< 23 January | 25 January > |
---|
The result was speedy deleted by Dreadstar (talk · contribs); reason was "A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content)". Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk 04:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not an encyclopedic topic. Seems to be WP:MADEUP. WP:PROD declined. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 02:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are currently no sources other than YouTube videos to verify the notability of this person. I was unable to find any sources to assist. Has been unreferenced for at least 10 months now. All Hail The Muffin Nor does it taste nice... 23:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Perhaps this article could do with some more sources but I think a deletion would be harsh as it is well written and informative. -- WölffReik (talk) 02:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 17:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable actress. None of the biographical details in this article can be verified by any source. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 22:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep on the issue of "keep vs delete", no consensus on the issue of merging. That can be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aircraft seat maps are not a notable topic. The article has been unsourced since its creation and tagged since 2007. The current article seems to mostly serve as a host for links to commercial websites advising travelers on seat selection. Will Beback talk 22:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. The only delete !vote was in regards to reliable sources, which was what prompted the nomination. The nomination was withdrawn due to a reliable source being found, which cancels out the only delete !vote. (non-admin closure) Dusti*poke* 07:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notability concerns: Can't find reliable, secondary sources which provide coverage of this putative singer in order to demonstrate notability under WP:GNG or WP:ENT. Long-term unsourced BLP. Contested PROD. --j⚛e deckertalk 21:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable actor. Citations are broken. IMDB page exists but does not support assertions in the article. Possible hoax. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 02:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article should be deleted WP:Neologism. Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a slang, jargon or usage guide. Securel (talk) 21:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 22:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to Fails WP:CORP low Gnews Hits, it exists but does not seem to have received significant coverage The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. Deletion rationale has been refuted - both verifiable and true. Isofar as "only a word" refers to WP:DICT, this deletion argument has also been shown to be wrong. No delete !votes standing (non-admin closure) Pgallert (talk) 12:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a crime to be caught "uttering". "Uttering" is not the crime, but is just a word being used to describe a crime such as “uttering of false money”, or “uttering and publishing an alleged fictitious instrument in writing", or “forgery and the uttering of a forged instrument”. The word “uttering” in itself, is just a word, and the act of “uttering”, in itself, is not a crime. This article should be deleted as it is false and unverifiable. Securel (talk) 21:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 22:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A poor article which shouldn't have escaped deletion the first time it has poor notability and lacking in sufficient sources to justify a solo article like the first nomination Dwanyewest (talk) 21:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A non notable martial arts style without reliable third person sources to justify notability Dwanyewest (talk) 21:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Leaning towards merge into Uechi-ryu due to lack of relative independent notability. Either way, the article will be kept, and merge discussions can continue on the talk page, pending addition of further reliable sources to establish notability. (non-admin closure) Logan Talk Contributions 00:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A non notable martial art without any reliable third person sources. Dwanyewest (talk) 04:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even assuming good faith that the dead link to the PDF mentioned him in passing, the subject is still not worthy of inclusion in this encyclopedia. Let's analyse each claim of notability and show why it lacks merit:
Filotti seems to have had an interesting enough career, but nothing in particular raises him above the millions of others with interesting enough careers, and therefore we should delete. - Biruitorul Talk 20:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Poorly sourced biography of a living person. A one-time nude photoshoot is not, in my opinion, a very strong claim to notability. Reyk YO! 05:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem to be particularly notable. —Tom Morris 16:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No sources, episode not notable enough for a separate article. Confession0791 talk 08:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. If merged, the history must be retained and a redirect left in place per WP:MAD. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Massively and systematically biased article. Too many issues POV,OR,SYN,NPOV, see below Soewinhan (talk) 23:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Completing nomination on behalf of User:216.196.139.146 Rationale from talk page is: "I just came across this today and it appears to have quite a few notability issues and the article itself has been entirely edited by Erik Kloeker (Users User:Erikkloeker and User:Edit_tore_n_chief)." RoninBK T C 13:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Logan Talk Contributions 16:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:CREATIVE or WP:ENT. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Previously deleted for A7, then recreated by the wife of the subject. The only sources that mention the subject include a blog and YouTube. Cind.amuse 17:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Nomination Withdrawn per below. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There do not appear to be substantial third party sources, despite efforts of other editor to find such sources. So, notability isn't established. There's no good basis to write a neutral article, since the sources are not neutral. Rob (talk) 20:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sarah Champion = 0 references Christian O'Connell = no references regarding his career or personal life, most sections without any references at all Nick Jackson = no references regarding the stations he has worked for (O 106, BRMB, Heart FM etc.) M.wernicke (talk) 20:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would like the requester to outline which sections violate the guidelines and to what extend for these individual sections further sources should be added. I have a genuine interest in improving this article and I would appreciate any possible help. M.wernicke (talk) 21:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These sources clearly do not establish notability. WikiManOne (talk) 23:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Most sources are used as reference just for a single fact, like "She joined in 2000" or "She worked at Radio Warwick" or "She did the breakfast show" or "Absolute won an Award" or "She did an interview with Brian Johnson". And to establish that it is unnecessary to find a whole article explaining that in 300 words. If you applied your principles to the remaining articles in the "Absolute Radio DJs" section, almost all of them would have to be deleted as these articles usually do not have any notable references at all. M.wernicke (talk) 07:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another indiscriminate, unreferenced (bar one, from Indonesia-!) list that attempts to compile all "post 1945 weapons by country". Such a list would be of a size to send Godzilla screaming in terror if it was complete; even limited to personal weapons, which appears to be its intent, it would be "Listra". And why a 1945 cutoff, when many weapons made earlier remain in service and are just as effective? "Modern" is an arbitrary conceit, I'm afraid. I appreciate the effort that went into this, but I don't see how such a list is of any value to Wikipedia. The Bushranger One ping only 20:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete By further explanation, the objections have been that this has always been an unsourced, including the definition of modern as being all post-1945 firearms, overly wide in scope, and indiscriminate. Mandsford 17:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wildly indiscriminate list, that purports to list all "Post 1945" (sic) weapons by type. Such a list would be gargantuan, even confined to personal weapons and light autocannons (and how is "light" defined?), which it appears to be. List is also rather incomplete. (Although it does include the dreaded "Stun cell phone"!) Unencyclopediatic, indiscriminiate, completely unreferenced. The Bushranger One ping only 20:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep There are several arguments made for deletion, one that the definition of "modern" is debatable, that it is incomplete, that it is unsourced, or that it is "indiscriminate". Not all lists are indiscriminate, and in this case, there is some discriminating information in a sortable table, listing the manufacturer and the nation of origin. The objections concerning sourcing and the title "modern" are valid, but not beyond fixing through normal editing. Mandsford 17:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced, indiscriminate list. How are "modern weapons and munitions" defined? Who defines them reliably? Probably wildly incomplete, too. A merge proposal seems to have gone nowhere, and I can't see how this can be made to be valuable as-is as it is. Probably fails WP:DIRECTORY too... The Bushranger One ping only 19:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was closing as moot. Article was redirected to ordination of women by User:Zachlipton, which strikes me as the Right Thing, and at any rate makes this discussion moot. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BLATANT POV essay, soapboxing, etc....violates WP:NOT in many and various ways WuhWuzDat 19:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Ironholds (talk) 02:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is an unreferenced, extremely incomplete list, that has existed since 2004 and been in its current state, essentially changed and utterly unreferenced, since 2005. In addition, it is extremly American-centric; the only "Coalition" weapons listed belong to the United States...and furthermore, only those used as personal weapons by members of the United States Marine Corps! I can't see how this list has any encyclopedatic value. The Bushranger One ping only 19:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article was created primarily to showcase a weapon that appears to have been a hoax; in its current, de-hoaxed form, it's a single, 17-word sentence that hasn't been touched, aside from cleanup and bots, since 2007, with a single "reference" that speculates that the type of weapon might be feasible. A Google search appears to turn up only the original New Scientist article and articles either mirroring or referencing the Wikipedia article; there's no reason this sub-stub couldn't be simply included as a single line in an article about future weapons concepts and/or artillery, if it's even notable enough for that. The Bushranger One ping only 19:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete, blatant advertising and likely copyvio. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Highly promotional, very few ghits and no gnews for "Melco Personalization Solutions" indicates a lack of notability. OSborn arfcontribs. 19:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No independent citations. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 18:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete, A7 and G11, no showing of minimal importance, and promotional. (Article was about a business that makes glitter. Can't forget the Classic Sweat Pose!) - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot find any reliable secondary sources that discuss this company, and fails WP:N. Angryapathy (talk) 18:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Public Pools are usually non-notable, no indication why this pool is notable, merge to school district or Delete Ibluffsocall (talk) 18:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. I will userfy as requested JohnCD (talk) 22:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable film, no notable people, yet to be released. My speedy deletion tag was removed. Corvus cornixtalk 18:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advert. Works are self-published and not reliable sources. Editor is sockpuppet. See COI thread and sockpuppet investigation ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 18:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advert. Created by user evading block and soliciting for article writing...see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bockeee ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 17:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to JetBlue flight attendant incident. by clear consensus that this is a BLP1E situation JohnCD (talk) 23:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP1E. Everything covered about this individual belongs at the main page of his 1E, JetBlue flight attendant incident. Muboshgu (talk) 15:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 23:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Recreation of an article deleted via PROD. The subject does not currently meet notability criteria in that he has not appeared in a top-tier league. Although he was signed by Levski Sofia, he has never played for them and is on loan to a B-Series team. From WP:NFOOTY "A player who signs for a domestic team but has not played in any games is not deemed to have participated in a competition, and is therefore not generally regarded as being notable" Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 15:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep
Hi,
He's played at two top clubs in Bulgaria. Youth when he did or not. This player is notable. He seems to be quite good at playing football. I beleive they are loaning him out like any other team would do to a young 20 year old that's not broken into the team yet-To get experience! In England Premier League clubs loan players out that haven't played a game for them yet. T o the Championship for example. Yes, I know thyat's a professional league but his parent club plays in a professional league. He still young-He will play for them soon. He's been on the subs bench a few times awell for them.
Thanks, pbl1998--Pbl1998 (talk) 17:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Randy Barnett. NW (Talk) 15:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity article, non-notable subject. Appears to be a summary of an article/proposal by a college professor on how he would like to see the US Constitution amended. None of the citations except one mention the "Bill of Federalism" itself. The official website for the bill[dead link] has been a dead link since July 2010. Rillian (talk) 14:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some sort of essay/how-to article and/or WP:NEO — Timneu22 · talk 14:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedily deleted by Doc James as copyright violation. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This was prodded and deleted a few months ago, so I'm now taking it to AfD. I'm basing my call for deletion on two reasons:
Greetings. I put in Faculty of Medicine, Pharmacy and Dental Medicine Arad for AfD, but only later did I realise that the whole thing is a copyvio, directly lifted from [42], [43], [44], [45] and [46]. Would it be possible for you to just delete it, given the copyright infringement the page represents? - Biruitorul Talk 04:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
The result was redirect to ETV Network (India). JohnCD (talk) 23:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to fail to be notable on it's own, largely unsalvageable opinion piece. [Belinrahs|talktome⁄ ididit] 14:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given the redundant nature of these articles, I would redirect all of these network channels to ETV Network (India). --Bejnar (talk) 17:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pure speculation. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Shirt58 (talk) 13:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In reply: It will be updated as figures come in from ratings sources and will be referenced thoroughly. This page will be used as a set of key figures in the lead up to the 2 TV deals being negotiated in the next 6-12months for Australia's two biggest sports. It is not disimilar to any listings of crowd figures or player indiscretions. I will personally keep it up to date and ensure it is of a high standard, it is just a lot of work in one go which is why I am currently preparing it for the upcoming seasons (starting in a few weeks) so that figues will just need to be added. Wiki allows me to collect all the data much like an exel sheet but also allows referencing to add credibility and weight to the discussion of a topic which dominates the media and discussions between fans of both codes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaronbach1 (talk • contribs) 14:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC) — Aaronbach1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I am nowhere near finished so please allow me time to put the effort in that is needed to get this page up to a high standard. You will see it will be a contributive source of information.
Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaronbach1 (talk • contribs) 24 January 2011
In Reply: But that is exactly the point... If 2 games are on at the same time then the fan much choose which game to watch, and there in lies the reason for this. It is a gauge of popularity, support and overall fan-base. I am using the same data as the TV networks and applying them to a stand alone wiki page so the average fan can see EASILY see the numbers in one place (cause god knows it's hard to find an overall season review rather than weekly or just a few sets of numbers on the news post-season, without sources).
I can see where you are coming from about the different variables but this is not black and white, it is grey. I am posting the figures and will be adding the different variables in the intro as I have started to do. For instance FTA tv is available to 98% of OZ where PTV is used by 34%. The ratio of games for each code is different on each format but both are shown on each, which is why I have a PTV average/game and FTA average/game. Another things is the AFL is shown Nationally at decent hours, where the NRL is only shown in 2 states (plus New Zealand) before midnight. But the NRL still win the ratings... So it isn't like I am skewing the numbers to favour 1 side or the other. The AFL tend to win the 5 capital city figures where the NRL double the AFL on PTV and when regionals are counted beat the AFL overall.
Like i said this is the same data the TV networks will use to make part of their decision and is the closest you can get to comparison but it is a set of key figures for anyone to access much like a crowds comparison (where by your argument there are restaurants to go to instead of games so it isn't comparable...? the people who went to the game made the choice and that is gauge of popularity of the sport/games). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaronbach1 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also I will refer to these 2 news articles showing comparisons and the overall yearly audience (not that they will use exactly my data but TV networks will want to know the TOTAL eyes on the box when the sport is being shown in the overall TV package they are buying).
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/nrl/nrl-obliterates-rival-codes-in-tv-war/story-e6frexnr-1225919884159
http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/nrl-races-ahead-in-tv-viewers-stakes-20100930-15z9t.html
Both talk about comparisons of cumulative seasons audience and "head-to-head" figures. This is the data used in Australia to measure to success of a code in Australia.
Thank you for taking the time to see my points. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaronbach1 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The arguments Aaronbach1 puts forward are quite genuine. The sporting landscape in Australia is quite remarkable in the fact that there are multiple versions of football competing for audience interest. This is why there is currently a thorough list of Australian Football Code Crowds being updated on Wikipedia. As NRL & AFL are the only two sports in Australia that have free to air coverage of their domestic competitions, it makes perfect sense that their viewing figures be recorded. This is no different to the Annual Australian TV ratings pages that are on wikipedia. However as the sources for this page would come directly from the National ratings monitor, all numbers posted on this page would be 100% accurate and official (Mattdocbrown (talk) 08:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]
In Reply: you know little about Australian Sport if you were unaware that earlier last year the AFL commission went on to state that "AFL" will take over from the name of the traditional "Australian Rules Football" tag... Just so you know all my figures would be taken from the OZtam and Astra ratings. The same official and legitimate figures used by Australia's television networks.
Mattingn you said "You are taking raw data published by others and using it in a way that creates a new piece of data (the comparison) that is original to yourself." If this is the reason for deletion I will be happy to abide by this but may you please tell me the difference between comparing TV ratings and Crowds? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sports_attendance_figures This page takes RAW DATA PUBLISHED BY OTHERS, and MAKES A NEW PIECE OF DATA (THE COMPARISON) this is original to the editor. Comparing worldwide sports is a far less relevant comparison in my opinion (but it should also have it's place on wiki) as it doesn't account for ticket costs across sports, sporting culture, stadia capacity etc. My comparison is within Australia between the choices of the average Australian in the same sporting environment I differentiate between what is available to 98% of the population and what is available to 34% of the population. I have no issue if this page has truely breached Wiki's standards. What I do have a problem with is the reason given is overlooked on a variety of other long term pages... Thank you, I look forward to your response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaronbach1 (talk • contribs) 12:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. Nomination Withdrawn -- Lear's Fool 23:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of this article has received media coverage solely because he was 12 years old at the time he committed a crime. A Google News search returns no sources that indicate lasting notability (apart from parole violations), and nothing to satisfy the notability requirement for perpetrators of crimes. -- Lear's Fool 13:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn -- Lear's Fool 23:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete No prejudice to recreating the article or addition of information to the articles Kingdom of Strathclyde or Selgovae provided that it can be attributed to a reliable, verifiable source. Mandsford 17:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article seems to be based on assertions at this site, which by consensus is not a reliable site. No independent citations are provided, and the information in the article is highly dubious at best. Other editors have searched for "Selcovia" on Harvard's library system's historical journal abstracts and a few other databases and come up with nothing. It may be a hoax - if not, it is non-notable and/or WP:FRINGE. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete - closing the debate early as an apparent WP:HOAX. WaltonOne 16:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Insufficent coverage to verify content of article, let alone establish notability. Google and Google News return no results matching this individual, and the source cited below appears not to exist in the newspaper's own archives. I've performed a Factiva search, which returned no results. Proposed deletion was contested. -- Lear's Fool 13:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seemingly non-noteworthy scientist. RandomTime 13:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. with the specific outcome of moving Annapolis High School (Dearborn Heights MI) to Annapolis High School (Michigan) as this is the preferred title. —SpacemanSpiff 16:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(formerly "Annapolis High School Dearborn Heights")
Articles that duplicate the existing Annapolis High School with no substantial content to distinguish themselves from it. (Note: A10 criteria does not apply since these were not recent creations.) :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 20:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. The "keep" commenters have failed to effectively counter the arguments of either the nomination (regardless of the bad or good faith behind it) or the "delete" commenters. Ironholds (talk) 19:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs work like so. The nominator turns up with a reason for deletion. "delete" commentators turn up and either include their own reasons, or agree with his. "keep" commentators turn up and either fix the issues that the first two groups have raised, or, if they feel the issues are irrelevant (or simply don't exist), argue this out. In either case, the onus is on the "keep" side to rebut deletion arguments or prove them false due to the method of opening the debate with a nomination for deletion. User:Justfred opens up with critiquing the nominator's motives rather than his argument, ending with "notability guideline (WP:N appears satisfied" without giving any evidence to that effect. FuturePrefect makes a similar argument, also weighing in with the idea that Burning Man's overarching notability gives subsidiary articles notability. BabbaQ provides even less, simply saying that the nominator's claims are unfounded.
The awkward element, of course, is that at least one of the delete comments (User:Abductive) is similarly useless - arguably two. Abductive simply leaves a vote, and AfD is not a vote. Because of that, I would ask everyone involved (with the exception of Alzarian16, who actually provided a decent argument) to bear in mind in the future that their comments will only be taken into account if they're proper, policy-citing, logically argued comments. Admins do not care about the heat or emotion behind your edits here. That does not influence our decisions. What does influence our decisions is the strength behind the edits. Ironholds (talk) 19:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Subject does not even remotely approach notability guidelines; Vain, self-aggrandizing and a waste of Wikipedia resources. zippogeek (talk) 23:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is an advertisement for the Camino software. There is no indication of notability and a clear conflict of interest going by the username Caminoucl of the article creator. The article also duplicates content on http://www.cs.ucl.ac.uk/research/medic/camino/ . I originally added a prod notice to this page but was removed by an ip with the reason "Camino is a free software developed by UCL researchers.It's not very easy to find docs about it,so I concern that a wiki would be useful for students" This only further demonstrates the notability and advertising concerns. Polyamorph (talk) 17:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:NTENNIS Mayumashu (talk) 23:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 14:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article (as well as the six other related ones to be listed below) was about an official statistical area of the Republic of China (Taiwan). The definitions have since been abolished,[49] and there is no reason to believe that the area will remain statistically or otherwise significant as an entity, since they were artificial definitions to start with. (The only possible exception relates to the Taipei-Keelung area, which I admit is a bit more fleshed out, but the information in whose article has been adequately dealt with in Taipei, New Taipei, and Keelung anyway.) Delete all (mild delete as to Taipei-Keelung) Nlu (talk) 18:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am also proposing the following related pages for deletion:
Related template proposed for deletion (separately, at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 January 21):
((Taiwan metropolitan areas))
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:09, 31 January 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)) . |
This list should not be included in an encyclopedia nor does it have a real purpose. User agents are a way to recognize the web browser (in this case mobile web browser). They have all the same logical construction that is already explained in user agent. The lead and reliable sources are missing; the page is incomplete. This may not a deleting criteria, but I don't get it why wikipedia should included it. mabdul 11:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was linked to this page via a Wordpress theme and I found the information on it to be useful and accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.177.52 (talk) 19:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
very usefull, please keep it up to date! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.230.44.10 (talk) 09:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This was usefull to me, although I needed http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useragent to understand what I saw. Maybe use the provided link as a parent article, and add a brief explanation to the differences if any for mobile user agents. Coen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.244.160.157 (talk) 10:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This page is a useful resource and should not be deleted. Developers need to be able to easily locate a comprehensive list of mobile user agents. It has no less purpose than the list of music genera that fall within Industrial Music and no one is arguing about that. Perhaps the page could be restructured into a table that includes source information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.135.149.195 (talk) 00:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When evaluating how web pages respond to different devices, I often need to have my desktop browser "spoof" the user agent string of a variety of devices.
A comprehensive list does not seem to exist elsewhere, nor does Google provide useful information other than this article. Other pages returned in a search for "mobile device user agent strings" have promising titles, but little to no useful information.
As such, this is a valuable resource with no other readily available replacement. --TGIF (talk) 05:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No actual claim to notability, and no secondary sources. I have looked for sources without finding anything. bonadea contributions talk 16:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that notability is firmly established here. Even if the assault incident is included, that wouldn't establish notability. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is written very informally, contains zero sources, has some serious NPOV issues, and has no evidence of notability (a google search for 'Marli Buck' simply returns the Wikipedia page). --Ashershow1talk 22:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article has many problems including a possible Conflict of Interest from User:RayKampf and possible BLP problems but ultimately it comes down to a lack of notability, and the resulting lack of references. It says (without references) that he is a Professor at Cal Polytech, but there's no reason to think he passes the Prof test. Other major claim to notability seems to be that he wrote a Master's Thesis. Smallbones (talk) 21:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet the general notability guideline. Marcus Qwertyus 19:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Whether this tribe exists and is recognized (or not) is not relevant to this Wikipedia deletion discussion. As noted by DGG and others, verifiable, secondary sources discuss this group, and those advocating for deletion have not advanced any argument consistent with deletion policy given the present sourcing. (non-admin closure) Atmoz (talk) 18:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This page exists solely to support the claims of its fictitious eponymous entity. All claims for its existence are supported by nothing except "original research on the website of the "tribe". Chuck Hamilton (talk) 02:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:A lot of good work has gone into this article, by 76.121.154.140, since it was proposed for deletion on 21st December. It is very well researched and mostly well referenced. The Southern Cherokee Nation of kentucky are recognised at State and local level, per citations, and qualify as encyclopedic.MarkDask 16:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's far from well-researched. The connection to the historical groups mentioned and the current group are not established. The organization is state-recognized but they need to actually do something to merit notability. Clearly the author is involved in the organization, so it's creation is promotional and attempt to confer for validity on the group. -Uyvsdi (talk) 20:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]
delete I am a secondary author of this article, and not the original author. I stumbled across this article while surfing the net, at he time it was up for deletion. I took an interest in the article because I thought it had historical merit. The article did originally make mention of the Chickamauga Cherokee and other questionable statements, but those sentances have since been extensively deleted or reworded. The citations are all from published books, journals, PDF files and documents previously publish online, and follow the Wikipedia prescribed format. The Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky does seem to have notability in Kentucky, and the article is informative and objective in nature. 76.121.154.140 (talk) 22:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC). I have changed my vote to delete for obvious reasons.[reply]
FYI: Since 76.121.154.140 is not a registered user, 76.121.154.140 doesn't really have a vote. As for the so-called published material which you reference, please see the Wikipedia policy about self-published sources (in short, they are not considered verifiable). Chuck Hamilton (talk) 19:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think article is well cited and informative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stubbornbull (talk • contribs) 03:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC) Plese just delete it, you have prooved your point. You have consensus now.[reply]
By your own admission Stand Watie was a former Principle Chief of the Cherokee Nation (and he was), as he was a Confederate BG, but nowhere does the article mention that he is the Principle Chief of the Southern Cherokee Nation. Although, under article V of the 1866 Reconstruction Treaty the Southern Cherokee residing in the Canadian district under ARTICLE 5., have the following rights:
“The inhabitants electing to reside in the district described in the preceding article (IV) shall have the right to elect all their local officers and judges, and the number of delegates to which by their numbers they may be entitled in any general council to be established in the Indian Territory under the provisions of this treaty, as stated in Article XII, and to control all their local affairs, and to establish all necessary police regulations and rules for the administration of justice in said district, not inconsistent with the constitution of the Cherokee Nation or the laws of the United States; Provided, The Cherokees residing in said district shall enjoy all the rights and privileges of other Cherokees who may elect to settle in said district as hereinbefore provided, and shall hold the same rights and privileges and be subject to the same liabilities as those who elect to settle in said district under the provisions of this treaty; Provided also, That if any such police regulations or rules be adopted which, in the opinion of the President, bear oppressively on any citizen of the nation, he may suspend the same. And all rules or regulations in said district, or in any other district of the nation, discriminating against the citizens of other districts, are prohibited, and shall be void.”
Additionally, The Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma argued that article IV & VII were written for the Southern Cherokee living in the Canadian District. This below link was previously cited, but you persist in your false arguments.
Cause No. 07-5024, United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, Corrected & Final Initial Brief of Appealant Cherokee Nation, pp. 27 & 28.
http://turtletalk.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/cherokee-appellant-brief.pdf
The 1893 recognition document is on display at “The Depot” in Henderson, Kentucky and available for public viewing, and was reconfirmed by Governor Fletcher’s proclamation of 2006, and by the City Henderson in 2009. The preponderance of the evidence is on the side of the Southern Cherokee nation of Kentucky. These Cherokee people are obviously known in Henderson, as well as Kentucky, to be who they say they are. Your statements are your own personal opinion (PO) or private point of view (POV). Where are your facts?
Comparing the Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky to what you believe are hoaxes is a false argument and again deceptive. Whereas, one does not have anthing to do with the other.
You also elect to discredit the article by setting yourself up as a self proclaimed expert of Native American History. I have already seen your comments about other Native American articles written for the Wikipedia, and they are generally negative in nature, and rarely helpful. In some cases you were callous and brutal. You take it upon yourself to single handedly decide who has the right to be represented on the Wikipedia. Purporting yourself to be an expert of Native American History could be construed to be a hoax in of itself. Ask yourself do you have credentials that make you an expert in Native American History? 76.121.154.140 (talk) 20:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
National Indian Child Welfare Association (NICWA) and its implications in Kentucky By Tara Metts, Family Services Coordinator:
"According to NICWA, there are no federally recognized Native American tribes in Kentucky. However, according to the 2000 US Census, Kentucky has a relatively large urban Native American population; there are about 25,000 American Indian/Alaska Natives (AI/AN) in the Commonwealth. While there are no federally recognized tribes, Kentucky does recognize two tribes at the state level. The Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky was first recognized via proclamation by Governor John Y. Brown in 1893 and again by Governor Fletcher on November 20, 2006. This tribe is based in Henderson, Kentucky. The Ridgetop Shawnee was recognized by the State House of the Kentucky General Assembly on February 26, 2009, under HJR-15. The Tribe plans to seek formal recognition in 2010; it is based in Eastern Kentucky." http://courts.ky.gov/aoc/juvenile/recentnewsletter.htm 76.121.154.140 (talk) 02:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I quote: "While there are no federally recognized tribes, Kentucky does "recognize two tribes at the state level". The Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky was first recognized via proclamation by Governor John Y. Brown in 1893 and again by Governor Fletcher on November 20, 2006." And yes Ms. Metts is not a Lawyer, and she has mis quoted Governor's Brown's letter as a proclamation, when in fact it is actually a Governor's Executive Letter (there is a differenec). Also Notice that Ms. Metts states that the Ridge Top Shawnee will contend for formal recognition later, and does not say that about the Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky, because they were already recognized by Executive Letter in 1893. The legislature did little more than make mention of the Ridge Top Shawnee for protection of Native American grave sites in southeastern KY. They have since incorperated, as they did not get the Governor's recognition. Finally, To be more specific and to the point, the Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky have formal recognition from the Executive Branch of Kentucky, and that is what the article clearly states. The Kentucky Native American Heritage Commission does not recognize tribes within the State of Kentucky, nor does the legislature for that matter (there is no criteria for it). The Kentucky State Governors have been the only ones to do so. The White Cloud Cherokee tribe was also recognized by a Governor, but they are now extinct. Therefore, a precedent does exist for Governors to do so in the State of Kentucky.
As far as the deletions of your tags, the administrator removed them a couple of times already, and you defiantly retagged the article each time. The deletion tag indicates anything below can be edited, I did not know I was in violation. 76.121.154.140 (talk) 09:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This may well be a guy and a boat making a nation, but the difference between Principality of Sealand and this nation is that Sealand generates plenty of reliable hits, and the SCNK has none--not a single one. I don't believe it is a recognized nation, I can't judge the scans of copies of the documents on the organization's website, and it's not notable enough in the press to pass notability guidelines in any other way. Drmies (talk) 01:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Throughout the months of existence of this article, it has grown very little. There is plenty of wording, but completely insufficient sources that supply little value, besides some complimentary DotA and Wikipedia sentiment. If you look at the sources, you will find that they constitute the mod's website, the Wikipedia article for StarCraft II, the Wikipedia article for Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne, the Wikipedia article for StarCraft: Brood War, a third-party map archive forum, another reference to the mod's website, the Wikipedia article for Defense of the Ancients, the mod's forum, a link to Battle.net's homepage, a link to the Wikipedia Battle.net article and a post on PlayDotA.com advertising the game. NONE of those link to any relevant topics in the article and simply seem to only say the names of real major titles and act like their referencing will excuse the insufficient notoriety of this subject. Of course, it takes some time for this procedure of AfD nomination to go through, so if there are any major developments or notoriety that may be explained, I invite all who wish to contribute to do so. DarthBotto talk•cont 05:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how this survived the last AFD when the few keep arguments either misinterpreted or misapplied community policy. WP:V states that articles without third-party sources do not belong in Wikipedia, so arguments that primary sources are sufficient go against community consensus. A few others said that independent sources do exist for this article, but all I see are the books themselves, spliced in with some original research from the literary works that inspired the books. After several years... worst case this remains something that fails WP:V and WP:N due to a lack of third-party sourcse, and best case a WP:CONTENTFORK that just re-reports information from the main article in an original manner. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC) (categories)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod which dubiously states that there's no consensus that articles need independent sources. If there's no consensus that articles need independent sources then that editor should change WP:V, WP:N, WP:RS and WP:OR... which all call for independent sources. Without independent sources that cover the subject in direct detail there is no reliable way to WP:verify notability of this article. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article about a non-notable football tournament, which was little more than a pre-season friendly. The article itself has absolutely zero references. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 09:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 07:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Term is non-notable and the article is clearly not written from a neutral point of view. Eggbelly (talk) 01:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC) Delete.[reply]
Strong Delete The article lacks neutrality and expresses a personal point of view such as "all the "revealed" religions seem downright dangerous to me". Prsaucer1958 (talk) 13:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Just wanted to point out the original consensus was delete. However, it was never carried out. Term is not notable, hense why it was selected for deletion before. Eggbelly (talk) 05:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The fact of the matter is that this term receives only a smattering of Google hits. The term is non-notable and not widely used. Unless Wikipedia is going to start having articles about every term and idea with a Google result, this needs to be deleted. Just because the offensive term "Islamofascism" is notable, doesn't mean that "fascism" must be attached to every other religious group quid pro quo. There are plenty of other equally offensive yet notable terms applied to various religious and political groups, and it's not up to Wikipedia to create novel terms to even some popular culture "score" Non-notable, politically motivated, delete it. Eggbelly (talk) 17:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy close as the nomination has been withdrawn and no editor supports deletion. Skomorokh 23:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn Unreferenced since 2010 and I was unable to find any references to support notability. Appears to fail WP:GNG All Hail The Muffin Nor does it taste nice... 10:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC) We got sources! All is well with the world. All Hail The Muffin Nor does it taste nice... 23:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This seems to be a fairly large firm, with 125 principals (Law Society website) and claiming to have 277 qualified solicitors and annual turnover of £113m. Whilst I cannot find reliable information online about how it ranks amongst UK firms it is clearly well up there. Admittedly there is a problem in assessing notability when we have have firms large or canny enough to employ people to promote them, but there is real substance behind this one. AJHingston (talk) 00:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2012 April 30. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
The result was delete all. The creator of these articles is the only user participating here who sees any merit to them. I would add that the level of personal acrimony expressed here has no place in a deletion discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prods. In September 2010, Rich Farmbrough automatically created over 100 articles on individual years and subawards for Queen's Awards for Enterprise. However, these unauthorized bot creations were empty and unreferenced pages, and were incorrect. For the years 1966 to 1975, only one award existed, The Queen's Award to Industry.[52] Rich Farmbrough created three individual articles for each year, with "The Queen's Award for Enterprise: International Trade (Export)", "The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Innovation (Technology)" and "The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Export & Technology (Combined)". None of these titles ever existed, they are fictional subgroupings based on the reasons given for the one real award. For that reason (incorrect, mostly empty articles created in violation of policy) I propose to delete these. Fram (talk) 09:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also nominated are:
Year | International Trade (Export) |
Innovation (Technology) |
Export and Technology (Combined) |
Sustainable Development (Environmental Achievement) |
Total awards |
Nominated here |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1975 | 76Y | 17Y | 2Y | 95 | Y | |
1974 | 59 | 19 | - Y | 78 | Y | |
1973 | 66 Doing... | 15 Doing... | 2 | 83 | Y | |
1972 | 72 Y | 17 Y | 1 Y | 90 | Y | |
1971 | 93 | 13 | 4 | 110 | Y | |
1970 | 74 | 25 | 5 | 104 | Y | |
1969 | 69Y | 24Y | 6Y | 99 | Y | |
1968 | 60Y | 17Y | 8Y | 85 | Y | |
1967 | 48 Done | 28 Done | 9 Done | 85 | Y | |
1966 | 86 Doing... | 11 Doing... | 18 Y | 115 | Y | |
TOTAL | 4,215 | 1,236 | 55 | 152 | 5,658 |
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Professional snowboarder who does not appear to meet Wikipedia:Notability (sports). The article claims notability based on his fan following, but that is not supported by sources and the Ghits for his name are either trivial mentions or sources that don't meet WP:RS. bonadea contributions talk 09:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete as hoax. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 05:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No source, possible hoax, can't find anything on google. In any case, fails WP:NFF Rob Sinden (talk) 09:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete The information about the company appears to be within the Enigma: Rising Tide page, and there is no advocacy for a redirect. Mandsford 17:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural nomination. I've declined a speedy on this, as Enigma: Rising Tide (published by this firm) has its own article so it's conceivable that the firm is notable, but as it stands the article has no third party sources at all, and a quick skim doesn't show any third-party coverage (although videogame magazines don't always make it online, so that's not evidence of absence). Procedural nomination, so I abstain. – iridescent 08:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone over the notability guidelines for organizations and this one seems to fail the necessary tests. The company was very small, existed only very briefly, contained no notable individuals, and other than the above-mentioned video game, does not appear to have done anything other than file a lawsuit in the U.K. I vote for delete. KDS4444Talk 09:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Meritorious individual who does not meet the notability guidelines. Please see previous nomination. Nothing appears to have changed with the passage of a year. Bongomatic 08:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence that he passes our notability guidelines in article and a search didn't turn up evidence that he invented 'pin art', although he may have been the first to patent it. Dougweller (talk) 07:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article has been speedily deleted. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no indication of why this person is notable, since simply being arrested on suspicion of money laundering is not in itself qualification for a Wikipedia article. As the only reference source provided is in Arabic, accusations of terrorism and money laundering also present WP:BLP problems. Speedy deletion tag was removed by an ip editor without comment. --DAJF (talk) 06:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unnotable software. Logan Talk Contributions 06:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of independent citations to confirm notability. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 02:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep The additions made by User:Phil Bridger address the initial concerns of sourcing and of whether the subject was notable. Mandsford 17:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fails GNG. For example, a search in Le Monde + "Gérard Boulanger" -[53] results in no hits at all. In the alternative, the article fails WP:POLITICIAN - "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability" Shirt58 (talk) 14:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A single market, non-charting, non-major release such as this is not notable per WP:NALBUMS -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 22:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. I would suggest that a merger discussion may be appropriate. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A non-charting, non-major release such as this is not notable per WP:NALBUMS -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 22:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Page was created 7 September 2010 and immediately tagged for Speedy deletion. This was declined and the creator later added references, which basically are simple examples of the word in use. The talk page claims that it is a widespread term in fishing circles (which may or may not be so), but the Oxford English Dictionary has no angling related reference. In four months, the article has progressed from:
It's been tagged as a dicdef since 12 September, and as a dicdef is pretty poor anyway. Now, surely, it's time for this to go. (Like its creator, who has not returned since 8 Sept.) Emeraude (talk) 23:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 14:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's a high school, and high schools are generally presumed to be notable because they tend to get coverage in a variety of sources. Moreover, this one is a boarding school, meaning that it enrolls students from far and wide -- not just local kids. I searched Google for information on this high school, and I found a diverse variety of ghits. The school competes in a variety of sports, and its name shows up in newspaper articles and sports websites covering a large part of Maryland. They aren't a member of any league (so there's no sports league article to link to), but they compete against a number of other unaffiliated private schools. Other ghits I found include online bios for several alumni (not a source of notability in itself, but an indication of the school's impact in the world), this article about a public school superintendent who formerly taught at the school, a strange item about a group of students who supposedly aim to set a world record for jet-skiing across the Atlantic Ocean, this article about Dorothy Bush Koch (George W. Bush's sister) giving an interview to the school paper, and a Google News teaser about a paywall-protected news article from 1975 about some sort of scandal involving a pretzel company that was somehow related to the school. I didn't find any monographs about the school (which seldom exist for schools), but I found plenty of less significant items that collectively lead me to conclude that it's notable. --Orlady (talk) 21:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a non-notable person. The IMDB references appear to fail verification unless I am missing something, and the national geographic article does not mention him that I can tell. there is this, but if I have trouble accepting that the website creator is notable based on that article if the website is not (and if the website is notable, why not just have a sentence on him there)? VQuakr (talk) 05:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable career minor leaguer who was not active last season, hence not likely to ever be notable in the future. Deleted twice in the past already, ha. Muboshgu (talk) 04:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can't find any WP:RS to attest to the WP:N of this artist. Fails WP:CREATIVE. Also, problems with WP:AUTO, WP:COI, and WP:SPA. The article was moved from a user space with the same name. Qworty (talk) 04:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Topic clearly notable, article sourced and a basis for further development. JohnCD (talk) 22:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apparent original research, since there are no sources. Also, this is an essay, not something that would be acceptable as an encyclopedia article. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 04:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted by Athaenara (talk · contribs); rationale was "G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion". Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:Notability If he had actually WON Mr. Southeast Asia, it still would of been dubious at best. He didn't and I don't see anything else here that qualifies as notability. Declined PROD. Safiel (talk) 03:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Safiel, I decline your message to delete Rhed Martin in Wikipedia, Indeed, all the content about him in wikipedia are accurately true.
He won as First Runner Up in Mr. South East Asia which was held last December 3 - 5, 2010.
With the events following details:
Host Country - Indonesia /Batam
Host Committee - Sky Entertainment
Festival Date - 3rd/4Th/5Th December 2010
Festival Producer - International World Pageants
Festival Chairman - Mr. Sunny Oii
Malaysia Licence Holder - YinZi Yoga Center
Singapore Licence Holder - In Queenz
Philippines Licence Holder - Artistudio
Indonesia Licence Holder - Sky Entertainment
Also this is for the event in South East Asia called "South East Asian Festival of Beauty and Friendship 2010"
The reference in this article are reliable. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neogenesis01 (talk • contribs) 03:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted by User:RHaworth (A7: Article about a company, corporation, organization, or group, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject) Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing to suggest that a Quality Assurance Program implemented by Kaiser International is notable in its own right. Stephen 03:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. NW (Talk) 02:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable high school football coach. Jrcla2 (talk) 02:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. NW (Talk) 02:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable hairstylist; only source is IMDB and the subject's own website. Much of article is unsourced regardless. Author contested prod. OSborn arfcontribs. 02:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. NW (Talk) 02:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Insufficiently notable. Source is questionable. Marcus Qwertyus 02:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. NW (Talk) 02:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Subject isn't notable. Article written as advertising. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 02:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete g4, repost, see last comment below. NawlinWiki (talk) 04:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable and unsourced low budget film. Author contested prod. OSborn arfcontribs. 02:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete per A7 by Diannaa. Non-admin closure. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 04:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable individual lacking Ghits and GNEWS of substance. Fails WP:BIO. Should be Speedy deleted, but suspected author sockpuppet keeps removing the CSD. ttonyb (talk) 02:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete per A7 by Dreadstar. Non-admin closure. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 04:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article lacks reliable sources. Works are self-published and article is an advert. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 02:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Fair City. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing to prove notability, not even existence. Only external link is broken. Page contains no real world information but only some piece of a plot. Magioladitis (talk) 01:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I proposed this article for deletion because I didn't think it met Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Golf. The proposed deletion template was removed on the grounds that the subject meets the general notability requirement. I'm not convinced of this, however. There is some coverage in third-party sources, but this only really amounts to coverage of golf tournaments that aren't at a high enough level for the golf notability guideline. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
— donmanguno (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Only source 2 looks reliable; the others don't seem to have any authority. Search for further sourcing came up empty. Prod declined. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 01:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 03:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
notability.. no refs other the allmusic. original article creator, removing valid additional citations tags without addressing it. Tracer9999 (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of links to stuff created by the company but I cannot see anybody writing about it. Unsurprisingly, the author's husband works for the company. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 01:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that I have this evening added three notable links to news stories regarding Expansive Media. As previously stated I am new to Wikipedia so this took me a while to work out how to edit correctly. All comments are greatly appreciated and, given the opportunity, I aim to amend the article ASAP, as required, to ensure that it remains both relavent and live. Could you please give me a few pointers on what areas of the article are considered 'spammy'. I have attempted to make the piece balanced and the addition of the ASA and Media Week references appear to validate this. Could I be given examples as why this article is spammy or less news worthy than an example such as this UK company : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imagine_Publishing Many thanks Julie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juemason (talk • contribs) 23:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted by JamesBWatson (talk · contribs); rationale was "G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: A7: Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject"
Non-notable businessman who fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Also has problems with WP:AUTO and WP:COI Qworty (talk) 00:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the first AfD, I said "Non-notable product. No independent sourcing to back up any of the claims in the article." Although some sources have been added, the root problems remain. The only independent source is the China Business Review story, but it discusses business in Chongqing and makes only a passing reference to Bashan. The remaining sources are non-independent, as they're websites of the manufacturer, importer, or resellers. Accordingly, the product does not appear to have received significant coverage in reliable sources—and fails the general notability guidelines. I had tagged it for speedy deletion under criterion G4, but that's been turned down, so I'm opening a second AfD discussion. —C.Fred (talk) 00:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that this needs to be deleted. Clearly it's all marketing, and all of that material needs to be removed, but I don't agree that it is without any notability. ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 07:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Previously the subject of an AFD in 2008 which received relatively few comments. I have tried to source as part of the unreferenced BLP drive, but can't find any substantial secondary sources about this woman. As part of the drive, I've learnt that there are many of these Miss Canada (insert version) crowns, and given the lack of sources it seems clear to me that this person doesn't meet the grade per WP's notability criteria. Delete. Slp1 (talk) 00:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Generally non notable group which also fails WP:BAND. Mattg82 (talk) 01:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable podcast, page creator objected against speedy deletion. Epass (talk) 01:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When searing "John Draper Interview" on google the first page (under video results) lists DeAuthThis's episodes 3 interviewing John Draper http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=1920&bih=1033&q=john+draper+interview&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai= interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zH_hkZwBo18 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acer5050 (talk • contribs) 01:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. -- Cirt (talk) 03:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Blogger of questionable notability. Very little significant coverage in independent publications - Google news search only shows one reference. Most other sources found are blogs or of questionable verifiability. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notability as a blogger has already been established as the creator of a "blog to watch", as referenced in the 2007 Daily Front Row article.
Bawana90210 (talk) 13:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no evidence of notability of this band. The article contains no independent sources, despite being tagged since September 2010, and searches have failed to produce any independent sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am the bass player and founder member of the band The Reasoning. I see our page is up for deletion. Not quite sure how this process works but I have to say that all the information here is correct. It could be worded better and I will endeavour to do that, but everything stated is true. I have no idea where the guys disputing this got their information from. Anyway,if anyone wants to contact me about this matter, please forward all correspondence to info@thereasoning.com.
Thank you.
Matthew Cohen The Reasoning — Preceding unsigned comment added by MattBass6 (talk • contribs) 13:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 05:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable junior hockey player who has not yet established himself to meet notability requirements per WP:NHOCKEY. I am not able to verify claim that he has played in KHL. Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball Dolovis (talk) 16:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Consensus here actually seems to be that all articles of this type should go, I suggest opening a wider discussion or a mass afd on that subject. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The previous nomination was back in October, before there was any real content in the article. In the past day, the article was created using text from other articles. It is a complete content fork, I suppose trying to make a prose version of Category:2011 meteorology. For convenience, I linked in the article where all of the sections come from.
The main reason I'm proposing deletion is because it's January 17th, and the article already has a lot of (redundant) info. There simply will be too much for it to be stable by the end of the year. As I mentioned in a previous AFD that was "no consensus", there is no scope of the article, just a mish mash of everything weather related in one article. Again, that is what categories are for. Might I point out that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, nor is it a directory. While the article is currently in decent shape, that is only because it copies for content from five different articles. The previous article can show how the article quickly turns to messiness when it tries to cover every last storm. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would include every tropical and extra tropical event because there are in some way related to this article. I dont have the strength to oppose each and every person. If you feel that this article is useless in every way, you may delete it right away! --Anirudh Emani (talk) 14:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. NW (Talk) 02:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These two articles consist of a long list of proteins, an even longer list of references and some statistical analysis. They have been created by text-mining analysis ("as published in the last 500 newest PubMed entries") and thus constitute original research. I don't see anything of encyclopedic value that could be salvaged into the main articles on autophagy and SUMO protein. MichaK (talk) 09:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dubious notability. Sources are not significant or independent. No real notability; just being the son of a rapper doesn't mean that he is automatically notable. Ei1sos (talk) 21:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]