The result was speedy delete. speedy delete per snow, original author, and IAR tedder (talk) 16:53, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed speedy templates, a single event that is far from being encyclopedic or notable. There's no way it meets the general notability guideline. It might be worth including a sentence in the DeSoto County High School article if it gets written. tedder (talk) 23:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Courcelles 00:25, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(formerly "2010 Philadelphia Eagles - New York Giants game)
2nd attempt at deletion, under a new title. This game is not more notable than any other fourth-quarter comeback, so why should it have its own article? The "National Football League lore" page is here to cover games like these. BwburkeLetsPlays (talk|contribs) 23:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete, as I said in my PROD it is a neologism and appears to be made up judging by the complete lack of coverage on google. SmartSE (talk) 23:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 00:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A now-defunct government agency of marginal notability. A merge into Ministry of Economy, Labour and Entrepreneurship could also be an option. GregorB (talk) 23:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Courcelles 00:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All the seasons have individual articles, so there is no point in duplicating things by having a complete list as well. WOSlinker (talk) 22:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 16:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet notable pornographic actress. Fails WP:PORNBIO because she's only been nominated for one well-known award (AVN for 2011). Her ATK "awards" are not well known nor notable as they have not had any independent coverage. Fails general notability guidelines. Recommend that the article is userfied for the creator if she becomes notable later on. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And still.Imagine... I the usual person, want to learn that such - The Human Sexipede... I look wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Human_Sexipede... OK,cool...I Want to learn, who there plays...I look...hmm... Tom Byron...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Byron OK... Sunny Lane ...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunny_Lane OK... Amber Rayne...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amber_Rayne OK... Danica Dillan...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danica_Dillan Oops!pages aren't present! "It isn't well-known enough"... What to me a difference how much it is well-known,The information is necessary to me only. Listen Morbidthoughts. Wiki not a directory-"1 one million rich and well-known people". Wiki the en-cy-clo-pe-dia about all(Small-big;rich-poor;thick-thin;well-known-Not well-known) The most important thing - the information,the information on all. The information should be as much as possible full. Please keep page Danica Dillan.Thx.
Johnsmith877 (talk) 13:01, 20 December 2010
Simple question.Article about cinema is.Articles about all actors playing this cinema aren't present. Why? Censorship, how in China? :)Johnsmith877(talk) 22:44, 20 December 2010 — Johnsmith877 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Well.To me your logic is clear.You haven't understood me.I suggest to consider it,not only and it is not so much, as the pornoactress, but as the "actress" played a known film.After a while we should do page again.You haven't convinced me.I against page removal.
Johnsmith877 (talk) 21:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep — Nomination for a major award plus winning minor awards should be enough to establish notability. While not strictly the case with WP:PORNBIO, I would be inclined to be flexible and keep. Wexcan Talk 19:52, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Last AFD closed as no consensus after only one week due to someone digging up sources. Closer inspection, however, shows that the sources dug up were only tangential: one merely mentioned that GGP bought the mall and several others; one mentioned a store's opening in passing; and the rest were similarly trivial. There are some hits on Gnews, but they are only incidental, trivial coverage and nothing dating from before 2002 (the mall opened in 1982). For example, I know the mall had a Service Merchandise in it, but the only source I can find to verify that is a real estate listing. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. I'm going to assume good faith that what CactusWriter said about DreamFocus's point is true. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:49, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, I'm on the fence. Although this was a tragedy, this seems to violate WP:ONEEVENT, as I cannot find widespread coverage about this girl's suicide. There are zero Gnews hits for her name (searching without the quotes resulted in false positives), and a regular Google search resulted in either blogs or just passing mentions. Erpert (let's talk about it) 20:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of results under google news search by simply clicking archives as generalnewssearch only seems to bring up things from the current month — Preceding unsigned comment added by RR1953 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also how is this suicide any less notable than any of the others listed among notable suicides in the bullying infobox — Preceding unsigned comment added by RR1953 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete--Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:51, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be a non-notable neologism, not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. A custom google search of sources the anime and manga project regards as reliable hasn't yielded anything sufficient to support an article. Malkinann (talk) 20:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep, withdrawn by nominator Mandsford 16:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I note that this article has never been taken to AfD, though it has been speedied and its companion article was deleted back in 2008 at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_December_21#Brats_Without_Borders.2C_Inc.. My research does not indicate multiple third-party WP:RS that she meets our basic notability guidelines. The article is certainly rife with primary sources. I did find a Voice of America Ghit that Ms Musil is a figure of some import in the army brat network, but it's more of a forum hit than a bonafide news cite. And the awards: an IP has been insisting that the film's 21 festival selections constitute 21 awards,with some insults directed my way for not appreciating this. In fact, according to the primary source, the film won five awards of some kind at minor film festivals, not notable enough that Musil would meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:CREATIVE. There's some been some unpleasantness from this IP who has taken it upon his or herself to remove maintenance tags, insult me and vandalize my Talk page, and there may be more of that here, I'm afraid. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The documentary includes narration by former military brat and noted actor and country and Western singer Kris Kristopherson, a personal interview of General Norman Schwarzkopf, Jr. former supreme commander of US military forces in the first gulf war (he is also former military brat) and numerous highly recognized authors in the field of military brat research and study. This along with numerous everyday military brats.
And the Military Channel, a subsidiary of the Discovery channel is getting ready to air the documentary (sometime this month).
For these reasons I ask any investigating admin to warn or block this individual for misusing the Wikipedia process.
It might be funny if it weren't so sad, given the serious subject of the documentary-- that this person is smearing for some unknown reason--
An award-winning documentary about the lives, stresses, difficulties and struggles of American military children.
In the US once a crime has been proven, then aggravating circumstances are taken into account. Although not a crime, this persons claims against the article are an abuse of the Wikipedia process--
And I would say that the fact that this is a documentary about US military children that this person is targeting via misuse of Wikipedia protocol-- I would say that is an aggravating circumstance and I hope that is also taken into account.
The Wikipedia review process is for serious purposes and is not supposed to be a plaything (like a chess game) for ones personal edification entertainment.
Sincerely,
98.245.148.9 (talk) 22:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was nomination withdrawn. per the improvements to the article (non-admin closure) Armbrust Talk Contribs 13:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is just a directory for mostly non-notable films. Armbrust Talk Contribs 20:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete--Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:56, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PROD contested by author, who admits the quoted blog is the only source they can find. I can't find any reliable sources, so I don't see it as notable. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Future recording per WP:CRYSTAL Mo ainm~Talk 14:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete--Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:58, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be no mention in reliable sources of the script. Fences&Windows 18:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC) p.s. There's no doubt about the existence of the Dongba script. Fences&Windows 19:13, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 00:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Local media company employing 30 people which does not seem to have any national significance. Cannot find evidence that it passes WP:ORG. Nancy talk 18:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. my reading of this is that this comes under WP:FORK Spartaz Humbug! 16:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First, a caution based on previous discussions I've seen on this topic. (A couple of people were blocked following some heated discussions on previous incarnations of this article).
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
That being said, this article should be deleted as a content-fork of material already in Art student scam. Note that even the title of the article violates the Manual of Style (MOS) guideline WP:ALLEGED--". When alleged or accused are used, ensure that the source of the accusation is clear." According to this article, the "allegations of an Israeli espionage operation" come from "news outlets." Actually, looking at the sources, what we have are various journalists speculating that the observation that people claiming to be Israeli art students visited several Drug Enforcement Agency facilities might indicate that the young people were involved in an espionage operation (generally along with advancing other possible explanations for the observation). By collecting the bits of news commentary that most advance the idea that the "art students" may have been spies, the article presents a non-neutral perspective, nor could a neutral article be constructed along these lines. So, both the article title and the article itself are non-neutral and not compliant with policy for the inclusion of articles. (See:WP:POVFORK, which seems to describe pretty well what's happened with this article). CordeliaNaismith (talk) 18:47, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is just a repository of results and is unsourced. Armbrust Talk Contribs 01:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not a notable group. Nothing from outside the competition, did not win the competition. Has not won anything, produced anything, or done anything else to warrant inclusion under the relevant guidelines. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Elementary schools are not notable, no independent sources, nothing special about this school Thisbites (talk) 09:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 00:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki does not appear to be notable, a quick google search fails to bring up any relevant independent sources mentioning the site. nn123645 (talk) 18:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 00:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable product by non-notable manufacturer; article lacks references. A Google search seems to confirm my opinion. Drmies (talk) 18:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that this plausible-looking article is a hoax. Apart from minor fixes, it is entirely the work of user Gryffon (talk · contribs), who also wrote the undoubted hoax article Bunaka about a non-existent Indonesian island. Anything this author contributes therefore needs careful scrutiny.
There is a long list of references, but it is noticeable that they are all off-line. Although one would not expect much on-line "footprint" for someone who died in 1982, one would expect Google to turn up something for a man with so varied and distinguished a career (Navy, Yale, CIA, Goldman Sachs); but I can find only obvious WP mirrors. Notably, there is nothing in Scholar, though he is said to have been a Sterling Professor at Yale and to have written or co-authored "many influential publications."
Some checks are possible on-line, and they come up negative:
Anyone with access to the records of Yale, particularly Jonathan Edwards College, could make further checks, but I think the false book reference and the absence of any confirmation are enough to say delete. JohnCD (talk) 18:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like this article is an ad for an unknown audio engineer and i think it doesn't meet WP:BIO and WP:V. Some coverage from at least one reliable third-party source would change my mind. Ubot16 (talk) 20:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. All sorts of reasons apply: no context, test page, patent nonsense, etc. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What's going on here? Erpert (let's talk about it) 18:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 00:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable product, promotional article sourced only to compnay website. One Google News hit, for the company, not the product; zero on Books, one on Scholar is a peripheral mention. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:50, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Subject does not appear to be notable other than he was found out for lying about being a doctor, limited and localised media coverage, also refer WP:BLP1E, contested prod. MilborneOne (talk) 17:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep that is notable enough IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This individual is covered in least 229 pieces of news among a broad range of media sources in several countries. Thus, according to BLP1E, he easily passes the notability threshold. Basket of Puppies 00:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role. Bolding mine.
The result was keep. Courcelles 00:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A list of Rihanna's tours is not required. She has only had four tours and the information listed is trivial. It is also sourced from other wikipedia pages which is not appropriate. -- (Lil_℧niquℇ №1) | (talk) 17:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Spartaz Humbug! 16:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable minor leaguer. Normally I'd merge it into the Red Sox, but after playing in 9 games in 2009 and no games in 2010, even after searching through sources I'm not positive where he stands in the organization, if anywhere, so merging may not be a good move here if he has one foot out the door. Recanting that, though I still suggest a merge. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:52, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This actor appears to fail our notability guidelines WP:ACTOR. There also appear to be no solid sources whatsoever.
There are some edits in the history of this article claiming that this person is also known as "Artel Kayàru" or "Artel Great!" (an identification imdb also makes), although a new editor has disputed this. I can't verify that these persons are the same. And, in any case, none of their alleged alternative names seems to yield any solid sources to give us material to write an article, or to testify to notability.
The identification is an interesting puzzle, but ultimately may be irrelevant as this fails our guidelines anyway.
The result was redirect to Bucks Fizz (band). Courcelles 21:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This was just listed at AFD and closed as redirect but it turns out the article was never tagged with the AFD notice so I have voided the close and relisted. Details and rationale for listing in AFD1. Spartaz Humbug! 16:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 00:21, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fails criteria for musicians and ensembles. No reliable and independent source founded. Farhikht (talk) 16:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn with a red face, but I really did do the search! Dougweller (talk) 19:13, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect to the article's creator, I can't find any sources using this as a descriptive category (or in fact in any other way), so this is WP:OR. I searched using various permutations. Dougweller (talk) 15:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Courcelles 00:19, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is just a repository of results and is unsourced. Armbrust Talk Contribs 01:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Courcelles 00:19, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is just a repository of results and is unsourced. Armbrust Talk Contribs 01:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A major news paper has an article about this "great rivalry". Remember, most Wikipedia articles were created before they started asking for references to be in them. So its best to do a quick Google news search BEFORE you try to delete something. Dream Focus 20:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:56, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pure listcruft. Unreferenced article and seemingly no way of verifying most of the stats given. J Mo 101 (talk) 15:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Courcelles 00:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At first sight this article looks pretty solid. However, this does not stand up to closer scrutiny. Most of the article describes other journals, gives exhaustive descriptions of the contents of the six issues that were published, or describes the cover design and subscription fees. Note that very few of that kind of information would normally be present in an article describing a scholarly journal. There are an impressive 20 references. However, references 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 are to the journal itself. Reference 1 is a directory that just lists the journal and publisher. References 2 and 4 are indexes that do not give any real information at all, except that these libraries hold (some of) the journal. Reference 3 is to a page on the GDI, listing the year that the journal started publishing. Reference 5 is about a completely different journal. Reference 6 is a list of journals with similar topics, not even mentioning this journal. Reference 9 is only a passing listing containing Littlejohn (editor since 1991), without mentioning the journal. References 15 to 19 are instances where other publications cited an article from this journal. Reference 20 sources an award that the journal got: honorable mention as "best new journal". Note that this is only a mention, another journal won the ward and there are 2 other honorable mentions listed for 1992. A Google search for "Journal of Indigenous Studies" gives 227 hits, none of which appear to establish notability. Searching on Google Scholar gives 155 hits, not all of them articles in this journal. The most-cited article scores 24, the next one 12. Google books guives 171 results. Again, as far as I can see, none of them serve to establish notability. I cannot find any citations to this journal in the Web of Science (using "cited reference search, as appropriate for a non-indexed journal). WorldCat cannot find any academic libraries in the United States or Canada that hold this journal.
I originally prodded this article, but was chastised on my talk page for not having done my homework, hence this overly-long nomination. However, I think that the above shows that this journal does not meet WP:GNG or even the much more lenient criteria of WP:NJournals. Hence: delete. Crusio (talk) 14:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 00:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Reason for the proposed deletion was, and remains: Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. Has been a candidate in a number of elections but doesn't seem to have "received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources".
PROD was removed with the edit summary, "Not needed for deletion because he is standing for by-election Oldham East and Saddleworth which will attract attention to the page and it has lots of required information on the page." That this individual is a candidate in another Parliamentary election doesn't seem to change the problems regarding WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN and I therefore remain of the opinion the article should be deleted. Adambro (talk) 14:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Knanaya. /merge. Spartaz Humbug! 16:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article appears to be WP:OR. Guy (Help!) 12:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 00:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unremarkable free software. Unreferenced article created by the developer (so major COI there). No indication or assertion of notability. Given that Wikipedia is not a directory of free software I see no reason to keep this article. Simple Bob (talk) 12:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Courcelles 00:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article is an A7 band page, since there is no indication of importance and no sources provided that show any interviews or significant coverage of the band. Cannot nominate for A7 because somehow the article survived AfD before. So renominating. — Timneu22 · talk 12:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Courcelles 00:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article is about an old poem, and consits of the poem itself, and then a paragraph about the life of Elizabeth I. The paragraph doesn't mention the poem at all, and there isnt really an article here. I've got no objections about moving the poem to WikiSource though. Acather96 (talk) 11:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With some improvements (LOTS of clean-up, wikification), this article could become meaningful. It does not appear to be a candidate for deletion in its own right. Slayer (talk) 17:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 00:11, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed prod. Reason in original prod nom was: "fails WP:ATH and WP:NSPORTS /WP:GNG - youth player who has not played first team professional football and who does not meet other notability criteria. Recreate if/ when he does." Nancy talk 09:13, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was SNOW delete. No reason for this to stick around. Jclemens (talk) 23:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article is clearly original research, an opinion piece, is not written from a neutral point of view. Clearly it does not belong here, but there is no suitable category for speedy deletion. Speedy Delete. I42 (talk) 08:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: They have a place for this sort of article. Its called a forum.Slayer (talk) 17:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. There is substantial support among established commenters that this word has now reached encyclopedic notability. The name "Santorum" will be redirected to the Senator, as I think consensus and common sense demand. There is widespread support for Santorum (neologism) as a renaming, but neologisms don't belong in Wikipedia: the result of this debate thus compels a different title. Santorum (sexual slang) is adopted as the most popular option consistent with WP:NOT. The question of how, exactly, to disambig. (a delicate matter, considering the Senator is deserving of personal respect, per BLP), I will leave to talk page discussion. Xoloz 15:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The neologism referred to, created by Savage Love, does not have any evidence of real currency as a neologism. It should be treated as a political act by Savage Love, and described under that article. Giving it a separate article implies that it is a generally accepted neologism. Mike Christie 03:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
→ straw poll (moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Santorum#Straw poll as AfD is not the place for it. The straw poll asks about the preferred name for the article about the sexual slang term, and about where the link Santorum should go, and what the contents of the disambig page should be.)
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 12:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced since 2006, this article has no sources to establish the notability. JJ98 (Talk) 05:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy deletion. WWGB (talk) 10:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 16:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The release history of this particular piece of software fails WP:N as a distinct topic. It does not appear to be worthy of a stand alone list, either. Novaseminary (talk) 05:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 00:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly any significant third party coverage [38] (many web results and all Google books results are wiki-mirrors), casting serious doubts on notability. Redtigerxyz Talk 05:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 00:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable chef and proprietor of a commercial cooking school. The article has been purged of fawning adspeak since its creation, but still contains no indication at all that he has received significant coverage or would otherwise have a claim to notability, nor can I find any. Glenfarclas (talk) 05:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 00:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely an autobiography about an individual who has accomplishments but falls short of Wikipedia's notability guidelines for an individual. 3D modelling work in the 90s might qualify for WP:BLP1E, but the sources given (in the form of scans of copyrighted material) don't pass WP:GNG, and searches on Google News and Google Books don't back up a claim for notability; nor do the credits and other information posted on IMDb. tedder (talk) 04:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. A9; Artist'sarticle has been deleted. Courcelles 00:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable album from non notable singer. (Singer's article listed for deletion also). Article states that the album did not chart on any major charts. PROD removed by creator but no evidence of notability added. Dmol (talk) 04:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 00:09, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cleaning out the campaign cruft. Person got 1.5% of the vote in the 2010 Republican primary for governor, see California gubernatorial election, 2010. Not otherwise notable. Herostratus (talk) 04:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 00:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Person got 1% of the vote in the 2010 Republican primary for governor, see California gubernatorial election, 2010. No other notability. Herostratus (talk) 04:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 12:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of significant coverage or other indicia of notability that I can find for this conference. Glenfarclas (talk) 04:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:updating the informations.(talk) 17:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 00:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable browser software (not to be confused with other software called Mantra (e.g. 1). Glenfarclas (talk) 03:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Noone has really refuted the argument that this is a dicdef and the policy on that is clear. The premis that sources about the suibject rather then those that mention it has also not been refuted Spartaz Humbug! 16:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a WP:DICDEF entry, which is constructed out of some bare mentions of the phrase and is basically redundant to wiktionary:wrestle with a pig. I soft redirected it, but the article creator reverted so here I am.
It's a great phrase, in use as far as I can find in a slightly different form since at least 1946, but I don't think this concept has been discussed sufficiently in reliable sources to warrant an encyclopedia article being written on it. There's also some use of improper synthesis in the writing, by including the Lincoln quote.
We do have a related redirect, Pointless argument, which goes to Eristic. Fences&Windows 00:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Has no independent third-party reliable sources, and I couldn't find any by myself. There is no way we can write an article on this organization without sources. The only indicator for notability is Alexa's rating, which is a violation of WP:GOOGLEHITS.
WP:GNG requires sources that talk about Softpedia itself, and I couldn't find any:
keep- typical overzealous wikipedia delete everything in sight. Its a real, valid site which is fairly prominent on the internet. Ranks very high in google searches.--90.217.99.8 (talk) 14:58, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 00:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He played only on 4th league level. Oleola (talk) 03:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Courcelles 00:07, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This page goes against the NO NEWS policy because it was a onetime event and not a tornado outbrak. Tons of small towns get tornadoes what makes this one special? BabyFace98 (talk) 03:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Gavin Trippe. Spartaz Humbug! 16:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Super Single was an idea (a very cool one, to be sure) for a new motorcycle racing class somebody had three years ago. It got two prominent blog posts [44][45] and then went nowhere. The article violates WP:CRYSTAL and WP:GNG. Note that the name for the proposed class has changed from Super Single to Formula 450 Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. --Dbratland (talk) 20:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to iPad. Spartaz Humbug! 16:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRYSTAL --Mepolypse (talk) 01:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Slave Doll. Spartaz Humbug! 16:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced since 2006, this article has no sources or citations to establish the notability. JJ98 (Talk) 01:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to FN FAL. Spartaz Humbug! 16:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To short an article, only one line. I have copy this one line and added it to the article FN FAL which is the main article on the subject. MFIreland • Talk 00:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted by Courcelles (talk · contribs): "G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page." NAC — Glenfarclas (talk) 05:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipeida is not for things you make up one day. It is also not a webhost. Article creator has identified herself as a 11 year old girl, so there is some possible WP:CHILD issues here as well. —Farix (t | c) 00:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 00:06, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article has no sources to establish the notably. The parent article 20th Century Masters has been recently deleted due to lack of sources. JJ98 (Talk) 00:27, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 17:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of organization members. Fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:STAND. ttonyb (talk) 00:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 12:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notability, looks like spam. Darxus (talk) 00:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These last five requests are from the software list on High dynamic range imaging, which has a tendency to collect this sort of thing. They used to do external links, but now they're creating articles and linking them. —Darxus (talk) 00:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Borderline G11, but no objection in a week. Courcelles 01:55, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notability, looks like spam. Darxus (talk) 00:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 00:04, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to not pass WP:N/GNG or WP:CREATIVE. Google returns a lot of selfpub and self-promo material, no substance. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 07:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability, no third-party references in the article either. Tone 14:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to List of The Venture Bros. characters. Merging/redirct to a central kliost is long standing policy for these kinds of nn/merginally notable characters Spartaz Humbug! 17:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that this character would meet the notability. This character has no citations or sources, and it has no real world coverage. JJ98 (Talk) 06:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 12:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced since Dec 2009. PROD removed without comment or improvement by IP 123.231.108.114 on 20 Dec 2010. Unremarkable defunct band. Fails WP:BAND. Kudpung (talk) 04:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 12:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
False genre entirely invented and single-sourced by Allmusic, a site I find completely useless in terms of music. Any of these bands can be classified as another legit genre, and the fact that they mention Red Hot Chili Peppers and metal in the same sentence just makes me burst out laughing.--F-22 RaptörAces High♠ 02:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
nytimes
[50][51]
[52]
[53]
boston.com
[54]
[55]
[56]
latimes.com
[57]
[58]
[59]
[60]
[61]
sfgate.com
[62]
[63]
[64]
[65]
[66]
village voice
[67]
[68]
[69]
[70]
rollingstone.com
[71]
[72]
[73]
[74] - Steve3849talk 22:14, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 12:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Its stamps are not recognized by the IPU and the ability for this list to have encyclopedic utility seems unlikely. jps (talk) 17:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Courcelles 00:04, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article appears to be self-promotion/advertisement of a website. The references cited appear to promote other promotion articles rather than about any notoriety of the website.
The wikipedia references I used to determine if Speedy Deletion applies to the named article are:
Attemtped to add this line: ((Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GovLoop)) to this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2010_November_15&action=submit but wasn't able to do so. Have surmised that adding it (as instructed where the Submit button is, for this form) may require being an Administrator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kernel.package (talk • contribs) 23:11, 15 November 2010
The result was merge to San Francisco Giants minor league players. Courcelles 00:04, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable minor league baseball player. He is a .213 career hitter and doesn't seem to be getting any better. He is currently in the Giants system, so perhaps a merge? Alex (talk) 01:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Seattle Mariners minor league players. Courcelles 00:03, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable 27-year-old minor league baseball player who has never reached the major leagues. He's been around for nine years and has never made the majors. He is currently in the Mariners system, so a merge might be optimal. Alex (talk) 01:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Courcelles 00:03, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Never reached big leagues, though he did collect 2200 hits and manage in the minors. Despite that, I'm not sure what makes him particularly notable. Alex (talk) 02:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 00:03, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
does not criteria for notability for a tennis player (no ATP World Tour main draw matches or Davis Cup matches played; not a top three world ranked junior or junior grand slam winner; not a ATP Challenger titlist) Mayumashu (talk) 02:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn, no delete !votes standing. Article is still unreferenced but MichaelQSchmidt has flagged it as "under construction" today (non-admin closure) Pgallert (talk) 09:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to Fail WP:BIO and WP:ACTOR as I cant Find adequate sources. Found as Part of Reference a BLP drive The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]