< 10 January | 12 January > |
---|
The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 17:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This unofficial holiday is not notable in the slightest. So a few papers picked up on it on a slow news day, WP:NOTNEWS applies. JBsupreme (talk) 23:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All together, it's a weak keep. None of those by themselves is probably enough, but taken as a whole I have to change my mind. Shadowjams (talk) 22:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whimsically, the author has used ((infobox criminal)) but the article is actually about a poet. No evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedied under G3 by Smashville while I was AfDing it. Olaf Davis (talk) 22:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Declined speedy (WP:G3, hoaxes). While this is probably genuine and therefore not a hoax, it looks distinctly non-notable. No reliable coverage. Olaf Davis (talk) 22:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An article about a three year old child, where the claim to notability is eating Bhut Jolokia peppers. There are some sources, but I'm not convinced that this is something we should have on Wikipedia. KFP (talk | contribs) 22:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article doesn't seem to have anything to do with any specific "proposal" by the Obama administration Rather, it's just a coatrack of quotes and opinions. Nowhere in this article is any actual proposal described (and it is unclear what that proposal would be). There are some opinions stated in the lede and then some "arguments," many of which have little to do with Obama and are more about the health care debate in general. Actually, this appears to be a content fork of Health care reform debate in the United States where these topics are described in greater detail. Loonymonkey (talk) 22:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Note that this is not the second nomination, it is the first. Twinkle conked out on me the first time through and I had to self-revert. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 17:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It might have been a less obvious call to make back when this article was first nominated for deletion 5 years ago, but at this point it seems clear that this software application (which by the way is called "Ogham", not "OghamWiki") is unnotable, with only one known user/developer, and no known media references. Yaron K. (talk) 21:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEW of substance. Appears to fail WP:POLITICIAN. ttonyb (talk) 21:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Clipse#Exclusive Audio Footage (1993–1999). Arbitrarily0 (talk) 17:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find significant coverage for this unreleased album. The last AfD closed as keep because of an editor saying that they found two articles on it, but the ediitor didn't provide links or post something else that would show that they aren't trivial mentions. Joe Chill (talk) 20:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Changed to Speedy Delete. Joe Chill (talk) 20:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find significant coverage for this company. I'm not convinced that the awards that it won are major awards. The creator has a conflict of interest. Joe Chill (talk) 20:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G3 JohnCD (talk) 22:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable urban legend. No results in web searches. PROD denied by spa IP editor. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 17:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:ORG, particularly since it doesn't even exist yet. Ironholds (talk) 00:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 11:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable individual lacking GHits of substance and with zero GNEWS. Article lacks references. ttonyb (talk) 20:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 17:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Modified Bragg diffraction. This seems to be another WP:POVFORK by the same editor, created to promote his website and self-published book. It also says nothing about what the "Compromise spacing effect" is, but instead seems to be just a collection of research results, with the supposed article topic an excuse to put them on WP. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 20:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Sunny Side Up (Paolo Nutini album). Arbitrarily0 (talk) 17:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Prod removed, but no reason given. WP:NSONGS: "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song." Adambro (talk) 20:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Advertising article for a non-notable business, an an outsourcing software services company that's apparently now a subsidiary of a business we don't have an article about. Article is promotional in intent, containing nothing but boasts about certifications and non-notable trade awards. "References" are to case studies and listings in "emerging company" lists that do not provide notability. Google News Search finds no reliable sources: note that the "xtvworld.com" sites that come up are blocked on my browser by antivirus software, probably for excellent reasons. Discretion will be the better part of curiosity here.
This has been deleted three times already as unambiguous advertising. Suggest protection against re-creation. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 04:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nevada Numbers has been defunct (removed) since early 2009 (www.nevadanumbers.com)and is no longer offered as a keno wager in Nevada casinos. Las Vegas Gaming, Inc., is in the process of selling their keno and bingo business to a yet unlicensed entity in the State of Nevada so the future of the promotion is uncertain or perhaps doubtful. Nevada requires full licensure of keno manufacturers and operators of linked keno progressives. Suggest deletion until such time as the promotion is back on line, if indeed it ever is.
From LVGI's most recent SEC filed financials, "On March 31, 2009, the Company shut down its Nevada Numbers and Million Dollar Ticket games."
Also from SEC filings, http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1103993/000111776809000363/mainbody.htm: "We completed the sale of our bingo business, keno intellectual property, and prac (Promotion marketing software) business to Gaming Arts, LLC (GA) on August 19, 2009, for $1,050,000. GA also executed a Nevada Numbers License Agreement for $50,000 for an exclusive license to operate, grant sublicenses and enforce the Nevada Numbers intellectual property in any non-slot application. In addition, GA received a non-exclusive license to operate, grant one sublicense, and enforce the Nevada Numbers intellectual property in any slot machine application for 50% of the net profits after GA or its sublicensee receives the first $100,000 in net profits. However, since GA has not received the necessary regulatory approval to be a gaming operator, the Company continues to maintain control of these assets and manage them on a day-to-day basis for an indefinite period pending such approvals. The gain on the sale of these assets has been deferred pending such approvals. As a result of significant uncertainty as to the achievement and timing of such regulatory approvals, we are unable to conclude that the disposition of these business assets and activities within one year is probable. Therefore, pursuant to ASC 360-10-45-9, we have not classified such operations of these businesses as discontinued." NRee (talk) 21:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)NRee — NRee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - Eastmain (talk) 21:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: submitting this in good faith for a non-autoconfirmed user. tedder (talk) 15:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 11:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Obscure, non-notable band that claims to be an Internet sensation. Does not pass WP:BAND, WP:WEB or WP:RS. Warrah (talk) 19:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable amateur sports group. Google News searches do not confirm notability. Warrah (talk) 19:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No confirmed info from secondary sources. Tosses around terms like "recently", no track listing confirmed, only sources are forums. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 17:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced since May 2009. Two links to the company website, one to a search engine result page, and one to a book by trademark creator. Looks promotional, bordering speedy deletion. Abanima (talk) 19:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 17:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MADEUP; sources are not sufficient to pass WP:GNG, one being an unreliable site, one being a borderline-unreliable site which doesn't give enough detail to be useful. Ironholds (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Notability seemingly not established by significant coverage from reliable sources. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 17:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
New software. Not finding significant independent coverage in reliable sources. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep The consensus of this discussion seems to indicate that she does in fact meet the bar of WP:N. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re-delete. This article was already deleted once [9] by way of consensus after a previous deletion discussion, but has since been recreated. I still cannot find non-trivial coverage of this artist from various third party publications. It has been asked once before, and I will ask it again: perhaps she has been reported on in another language? If sufficient coverage still cannot be found then I would suggest salting this page as well. JBsupreme (talk) 18:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(reset indent) Right, unclaimed source of caste..., would you really call that contentious info?, comprised by the extremely serious concerns of BLP? I call it trivial vandalism. You are the one changing the subject with your invocation of BLP concerns, when in reality you want to send other editors scrambling for sources in Punjabi language within seven days. Power.corrupts (talk) 22:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Miss Pooja is not a non resident Indian but based out of Punjab, India. She is currently one of the most popular Punjabi singers (male or female). Her songs appear regularly on TV channels such as Alpha TV Punjabi, ZEE Punjabi, JAS TV. There are hundreds of her songs available on YouTube, many of which have almost 1 million views. Her interviews with western TV/Radio media can be seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNvo0hcYOBM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyRDPGgFiHI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8vwSdsSCgc ~~bal537 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bal537 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(deletion rationale from the talk page)
I am nominating this article to be deleted.
paul klenk talk 18:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
(Finishing nom as a courtesy -- no opinion yet on deletion) Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC) paul klenk talk 18:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. The significant amount of media coverage seemingly establishes enough notability for inclusion. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 17:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Declined speedy/contested WP:PROD. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No information provided. No references or sources other than one company's website. Suspected that they are trying to create a new buzzword or highlight the name of their product. The history of the page also shows that it has had very little information since it's creation. The only thing added recently was a link to a vendor's product page. OMouse (talk) 17:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contested proposed deletion (not mine). Advertisement for a non-notable business providing management solutions for data centers. "References" provided are either to press releases and minor trade awards, or cheekily seem to be entirely irrelevant to this business and do not mention its name[29]. Gotta give credit for chutzpah where it's due, at least. None of the alleged sources would appear to have broad readership, either. Google News Archive finds only routine product announcements and similar material. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily deleted by Toddst1 (talk · contribs) Fabrictramp | talk to me 11:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable film and possible hoax. I Cannot find anything to establish this as a real film. Article has been speedy deleted twice and a prod removed by anon editor. Article creator also created Essence (2010 film) which is also subject to AFD as a possible hoax. noq (talk) 16:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deletion via CSD#G11 contested and overturned at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 January 4. Per that discussion the article is being referred to AfD for further consideration. Shereth 16:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, besides, feel free to quote on Mr Chris Pirillo(really great person), LifeHacker.com or at last AskVG.com etc. - those either have world-wide IT recognizability or are certificated IT specialists (like MVP Mr Vishtal Gupta). Of course there are always newspapers sources like PC World and PC Magazine. And of course You can relate to official website if You want to - it's official overall.
Samiwieciekto (talk) 17:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn by nominator. Several comments have shown that this article is being actively worked on and many of the points are being actively address. As a result I'm withdrawing the nomination with the intention of allowing people to work on it for a couple of weeks. After that point it will be revisited to see if it has improved, or if it is still just a trivia list. Remember though when editing the article, that just because something has a reliable source, doesn't mean we should include it in Wikipedia. Canterbury Tail talk 12:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A completely unmaintainable and seemingly pointless article. An article on all aircraft that appears in works of fiction? This isn't an encyclopaedic topic. What next, cars that appear in fiction? If certain aircraft have a significant role in a work of fiction then it makes more sense to have that detailed on the article for that aircraft, but having one superarticle for this kind of thing isn't what we're here for. Aircraft appear in fiction all the time, like cars, countries, handguns etc. It's just not a rare or significantly small enough grouping for it to be significant. Seems to me the majority is this page is pure trivia at best, and pointless at worst. Canterbury Tail talk 15:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 11:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Product has not been announced by Microsoft; and despite the source article linked from Ars Technica, only speculative information has been revealed and is available. As such, the article violates WP:CRYSTAL. mhking (talk) 14:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Zero prejudice towards individual renominations - too many factors exist to close this discussion as anything else. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
|
I discovered this list of articles, all of which are basically orphans, and are all about Spanish language voice actors who work for an anime dubbing studio in Colombia and have all been authored by Wolfang (talk · contribs) (who is one of the subjects). These are all effectively non-notable biographies of living persons that have barely any coverage to begin with. The only instances of possible assertions of notability have come about because they have done voice work for anime in Colombia and nowhere else. These people do not have biographies on the Spanish language project, where they have even bigger anime nerds than the English language project as far as I've seen. All of these are unreferenced biographies of people with barely any notability, and there is a severe conflict of interest as the author is a subject and co-worker to the whole list. While dub actors can be notable, there is simply no reason to keep this group of Spanish language dubbers of anime on the English Wikipedia. If these people were in any way mentioned on the Spanish Wikipedia, I might believe they are notable, but their pages were deleted there.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 13:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Withdrawn by nominator. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced BLP since creation in 2004, unable to find any RSs (IMDB and this etc appear to be about an unrelated screen writer and the various books are about either Oceanography or new age healing etc) Jubilee♫clipman 12:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A Demo tape by a little known band is not notable. A separate article exists for a previous demo as Demo One. This article has been through the PROD process which expired but the template was removed without explanation by the article's creator Malcolma (talk) 11:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTDICTIONARY, also "negara" still means "state" Davidelit (Talk) 11:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 23:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTDICTIONARY Davidelit (Talk) 11:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:PROF. With regards to PROF, I find can no articles by Singh with citations on Google Scholar, so his impact on the field of Comparative Theology is yet to be demonstrated. The Sikh Coalition is demonstrably notable but the sources for Singh in Google News appear to be limited to quotes in his role as a trustee ([33]) of the Coalition rather than being about him or establishing his notability. Trustees of such a non-profit advocate group are not automatically notable in an encyclopaedic sense and any relevant and unique information here about Singh would be more appropriate if merged in to the main article along with information about the rest of the board. Ash (talk) 11:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
jc 03:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
The result was keep. Jayjg (talk) 02:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Online chatroom and religious advice service.
Since its creation in 2006, this article has never contained an assertion of notability nor reason why this website is notable. A speedy was declined on the basis that "it gets a reasonable number of Google Books hits". There are currently 22 of these, none (as far as I can see, some are restricted access) covering the subject in any depth. pablohablo. 09:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable publishing company that produces a few for-sale magazines. Article doesn't even assert notability, really. Speedy deletion was turned down on the basis that a cited source did allege notability (not sure I agree with that sort of rationale, since the assertion wasn't in the article, but the point is moot, as a third editor removed this source as non-independent, based on company's own press release). Presently the would-be article cites no sources at all, seems to serve no purpose than to promote the company's website, and was created by what appears to be a single-purpose account, Spilchards (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), that has done nothing but create this article and add closely related spam links in other articles referring to the company the article is about, upload images related to the company, and create another now-deleted article for another non-notable publication that the editor is probably also directly associated with, as seems to be the case here. Also, this article is itself re-creation of previously deleted material. This version of the article was de-((prod))ed, after the speedy was rejected, on the basis that the company turns up a fair number of times in Google. But nothing has been done by any editor to establish notability with multiple instances of non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources. PS: The fact that the publications are unusual (they target only the ultra-wealthy) does not make them or the publisher notable, and neither does the fact that some of the listed properties, yachts, etc. may themselves be notable. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 09:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Jayjg (talk) 02:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged with ((Notability|biographies))
for about 9 months. The only two sources cited in the article are either non-reliable (the tertiary source TV.com, a wanna-be IMDb competitor with almost no information, and no sources of its own cited) or non-independent (a press release). Her sister and father are notable, but biographical notability is not congenital. Some of the works she has appeared in (according to more tertiary information at IMDb and another similar external link) are notable, but not everyone appearing in a film or TV show absorbs notability by osmosis, either. I opened this pretty much as just a procedural nomination, as I encountered the very long-standing notability dispute tag on this article during random reading, but I have to actually agree with it being there, and enough time to grow a human baby is more than enough time passed for evidence to be added to an article that the subject satisfies the basic notability criteria with multiple, independent instances of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 09:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Completely unsourced article listing people who have appeared on a marginally notable radio broadcast. Not notable as a grouping of people, and part of an unwarranted proliferation of lengthy articles on this topic (see James Edwards (radio host), The Political Cesspool, Views expressed by James Edwards and The Political Cesspool). This was apparently spun off from The Political Cesspool, and I don't propose merging it all back in: WP:NOTCATALOG. Glenfarclas (talk) 08:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Promotion for non-notable product; article written by single-issue user with possible conflict of interest. The article was deprodded by adding non-significant sources, and I'm unable to find anything significant. Haakon (talk) 08:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about notability here or he's just an WP:BLP1E issue. He won a single tournament but poker doesn't seem to meet the general WP:ATHLETE criteria here. The creator seems intent on only using this for an attack piece based on some poorly sourced rumor. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Any such potentially damaging information about a private person may be cited if and only if: (1) it is corroborated by multiple, highly reliable sources; (2) the allegations are relevant to the subject's notability and; (3) the Wikipedia article states that the sources make certain "allegations", with the Wikipedia article taking no position on their truth.
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does not appear to meet the criterion for inclusion for bands as expressed here: WP:BAND. OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 08:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete per G11. So, so spammy. Smashvilletalk 22:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ad Wasabi Attack (talk) 06:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirected to Paramahamsa Nithyananda. Same person, AfD on this person closed as keep on 7 January. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk 17:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an insignificant figure. Sources point to nothing this person has accomplished that merits an article, and he has not been the subject of any non trivial references. Rasputin72 (talk) 05:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Nomination withdrawn. Concerns have been addressed. Non-admin closing. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 13:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Software with no assertion of notability. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 05:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please define non-notable.
GameSalad was the first tool that allows non-programmers to make games for the iPhone. Several publication have already "noted" it.
It is comparable to:
Why keep those and not this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lexanderx (talk • contribs) 06:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC) — Lexanderx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The result was keep. Jayjg (talk) 02:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A Governor's son is not notable and no reason for an article JB50000 (talk) 05:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Jayjg (talk) 02:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see any evidence of notability. Google search throws up a lot of false positives and social networks. HJMitchell You rang? 05:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was withdrawn TheWeakWilled (T * G) 19:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stub since creation in 2007, single reference appears to be her homepage, notability not fully established Jubilee♫clipman 04:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was withdrawn TheWeakWilled (T * G) 19:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stub from creation in 2007, unreferenced, not fully establishing notability Jubilee♫clipman 04:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn by nominator. One editor recommending Delete consented to the withdrawal, here. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A nonnotable piece of Linux software - Altenmann >t 04:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was withdrawn TheWeakWilled (T * G) 19:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Poorly sourced BLP since creation in 2005, challenged since creation, unimproved since creation Jubilee♫clipman 04:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Final thought then I'm off to bed for the night: In order to meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and notability, the article in question must actually document that the criterion is true. It is not enough to make vague claims in the article or assert a band's importance on a talk page or AfD page – the article itself must document notability. from WP:MUSIC. As I understand this, the article must both establish notability and cite a source verifying it. --Jubilee♫clipman 00:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Although the article is a neutrality nightmare, of which I've attempted to clean up, he does seem to have some other book refs and news refs, although I did not fully delve into them as most are in French. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 14:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
His work is also discussed in Pierrette Germain, Un demi-siècle de musique française, 1950-2000 and he's listed among the "prominent younger French composers" in The Harvard Dictionary of Music to name a few of the sources I found. It took me literally 5 minutes to find them. Sorry to rant, but no one should have voted "delete" in this discussion without doing the same. Voceditenore (talk) 07:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC) PS. I just added a second recording (for RCA Red Seal). Voceditenore (talk) 07:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 22:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTNEWS. What makes this specific airstrike more notable than all the other regularly-happening ones? Guy0307 (talk) 03:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This specific airstrike is more notable due to the fact that the three killed were not ordinary militants. One was a senior field commander of the Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine. Also, the fact that the same argument Guy0307 made could be used for the January 2010 Gaza Tunnels airstrike, which has so far not been nominated for deletion. That airstrike is seen as significtant for destroying the tunnels used to smuggle rockets, while this should not only be seen as an airstrike, but noted due to the fact that it killed a top commander. WP:NOTNEWS applies to articles which are not a news source, but this is not news, but an event in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and should be treated as such.
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Poorly sourced BLP, no substantial improvement since creation in 2006 beyond reparagraphing and bot maintenance, main editor appears to be subject, though he/she only added minor links , categories and "Mr" to every occurance of the composer's name. Jubilee♫clipman 03:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Free State Project. History is available to merge if needed. Tone 22:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Biased, two sources only, both from the FTP site Guy0307 (talk) 03:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was withdrawn TheWeakWilled (T * G) 19:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced BLP since creation in Jan 2008, challenged since Apr 2008 with no substantial improvement. Jubilee♫clipman 03:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Final thought then I'm off to bed for the night: In order to meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and notability, the article in question must actually document that the criterion is true. It is not enough to make vague claims in the article or assert a band's importance on a talk page or AfD page – the article itself must document notability. from WP:MUSIC. As I understand this, the article must both establish notability and cite a source verifying it. --Jubilee♫clipman 00:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NB: Withdraw AfD and close - work with sources supplied by Kleinzach and seek out others to improve article. --Jubilee♫clipman 01:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Withdrawn by the nom. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the ((db-spam)) tag because the article has been cleaned up the creator so that ((db-spam)) no longer applies. Notability is also asserted because Robert A. M. Stern, the the Dean of Architecture at Yale University, designed the condominiums. However, I have been unable to find sources to establish notability. A Google News Archive search returns only one result, which is a passing mention. This topic appears to fail Wikipedia:Notability. Cunard (talk) 19:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Being published in the real estate section of a newspaper does not necessarily mean that it is an ad. I don't see much promotion in this article so I am not sure why it is being discounted. Anyway, I've asked DGG to take another look at this source and will wait until he gives his opinion as to whether it is an ad before I reconsider my "keep" position. Cunard (talk) 09:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 20:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Related to this AfD. Yet another movie with no assertion of notability. The article creator, Indie Movies, is constantly adding (and, in some cases, readding previously deleted) non-notable films and has been brought up on the conflict of interest noticeboard twice now (the latest showing that the IP may be a sockpuppet), bringing to light that every other film is released by Maverick Entertainment Group. This one is by "Breakaway Films" according to imdb, but is still utterly non-notable. ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 21:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No content except one entry (Royal String Quartet). List of musical quartet articles can be found at Category:Musical quartets. There is no need to make a huge list of musical quartets in article when they can also be found at the category. Ilyushka88 Talk to me 21:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Jayjg (talk) 02:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable actor. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 18:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nominator.--Professional Assassin (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Stand and Deliver (song). Tone 22:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Performed live, no Ghits confirming release as single. Prod removed by same editor who added the word "fake" to article Richhoncho (talk) 17:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus defaults to keep. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Completely unsourced. I'll admit that based on article's self-assertion, subject is notable, but while there are many web pages mentioning her, I can't find a single news article about her in Google News, suggesting the person isn't as notable as claimed. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 14:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's no worse than thousands of other articles on "singers", "actors" and "artists" that I've encountered during my brief editing stint. Maybe it's a bit early in her career for coverage, but other than that I don't see any issues.WQUlrich (talk) 23:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 04:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Basically unsourced biographical article about a (possibly) living person. Everything seems based on one semi-fictional book (see the article about the book). Does not appear to pass WP:BIO and there is no article on the murders themselves to redirect this to. His only notability is as a suspect in a murder. Peripitus (Talk) 12:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Jayjg (talk) 02:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lawyer...rose through the ranks....got important jobs....wrote two books. I've searched around and this bare bones is about it. Unreferenced for 4 years and I can see why. Not enough notice from reliable sources and certainly not enough to pass WP:BIO Peripitus (Talk) 11:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article is nothing more than a POV fork of James Edwards and The Political Cesspool. UnitAnode 01:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. This article is absolutely not a POV fork; it is actually a legitimate spinout of those articles. See here for more information
"Even if the subject of the new article is controversial, this does not automatically make the new article a POV fork."
"Summary style articles, with sub-articles giving greater detail, are not content forking." Stonemason89 (talk) 16:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. Olaf Davis (talk) 23:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Biographical article about a county-level politician who is running for NY state assembly in 2010, fails WP:Politician. Minimal independent coverage in reliable sources and fails WP:Bio PDCook (talk) 14:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contested Prod, non notable future release per WP:MUSIC and WP:CRYSTAL BigDunc 13:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep Many of the delete comments were based on not liking this article rather than policy. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
unencyclopedic geek humour Mundilfari (talk) 01:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if it makes it a slam dunk for notability, but apparently Dutch oven (the prank) is noted along with pole-dancing (which also has an article) in the Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakuel movie. <insert shock and outrage here>
Also it's noted in the "Now what? After a certain age, say 20, only men find farting funny" article in the Jun 3, 2002 New Statesman, but all I can get is tidbits about "... morning being grabbed, shoved under the duvet and given a "Dutch oven". ... Yet this week I have hooted and commented on every fart venturing from the..." without dispursing $4.95 for a full in the face viewing.
A merge was considered, but I think the consensus was that it would be weighty to fit in the flatulence humor article and also that it wasn't necessarily (or purely) humorous, but more of a prank. How do we determine if in fact it's funny? We may need volunteers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 04:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly non-notable minor league manager. He did win a championship while a manager, and did have 2300 hits (which is quite an accomplishment), however I'm not sure if it is notable enough. You decide. Alex (talk) 06:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. as a copyvio per Sarah Sandstein 12:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC, the article makes numerous claims, most of which I cannot even verify as true. appears to be more an ad of this person. 3 hits in gnews. he may have had a role in mixing lots of singles but it appears to be only minor as there is no third party coverage of this. LibStar (talk) 01:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 04:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a supermarket site, by a new user. Notability anyone? –BuickCenturyDriver 01:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable band with, according to the article, a history in the 1970's, though this article was created because they just offered a CD for sale on the internet. Probably passes speedy by claiming that the Nottingham Evening Post once recognized them as "the No.1 rock band in the Midlands." Google Books turns up this mention in a catalogue of British bands, but I can find no other information to indicate that this band is remotely notable. Unfortunately I don't think a single ambiguous mention in a local paper 30 years ago allows this group to pass WP:BAND. Glenfarclas (talk) 01:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Harris has never played professionally thus failing WP:ATH. Also, a good faith search reveals little to no significant coverage so the subject also fails WP:GNG. Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 00:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How bout a 3 star / 5.7 rating from Rivals.com? [77] TomCat4680 (talk) 04:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 21:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Wardija Ridge. Sandstein 12:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any evidence of notability. The article appears to have been created simply to add more links to some related fringe sites promoting the 'electric universe' concept. Dougweller (talk) 18:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable actor/producer lacking GHits of substance and GNEWS. References lack substance. Appears to fail WP:CREATIVE. ttonyb (talk) 16:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was It looks as though this was an error from the start, but in any event consensus is to keep or possibly merge. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article reads like an advert promoting a qualification offered by a small company. Derek farn (talk) 13:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus defaults to keep with no prejudice toward suggested merger. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No indication that it meets notability criteria - no significant coverage in third-party sources. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 22:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: submitting in good faith for IP. tedder (talk) 15:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable per WP:BAND, unreferenced, WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Prod contested by creator. MuffledThud (talk) 14:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages because they assert no notability apart from association with the artist listed above:
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 23:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Band does not appear to be notable. Eeekster (talk) 23:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not list notablity according to WP standards. Being the first missionary from a denomination does not rise to notability, nor establishing 2 small churches รัก-ไทย 16:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rak-Tai (talk • contribs) 2010/01/03 16:04:54
The result was keep. Verifiable inhabited localities at any level are generally considered notable. Sandstein 12:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notability questionable and not established. No sources. Eeekster (talk) 05:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 23:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly an autobiography (see article's talk page). If kept, would need a lot of work, but reasoning for deletion would be WP:COI, WP:V, WP:N and so on. NJA (t/c) 11:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Musician who is non-notable outside of the group The Birthday Massacre (no notable solo releases—mostly free downloads, no membership in any other notable band, etc.). Attempts to redirect to the band's article have been reverted. TheJazzDalek (talk) 09:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article badly written, not of big importance. Jameswa21 (talk) 04:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep Article is now a stub in English, no other delete arguments have been put forward. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article isn't in English, so it doesn't belong on English Wikipedia. Quanticle (talk) 04:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 12:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I realize I may take some flak for taking this to AfD so soon after it was created, but I think this is a case where no amount of editing can overcome the lack of notability. Simply stated, this article is about a robot that does not appear to have received significant coverage in third-party sources that would result in its meeting WP:GNG. Although a Google search yields 42,000 hits, I've been unable to find any reliable sources. A Google news search only led to a blog post at Crunchygear.com and a handful of posts at Coolest-gadgets.com (a blog?), which I would hesitate to call a reliable source. That's problematic because notability requires verifiable evidence. I don't see it here. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, well. I found it so notable that I created it as a stub right away. It is an especially good robot of its kind. I was intending to add more but was very pressed for time. Perhaps when I have time to tell the full story it will satisfy notabilty guideline. Best Regards
Wikkrockiana (talk) 17:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 23:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find significant coverage for this radio show. Joe Chill (talk) 02:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. I interpret the keep !vote as attempting to counter systemic bias. Since it doesn't appear that this article has been brought to the attention of possible subject matter experts (given that the talk page currently is a red link) I that a no consensus close for this time is an appropriate reading of the limited discussion. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 04:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable TV series/toy brand. No indication of notability, Google and Google News are barely throwing up an indication that this exists, nevermind notable. J Milburn (talk) 02:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. A lot of participation from new accounts/ips in this discussion, which I factored accordingly. However, the sources do check out on the subject. It's not the strongest case for notability, but I would be unfairly discounting !votes that are in fact arguing within policy to close otherwise. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 04:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neither John-Paul Lee nor Tavalon Tea meet Wiki notability requirements. Both articles read as advertising. All edits to each page have been made by 2 users; possible evidence of self-promotion. SNaismith (talk) 00:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
21:41, 1 January 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.158.200.181 (talk)
The result was merge to The Lesser Key of Solomon. No consensus to delete, but no compelling case for a separate article. The merge close seems to be the strongest reading of the discussion. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 03:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a content fork of The Lesser Key of Solomon and fails to meet the notability criteria; one of 72 types of demon mentioned in the main article. The article is unlikely to ever become more than trivial as no other sources say more about this demon than Ars Goetia, and can be easily merged back to The Lesser Key of Solomon. Wikipedia does not benefit from having an article for every religious or mythical character or neologism from every book ever published. Ash (talk) 23:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]