The result was delete. The article does have sources, though, as people have pointed out, these centre on the view of one person. The article is about a term, and the term was first used in 2009, and despite searches, is clear that it is hardly used as yet. WP:NOTNEO does not completely forbid articles on neologisms - however, they would need to be more widely used by more sources than this one. It is possible there may be an article on this term in a year or two, and I'm willing to userfy on request. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
not notable -Abhishikt 00:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Comment: Moved article from WP:Articles for deletion/2nd to WP:Articles for deletion/Atheism 3.0 per convention. — Jess· Δ♥ 00:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Consensus here is that cleanup is the required action here, not deletion. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 00:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is a lot of evidence that the school exits, but I could not find any third party coverage. Besides that, the article looks like an advertisement and copyvio (although I can't find that too) and totally lacks references and sources. The article is fundamentally flawed, so it is better to start an article about the school from scratch. Night of the Big Wind talk 23:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. I'm sorry Truebloodforever but the consensus is that she's not notable yet. Also, please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominating on behalf of 67.246.30.214. The user does not believe that her accomplishments meet the notability requirements: her Big Brother appearance only reached fourth place, and her other activities are minor. I don't have an opinion on this. --Carnildo (talk) 23:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Specifically noting that recreation/undeletion is merited as soon as some sourcing emerges Spartaz Humbug! 06:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable homeopathic "hospital" bobrayner (talk) 00:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. In the absence of further comments, not worth a second relisting DGG ( talk ) 03:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No indications that this company meets relevant criteria for inclusion. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 16:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not-specifically-notable highly specific type of business-record management. Somewhere between thinly veiled spam for one company that provides this type of service and a long-term WP:NOTDIR magnet for lots of them. DMacks (talk) 14:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Planking (fad). SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not for games that were made up a few weeks ago Singularity42 (talk) 22:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 06:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Brunstad Christian Church. The entity does not appear to be notable in its own right. Wikipeterproject (talk) 21:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Just noting that being quoted doesn't make you notable Spartaz Humbug! 06:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Software developer of questionable notability. Current sources include a deadlink, a NYTimes article, and an article in ZDNet. This might sound all well and good, but the NYTimes article is about his traveling woes and the technology he uses to avoid travelling, but it's not about his work or achievements. The ZDNet article is more about upgrades to Microsoft Visual Studio. Although it quotes Hanselman, the article is not about him. The article does not appear to have sufficient notability as a BLP. I, Jethrobot drop me a line 20:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 00:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable minor actor. No significant coverage in any reliable sources. The only source cited in the article has just one passing mention of him. Nothing I can find indicates that he has ever had more than minor roles. (It is perhaps worth mentioning that the majority of entries in his IMDb page are for TV series in which J.M. Reyes does not appear in the cast list, but other people surnamed Reyes were involved in some way. A good indication of how reliable a source IMDb is.) The majority of Google search hits for "J M Reyes" are for other people of that name, and those which do seem to be him are dominated by Wikipedia, IMDb, Facebook, Twitter, etc. (PROD was removed without explanation.) JamesBWatson (talk) 20:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Issues regarding content disputes should be settled on talk pages, not here. Thanks --Neutralitytalk 19:31, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Problematic list that has been subject to various disputes. The list admits that it is controversial. It is mainly composed of (duplicates) the Member states of the United Nations with some extra territories added, such as Northern Cyprus. The criteria for deciding the extra territories is dubious as it is not based on any official list, but on personal interpretation of complex laws and definitions - which is against WP:OR. Wikipedians should not be arguing/debating/deciding what constitutes a country or a sovereign state - we should be reporting what reliable sources have determined. Suggest that useful sourced material relating to the UN list should be merged to Member states of the United Nations, and this title redirected to Lists of countries and territories. SilkTork ✔Tea time 19:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mkativerata (talk) 23:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Self-promotional article on a non-notable piece of software; no independent coverage in sources, no signs of notability. Created by obviously self-promotional single-purpose account (Meetthedev (talk · contribs)). Earlier PROD was removed by article creator. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy keep - non-admin closure: nomination withdrawn. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 20:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Title and text do not fit. Article is about an actress. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 18:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The two Albert Martins seem to be notable, and have articles, but there is no evidence that this particular firm is associated with them or their family, especially since their firm seems to have a different name. Thus there is no evidence that this firm is notable, even accounting for the content that was removed. Rlendog (talk) 00:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article was deprodded by the article creator after adding information about a family which appears to be affiliated with the organization. While the family may be notable (and in fact one member already has an article), it does not appear that there are any reliable sources available through google and bing searches to establish the notability of the company, hence we are at AfD. This organizations appears to fail WP:ORG. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 02:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 20:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:PORNBIO, WP:ENT, and the GNG; no relevant, nontrivial GNews or GBooks hits despite the scattered laundry lists of porn performers. No reliable sourcing says that the porn performer and the very minor wrestler are the same person; the porn performer is described as 5'7", green eyes, brunette, while the wrestler is described as 5'10", brown eyes, black hair. In any event, the combined coverage for however many performers use this almost-generic name is insufficient to meet the GNG or any relevant SNG. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 20:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
the website itself says that this is in preproduction and announcements will be made later. this might not happen at all. PTJoshua (talk) 16:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 06:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lacks WP:NOTABILITY. A piece of free software that has been downloaded fewer than 800 times, the main source on it is its own documentation. While the actual software title is simply "backup", making it ineffective to simply Google, searching for the article title or for the software author's name with "backup" finds no cites that would confer notability. Nat Gertler (talk) 15:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I find your point about the number of downloads quite irrelavent in that the article is a classic example of multithreading coding in VB.NET using Object Oriented Programming. If your focus is emperical then consider the article has been viewed nearly 81,000 times. It teaches "multithreading" in VB.NET. Just like "hello world" but more advanced teaching on multithreading and VB.NET. The article is the subject, the Backup program is the by-product. And like most good definitions the article and subject teaching separates itself from more classic examples by the fact that it is demonstratable with a useful program called "Backup". This is absolutely essential when defining and teaching a concept like multithreading, OOP and VB.NET. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Howartthou (talk • contribs) 22:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your point about "the New Your Times" is a bit harsh. You should consider this is a specialised subject and that relatively speaking there are not that many VB.NET students or professionals in the world. I agree the entry could be renamed Multithreading Backup Utility and the introduction/empahisis revised. But your point about "Notability" also seems harsh, again you must consider the audience for this subject matter is limited and while the article may provide a useful example and definition I get the impression that unless something is popular it just ain't good enough for wiki. Can't say I agree with your poiny around popularity a.k.a. "Notability". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Howartthou (talk • contribs) 23:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For what it is worth regarding notibility, if you read the "forum" comments at the end of the article (at the Code Project web site), it should be evident that my work has been used as a published source to create similar backup software and is also likely to have been used as a template for authoring new threading software using OOD techniques in the article. Unfortunately those "students" of my work are not likely to have published a reference to my work. It should be obvious however that the article itself is a learning aide and that the Code Project is actually referencing my work, which I published from my laptop to the code project web site. The code project in this context is the publisher..--Howartthou (talk) 12:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi All, I have just "moved" the article to Multithreading Backup Utility and changed the emphasis and also added some "notability" for your feedback.--Howartthou (talk) 12:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I should apolgise for "moving" the entry, I did not read the deletion notice properly until just now. Hope this link helps: Multithreading Backup Utility Howartthou (talk) 12:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)--Howartthou (talk) 12:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oy Vey, since when did "conflict of interest" as a term become wikipedia specific?? And where is the notability of this new wikipedia specific term called "conflict of interest"? I am sure wikipedia is full of terms and definitions ("conflict of interest" being a perfect example of wikipedia itself inventing terms without notability. The article now meets wiki requirements better than many existing terms in wiki I am sure...I suspect you are being hypocritical. --Howartthou (talk) 22:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, i have yet to understand your discrimation against forums as a notable reference?? I also do not understand how a forum posting is "self published". I did not publish these references, other people and experts did that, I don't even know them. Please clarify, I read the wiki defnition and still don't see how the references are "self published". By the way, I did not intend to make accusations against you, and if I did it is by want of a better choice of words. Everything I have said here I believe relevant to the definition in question. I don't think I need to be redirected to other areas of wiki. I am responding here to this article, as per its purpose, I remain unconvinced regarding your notability point and do not wish to digress from the purpose of this "right of reply" to your proposal to delete his entry. I believe I have revised the article in accordance with your concerns and wiki requirements. --Howartthou (talk) 02:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay Nat, that (Deep Dictionary) wasn't the best reference I agree, in fact it is probably the worst, but it does not mean it has not been viewed numerous times, nor does it mean that it wasn't used to find the original article. I agree that particlar reference is quite weak on appearances. But definately not "self published", and certainly nothing to do with me. Regardless, I have done all I can to respond to your concerns, I don't think there is much more I can do, and not much more I can add to what I have already said. --Howartthou (talk) 05:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 20:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article is about an actor lacking coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. It appears that he has played some monsters in a few Japanese monster movies. The Japanese wikipedia article lacks sources but lists a couple of more acting credits. Searching for the name in Japanese didn't turn up anything that appeared to be a reliable source. Whpq (talk) 14:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 06:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
article fails to establish notability - the article fails WP:GNG, WP:BLP and WP:RS - all references in the article are from unreliable sources. Amsaim (talk) 12:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After careful review, article QUALIFIES to stay on wikipedia for the following reasons. 1. It meets the Verifiability WP:RELIABLE, 2. it meets all criteria for Notability Please see and compare to article WP:NRVE, WP:GNG, WP:BLP and WP:RS. Finally all references in this articles are from RELIABLE SOURCES, please refer to WP:SOURCES and WP:NEWSBLOG as clearly indicated in the article. Please see article's Reference List! B'RobbyIn your own opinion, what establishes Notability if I may ask because the refs clearly establishes the subject's notability. If you still challenge this, research the refs, kindly discuss and suggest instead of deleting. Please read WP:DONTBITE--Dawizard47 (talk) 15:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. In a case like this policy requires the keep side to produce sources and not just assume they exist. Spartaz Humbug! 06:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While this company may possibly be the continuation of a possibly notable business (Walter Somers Material Handling), it manifestly fails the General notability guidelines. As always, my best wishes to this enterprise, its owners, its managers and its employees. Shirt58 (talk) 11:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I totally understand your viewpoint but this is a business with a multi-million pound turnover and well over 10,000 items of installed equipment in the UK, most of which have a five-figure valuation. This business supplies major customers in the UK bus, coach, waste collection and haulage sectors and cater for the lifting needs of the UK MOD. As well as these blue-chip national accounts, STKare also caters for small independent garages from Inverness to Plymouth.--Kingswinford92 (talk) 13:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Aaron Brenneman (talk) 12:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A recent afd indicated a similar kind of page to be categorized and then deleted.
The difference I see between this page and that page is that a Native American is a porous definition that involves ethnicity, while an African American has more to do if you look African or not. Another problem with List of African American women is that many ethnicities cross the US borders, and such an intersection of ethnicity and polity seems spurious.Curb Chain (talk) 10:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed.[3] Please see Wikipedia:Alternative outlets for alternatives. Wikipedia articles are not:
This needs to be deleted per this policy @-Kosh► Talk to the Vorlons►Markab-@ 16:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. No prejudice against creating the redirect suggested below, if anyone feels that would be worthwhile. Rlendog (talk) 20:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As per WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL. Nikthestoned 09:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Various suggestions for improvement short of deletion have been made. Sandstein 10:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is just a shell around ((ListOfMuseumsByUSStateTOC)), which is itself a navbox rather than a table of contents. There are two possible solutions here: deleting the article and converting the template into a proper navbox for transclusion on appropriate topics, or deleting the template and transmogrifying its current contents into a list article at this title. A somewhat nonstandard use of AfD, but as one or the other will require deletion we might as well have it here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 20:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Declined PROD: concern = Non notable subsidiary of a larger organisation. Sources provided are purely promotional. Fails WP:ORG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 06:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Original research (one edit summary suggests it's a student essay), I can't find this discussed in the academic literature mentioned. Not sure what the numbers at the ends of sentences represent. Dougweller (talk) 09:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 20:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MADEUP, non-notable neologism per WP:NEO, zero mentions online outside of this article and its mirrors. Prod contested by IP sockpuppet. Gurt Posh (talk) 08:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 20:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A "House Music Producer, DJ, Remixer and Label Owner". Has released two singles and some remixes. No references in the article and unable to find any. Bgwhite (talk) 08:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 06:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A rapper. First album will be released in fall 2011. Has released only three singles. Believe this is a case of Too Soon. Bgwhite (talk) 08:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable at present. Manning (talk) 12:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. This seems particularly appropriate given the expansion of the article with sources since it was nominated for deletion. Rlendog (talk) 20:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contains no information not on parent page Juncus effusus - only a horticultural forma, not a separate taxa Michael Goodyear (talk) 06:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 20:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable band. This article has been here for three years with no improvements to indicate notability. The article was deleted once before. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 05:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. There is no policy that playing for junior international sides confers notability Spartaz Humbug! 06:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable footballer. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 05:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete both. Rlendog (talk) 19:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 05:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. according to the clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 23:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. according to the consensus and the references DGG ( talk ) 23:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was KEEP. The consensus below is overwhelming that this is a highly notable topic with sustained international coverage and international consequences with lasting import. No BLP issues that cannot be addressed by normal editing and discussion have been identified. postdlf (talk) 15:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article current violates WP:BLP and WP:NOTNEWS. Until such time as these particular items are addressed, this article should be relocated to a user space or the incubator. Avanu (talk) 04:01, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Reminder - Although this is under an 'Article for Deletion' template, the options offered in the rationale include Userfication and Incubation, not just a straight Delete. -- Avanu (talk) 06:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]
*Keep per Qrsdogg. So soon at AfD again? Did they give him back his job at IMF making this affair of no long term consequence? FuFoFuEd (talk) 10:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article previously speedy deleted. This version has been prodded with that prod removed by article creator. Only secondary reference is still on talk page, and goes to a local news article that barely mentions organization. Google search returns no secondary mentions. | Uncle Milty | talk | 03:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Zidichov (Hasidic dynasty). We have to conclude this eventually, and I think the best compromise is to merge, per Yoninah, whom I ask to do the necessary. DGG ( talk ) 23:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. J04n(talk page) 18:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Courcelles 00:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable Boolyme बूलीमी Chat बोलो!! 16:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. No consensus to delete, although many agree that editorial improvement such as merging or renaming is appropriate. Sandstein 10:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Almost nonsensical. The article lacks any real direction, deriving a large amount of body text from a very partial history of cycling, which has nothing to do with the lead text. None of the sources have anything to do with what the article is about. If all the unusable stuff were to be stripped out, we'd have a colloqualism, better fit for Urban Dictionary than for Wikipedia. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. No argument for deletion advanced, SK 1 Courcelles 00:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
-SubashChandran007 ׀ sign! 03:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
say what? what is this? sounds like some hoax ... food? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was based upon the rough consensus below, and the policies and guidelines referenced. The points regarding the "in universe" coverage and the applicability of those guidelines do have merit, but have failed to reach any definitive conclusion and were not supported by later editor's contributions. This argument was overridden by the lack of significant coverage to meet the general notability guidelines. Delete. Aaron Brenneman (talk) 12:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is cited story - maybe interesting, maybe important for Buran people but it is not article, it is summarized story. Bulwersator (talk) 21:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was nomination withdrawn. As an Timorese international he clearly meets WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG, and who has not played in a fully pro league or for his country's national team. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete without prejudice. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been around since March 2008 but has no other sources except for the group's web page. I searched Google for "Sic Sic" Bowling Green and did not find significant coverage in reliable sources. ... discospinster talk 01:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 00:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No indication of notability per WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC. Claims of working with Jermaine Dupri, etc. are unverified. Google search for "Yung Ryze" ryzin results in precisely one page. No significant coverage in multiple reliable sources are found by a name search. ... discospinster talk 00:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 00:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced... BLP? Unable to find reliable, secondary sources which mention this chief, otherwise he'd seem arguably notable. Note that this is clearly distinct from Sardar Fateh Muhammad Umrani, and I'm assuming distinct from Sardar Aziz Umrani (who was killed last year.) Additional sources welcomed. joe deckertalk to me 00:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 16:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet WP:ATH#Golf and does not otherwise appear to meet WP:GNG. RonSigPi (talk) 14:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 06:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unremarkable musician in a band that plays for somebody else's solo career. StrikerforceTalk Review me! 13:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. mentions don't require merging, just add a line and the consensus is this doesn't merit a standalone article Spartaz Humbug! 06:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced non-notable governing body of open source project. Not your siblings' deletionist (talk) 03:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
no real notability shown for this bio. says he is best known for a single remix on one website OverClocked ReMix. nothing satisfying wp:music. none of the sources provided are independent and reliable,lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. album not on important label. prod removed, "potential for expansion using outside sources, new album incoming". WP:CRYSTAL duffbeerforme (talk) 00:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Notabiltiy is not inherited, and no evidence of notability has been provided for this competition. Courcelles 00:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
nothing in gnews [40]. all google shows is non third party sources. nothing third party and indepth. this is simply a results listing with no indication of wider notability. LibStar (talk) 07:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 16:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article talk page and the article originator's user page gives a detailed reason as to why this person is notable, but I can't verify any of it with SIGNIFICANT coverage in INDEPENDENT RELIABLE SOURCES. Plenty of press releases, youtube hits, myspace pages etc, but I can't find anything independent or reliable. The-Pope (talk) 08:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 16:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A non-self-contained article that requires multiple accesses to external pages to understand. Edit tags in place for several years without improvement. Melcombe (talk) 09:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Courcelles 00:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem to have been subject to significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, only to a lot of directory listings of churches etc. and as the birthplace of a couple of D-list people. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 11:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 16:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unable to find any coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP of a Mexican voice acrtress. J04n(talk page) 21:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 16:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N, WP:V: Unable to find reliable, secondary sources which evidence the notability of this author. However, the lack of translation of the name leaves me wondering if there are non-English sources I lack access to, so, as always, additional sources welcome. joe deckertalk to me 21:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 16:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After an online check, I am not convinced this man is notable and worth an article. The article is almost a copy from here.Night of the Big Wind (talk) 22:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]