The result was Keep (withdrawnm, now sourced, tagging for refimprove though). Black Kite (t) (c) 20:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced BLP for 2+ years, notability unclear Black Kite (t) (c) 23:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Consensus is that the subject's verifiable activities do not meet WP:PROF Mkativerata (talk) 04:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced BLP for 2+ years, notability unclear Black Kite (t) (c) 23:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 06:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced BLP for 2+ years, notability unclear Black Kite (t) (c) 23:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 06:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Previous AFD closed as no consensus due to lack of comment. I don't see enough coverage in reliable sources to warrant an article. Jujutacular talk 23:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Amazon.com does sell the book but I don t see how having published one book would make one WP notable - nothing else mentioned in the bio would suggest so; the article is entirely unsourced to boot Mayumashu (talk) 22:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted by Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk · contribs); rationale was "Speedy deleted per CSD A7, was an article about a real person that didn't assert the importance or significance of its subject." Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Little notability asserted for this BLP unsourced for over 2 years Black Kite (t) (c) 23:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD, no reasons given. Footballer fails WP:NFOOTY as he has not played a fully-professional level. Also fails WP:GNG due to a lack of significant media coverage. --Jimbo[online] 21:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. I was almost tempted to relist this because of the 3 !votes, only one mentions sourcing/coverage. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Admittedly I don't know much about the American bowling scene, but this teams looks rather unremarkable and non-notable. —Half Price 20:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Prod removed by author (sockpuppet of indefinitely blocked User:Bun39) and I don't see a speedy tag that seems to fit outside of csd-iar. Principal thinks he smells gas and pulls the fire alarm. Kids evacuate, fire department responds. There is no leak...just some stuff rotting in a drain. This doesn't seem notable enough to even mention on the article about the school. Onorem♠Dil 20:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mkativerata (talk) 04:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Possible autobigraphical article about an artist of questionable notability. Some claims of notability, but cannot be verified - only sources found are primary or press releases from the subject. No significant coverage found from independent third-party publications. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 20:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable author. Has won awards from amateur websites only. No evidence of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Original author and major contributor appears to be the subject of the article herself. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to History of Arda#Valian Years and the Years of the Lamps. The only "keep" opinion does not address the substantial problems raised in the nomination. I'm noting for the record that there is a consensus to delete this article, but am closing as a redirect anyway to allow for history-merging of any useful material. Sandstein 07:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article is written with an in-universe perspective with no inline citations for verifiability and also no third-party sources to verify notability. The only reference is a primary source, The Silmarillion. While Tolkien's work is notable, this article in no way meets the criteria of the general notability guideline, being an unnecessary content fork and a plot-only description of a fictional work. The article fulfills the criteria of reasons for deletion and there is no need to merge anything here with another article because this topic, along with other similar ones, is already covered in History of Arda. Jfgslo (talk) 20:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 00:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a place for detailed information about how one particular game treats one particular kind of monster. We could, if we wished, have articles for every monster which has appeared in any vaguely notable game noting differences in armour class, hit points and so on between editions. We should not, because this is not encyclopedic content. If someone wants to set up a D&D wiki then that's great, but it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. The Land (talk) 20:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn - notability asserted (non-admin closure) Off2riorob (talk) 23:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Citations and searches don't assert any real notability. Off2riorob (talk) 19:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot find anything to establish the notability of this place other than its own web site. I've searched for "Kastela Republic" and the official "Kastela Respubliko", and the majority of hits are for blog and Twitter posts. It is telling to note that the top Google hit for the English name is for the newly created Wikipedia article, and there are no hits on Google News for either version. Ckatzchatspy 19:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 06:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article consist of synthesis of published material that advances a position, it does not have references or third-party sources to verify notability, the chronology does not meet the general notability guideline, it's an unneeded indiscriminate collection of information and I don't see how this article would fit the criteria of appropriate topics for lists. There is no need to move anything from this article because the chronology is already covered in the main article. This is an unnecessary content fork written with an in-universe perspective that falls into the criteria of reasons for deletion in my opinion. Jfgslo (talk) 19:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 06:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable daughter of a more well-known musician. Article exclusively sourced from her website. Released a single solo album three years ago, which didn't chart and is likewise being listed. G-hits list the usual Wiki mirrors, social networking sites, personal webpages, music blogs and user-inputted music sites, with nary a reliable source to be found. The sole G-news hit is from a relatively obscure Australian music site, the text of which is almost entirely sourced from Glover's MySpace page. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ENTERTAINER. Ravenswing 19:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related page for non-notability per WP:MUSIC:
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Creating this AfD discussion on behalf of a user for whom it appears Twinkle broke. I assume the rationale is along the lines of "fails notability criteria." —KuyaBriBriTalk 21:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm the guy Kuyabribri jumped in for, and yes, it's "fails notability criteria" per WP:BAND - the two articles sourced are from a school publication, the band has no released music, so no chart success, no substantial airplay, and so forth. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Questions - Couldn't this be included since its a band related to a Major University. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.26.220.195 (talk) 23:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 06:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ONESOURCE applies here, and there's no independent, significant source to establish notability. — Timneu22 · talk 19:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What this in fact is is the rather odd decision by an editor to take just one dimension (out of three) from Baxter's/Montgomery's/Rawlins' view of relational dialectics, not even attributing it correctly to them, and make an article on it. Clearly a simple redirect to the actual topic is the answer. Uncle G (talk) 11:50, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep/withdrawn. An obvious reason to have speedy userfication. — Timneu22 · talk 01:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No indication of importance, no notability asserted, no sources. — Timneu22 · talk 16:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was userfy on the off chance that this may be someone's homework assignment. It's definitely not an article. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~Darth Starbo 16:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 06:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notability concern. Google search does not show any reliable secondary sources. No secondary sources are referenced. MorganKevinJ(talk) 14:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Nomination whitdrawn (non-admin closure) Armbrust Talk Contribs 21:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Original research and synthesis. There is no source which contains, how many points the players received in this season and the points were determined from this three sources and the players performance in the ranking events. Armbrust Talk Contribs 14:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources I can find aren't clearly RSes, claims of notability seem weak to me. Hobit (talk) 03:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Jesus Dress Up. Spartaz Humbug! 21:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus Dress Up appears to be the only notable output of this person, and this page should redirect there. None of the sources for the article discuss Bob Smith as Bob Smith, they merely mention him en passant as the creator of 'Jesus Dress Up'. It's noted that he was one of seven Bob Smiths in a documentary film; however, that documentary film appears vanishingly marginal[6]. Fails WP:BIO for not providing substantial reliable sources covering its subject. Sumbuddi (talk) 13:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 06:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No sources whatsoever. Editor removed PROD. No indication of notability without reliable sources. — Timneu22 · talk 13:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Sandstein 07:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am a neutral party listing this article. I believe it faulty for the following two inherent reasons:
1. It is practically limitless in size. Its notability standards, as listed on the talk page, are vague, airy, ambiguous, and vastly inclusive.
2. It has no definition of a Russian ace. As I have found out through experience, a flier's citizenship can be difficult to nail down. The 17 missing World War I "Russian" aces contain at least one ace born in Lithuania and one in Latvia. All 17 won "National awards"–though not necessarily Russian awards. In fact, one of the two WWI aces presently listed won his victories and medals flying for the French air force.
To add to this list's woes, two of its editors are in an edit war over what constitutes a Russian, and it is totally uncited.
I would like to add one more caution, learned through bitter experience. Two years ago, I picked up this interesting year-old List of World War I flying aces to fill out. Through constant effort and a lot of help, it blew up into the second largest article in WP before I split it in nine about a year ago. In the process, I discovered that about 250 names is the maximum length for a list if you want to avoid browser loading problems for some readers.
Are there editors who will devote the necessary care or energy into this list? Or shall we shoot this puppy?
Georgejdorner (talk) 04:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: When compiling the List of World War I flying aces, I found "Canadian" aces from the USA in the Royal Air Force, "Brits" from all over the British Commonwealth, Polish pilots in both the Austro-Hungarian and German air forces, the French air force had aspects of an aerial United Nations because of the Foreign Legion loophole, and on and on. I took the stance that their nationality at the time of their notable feats was the basis of their listing. Then in the linking articles, I noted any changes in nationality adopted by the subject, or caused by political changes of national boundaries.
http://www.theaerodrome.com/aces/russia/index.php should be enlightening as to the Russian World War I flying aces. I estimate this is half the potential 40 or so entries from World War I. I should think there might be 20 notable military aviators of the era outside the flying aces.
Georgejdorner (talk) 04:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 06:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:ENT. Even in Persian I couldn't find anything about her. Farhikht (talk) 16:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Dinobots. Spartaz Humbug! 21:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A minor toyline with no independent information to assert notability Dwanyewest (talk) 04:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 06:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Procedurally completing an AfD on behalf of an IP who completed steps 1 and 3; I assume the rationale is along the lines of "non-notable individual football game". I am neutral. —KuyaBriBriTalk 21:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just leave it man ya geeks.--Supersewelly (talk) 22:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--Supersewelly (talk) 22:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete a7, no actual assertion of notability, also self-promotion. NawlinWiki (talk) 09:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
contested BLP prod, but the references added do not establish notability. a nomination for an Aurealis award does not satisfy wp:ANYBIO and he doesn't seem to meet wp:AUTHOR or wp:GNG either. Yoenit (talk) 12:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 06:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a content fork of Korean Air Lines Flight 007, with the apparent motivation being to flesh out details of a particular conspiracy theory advanced by rescue007.org Note that there is already a separate article entitled Korean Air Lines Flight 007 alternate theories Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn Ironholds (talk) 18:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can find literally no coverage of this guy. Google news, LexisNexis, google generally comes up with nothing but unreliable sources. He may have some excellent achievements, but without anything to verify them he can't pass WP:MUSIC. Ironholds (talk) 12:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 06:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
information is correct now. 76.65.11.23 (talk) 10:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PROD was removed by creator. Refs are to non reliable or self-published sources. Searches fail to come up with any other reliable sources. Subject fails at WP:BAND. Kudpung (talk) 09:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
source has been refined 76.65.11.23 (talk) 17:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 06:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Akcelrod is not an actor, he only played as an extra in two movies not released. His WP was deleted one year ago, when he was a football player —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazyliam (talk • contribs) 08:43, December 1, 2010— Crazyliam (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 06:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. High school drama director and local director of regional theatre company. Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Does not appear to meet criteria for notability presented at WP:GNG or WP:ENT. Cindamuse (talk) 08:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 06:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a neologism not covered by reliable secondary sources. The only Google hits are Wikipedia mirrors and the comments of people who noticed the Wikipedia article. Ntsimp (talk) 08:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mkativerata (talk) 04:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little on the fence about this one. This article seems to violate WP:ONEEVENT (and the article's title is terrible, but that's another story). Prod contested by article creator. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Spartaz Humbug! 21:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP1E - this is biography of a living person known as a result of one event, which can be seen in the fact that the entirety of the coverage is directly related to this single event. This belongs as a few sentences in Human rights in the Palestinian National Authority or as part of a more specific Freedom of Expression the Palestinian National Authority. Nableezy 07:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Long Way Down. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 00:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speculative unreferenced article written about as yet non-existent TV series Biker Biker (talk) 07:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am this article's original creator, and I no longer feel that this subject needs a separate article. It's already covered sufficiently in Ithkuil, and has no independent notability. Bob A (talk) 18:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, my 2p. I am neiter an inclusionist nor a deletionist, but more like a mergist. And that's what I probably would done here as well. Ithkuil indeed is a very notable language, but I'm not sure if the same can be said about Ilaksh. If it is true what the article says, that it is some kind of Ithkuil spin-off (and as such part of the same project), then I think it would be wisest to move those contents to the Ithkuil article that are not already there, and turn this one into a redirect. —IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 21:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So far what I've seen here are really only feelings and opinions. I really care only for the arguments, the arguments behind opinions. You can convince me that such a thing is better, but not with feelings and opinions. How to define "a spin-off" as such and why? Why then do you think it wisest to redirect it to another part of the same project. But firstly, notability itself, when exactly should we consider something notable and why (the definition on WP:Notability leaves some room for discussion here) and does the subject comply with this? --JorisvS (talk) 16:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Only supporting source is dead and was a fake. There is no Ministry of Culture in Singapore. Article written like a curriculum vitae. Information unverifiable and article is insignificant Reiuji (talk) 16:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 21:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the subject of Emiratis in the United Kingdom meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines based on the lack of significant coverage of the topic. The article relies solely on a population figure from the census and a few statistics on student numbers. This doesn't constitute significant coverage in my book. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 21:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While the article seems to be heavily referenced, almost none of the articles mention this forum at all. It's supposedly citation of its rank on big-boards.com is not true according to the website itself (it doesn't look like it ranks in the top 2000 even). The two items in the supposed "controversy" section aren't really that controversial. For the first, none of the links actually mention the forum and the second Walken one the website is only briefly mentioned as the possible originator. There really aren't any reliable sources showing this website's notability. Wickethewok (talk) 03:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 11:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This individual is a failed politician according to WP:Politician she recieved less then 31,000 votes in the current election out of millions. Has ran multiple times and failed each time. although on the ballot the amount of votes she recieved were insignificant, see for instance Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim McKenna who recieved 837,813 (or about 30 times the vote including more then her in write in votes alone) of the votes and was given a delete decision. judging from her previous elections she is actually going down in votes and it is highly unlikely she will even come close to winning an election in the future. The only post she ever was elected to was a small one with 539 votes. This article should be deleted. Tracer9999 (talk) 20:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They are in regards to the fact she was on the ballot.. outside of being someone who runs, gets hardly any votes and loses, she is not know for much else. her votes had absolutley zero effect on the election any coverage was simply for the news to avoid criticism so they could say they covered the third party candidate as thoroughly as any major party candidate. The fact is.. outside the failed election, she is not known much locally much less nationally. if anything this should be merged with the election article. -Tracer9999 (talk) 13:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He says he don't mind the quality of the page.. just that she is not notable.. sounds like..a case of he thinks she is not notable... -Tracer9999 (talk) 14:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 06:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. This article title is supposes to be about a street in California that's no notable. The only reference in the whole article is for the length. The rest of the article is about a section of a city, and even that isn't particularly notable. Imzadi 1979 → 04:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 06:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As noted on the article's talk page in more detail, Braccini fails to meet any of the WP:CREATIVE, WP:ANYBIO, or WP:N notability criteria. While the article lists a number of references, many are self-published and therefore not reliable sources. The remainder do not serve to establish notability, as they are not articles about Braccini; they are merely articles for which he was hired to provide photographs. Having his work included as part of a number of articles does not satisfy the notability requirements; the requirement is for articles where Braccini is the subject of the article. I have yet to find any such references. I put a note on the article's talk page 20 days ago looking for anyone to provide evidence of notability; none has been presented. The article, a BLP, reads like a resume and makes numerous claims not substantiated by the cited references. ⌘macwhiz (talk) 04:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mkativerata (talk) 04:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence that the subject meets the general inclusion guideline or the specialized inclusion guideline. NW (Talk) 04:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pastor of church with claims as singer/songwriter. Cannot find supporting documentation outside of the church's website or MySpace. At this point, does not meet criteria presented at WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Cindamuse (talk) 02:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reads like a resume with no references for many pertinent things (like direct quotes); 99% of sources are self-published, COI & NPOV. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 02:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While a very nice essay, this violates WP:NOTESSAY. It appears to have been a school project, and the editors have never returned, and little other improvements made to make it encyclopedic. Westbender (talk) 02:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 06:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does not seem notable enough. I am willing to withdraw my nomination if he can be proved notable JDDJS (talk) 01:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not noteable enough!?!
Look at this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WB9VlBVdTSE and his (new) facebook page here: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Musharaf-Bangash/109320379089335?v=wall and all over youtube, try this link for example!!!
Mr. Bangash sings great songs, and he is very famous in his part of the world! For people in Afghan and Pakistan, he is very well known. And his recent abduction has come as a shock to many! Please do not delete him just because you haven't heard of him. You would not like it if some Pashtun tribesman logged in and deleted Michael Jackson just because he hadn't heard much about him!
And why merge with Taliban and culture? He just happened to be kidnapped by the Taliban, he and his songs are not about the Taliban.
This article is currently lacking volume, but everything has to start somewhere. It's one of the first Google results that comes up when people, on hearing news of his kidnapping, will find. It will grow.
Please sirs, I implore you to stick to editing things that you know about, and not to discount things simply because they a) lie beyond the boundaries of your experience and b) don't come up in your limited Googling efforts.
Regards Aurora Boringalis —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aurora boringalis (talk • contribs) 18:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's not funny. You didn't even look at any of the dozen or more of his film clips, did you? Why don't you go and delete Britney Spears, or some other pop singer. Something not being culturally relevant to you does not necessarily mean it is not relevant. Aurora boringalis (talk) 02:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Peridon. Yes, there are thousands of web and image results on Google on the singer's name, along with many professionally produced film clips of Mr. Bangash's songs. Is such media rendered unreliable due to the fact that (as JDDJS points out) anyone can add a clip to Youtube? Should not the presence dozens of his film clips, readily searchable on Youtube (not to mention all the search results Peridon has mentioned), be enough evidence that he was a well known Singer in the Pashto music scene before he was kidnapped a little more than a week ago? Anyway, now we have the BBC, Radio Free Europe, and the Khyber News. You want more sources? I will get more. You guys better give me a nice certificate or something after all this. Aurora boringalis (talk) 19:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the article fails WP:Music not notable enough as a musician. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 07:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:PORNBIO, WP:ENT, and the GNG; no nontrivial GNews/GBooks hits. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. copyvio -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fails the General Notability Guildline Winner 42 Talk to me! 01:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 21:04, 9 December 2010 (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)) . |
This person lacks notability. It is autobiographical. The references are from local Pattaya advertizing sheets Note, nominated for deletion by Rak-Tai (talk · contribs), assisted by me, per request Chzz ► 00:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment SaksitVongaram 10:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This person is important to Chonburi's architecture and as such published. References are not advertising sheets. Mario Kleff is nominate for honorary degree in architecture and engineering from Thai Authority members and Pattaya Construction Department. Please help to improve the article instead nominate for deletion.
Hello, it's me User:MarioKleff and person the article is about. It's true I did some correction on this article in the past but wasn't the creator. Reason for my edits that time because information were incorrect or incomplete. I did not know that this not is allowed?! If somebody create an article such as Ulrich Kaiser did about me...it must be alright to do some correction on this in order to appear properly. However, at Dec 29 I sent email to Wikipedia Community in order to help and to remove this article to my account. It seems that SaksitVongaram and others did a much better job on this and post it new. Now, what is the problem here? Please explain I am open to get your comments otherwise all content of the current article is correct post. MarioKleff (talk) 15:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, help to structure and fill this article with further information. I also believe this man has the right to be mentioned on further Wikipedia pages such as "Pattaya" and "Chonburi" NittayaWongsin (talk) 19:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most people take pride in their work and in their point of view. Egos can easily get hurt. Do not label or personally attack people or their edits. Wikipedia encourages a positive online community: people make mistakes. Give yourself a try. I did some work on this article based on reliable and given sources.
*Keep And get someone who speaks Thai to search for his name and his buildings in Thailand, it surely mentioned. The article says he created the Memorial for His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej of Thailand. That is an important accomplishment, it a national monument. That and his other accomplishments make him notable. Do any media sources review these buildings or give mention to the unique architecture design of any part of them? Does this guy have an official website which perhaps links to coverage might be found? An architect is notable if their work is a national monument for a country. Dream Focus 16:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a clear case of someone notable for one event. Saeidi is notable only for her appearance on The Apprentice, and the aftermath of her firing from the show. My initial prod was deleted with the justification that she was legal correspondent for Fox News - however the source given for that statement in the article is simply a guest interview about The Apprentice and her firing - not her acting as a correspondent, or as Fox staff. It makes no indication that she is joining Fox in the interview.
That said, even if she is now a legal correspondent, I think that she would have to also become notable as a correspondent in order for her to pass the hurdle of WP:BLP1E - otherwise isn't it simply a case of her riding out the popularity gained from a reality TV appearance? Addionne (talk) 19:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 06:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity page. No indication of importance, no third-party sources. — Timneu22 · talk 19:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. No reliable source is being cited to support the content of this WP:BLP. It must therefore be deleted per WP:V. The arguments about notability are entirely beside the point as long as long as readers can't even verify the biographical facts of this person. Sandstein 07:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unable to find anything indepdent of the subject written about the subject in reliable sources. Can find a few things that she has written, but not much, only one scholarly paper, but again nothing written about her or anything that she has written. Does not appear to meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. —J04n(talk page) 20:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the information on this page is false. No real reverences on this page. No real reason for this page. Linda Rider (talk) 21:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--Sara goth (talk) 23:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable attorney. Only claim of notability is appointment as a state insurance commissioner, but that in itself does not meet the guidelines of WP:POLITICIAN. References provided amount to the "let me find some expert to quote" variety rather than any significant coverage. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 22:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Personal essay, fork of Conversation Analysis, unencyclopedic, not salvageable in current form. Figureofnine (talk) 00:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The page is not a personal essay but an objective and detailed review of the arguments made regarding using conversation analysis to approach feminism, as well as the research that has been done using conversation analysis in feminist studies. References have been also given to avoid making it look like a personal essay or personal research. More authors and research can and will be added to this page. Would it be more feasible to shorten this review and merge this page with the current existing Conversation Analysis page? Trevgeley (talk)
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non professional athlete without additional coverage Shadowjams (talk) 09:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not much of a claim to notability here. Artist who has some art displayed in public, but little else to claim notability. Gigs (talk) 03:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to List of Redwall characters. KrakatoaKatie 23:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I read Pearls of Lutra back in the day and I always thought Romsca was pretty cool, but she just isn't notable. This (like other articles which will be joining it shortly in AfD) is a completely random selection of a character who has not received external attention. (Note that I am being fairly conservative in my nominations here - I'm not bothering with articles that cover series-wide elements like Martin the Warrior, Badger Mothers, etc. These, however, are all characters that appear in only one or two books and have no external coverage.) Roscelese (talk) 06:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages because they, like Romsca, are random and non-notable:
The result was delete. since the consensus is that this is inadequately sourced the correct outcome under policy is delete but this can come back as soon as sources appear Spartaz Humbug! 21:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notability. Fails WP:MOVIE jsfouche ☽☾ talk 13:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:N. I couldn't find a single reliable source that references this study or otherwise indicates why it is notable. No Google Scholar[22], Books[23], News archives[24] hits, and only 61 distinct Google hits[25], most of them from Wikipedia and its mirrors. Replacing Denbeuax with Setin Hall in my search gievs basically the same lack of results. Fram (talk) 15:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Closing debate; result was keep since nominator withdrew nomination. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC) - Non-admin closure[reply]
It is apparently a non-notable Oriental teaching, and it has no sources to back it up and establish notability. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]