The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 18:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Long-term unsourced BLP. Can't find verification of this putative Pollywood player in reliable sources. There are definitely more famous people with both the name Jehangir Jani and Jehangir Khan, look a little farther than Google results counts, but that same confluence of names means there's some reasonable chance I've missed something applicable as well. Reliable sources are welcomed. joe deckertalk to me 23:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 18:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article is based on primary sources, and I could not find anything to satisfy the general notability guidelines (WP:N). I had contacted the author (User talk:Thelinx) who provided additional sources [1], [2] and [3], but I find these to be unreliable sources. Marasmusine (talk) 22:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The "keep" opinions do not address the problems highlighted by the "delete" opinions, that is, that such interactions do not seem to be covered by reliable sources. Sandstein 06:36, 10 April 2011 (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)) . |
Original research and non-notable self-reported events. I am fine also with merging into the micronations entry, but I saw nothing that is worthwhile saving here, given the NN-nature of the described events. Sometimes even imaginary events. I suggest deleting the article altogether. It may be viewed as a POV fork of Micronation that is somewhat closer watched. gidonb (talk) 21:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
— Qwertyuiop1994 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. gidonb (talk) 21:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
— Adam R. Millard (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. gidonb (talk) 22:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In the meantime Anarchangel added some sources that support the well-known fact that some people claim being sovereign over their own property or desolated islands that they have never visited. I do not see even one quality reference for "interactions between micronations". I believe that these hobbyists sometimes do have coffee together. Since the references are exclusively by the people with this pastime, the article, however, should not be merged into micronations, but purged from Wikipedia, because such interactions appear to be completely non-notable. gidonb (talk) 22:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was nomination withdrawn. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Concern was: Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league.' PROD was contested on the grounds that he was named player of the year in Namibia. I see no evidence of this award generating significant coverage. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 18:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP, this does not meet GNG. Also, only one major label release, does not meet MUSICBIO. J04n(talk page) 21:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. The sources provided by Whpq mean the subject is clearly notable. (non-admin closure) Regards, MacMedtalkstalk 21:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is blatant self promotion. Ramit is nothing but one of many business, who write blogs/sell "mantra" to make you rich in a night. Having a wikipedia link sort of make such actions official. This link was already deleted once before, but seems like he has created it once again. Mohitranka (talk) 21:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 18:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few hits in google books using this word here and there, but I can't find a substantive discussion of the topic/definition. The same goes for google scholar. WP:NOTDICT. One 1989 source even says: We are unfamiliar with the term "ethnocism" and have been unable to locate it in any dictionary. This suggests WP:NEO. I would have prodded it, but it was deprodded once before with the statement that the term is used, which is true, but insufficient for a Wikipeida article. Tijfo098 (talk) 20:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 23:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not meet Wikipedia standards and is superfluous to existing articles Porterlu (talk) 18:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 18:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable footballer, fails WP:NFOOTY. Oleola (talk) 18:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Procedural close - default to keep. AFD created by a block evading sock of a user indef blocked for disruption and socking. Closing without prejudice to creation of new AFD by any user in good standing nancy 10:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Searched on Google, could not find anything, tagged as hoax, OR etc. Round Maple (talk) 17:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was deleted as hoax. The creator has also vandalised the Guiseley page. TerriersFan (talk) 21:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This page has been tagged with Template:Hoax and other templates, so I have searched it on google, but I can't find anything Round Maple (talk) 17:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The school should be publicly listed - if it is not then delete. Guiseley is a school. Guisley is not. MarkDask 18:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The misspelling is of no importance, as the page can be moved if it is to be kept. However, the whole of the article is a hoax. The fact that a real school of a similar name exists does not in any way detract from the fact that the school described in the article does not exist. The real school is not a catholic school, was never named after Thatcher, nor opened by her, and in fact not a single statement about the school in the article is true. Once the article has been deleted there will be no problem in creating a redirect as suggested, but there is no justification for keeping the hoax in the article's history. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:28, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 18:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. The author then added sections of content to the article, which I removed as they were a number of blatant copyright violations of various articles. Now the article is back to being a call-to-action with no encyclopedic content. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 00:15, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Concern was: Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. Reason for contesting was: Čampara played last season and this season for the first team of one of the most prominent clubs in Bosnia & Herzegovina in the Premier League of Bosnia and Herzegovina. FK Sarajevo have represented Bosnia in the UEFA Champions League and in the UEFA Europa League. This is not relevant to notability. Bosnian Premier league is not fully pro and therefore insufficient to grant notability under WP:NSPORT, and he has not actually played for Sarajevo internationally. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 06:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unnotable dentist who wrote two young Earth creationist books published by a fringe organization and claims there is an international scientific conspiracy against creationists. He isn't a notable orthodontist, nor a notable author, nor a credentialed scientist-- even though he writes about science. One book was review and criticized by a science organization, but that doesn't make him or his book notable (See: WP:Notability (books), source cannot be "other publications where ... self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book".) Article created in 2007. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 15:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Autobiography; Wikipedia doesn't do these. Neutral point of view must be used. The Master of Mayhem 15:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 18:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've rewritten this article since my request for speedy was declined, so that at least it's not pure canned pork any more. However, the underlying problem still exists: it seems to be very much a local event (although the "locals" in this case are the glitterati). The sources used are a university rag that doesn't pass muster, and the journalism is distinctly crassly promotional, like a write-up. A Gsearch gives hits which are either trivial mentions or directory or facebook listings, so my impression is that it isn't really notable. Do attendance figures count? – the number of visitors cited in the article (10-15k) is just an estimate of the frequentation over the Labor Day weekend 2011, and is not an audited figure. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 14:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 18:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Creator of the article contested prod. Plot-only description of a fictional work with no indication of notability. Zakhalesh (talk) 13:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy redirect to Chandala. Everyone including nominator supports this as it's a common alternate spelling for Chandala —SpacemanSpiff 16:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reason Harsimaja (talk) 13:28, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's already an article 'Chandala', and this article now adds nothing new, besides being rather awful.
The result was no consensus. If we were going strictly by numbers this would obviously be a keeper, but some of the keep arguments are quite weak and everyone seems to agree the article needs further improvement. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability has not been established for this YouTube series of animated cartoons per WP:WEB or WP:GNG. Distributed through YouTube and redistributed on various sites, including Newsgrounds, MySpace, and various blogs. Created and deleted ten different times through speedy deletion, as well as AFD. While it appears sourcing is there, reliability and independence is lacking. Cind.amuse 13:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is purely promotional - on closer examination this is not promotional but i cannot find sources for Eddsworld. surprised it has made it this far - could have died at G11 - will list the sources with evaluation if necessary. MarkDask 17:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Just a note that I have copied a comment by the creator of this article, left on the talk page of the original discussion, to the talk page of this one. --Kateshortforbob talk 22:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I deleted some of those unreliable references (I know this does not help in notability) and another user added an info-box. I am still awaiting the proper information in reference to that BBC news broadcast (I have called more individuals for assistance in reference information). This article is improving greatly and much faster then I thought it ever would. Eddsworld does meet the notability requirements (via the news broadcast and work with the conference I previously explained), but because I do not have the proper information to reference to, I will not discuss that any more. The subject is obviously very popular, and just because sources are difficult to find does not take away from that, but I understand all of your great points. I know this article is poorly sourced and still needs improvement, but I also believe it meets the minimal requirements. Deletion should not occur, but proper notifications should be attached to the article to indicate its issues. Even so, I would also like to thank all of you that helped and put so much interest into this project. It has improved this article (some-what) and improved my skills as a Wikipedian. If this article is deleted I will continue to find sources and may contact you guys on your opinion about my sources' reliability and such. Thank-you for the experience. Zach Winkler (talk) 00:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -This article meets the notability requirements. The article Jonti Picking is up with worse sourcing than this article has. There are biography articles up with no sources too. I'm not justifying this article's lack of sources, just making a point. I think it needs Notability and Refimprove boxes added though. It still needs improvement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirkus M (talk • contribs) 04:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC) (Sorry, forgot to sign. Kirkus M (talk) 06:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Comment - Just wanted to notify. I added a reference to the BBC video I was previously typing about. I do not think I entered in all "necessary" data, but I entered what I could. I am awaiting further information from Crispin Rolfe (The BBC "presenter" who did the news-segment). Zach Winkler (talk) 06:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 00:15, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article is quite frankly a perfect sample of what does not constitute an encyclopedic subject. The entire topic is irrelevant, as the article candidly notes: "In the 2002 Census, two persons declared to be Circassians". (Mind you, even this is entirely original research, since the records of the census, cited as the reference, do not actually and understandably go into as much detail. One presumes that the author of the article, a self-styled Circassian, got this info from personal interviews!) The rest of the article is entirely speculative and highly promotional: "Some traditions are similar between the two peoples. For example, both Circassians and Romanians are known to be very hospitable with their guests". The rest, about place names or surnames, is simply WP:COAT, whose sources are either unretrievable, unreliable or non-existent (see for instance the article's main reference). The few relevant tidbits, such as the 1870s exodus of virtually all Circassians from Dobruja (which btw only became Romanian territory in 1878), or their current presence in Turkey, are aptly covered in other articles: Deportation of Circassians, Circassians in Turkey, Circassians in Israel. Dahn (talk) 12:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 23:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unencyclopaedic synthesis / original research, consisting of opinion - inappropriate in WP:TONE, problems with neutrality, which I cannot imagine could be salvaged into a coherent article without entirely rewriting. The topic of "energy careers" is subjective in inception.The only referenced facts are chosen as random representations. Chzz ► 13:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nonsense. MarkDask 18:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. joe deckertalk to me 22:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Claims to fame: Member of non notable band, "producer" of The 1 Second Film(anyone who donates is listed as producer), uncredited appearance on a documentary and a self published book. No reliable sources and I didn't find anything useful while searching. Asilv (talk) 12:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 18:57, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could not find significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 00:16, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well written article, but little evidence of significance. References are all youtube clips and a facebook page. Includes recordings of two BBC Asian network interviews, but no indication of lasting notability. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 09:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 03:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article makes no indication why this individual episode is notable. Currently consists of plot details and castings. ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 07:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 18:57, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The band itself is not notable. No secondary source coverage. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 19:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Any reason for picking out this specific EP from their page and not the other two that have their own pages then? I just thought I'd help the fans that might look at this. If you want to erase one, erase them all. dragula_85 | Talk | 12:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Logan Talk Contributions 00:10, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article, while mentioning that the book received an award, does not appear to pass Wikipedia:Notability (books) since the literary award is not claimed to be major; indeed, it is not stated what the award even is. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was soft delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notability ; appears to fail WP:NBOOK; only outside press I could find was on CNYradio.com, mentioning its existence. Nat Gertler (talk) 08:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable author, two out of three refs not giving any info regarding subject, no indication of notability, fails WP:BIO. Paste Let’s have a chat. 21:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Steven James Camilleri's page must not be deleted! He's one of the best author's around!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roberta64 (talk • contribs) 14:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Insufficient secondary source coverage. Only one source found which has made a significant mention of the subject. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 22:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. joe deckertalk to me 22:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Author who does not appear to meet WP:GNG. A few incidental book reviews in local newspapers and a plethora articles written by him, but there is no significant coverage about his works or his life in multiple WP:RS; the only actual non-trivial, non-primary sources appear to be his obituary and one article about his role in and expulsion from the AP Bureau in Moscow (which itself is not mentioned in the article). Per the article's talk page, there is a claim that he has some sort of importance in Butte, but no sourcing can be found to corroborate that assertion. Kinu t/c 20:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 23:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confusing and essay-like. May be a school project. Information from this article may (and probably should) be included in articles such as the main article on dinosaurs. elektrikSHOOS 06:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Regards, MacMedtalkstalk 22:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I object to the proposed speedy deletion of The Seagull (theatre), so have altered to AfD as it seems a reasonable article apart from lack of references and categories; both fixable. So I do not agree with deletion, but have put it up for discussion. I notice that there have been a lot of edits to the article!! Hugo999 (talk) 05:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC) PS: the log entry seems to be wrong Hugo999 (talk) 05:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This artical could be deleted but it can be improved. So i will do somethings to improve it. As can be done according to Wikipedia Deletion Policy. Please do not change my improvements to this artical as it can help prevent it from bing deleted. Darkcover21 (talk) 2:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
The result was keep. Withdrawn NW (Talk) 15:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that the subject of this article meets WP:CREATIVE (the most applicable criterion is "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.") or WP:GNG. NW (Talk) 04:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 18:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable, failing WP:GNG and verging on a CSD candidate for advertisement. Contested PROD, removed without comment. Ravendrop 01:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can be userfied on request. Sandstein 06:33, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First sentence is a dictionary type definition, the rest is a mention of a non-notable memorial, fails WP:GNG Jezhotwells (talk) 01:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
MajorVariola (talk) 20:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC) Apologies for being a newbie to the WP maintenance culture.[reply]
Re: references, have added. This was meant as an informational page to those seeking definition of the phrase, with pointers to other supporing articles including Pertual War (aka Long War) and war memorials. These are, by the way, widely accepted and well defined terms. But, I've put refs there so the article is more self contained. Thanks for the feedback.
The facts of the Irvine installation are referenced in multiple newspapers etc. There are more refs under its article.
Re: deleting the tags at top, sorry, didn't know the rules or lingo.
Re: notability: the first of a new variant of a class is notable by virtue of introducing that variant to the world. The "first X with Y" is the schema. The first book made with movable type, the first color movie, that kind of thing.
Re: MelanieN: the Irvine war memorial page explicitly contains a quote from a founder, ref to city documents, and several newspaper stories that describe the installation exactly as this page does. As far as "dictionary" definition goes, the phrase "pertual war memorial" defines a distinct category separate from any combination of those words, so the phrase is meaningful, much like "civil war memorial" or "genocide memorial" or "armenian genocide memorial". In an encyclopedia, it should be ok to state a definition, followed by history, relations to other concepts, any other interesting links. No? Just my memories of the Britannica..
Courage is contagious (talk) 18:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC) I have yet to read an explanation of how
"Parish Church" and "First Parish Church of America"
(bot WL entries) are any different from "P-War memorial", aside from age.[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 18:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable symposium, contested PROD, un-encyclopaedic language. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:21, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 18:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable corporate executive who has served appointive positions on a couple of federal and state boards. Sources are press releases, aggregators like Zoominfo, and articles about other people where he is mentioned in passing. Orange Mike | Talk 00:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Ultima (series). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sourced exclusively to primary sources and other promotional sources produced by business partners. Needs third-party sources in order to WP:verify notability. Could not find any significant coverage as required by the general notability guideline. Also fails the policy that Wikipedia is not a WP:GAMEGUIDE with extensive lists of game concepts... considering the article is entitled sourced to game guides. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lists of gameplay items, weapons, or concepts. Specific point values, achievements and trophies, time-limits, levels, character moves, character weight classes, and so on are considered inappropriate. Sometimes a concise summary is appropriate if it is essential to understanding the game or its significance in the industry.
Video game guides. An article about a computer game or video game should summarize the main actions the player does to win the game. But avoid lists of gameplay weapons, items, or concepts. Specific point values, achievements and trophies, time-limits, levels, character moves, character weight classes, and so on are also considered inappropriate. A concise summary is appropriate if it is essential to understanding the game or its significance in the industry. See WP:VGSCOPE.
The result was delete. While numerically more users are in favor of retaining this, those making arguments to keep it have not presented valid, policy based arguments that back their position. That this group may be notable enough for an article sometime in the future is not relevant. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article about a regional literary co-op, club, or association. None of the references provided mention the group. Notability is not established through significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The article needs significant coverage of the writer's club. At this point, none of the sources provided indicates notability of Walden Writers, and the writers within the group, for the most, lack notability. Cind.amuse 06:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I thiought I'd add to the debate. The group contains influential writers and the fact that the press hasn't picked up on them is more of a reflection on journalists and the time it takes to search out refs than the true notability of the group.... which contains the author of THE book on Children's Lit and several award winners. I think - if allowed - this page will evolve and be a useful contribution. Africawallah (talk) 13:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC) 1st April 2011 2.30pm[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 18:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't a travel guide. Not altogether convinced that this meets WP:N. It's a place of business that, like many similar places of business, had a bit of a county council licensing hiccup - no real earth-shaking legislation resulting from its licensing struggles or anything. The only source - aside from a couple of brief newspaper articles wholly concerned with the licensing struggles and the bath house's own website - is a LGBT-themed travel guide. The place certainly exists, but so too does the van down the street from me that serves Mexican food. I don't think that being mentioned once in a local newspaper is automatic notability. Perhaps other people see it differently? Badger Drink (talk) 19:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete with no prejudice against recreation if the verifiability issue has been resolved. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is absolutely no assertion as to why this village is considered notable. While places generally will have some notability, nothing is shown here, and I can find none myself. Delete. (If kept, should be moved to Wangchen, HubeiWangchen (no disambiguation necessary) per WP:NC-ZH (that no spacing is required between pinyinized Chinese characters when describing a single entity).) --Nlu (talk) 20:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. BigDom 21:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable unsuccessful politician and blogger. I can't find much coverage of him in reliable sources; he has been mentioned by the media a few times, but I'm doubful that those mentions add up to notability. See [15], [16], [17]. Being a local councillor, standing unsuccessfully for election to Parliament, and contributing to political magazines, aren't enough for notability by themselves; it's necessary to have been the subject of significant coverage from reliable sources, and as far as I can tell he hasn't. Robofish (talk) 23:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 22:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can information about a book series by this name, and indeed by Andy Cutbill, but I can find no evidence of an animated series. The link where such info can be found is supposedly here (which links to the aforementioned Amazon UK link), but no such info is found at that link. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 23:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Prime (Transformers). (non-admin closure) Acather96 (talk) 08:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article fails to demonstrate like Emperor of Destruction why it is notable without reliable third person sources. Dwanyewest (talk) 23:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]