net and who previously served as senior technology editor for ZDNet’s Tech Update pages and executive editor of ZDNet’s Business & Technology pages.— Preceding unsigned comment added by E-cuellar (talk • contribs) — E-cuellar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
If the opinion of people with the prestige of Lee Schlesinger is qualified as not been a reliable source and is not relevant to Wikipedia then Wikipedia itself serves no other purpose than fill the void created by the lack of real talent of their self proclaimed editors. Editing a wiki page and yet acting in a totalitarian way pretending to exercise some sort of power requires no skill at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by E-cuellar (talk • contribs)
Keep - per WP:WEB, criteria #3 (its software is being distributed by CNET through SourceForge. That criteria alone relieves the need for sources. Normally, WP:ELNO would prohibit a blog as being a reference but as per item 11, the Lee Schlesinger link on SourceForge comes from one of its admins, leeschlesinger. I know his name because I listen to the CNET report daily and he was featured there. Schlesinger is an expert in his field (you can read about him his website. For him to approve the subject at Sourgenet and for CNET to distribute the software meets or exceeds WP:WEB and WP:N. --Ronbo76 (talk) 16:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If being on charge of the SourceForge blog, author for Slashdot and having served as a senior technology editor for ZDNet’s Tech Update pages and executive editor of ZDNet’s Business & Technology pages is not considered as an expert in his field then what is being an expert?
Keep How do you classify it as a a blog entry with no editorial oversight if you were not its author? This blog post was produced by an interview composed of 7 questions. Again, if somebody with the prestige of Lee Schlesinger is not respected in Wikipedia then there must be something terribly wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by E-cuellar (talk • contribs)
The repository is not what is in question here but the blog managed by the prestigious Lee Schlesinger who considered Endeavour Software Project Management notable enough to write about it. And yes! Sourceforge is the largest freely accessible code repository with projects like JBoss, SugarCRM, Compiere, Pentaho and out of the millions of projects in it Endeavour Software Project Management is ranked 475 with 210 weekly downloads.
The result was redirect to Hayes and Harlington (UK Parliament constituency). (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Subject fails WP:POLITICIAN. Local councillor who has not been elected to a state or provincial level seat; sources are not independent of the subject (political party sites) Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 12:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to The 39 Clues. (non-admin closure) mono 05:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
unencyclopedic, unreferenced article on fictional characters. Written in an in-universe style which reads like a guide. The subject is worth mentioning but is adequately covered in the main article on the book series, a dedicated article is not warranted. RadioFan (talk) 11:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Kevin (talk) 23:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cannot see how this person is notable. He shows up in several press releases for his company, but I have not found any coverage beyond that. Haakon (talk) 05:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Listed for 21 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough participation to determine consensus. A merge close would have been an option but there was only one editor arguing for it. However, nothing is preventing the article from being merged anyway. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I prodded the article due to a complete lack of WP:RS to establish any kind of notability. Someone removed the prod notice so this is the next logical step. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 04:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any reliably independently sourced information to Hong Kong Dragon Garden, for which this Trust article appears to be a WP:COATRACK. I disagree with the nomination statement in that there are WP:RS sources provided. For example, it references this article from the Ming Pao newspaper. However, most of the other text is referenced to the organization's website, concerns the Hong Kong Dragon Garden and/or is promotional. The non-independent info should be deleted and the remainder merged to the parent article. — CactusWriter | needles 18:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:PERP. The person has had some media coverage, but all of it has been connected to his crime. He was completely non-notable before his crime and has done nothing notable since his crime. Every bit of significant coverage I could find was related to the criminal action. Also a general lack of persistent coverage. Could probably make a WP:BLP1E pitch as well. He's out of jail, the media barely noticed his release. His 15 minutes are over. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 13:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An article for a music tour that has not yet started. Included references are either promotional in nature, fan-based or are from primary sources. The fact that it's a Roger Waters' tour is irrelevant as notability isn't inherited. This article is basically just a list of prospective tour dates, in effect acting as an advertisement for the tour yet not not really giving any encyclopaedic information. A similar article, from the same creator, was speedied a few days ago. This article's CSD tag was removed by an IP editor without comment. Fred the Oyster (talk) 09:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 13:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An article for a music tour that has not yet started. Included references are either promotional in nature, fan-based or are from primary sources. The fact that it's a Roger Waters' tour is irrelevant as notability isn't inherited. This article is basically just a list of prospective tour dates, in effect acting as an advertisement for the tour yet not not really giving any encyclopaedic information. A similar article, from the same creator, was speedied a few days ago. This article's CSD tag was removed by an IP editor without comment. Fred the Oyster (talk) 09:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 13:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable small college football coach, whose article was deleted at AfD two years ago. The article was userfied at the creator's request, and promptly restored by the creator with the claim that "Discovered sources and notable events." Upon an examination of the links in the article, three of the five are broken. One is a single paragraph that doesn't mention the subject's name, the second a scarcely longer clip about the shutdown of the football program; neither source is, as WP:RS requires, about the subject or discusses him in substantial detail, and I strongly suspect that the broken links did no better. The article has been completely unimproved in over a year. This article should never have been restored, and should be promptly deleted as failing WP:BIO and the GNG both. Ravenswing 10:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following article, which likewise was deleted in the original bundled AfD and was restored by the creator using the exact same sources and links as the previous one:
The result was delete. SNOW Tone 14:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
probably spoof article. Web search shows nothing for him playing for Partick Thistle. On the date in 2008 the club played Ross County and not Dundee Utd and he would have been 13... Steve-Ho (talk) 07:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 13:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neither entry meets mos:dabrl, so it is a dab with no valid links Boleyn3 (talk) 07:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
* Redirect to Şerbeşti River, which appears to be the only topic that could be referred to as Şerbeşti about which Wikipedia has any information. (Otherwise delete because it's not disambiguating anything right now.) Propaniac (talk) 18:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
((otheruses))
hatnotes). The term "Şerbeşti" does have several meanings. It is definitely an ambiguous term, whether we have five articles on topics with that name, or one, or none. So the rule is: "Each bulleted entry should have exactly one navigable (blue) link to efficiently guide users to the most relevant article for each meaning of the ambiguous term", which was definitely satisfied. 85.102.55.108 (talk) 18:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy close. Inappropriate use of AfD to request a noncontroversial page move. I'll handle the move directly this time, but in future when a page needs to be deleted to make way for a page move it would be better handled by using the ((db-move)) template. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clear content fork with Aala Hazrat; exact same individual. The articles were almost identical prior to my reverting Aala Hazrat to an earlier version and making further edits to remove POV, so this article is almost a POV fork now. This article does, however, have the better title, so this POV-laden version should be deleted, and then Aala Hazrat moved here, as "Aala Hazrat" is a POV honorific title. Stability Information East 2 (talk) 06:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(deindent) Again, I do not want to page-blank or delete Aala Hazrat. I plan to use the Move tab to move that article (and its history) in its entirety to the proper title Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi which is currently being taken up by a poor article which I do wish to delete. Aala Hazrat will not be page-blanked or deleted; it's this page that will. Stability Information East 2 (talk) 13:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 13:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable doctoral student and blogger. Fails WP:ANYBIO, fails general notability guidelines. The article editors seem to confuse writings by the subject with "significant coverage" about the subject. On-line, one can find some blogs, twitter and facebook postings, some articles written by him, book reviews on Amazon, but no substantial coverage about him. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 10:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Previous AfD had been improperly influenced by sockpuppetry; renominating this procedurally. NW (Talk) 03:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Consensus to delete this article is lacking, as the sources located rebut the BLP and V concerns. Still, there is a split as to whether the encyclopedia is best served by this as a stand alone article. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 16:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Libertarian Party candidate for US Senate in Florida. Article admits that he has had "little mainstream coverage"; sources are either blogs or obscure (and non-neutral) news sites, most or all of which appear to be reprinting the candidate's PR releases. Fails WP:BLP and WP:V. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Scott Mac (Doc) 22:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does not appear to satisfy WP:PEOPLE Jayjg (talk) 03:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep or "nomination withdrawn". Take your pick. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable person started a canning incident, fails WP:BLP1E. Plus PROD consested. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 02:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 00:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any reliable sources for her. Hobit (talk) 02:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Scott Mac (Doc) 22:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources come from fringe literature except for two mainstream references which it is clear, in context, deny the notability of this person as an expert. Mangoe (talk) 12:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. For a BLP, reliable sources are doubly important, and this article has none. No prejudice to recreation if/when they're found. Shimeru (talk) 02:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. unreferenced article. nothing in gnews except one article on her winning a school scholarship. [31]. LibStar (talk) 13:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Despite there being few articles which interview Zouroudis herself, there are plenty of sources which list her - just google her name. She is on nme, yoraps, itunes, last fm and various mp3 websites. She is one of the most subscribed and watched uploaders on youtube, and her official website is even set to launch soon..... keith1234 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith1234 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Even though she may not be famous in the public's eyes, she is quite known in websites such as Youtube and Myspace, which millions of people go on every day. Maybe soon, she will have her own label or make it out herself like Kina Grannis, who also got help from the internet. Many bands and solo artists have made it big from the internet e.g Kate Nash, who is quite well known in the UK —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Peonytree (talk) 12:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)]] comment added by Peonytree (talk • contribs) 12:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Fine. Examples of Zouroudis' popularity:
Her song 'Daydreaming' featured on NME
Tik Tok Remix featuring Maria also at NME
Her album 'Uncovered' at itunes
Small Article and Video at Hilkoo
Evidence of Zouroudis' involvement in We Are the World Youtube Edition
There is plenty more but I do not wish to add too many external links.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith1234 (talk • contribs) 14:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete. * 21:58, 12 April 2010 Athaenara (talk | contribs) deleted "Trevor Hunter Nelson" (G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page) (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am unable to verify notability per WP:BIO. I was unable to locate anything of note on the author or his supposed books. Nick—Contact/Contribs 01:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is real Drammatica (talk) 01:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fails to meet notability requirements for non-commercial organizations Hirolovesswords (talk) 01:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. most of the keep votes fail to refute the nomination since they argue about "notability" rather than adress the issue of independent sourcing. No independent reliable sources means no article. Scott Mac (Doc) 22:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. I cannot find any reliable third-party sources on this person. The only sources are from first-party publications and YouTube. かんぱい! Scapler (talk) 01:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Kevin (talk) 23:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contested CSD-A7, claim of notability as national TV network, fails WP:CRYSTAL, originally set for launch according to self-published press releases in September 2009, now set for summer 2010, no GHits, no GNews/Books/Scholar hits that are not self-published or self-issued press releases. No verifiable or reliable sources, fails notability standards. GregJackP (talk) 20:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Kevin (talk) 23:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Subject isn't notable and the page contains unclear and possibly factually incorrect info that can not be addressed without original research —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.219.159 (talk) 22:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: this is not my AFD, I'm good-faith submitting it for the IP who wanted it. tedder (talk) 11:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Scott Mac (Doc) 22:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Declined speedy and contested prod. Fails WP:Notability. No reliable WP:SOURCES, the current ones either being from the publisher or the subject's own website. GregJackP (talk) 14:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If this person is not notable then I gladly support deletion. In my opinion she is notable, although she is my sister. I have added a review of her book from Elle magazine and will add one from people when it is available online. It is in the 4/12/10 issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JordanWilliamR (talk • contribs) 18:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Listed for 14 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough participation to determine consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Created today. Appears to be a press release almost, but Google turns up nothing more than the Wikipedia article in relation to this item. Note the date given was from four years ago. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PROD removed by author. No reliable sources found to establish notability of a business. Has references, but most are self-references and not useful to establish notability.
Listed awards are incredibly regional in scope and not even high ranking (#21 in the sixth-largest MSA in the US). tedder (talk) 16:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Scott Mac (Doc) 22:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article has numerous issues. It's mainly a definition that is unsourced and may contain original research, and for such a general term it's very US-centric. Delete the article and merge each section to its corresponding article. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.99.6 (talk) 06:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable online company lacking significant coverage, which fails WP:CORP. My PROD was contested with a talkpage comment that the article had been edited so as not to be "unduly . . . promotional"; however, the problem isn't the way the article is written, it's the company's fundamental lack of notability. Glenfarclas (talk) 18:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 14:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable advertising campaign and/or April Fools' Day joke. Frank | talk 20:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable fictional character with no evidence of real-world notability and no significant coverage in reliable sources, article is essentially a plot summary of Under the Cherry Moon. I mentioned the lack of notability at a merge proposal in August 2009, and subsequently redirected the article, but now 96.250.181.28 has reverted that twice, so I'm bringing it here for consensus.
I have no objection to this being redirected again, but deletion would be preferable, the title is a very unlikely search term; the character is called Christopher Tracy, the chances of anyone searching for Christopher "Chris" Tracy are are non-existent. Markfury3000 (talk) 21:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 00:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Demo albums are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Scott Mac (Doc) 22:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced band, barely asserts notability, nothing in the article indicates meeting any criterion of WP:MUSIC. PROD-deleted once, then PROD'ed again. Jclemens (talk) 23:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. No arguments to keep - treating as an uncontested PROD Kevin (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been marked as having unclear notability since October 2007 and I see no evidence of notability or satisfying notability guidelines. EuroPride (talk) 17:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to I Think We're All Bozos On This Bus. Redirecting on the advice of Smerdis of Tlön. Consider this a no consensus close. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Categorized as an album, but apparently a non-notable fictional character. The sole source makes a passing reference to this entity, but does not establish notability. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree this is a bit obscure, I have run across the phrase "uh, Clem" in several other contexts My two cents, for what its worth, is that someone wondering what it means would be able to find out here and it should stay. Maybe change the categorization though.Kyuss-Apollo (talk) 01:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Valentine's Day. Tone 14:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What? This article is not necessary, everything is already covered at Flower. This is not even BJAODN material. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 20:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Student newspaper with limited to no notability, as evidenced by the lack of sources stretching back almost three years. Stifle (talk) 08:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Kevin (talk) 23:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell this is an amateur golf player whose achievements are mainly in amateur competitions in his home state. Nationally he got into the last 64 one year in the American National Amateurs. Obviously he has not played in any international amateur competition. He is not ranked in the first 4000 world amateur golfers by the Royal and Ancient see: http://wagr.randa.org/default.sps?pagegid={0D1A5023-CBB1-4322-90CE-2AFCE1A18FFC} Porturology (talk) 06:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC) Porturology (talk) 06:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 00:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contested Prod and Prod2. Non-notable software. Sources consist of a press release, two funding announcements (i.e., press releases of another sort) - both from the same site, and a self-published reference. External links are to company's website and blog. GNews has 7 hits (3 press releases, 3 blogs); GScholar has 1 relevant hit, consisting of an ad link apparently. GregJackP (talk) 02:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Scott Mac (Doc) 22:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Never played professionally, fails WP:ATH. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No Consensus Per nom, notability may be marginal but not marginal enough to delete at this point. Rescue is the right approach. Mike Cline (talk) 20:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is marginal at best and author appears to have a COI issue. Eeekster (talk) 04:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Request Deletion as a non-notable company. The company is not listed in either Hoover's or Dun & Bradstreet. There is no coverage in secondary sources. The claimed notability is from work done by the partners at Lionsgate, and even then credit appears to be claimed for more than their work. There is no basis for notability. The first Afd was improvidently closed (WP:NPASR) before anyone commented on the original request. It had two relistings, but they were within an hour and twenty minutes of each other, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creative Control (music company) --Bejnar (talk) 03:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NN Book series, with only trivial coverage Fails WP:NB CTJF83 chat 05:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. The notability is not an issue according to the comments and refs at the moment, the article needs improvement and not deletion. Tone 14:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
![]() | If you came here because of Harald Welte's blog, 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)) . |
I can find no evidence of this individual meet the bar of WP:Notability FellGleaming (talk) 22:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— 88.72.228.171 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
— Cdamian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other recent edits outside this topic.
— 69.47.21.48 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
— 71.102.225.71 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
— MarceloMagallon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
— 188.24.86.218 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Sigh, I see this deletion request must have found its way to some Linux message board somewhere. Fell Gleaming(talk) 17:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— 90.189.251.112 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
— 76.228.85.230 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Note: To those who are making arguments in favor of this entry, it would be very helpful if you would incorporate your specialized knowledge on notability into the article. Well-sourced, valid claims within the entry itself will certainly silence any objections. Thanks Fell Gleaming(talk) 03:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]