< 5 November | 7 November > |
---|
The result was delete. Courcelles 05:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Doctor, associate professor. Fails the WP:GNG and WP:V. Only potential claim to notability is fellowship in the European Society of Cardiology. I can't confirm this, as he is not listed anywhere on the ESC website, which includes lists of recent fellows, which are numerous, so I question how selective an "honor" this is anyway. (They have to pay 400 euro a year to retain this fellow status) Gigs (talk) 23:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 05:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently this list was just dumped out of a category that was previously deleted, according to its creator. I really don't see what purpose it serves. Most of the books on the list are redlinks (and look like they'll stay that way, I could find very little on many of them), and I cannot find any literary sources that discuss Sheffield as a particularly important or noteworthy place for fiction to be set. As such, this list seems to be rather random in subject and not to cover a notable subject or combination thereof. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect . I decided against making a disambiguation page, considering the guideline on partial title matches (WP:PTM). I am leaving the page history should someone wish to transwiki the material. Marasmusine (talk) 13:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel this character in the Saw games and films is particular notable for its own article. We have this character at List of Saw characters#Pighead, and I have redirected this article to there more than once. However, someone (mostly IPs) always seem to create this article again, but of course fails to provide any reliable sources to prove this character is notable for its own article on Wikipedia. Wikia yes, but not Wikipedia. Mike Allen 23:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep in accordance with WP:SK ground 1: the nominator agrees the article should be redirected instead of deleted, and nobody else favours deletion. NAC—S Marshall T/C 23:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC) [reply]
The result was no consensus. Yes I know that's entirely dissatisfying—I'm right there with you.
First let me say that I've obviously read the previous close by User:Black Kite (overturned at DRV) and the closing rationale by User:Mkativerata at the ensuing DRV. With respect to the latter, I wholeheartedly concur with Mkativerata's summary of the DRV. In a sense that was my jumping off point—consensus at the DRV was best interpreted to mean that the original discussion should have been relisted rather than closed, i.e. we needed more discussion.
Has the additional discussion helped? For the most part no, at least in terms of determining consensus as to what to do with the list.
There were a whole bunch of comments/votes that simply did not provide anything in the way of a valid rationale—and yes that means folks on both the keep and delete side of things. In the end this AfD is largely a conversation between GreyHood and a few who disagree with that editor, with S Marshall making some helpful meta points. Frankly it's not a very good discussion, which I don't remotely intend as a negative comment directed at anyone in particular—sometimes that's just how these discussions go.
The main arguments revolved around WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:SALAT (incidentally the fact that WP:SALAD is a redlink is goddamn shameful, and if someone doesn't fix that soon....well you just wait and see what I do! and how fat we'll all get!). Some of the arguments were based on an earlier version of the article which seriously deforms the AfD (and is often a problem in these drawn out discussions). Overall there are legitimate arguments on both sides of the is-this-a-random-infinite-meaningless-list (there's the rub) argument. GreyHood commented far more than anyone else in the discussion, but the fact is that said editor makes some good, exhaustive/ing arguments rooted in our guidelines (or at least a completely reasonable interpretation of them). There just isn't a consensus to delete or change the status quo ante based on the indiscriminate/salad (sic) discussion (incidentally Pgallert phrases the WP:INDISCRIMINATE argument most persuasively, but it certainly did not overrule other discussion).
A couple of delete supporters invoke a WP:OR/WP:SYNTH argument. The point would seem to be that, in order to limit the list in such a fashion that it does not fall afoul WP:INDISCRIMINATE, a criteria was developed for the list (this happened during the AfD) which said it would be based on other Wikipedia lists and basically nothing else. That's probably a pretty good argument (a counterpoint that List of countries is in the same boat is not entirely persuasively for reasons not worth going into), but it was not developed fully (Quigley probably came the closest) and it certainly did not achieve anything like consensus.
I genuinely had no idea how this ought to be closed when I decided to shut 'er down after a quick glance, but the "no consensus" conclusion seemed pretty inescapable after weighing all of the relevant factors. As I said it isn't satisfying, but that happens.
Because I spent way too much time on this and am annoyed—and because the previous close resulted in unsubtle suggestions that thumbs were pressed on scales—forgive me (or not) if I "editorialize" briefly (the frustration is very much directed generally and at no one in particular). Appropriate given our policies/guidelines or not, I find this list semi-ridiculous, and more importantly the entire process surrounding the deletion discussion über-ridiculous. en.wikipedia is an encyclopedia project with a ton of gaping holes in it, and the fact that we (that means me too—no doubt) spent as much time and effort as we did dealing with this thingy is frankly embarrassing as hell. Good day, and good luck to all of us with whatever this is. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS--For a bit of hilarious perspective, I think, check out (if you haven't already) what the article looked like when it was created by none other than the Wiki-notable Simon Pulsifer (also notice the redlink at the bottom of that version—Wikipedia lists were mad different back in 2004 before the Biographies of Living Countries policy came into effect).
This list is totally unencyclopedic. There are at least a million other items of similar quality which could be added to it. Kill it before it takes over the world. It has already started to spawn (see List_of_statistically_superlative_objects_by_country). Honestly, I expect this nomination to be defeated by the arguments A) “It's interesting” and B) “It's all referenced”, but I feel the need to at least try to save the world from this mind-numbing dross. The answers are of course A) “Only if you're interested in worthless trivia” and B) “IT'S STILL WORTHLESS TRIVIA”. I apologize for insulting everyone who has contributed to the article, and for shouting. Dingo1729 (talk) 21:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These were my arguments for keeping it. But since today I visited the page, its character has changed. Some one has removed a large portion of entries in the name of triviality. This is wrong. For example the opium production in the world affects the lives of millions of people, kills hundreds of thousands and probably causes hundreds of billion dollars of economic damage to the world. Calling that trivial is none sense. On the other hand the best performance in swimming is trivial. So if the article is going to become a "sanitized" one made palatable for consumption of a few then it should be deleted. I am in favor of its old format, with possible splitting up to different pages if its size goes over 150K. But it is to become a propaganda page in line with "ideologies" of a "few" then its deletion is a better choice.--119.156.25.46 (talk) 13:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting note: The discussion was re-opened at this point as a result of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 November 15#List of statistically superlative countries (closed). The outcome of that deletion review was that the AfD should be re-opened for at least another seven days. The AfD is eligible for closure 168 hours after the following timestamp: --Mkativerata (talk) 03:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't help that this list doesn't have the right title for the subject and we might want to think about what the list should really be called. My own view is that there's potentially encyclopaedic material here, but it may also be redundant with other lists we already have. I wonder whether the correct outcome is a redirect to the List of international rankings.—S Marshall T/C 22:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NB. I kindly advice the following for the people here:
Where GreyHood is wrong is when he says "there were plenty of people on the DR discussion that were against deletion of this article", because DRV is not about that. Decisions about whether to delete belong at AfD. The DRV decides whether the AfD was correctly conducted. There was a widespread view at the DRV that the AfD needed to be more thorough and rigorous, with !votes on both the "keep" and "delete" sides needing to be disregarded for being little more than a statement of opinion with a vague handwave towards a policy. (To my amazement, users who have contributed since the DRV are still doing this.) But that does not mean that users at DRV were opposed to the deletion of this article. What it means is that they were opposed to its deletion based on the previous debate alone.
Quigley's remark, above, is very pertinent and needs to be taken seriously. Quigley is right to say that the article as presently written is a novel synthesis, which means it cannot be kept in its current form. However, could this be solved by selective trimming?—S Marshall T/C 12:14, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have a proposal to discuss the following scheme, which may lead to improvement of this article and perhaps several other articles as well. This is also an attempt to answer the last question from S Marshall.
Your answer to Quigley is that WP:SYN doesn't apply to a navigational list. (This is quite logical. It can't be a synthesis if there's no thesis!) However, I think there's more to the article's present content than a navigational list. As it grows and changes, this list is acquiring a thesis over time.
I think the subject you're actually writing about is achievements by country. In other words, the list shows that most countries are at the top of some league table, somewhere, and some countries are at the top of quite a few league tables in different categories. I do think that's potentially an encyclopaedic subject, and this list provides an index to it. The list could be of value to someone doing research. In that sense it's navigational. However I can't see any objective criteria for including an item on the list. I think you're trying to address that with your latest suggestion.
I agree that a revamp along the lines that you suggest would be a big step towards making this material suitable for the mainspace, but I don't think we're quite there yet, and I think the best outcome now would be for the closer to userfy this material to GreyHood. Let GreyHood make the changes he suggests in his own time and then move this list back into the mainspace -- when it has a more suitable name, clear criteria for inclusion, and otherwise addresses the various problems this AfD has identified -- in his own time.—S Marshall T/C 17:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Politician, non notable before election, and has yet to take office, so has done nothing notable in office WuhWuzDat 20:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Politician, non notable before election, and has yet to take office, so has done nothing notable in office WuhWuzDat 20:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Politician, non notable before election, and has yet to take office, so has done nothing notable in office WuhWuzDat 20:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 13:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This previously deleted article (old entry), was recreated. It is an unreferenced and possibly promotional software article with no indication of notability. Dialectric (talk) 20:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 13:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, newly coined neologism. E. Fokker (talk) 18:42, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 13:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable person per WP:PEOPLE. No reliable sources. Vipinhari || talk 18:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep all. Bearian (talk) 16:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Useless page. WP:CFORK, for one, unnecessary duplication of extant Wikipedia content (Index of Canada-related articles, List of Canada-related topics by provinces and territories) for another. →ROUX ₪ 18:18, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Outline of knowledge#Outline of Canada and Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board#Outline of Canada.Moxy (talk) 19:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 13:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a student publication at a university, but no independent reliable sources have been provided to establish notability. I recommend that the page be deleted. Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete Mandsford 17:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Subject is a newspaper published twice-monthly by and for the ~1460 students of Avondale College that fails the general notability guideline. The only reference in the article at this time is a primary source. Searches indicate most available sources are the newsletter's website and facebook page. If the article creator can add sources between now and when this AfD is due to close, I'll be happy to withdraw the nom, but right now it's not looking good. AussieLegend (talk) 17:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
politician, non notable before election, and has yet to take office, so has done nothing notable in office WuhWuzDat 15:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
politician, non notable before election, and has yet to take office, so has done nothing notable in office WuhWuzDat 15:20, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Politician, non notable before election, and has yet to take office, so has done nothing notable in office WuhWuzDat 15:18, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Politician, non notable before election, and has yet to take office, so has done nothing notable in office WuhWuzDat 15:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Politician, non notable before election, and has yet to take office, so has done nothing notable in office WuhWuzDat 15:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Politician, non notable before election, and has yet to take office, so has done nothing notable in office WuhWuzDat 15:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep WP:POLITICIAN is a subject-specific guideline that presumes notability for "members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature". In this case, the person was elected to his state legislature on November 2, and is scheduled to be sworn in to office as one of the members of that legislature two months from now. Although one could make the point that a state representative-elect is, technically, not yet entitled to a stand-alone Wikipedia article, there would be no question of the application of policy in January. Anyone may ask for deletion review, and nomination may be made again in January if the scheduled entry into the legislature does not take place. Mandsford 22:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Politician, non notable before election, and has yet to take office, so has done nothing notable in office WuhWuzDat 15:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Politician, non notable before election, and has yet to take office, so has done nothing notable in office WuhWuzDat 15:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Politician, non notable before election, and has yet to take office, so has done nothing notable in office WuhWuzDat 15:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Politician, non notable before election, and has yet to take office, so has done nothing notable in office WuhWuzDat 15:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Politician, non notable before election, and has yet to take office, so has done nothing notable in office WuhWuzDat 15:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
politician, non notable before election, and has yet to take office, so has done nothing notable in office WuhWuzDat 15:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 13:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD; non-notable youth player who fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 14:20, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable youth player who fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Zanoni (talk) 18:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not demonstrate sufficient notability, merely listing a few commercials in which the actor has appeared, and no mention of any substantive roles, However, SD templates are being deleted by an Anon IP (not the account used to create the article), so perhaps more discussion is called for. Anaxial (talk) 13:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 13:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Original research r.e.b. (talk) 13:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article started off as nothing more than a partisan screed and was quickly prod'ed. A well-meaning editor has tried to clean it up, but in the process has left an article that says nothing. I would redirect it to Pakistan, but there is no useful content to merge to the main article, and the main article does not contain a "Corruption" section. I believe that leaving this article to be expanded would just invite more partisan bickering. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete This article seems to be similar to the history section of the Pakistan article. I don't think any info could be taken from this article and merged into the Pakistan article. However there are 3 good sources that could be used in the Pakistan article if nothing else! I'm Flightx52 and I approve this message 19:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 13:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As the article currently stands it is an unreferenced WP:BLP. There are sources out there to confirm that she exists and has had the roles mentioned in the article but they are either trivial mentions, not in reliable sources, or not independent of the subject. Even with sourcing I do not believe the subjects meets WP:Notability (people) or more specifically WP:CREATIVE. Of note, there is a ballerina with the same name who probably is notable, so if anyone wants to write about her... J04n(talk page) 12:24, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD; non-notable youth player who fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 12:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence to support the claim that he has made an appearance in the Hungarian league. In any case, this player also fails WP:GNG. J Mo 101 (talk) 12:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable youth player who fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Zanoni (talk) 18:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Battlefield 2. Tone 13:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unremarkable future software not set for release till next year per WP:CRYSTAL. Mo ainm~Talk 11:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why this is being marked for deletion as "unremarkable" and as a future event when there is even /less/ information available for Battlefield 3, and that product has its own page. (User talk:ShadowFox3735) —Preceding undated comment added 15:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 08:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD; player who fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 11:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 08:46, 13 November 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)) . |
Non-notable Transformers fan convention. Divebomb (talk) 11:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question as to why other Fan Convention articles, like Auto Assembly from the nominator's home nation, are not up for deletion?
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanath1138 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Breakfast Television is the most watched morning show in Canada. The Toronto Star is the largest paper in Toronto. The Space channel is the Canadian Sci Fi channel. Super Megatron (talk) 17:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC) — Super Megatron (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 08:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Cannot see notability. The product does not appear to be in any RS beyond what are essentially a short description and a download button. Many use the exact WP article text. No reviews, awards, or acclaim that I can find. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 10:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 08:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Cannot see notability. The product does not appear to be in any RS beyond what are essentially a short description and a download button. Many use the exact WP article text. No reviews, awards, or acclaim that I can find. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 10:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 08:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Unreferenced, misleading and of no encyclopaedic value - and the title is wrong too, it's actually a list by length. Are these average or maximum lengths? And who says these are the lengths? In fact the figures quoted are at odds with some WP articles, e.g. Whale shark. Fails WP:RS, WP:OR. andy (talk) 10:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 09:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This airline was proposed in 2004, but since then nothing has changed. They still do not operate any aircraft, so the whole article is pure WP:CRYSTAL. There are no reliable third-party sources offering a deeper coverage of the airline, so it clearly fails WP:CORP. The airline may become notable once a definite launch date is set, but surely not for just telling some intentions and plans. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 09:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 08:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just another proposed and failed airline project. It vanished again without having operated any flights. Fails WP:CORP because there is no reliable third-party coverage. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 09:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related page out of exaxtly the same reasons:
The result was redirect to White people. Davewild (talk) 09:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article was brought to light by User:Dbvann on WP:NPOVN where multiple administrators and editors agreed that it should taken to AfD UplinkAnsh (talk) 08:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 13:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is really just a chart stating which platforms select church software programs are compatible with. And despite what the article says, there is no technical information to be found. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's unclear to me how this scholar qualifies for a biography here per WP:ACADEMIC. Tijfo098 (talk) 06:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD without reasoning. Football player fails WP:NSPORTS and WP:GNG criteria. Was a youth trainee with Norwich City but never stepped up to 1st team, moved to amateur leagues and only ever trialled with professional clubs without ever playing competitive fixture. Now plays in 3rd level or lower leagues of New Zealand (where even the top league is not fully professional) ClubOranjeT 06:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been flagged since September as not meeting general notability guidelines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability and is only supported by 1 minor source. The article topic fails to meet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NBASKETBALL and also fails to meet notability guidelines in any other sport. Ashman05 (talk) 05:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's an 18-year-old Northern Ireland grammar school...not notable. Either redirect to the town or simply delete. Raymie (t • c) 04:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. No support for deletion apart from the nominator and at least one independent editor thinks the article meets the notabilty guidelines. Davewild (talk) 09:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE Does not appear to meet WP:GNG WP:BIO. Subject is a Manhattan real estate attorney who gets quoted for comment by publications, but as far as I can tell after some Googling, he himself has not been the subject of in-depth coverage beyond a "who's who" type profile in the New York Observer last year, and it's telling that no other articles link here. Also, the article has been written for the most part by his firm's PR agency, and if kept, would probably need a rewrite. Mosmof (talk) 04:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Individual sold more real estate than anyone else @ 15 CPW, which is NY's most expensive development. That alone is legendary. Beyond that, Business Week, The Observer and countless others have featured him. Surely he's very noteable. (and the Observer wasnt a whos who it ranked top 15 real estate NY lawyers, and he was featured.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.122.113 (talk) 05:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Yes he is an attorney and developer, and 1 of the most successful in the US representing oligarchs who buy. Clearly thats a major big deal on its own. Stong keep (and Mosmof, mentioning the NY Observer article alone makes it relevant and noteable.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Babasalichai (talk • contribs) 05:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mosmof you sound like a broken record. Removing this entry has tried and failed, whats new about trying to remove it and it failed a few months ago ? yes it is your criteria nowhere does it say how many media mentions/features are needed. and I'd argue that the OBserver and Business Week are in fact features. They are. What changes do you propose to keep this live ? (make them here before you make them there). This is 1 of foremost leaders in NY Real estate he's very prominent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.122.113 (talk) 11:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
THis has been raised before by much the same characters and should now be acceptable. Clearly newsworthy and meets news standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Babasalichai (talk • contribs) 06:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 05:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced BLP, could not find significant coverage in independent sources, only passing mentions on gNews. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Ursula Vernon. Consensus is that the articles lacks the reliable sources required to write an article on the topic but a redirect to Ursula Vernon is appropriate. Davewild (talk) 09:39, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PROD declined by a user who misunderstood how Twinkle works (they thought the PROD was done by a bot). Said user also claims that the piece has "major influence" and is a meme, but a search for sources turns up absolutely nothing at all as far as reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. CSD G4. Nothing changed since relatively recent AfD. Jayjg (talk) 23:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A quick search on google fails to bring up anything significant other than this article and IMDB. This film appears to fail the Film Notability guideline. nn123645 (talk) 02:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. I'm closing this as "keep" for 3 reasons....
Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need an article on one of over a billion dogs in the United States regardless of being owned by former President George W. Bush. SeventhBase (talk) 01:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Davewild (talk) 09:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Family issues have risen after the page got created آل خاطر (talk) 00:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously failed airline project. The company was founded in 2009, but now the website is down, so it seems like it just vanished, without having operated a single flight. The website was the only reference of this article. Reliable third-party sources are not to be found, so SBA Airlines is just not notable, per WP:CORP. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 00:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Failed airline project without any encyclopedic impact (no aircraft, no flights, not even one year between founding and giving up). Everything that can be found about this company is speculation on its plans and intentions, which IMO should not be notable per WP:CRYSTAL. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 00:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Several examples of third-party coverage in magazines were cited in the discussion. Sandstein 08:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of this article does not appear to meet the general notability guidelines required for inclusion as a stand-alone article. For example, most of the references I have found for it are not independent of the product. ErikHaugen (talk) 21:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article is not verifiable, and I am concerned that the subject of this article is non-notable; this article may also be a hoax about a non-existent person.
The only sources used are closely related to the subject of the article. These sources are hosted on scribd or on a tripod website; the main purported book source cannot be found via searching by title or ISBN. There are no external sources which can verify the existence of this person, and other claims in the article.
The text of the article has at one point contained incredible claims (e.g. first ambassador of the Conch Republic, and mentioned at least one title which appear to be purchasable (http://www.bridgeworld.org/Order_M/application.htm). The subject was referred to throughout the article at various points in the article history by "His Eminency", suggesting a non-neutral POV by the primary authors. Rifleman 82 (talk) 00:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This person is an actual person. All of his contact information is on his website with a real telephone number where you may call if you need to. I have the ISBN numbers for all the books mentioned. Would you like me to list them? I would be more than happy to do so. In fact I am going to do that right now. By many individuals he is considered as "his eminency". But, I didnt realize that I could not use that name therefore I left it as "Alam" which was changed by wikipedia. All the information on the page are facts. The predictions listed about the presidents are letters that were sent to the presidents and there were also letters sent back to Alam from the presidents. I dont think something like that would be in the newspapers which is why they are copies from both him and the presidents showing that they are in fact the real thing. I was told that I could use his books as a reference if I listed something specifically about him such as where he studied. He is mostly known in Bangladesh therefore some articles may be found in newspapers in Bangladesh which were written in Bengali. You could also check his website for that information. All of this information is legit. I do not see the use of putting up information about a nonexistent person. It does me no good nor does it do any of you any good. Niraleah1 (talk) 06:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clearing up the issue with honorifics. Such titles do not reflect a dispassionate, objective stance in the article. I have searched for all the ISBNs you have provided, but I am unable to find these books across multiple databases. The books may well exist, but they must be very very obscure. Have you seen WP:V? If there are absolutely no third-party English sources for this article, the subject may not be of interest to the readership of the English language Wikipedia. This is especially important if the subject is a living person, and there is no way to verify the content of the article. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 08:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I am gathering information so that I could possibly add them to the page. This will take sometime. How much time do I have before you guys decide to delete my page? Niraleah1 (talk) 01:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you like I will take out the "Dr" part of it. But, please I am still working on gathering the documents to prove his notability. Thank you. Niraleah1 (talk) 18:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Amy Dumas. Black Kite (t) (c) 02:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This album does not meet WP:NALBUM. The claim is that the band is notable, but the band is only "notable" because their lead singer is famous as a former WWE wrestler, not because there are notable solo musicians in the band. Notability is not inherited. Furthermore, the album appears to be a digital self-release; there is no label information, so it doesn't meet that criterion either. There were no singles, nothing comes up for charts, and no airplay notes are available either, so it fails that criterion. Over half the information is sourced from the band's MySpace (and is not noted as such), and the one Google News hit I got was from a blog local to the band's homebase and had nothing to do with the album. Therefore, the album fails to meet guidelines. An AllMusic review alone isn't enough to meet N when it's the only review. Most other albums have multiple reviews available. MSJapan (talk) 02:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno what this is, there's no sourcing and no claims of notability. Doesn't seem to have any notability. I cant find a speedy deletion criterion. Corvus cornixtalk 00:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Olddemdike has asked this article to be deleted per the following comment he/she added on the article's talk page: "This article is so full of lies and disinformation that its hard to know just where to begin to correct it. The problem is that stating the truth could cause quite a few legal hassles. The circumstance of the financial collapse of Time were very unclear, and the questions over the company ownership, and of the relationship of the 30 or so KNOWN companies associated with the group are so murky that ti would be very difficult to make a clear cut proveable case. One day I may try, but until then, read anything on the page with a dose of disbelief. To be honest, given the problem it may well be safer to delete the page" It is unreferenced and it might not meet the notability guideline, but I'll see what the community thinks of this. Minimac (talk) 07:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 14:14, 8 November 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)) . |
Non-notable per WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Prod contested by anonymous IP editor. Top Jim (talk) 09:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. No comments over 14 days to show how article can meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 09:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This organisation seemingly exists, but coverage of it in secondary sources is extremely thin. There is this [34] but it really isn't enough to establish notability or even a clear understanding of what exactly this place/organisation is. There are two organisations with exactly the same name (but seemingly unrelated) in Indonesia and Taiwan, but this article is about an organisation in Pakistan. The article at present, completely lacks references and is very unclear. Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Courcelles 00:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A national team in any sport may arguably have WP:Inherent notability if it is shown to exist. Per WP:NSPORT, "the article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the criteria". I cannot see any reliable sources verifying this team's existence. Shirt58 (talk) 10:44, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Courcelles 08:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Same rationale as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mongolia national bandy team. Apologies for not including it in that AfD. The fault is entirely my own. Shirt58 (talk) 10:56, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Courcelles 08:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Same rationale as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mongolia national bandy team. Apologies for not including it in that AfD. The fault is entirely my own. Shirt58 (talk) 10:59, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Courcelles 08:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Same rationale as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mongolia national bandy team. Apologies for not including it in that AfD. The fault is entirely my own. Shirt58 (talk) 11:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Courcelles 08:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Same rationale as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mongolia national bandy team. Apologies for not including this article in that AfD. The fault is entirely my own. Shirt58 (talk) 11:11, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Courcelles 08:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Same rationale as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mongolia national bandy team. Apologies for not including this article in that AfD. Twinkle has its its limitations. Shirt58 (talk) 11:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Black Tide. Consensus that does not meet notability guidelines but a redirect is appropriate. Davewild (talk) 09:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Musician with no independent notability. BLP PROD removed by anon IP editor within hours of nomination, hence AFD nomination. No reliable sources found that give more than trivial coverage. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 13:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 14:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mere puffery. Hoary (talk) 14:26, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirected during debate.. Courcelles 08:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Short-lived airline without any significant coverage in reliable third-party sources, thus failing notability per WP:CORP (in fact, the only source is a tiny snippet just proving that the company existed). The airline is not listed at any fleet directories, so it did not operate any larger aircraft. If it operated any flights at all, then they were flown using minor aircraft (Cessna, Beechcraft, Jetstream etc.), leaving the airline without any encyclopedic impact. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 00:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. May be treated as an uncontested PROD in future. Courcelles 08:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N Þingvellir (talk) 15:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a company which was founded in 1989, and since then plans to launch flight operations. Up to now, they only achieved to create a website and to buy one sinlge aircraft. There are no comments to find about when flights will start, so I cannot see why this company shall be considered notable. Except for the website, there are no reliable references at all, and this proposed airline did not get any considerable news coverage, so IMO it just fails WP:CORP due to WP:CRYSTAL. Most of the article was written by User:BaltiaAirLines, as an obvious promotion and POV (only contribution by this user), though these contents are removed again by now. To cut a long story short, if I were to buy an aircraft and stated that I planned to launch flights between New York and St Petersburg, it would not be notable here on Wikipedia yet. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 16:44, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Fram (talk) 10:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CHRYSTAL and Ten Pound Hammer's Law. Another possibility is a merge into Littlest Pet Shop. Nolelover It's football season! 19:16, 30 October 2010 (UTC) TenPoundHammer has rewritten the article. It did exist in the 90's. Nolelover It's football season! 02:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC) Sorry if I didn't make this clear with my first note, but I am withdrawing the nomination. Nolelover It's football season! 15:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 14:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confusingly written, but clearly WP:MADEUP and WP:OR. This is not a published theory. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 20:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have rectified some concerns, especially WP:MADEUP and WP:OR. Also many links have been added and the form is coming into compliance with wikis standards. Please reconsider delete, or, at least, delay decision while the page develops. (October 31, 2010; 11:43 EST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.105.130.98 (talk) 03:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey folks, I have been reading the policies, and I don't think this should even have been nominated: "Before nominating an article for AFD, please: 1) strongly consider if an alternative deletion process (speedy deletion, or proposed deletion) should be used. 2) before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD." By the way, I am creator of the page, but didn't log in today. Hey how do I vote FOR my page? I see two votes against? Maybe I have ot log in first?209.105.130.98 (talk) 04:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This was redlinked in the discussion logs, so I'm fixing the nomination for User:Rogermx, and left a note on his talk page to come and provide his rationale for deletion. I would hazard a guess that it's because the subject of this article is an unnotable minor criminal. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 10:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dylan, thank you for fixing the nomination for me - this is my first one. I have found no hits on Google for the subject, there is only one reference source provided, and the content indicates that the subject is indeed a minor criminal who is neither famous or notorious. I suggest we delete the article. Thank you. Rogermx (talk) 18:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 05:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unable to find non-trivial reliable sources independent of the subject in order to establish notability. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST. J04n(talk page) 22:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]