The result was delete. The "keep" opinions do not address the relevant inclusion criteria, are unpersuasive and/or are made by WP:SPAs; see also this AfD's talk page. Sandstein 05:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No indication of WP:notability. Article creator appears to have a WP:conflict of interest. No independent WP:reliable sources. Disputed prod noq (talk) 23:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprise of your request! Ancestris's page is correct comparison other software's page! You can't delete this page on your standard without delete all other page. Something else Ancestris is one of the fews genealogical softwares who respect really the GedCom standard! Else Ancestris can works on all platform's OS. Else It's rare Java's software in genealogy. Delete this page is a big mistake for all persons. It's a good page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yannig38 (talk • contribs) 22:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated on behalf of User:Bus stop (nomination partially completed). The issue here might be either tone or being a neologism, not sure. I am neutral. Raymie (t • c) 23:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable, no notability asserted, no references, No sources, not even a single Google hit other than social networking sites. Also appears to be an auto-biography Velella Velella Talk 22:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. However, I do see the nominator's point and IMHO this was not a frivolous nomination. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm seeing a lot of external links, but no significant coverage of the court docket as a concept, in reliable sources. ╟─TreasuryTag►Subsyndic General─╢ 22:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Owen× ☎ 00:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Sources do not establish notability of this Internet marketing agency. Fails the Google and Gnews test. Wikipedia is not a business directory. The sources that do exist don't count under WP:COMPANY. Any notability of the founder of the company is not inherited by the company either. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Delete as nominator) This article is a non-encyclopedic essay on pot smoking. One flimsy reference. Contains how-to, OR, anecdotes, ect. Mjpresson (talk) 21:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This was Prodded but, because it has a fair number of references, I think that it needs wider consideration, hopefully by editors with some knowledge of the field. The original Prod reason was "Fails WP:GNG". Procedural nomination on which I have no view. TerriersFan (talk) 21:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:23, 22 June 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)) . |
Is this "youngest journalist in the Kingdom of Morrocco" really notable? Indeed, there is no trace whatsoever that his work as a journalist is notable in any way. He is just "publicized" to be notable at present (being the youngest), but I am afraid that notability here is just temporary. Azurfrog (talk) 21:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The European Patent Office link is dead. There is no significant coverage of this concept to impart notability. And the article really isn't much more than a very fluffy and obvious definition of the term "docketing software" – which is fairly self-explanatory anyway! There doesn't even seem to be anything especially worth merging. ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 20:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 17:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The eBook this article is based off of is complete nonsense, it's not worthy of an encyclopedic entry and since the claims regarding it being the worlds longest novel are completely unsubstantiated I don't think there is any need to keep this article . Alphaswitch91 (talk) 20:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot find sufficient indicia of notability or this person. Others are welcome to try. Tagged for notability since 2009. Epeefleche (talk) 19:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep; nomination withdrawn and there are no outstanding delete !votes. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk 21:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I like to have the opinion of the community if this article is an advertisement or not. It is too beautiful, almost bragging. I don't have a good feeling about this just 5 years old institute. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 19:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please close this AfD and keep the article. I am convinced. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 21:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete per consensus and as an unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nonnotable person Kerowyn Leave a note 19:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Consensus is that it's not useful in this form and would need a sourced rewrite. Sandstein 19:52, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This unsourced article has been around for four years and has not been expanded beyond its current length of three sentences. Should be merged with Fabric or deleted. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Scotty, please confirm that you were the editor who made this edit - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Technical_fabric&diff=415918495&oldid=368079461 in which you seriously degraded the original article, giving no sources or reasons of your own; and 10 minutes later, removed all of PKM's suggestions for mergers.
This article was originally created as part of a major clean-up and expansion of the fabrics categories, as a joint project between myself and PKM. It is a well known phrase describing a class of fabrics, which overlaps with other similar phrases suggested by PKM. The stub was far from perfect, but was a good addition to the set of fabrics articles.
Unless you are prepared to restore the integrity of the original stub, and/or give good reasons for your actions, in (a) degrading it, (b) effectively replacing a number of good merger suggestions with your own deletion, I see your combined set of actions as entirely destructive, lacking in good faith and I will oppose you. Bards (talk) 00:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. CSD A7. There's nothing in the article that sets this company apart from all the other paper mills. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not a notable company. Drmies (talk) 18:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Lemonade_Mouth_(film)#Sequel. and deleting history per consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence that this film has commenced principal photography. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep CBD 22:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly, this article does not meet the notability. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 17:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Under what criteria do you argue that this isn't notable enough for its own page? There are plenty of pages that are a list of a summary of the characters of a multi-season show, even if the show itself is no longer in production (see here, here, here, here etc.). What consensus are you using to show that this series is not notable enough to have a list of its characters, and are you proposing that all "List of x characters" pages be deleted? You need to demonstrate that this page is different from and less notable than the countless other List of Character pages that exist, otherwise, I don't really see how this is "clearly" not notable. Bstbll (talk) 19:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems fine to me, agree with Bstball Alphaswitch91 (talk) 20:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further, given that you concede that the list is not entirely OR ("the majority of the content is WP:OR"), and because the main article has no character descriptions at all but instead just links to this list, this is at most a merger candidate. Which means that the scalpel of normal editing must determine what to trim from this list and whether it can fit into the parent article, as opposed to the wrecking ball of AFD. Can you at least agree that normal editing and discussion should have been attempted first, before taking this to AFD?
Lastly, to whatever extent the Manual of Style section WP:SALAT or the notability guideline WP:LISTN would "prohibit" this list (I don't see where the former is clear at all on this point, and the latter is incomplete at best in its descriptions of practice), it is contrary to the consensus repeatedly demonstrated at AFD, for both split-off TV series character lists and episode lists. postdlf (talk) 15:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. v/r - TP 23:23, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I took this to AFD over CSD because this version of the article seemed to be an improvement from previous incarnations, but still delete worthy. Though the band has since released an album through a notable label, the album didn't receive any coverage from reliable sources, and the label has since gone under. In fact, none of the sources present appear to meet WP:RS. I still don't see this band meeting WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG guidelines. Fezmar9 (talk) 16:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. v/r - TP 23:23, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article on singer. I cannot find sufficient support in the RSs to reflect wp, per wp standards. Others are welcome to try. Epeefleche (talk) 23:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. The article has been rewritten and much expanded in recent days so the older opinions may no longer be (entirely) applicable. Can be renominated if somebody thinks the current version is still fundamentally problematic. Sandstein 19:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Original research on a news story that otherwise wouldn't be covered in an encyclopedia. MBisanz talk 02:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. v/r - TP 23:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Although this company appears to have many connection to government contracts, this article feels like a resume. What is WP:N about this company? Phearson (talk) 06:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 06:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not convinced by this term's notability. It may have occurred in some works of Michael Albert, but it does not seems to have been used very much (if at all) outside the writings of the aforementioned author. The article does not contain anything which could not be described in other pages such as Bureaucratic collectivism, New class, State capitalism, etc. Moreover, as far as I know, no single existing political system has ever defined itself as "coordinatorist". IMHO, the article could be deleted, or perhaps merged with the Michael Albert article (or we could just delete without merging, and mention the concept in Michael Albert).
The result was delete. v/r - TP 23:26, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article was originally put up for speedy on A7 as there were no claims of notability. It was contested by the article's creator claiming this is the oldest publication of its type in the UK (although I'm not sure that would even confer notability on its own if confirmed in reliable sources), so I have removed the speedy. But I am still unable to find any reliable source coverage to establish notability or confirm that fact. This appears to fail WP:COMPANY and WP:GNG, as there is no evidence of anything notable in any reliable sources. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. v/r - TP 23:26, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article was Proded, endorsed, and then deproded (with no explanation), so we are at AfD. Appears to fail WP:NBOOK as I am unable to find any major reliable source reviews or award coverage in reliable sources. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 14:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. Since the nominator is not really advocating deletion I'm going to be bold and close this under WP:SK 1. I'm also going to remove the "notability" tag from this article as a personal editorial decision. Anybody who disagrees is welcome to renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed prod. Concern was "Unreferenced biography (both external links are dead). Contains questionable unsourced claims (see Talk:Éliane Jeannin-Garreau." LordVetinari 14:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The suggestion of "questionable claims" is absolutely right: this woman was certainly not "the right hand person" to the leader of the French Resistance! These questionable claims should be removed, but you can do that using the normal editing process. It's not necessary to use AfD.
That she was an active Resistance Member, that she was captured and tortured by the Nazis, that she had a street named in her honour and she subsequently wrote a book about her experiences, are all well-attested and verifiable facts. She seems to be of modest but genuine historical importance, sufficient to establish her notability in Wikipedia's terms.—S Marshall T/C 16:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 17:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any evidence that he meets our criteria at WP:People. Dougweller (talk) 14:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 17:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Expired Prod. Prod reasoning, "Non-notable personal project with no references beyond the creator's and friends' personal pages and a message group". Perhaps wider consensus can determine notability. Hu12 (talk) 13:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. v/r - TP 23:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of notability. No independent sources cited. (Article was Proposed for deletion, and PROD was removed by the author of the article without explanation.) JamesBWatson (talk) 12:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. v/r - TP 23:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no evidence at all of notability. The article gives no independent sources, and searching produces no significant coverage, most of what there is being on Wikipedia or Wikipedia mirrors. In fact, the best I have found is http://www.caledonontario.com/getting-around.html, which says "growing population prompted local resident Darren Parberry to start a trial bus service with two routes, called Métis Transit Limited, which ran briefly in 2006". The article was deleted following a PROD, with the reason given as "Defunct transit system. Googling for this transit company indicates that it barely ever existed at all. It is not clear how the single bus operated actually ran, but it can't have been more than a month. At current time, it lives on only in the form of the very broken website, and there does not appear to be any actual plans for it to resume operating. As it was almost non-existent from its conception, it isn't particularly notable or encyclopedic." The talk page says "Métis Transit was a very short lived and somewhat deluded attempt at running a transit service by its owner. It owned one bus and VERY briefly in 2006. It is now quite dead. The only reason the article does not reflect this is that the owner has edited it to reflect his own vies (see history)." The article has been undeleted following a request for undeletion by the user Metistransit (presumably with a conflict of interest). JamesBWatson (talk) 12:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC) JamesBWatson (talk) 12:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable documentary (unfortunately). Has not progressed beyond three short sentences in three long years! Contested PROD. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. v/r - TP 23:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity autobiography of businessman, unsourced except to his own organization's website (whose name matches the name of the account which created the peacocky article). Orange Mike | Talk 06:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The question is not whether the article has sources, the question is whether the subject is notable. A news google archive search on "Gerard Long" + Alpha turned up a number of articles in reliable news sources.[2] This is a new article put up by an organizatin about its head. Obviously, the author of the article is clueless about how to source a Wikipedia article. That does not mean that the subject is not notable.I.Casaubon (talk) 22:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neither a genre nor a style. While some sources use the term, there's no source that defines it, making most of the article original research. Six words (talk) 16:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete all.
The focus in this discussion rested on a single question--is the Albanian Superliga a "fully professional league" as that term is used in WP:ATHLETE? This question was debated in this AfD and the various policy talk pages at length. Both the weight of the discussions and the few observed shifts of opinion during the discussion lean "no," and thus delete.
Moreover, there was no controversy on the question of whether the ten footballers met WP:GNG, consensus was that they do not. Three participants specifically indicated that the ten footballers did not meet GNG, no counterarguments nor evidence was presented in rebuttal.
Further, I note that WP:ATHLETE begins:
Where WP:ATHLETE gives us an arguably ambiguous answer but WP:GNG provides a clear enough one, the GNG takes precedence. --joe deckertalk to me 19:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he has played in the Albanian Superliga which is listed and sourced as not fully pro at WP:FPL and therefore does not grant notability under WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following articles for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am also adding the following article to the nomination, for the same reason as the ones above. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. joe deckertalk to me 18:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is a simple case of a non-notable band but other editors disagree with me. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 19:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Advertising for a very minor organization and its website. Though it is not clear since their website no longer works. The second link goes to a blog. [Google reveals] that this is almost unknown outside itself. The website is linked from virtually nowhere. Looks like self-promotion. [WP:NOTABILITY] Soosim (talk) 09:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When You Can't Go Home Again—or—How I Became an Anti-Occupation Activist N Ben-Ari - Bridges, 2004 - JSTOR ... 1 was on the Manhattan Bridge enroute to work when I saw the tow- ers on fire. That day set off what was long overdue: my activism. When I met the Jews of Jews Against The Occupation in New York, they were a nov- elty. The Jews of the Gola,9 we said in Israel, were weak. ... Govynn (talk) 21:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. v/r - TP 23:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable without substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. None provided, none found. Prod removed without comment. SummerPhD (talk) 12:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Links:
http://www.geoffknorr.com/knowvg.html - info on video game music Geoff Knorr - Civilization V only. This also contains clickable text for information on 7 leader themes (Arabia, England, Greece, Japan, Mongolia, Ottoman Empire, and Persia.
http://www.squareenixmusic.com/reviews/chris/civilization5.shtml - review of music in Civilization V
http://scorenotes.com/soundtracks/civilizationV.html - another review of music in Civilization V
http://www.squareenixmusic.com/features/interviews/michaelcurran.shtml - Interview of Civilization V composers
http://scorenotes.com/civilization5.html - another Interview of Civilization V composers
http://www.1up.com/do/feature?cId=3181602 - another interview of Civilization V composers
http://www.1up.com/features/music-civilization - info on the music of Civilization V, behind-the-scenes info — Preceding unsigned comment added by OttomanJackson (talk • contribs) 04:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. v/r - TP 23:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
no notability shown for this band. notability is not inherited from Naked in Black!. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Myspace and Last.fm band duffbeerforme (talk) 09:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 17:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not encyclopedic, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. LK (talk) 08:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This page obviously attempts to do something useful and constructive and surprise surprise not one single editor has suggested it might be doing that. Instead all want it deleted because it is so against policy. Deposit is a confusing word and there are plenty of people who want it to remain that way. Nobody can change the article pages because of the small army of editors who arrive to ensure deposit remains a confusing word Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 21:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 19:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:NALBUMS. one gnews hit [13]. otherwise all i could find is directory listings on music websites or customer reviews. [14]. no evidence of charting or significant indepth reliable coverage. LibStar (talk) 08:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 17:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:ORG. a non notable university student organisation. passing mentions in gnews [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?as_q=wollongong&num=10&hl=en&btnG=Search+Archives&as_epq=Queer+Collective&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_user_ldate=&as_user_hdate=&lr=&as_src=&as_price=p0&as_scoring=a. LibStar (talk) 07:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Occupational_sex_segregation. Any useful information can be merged. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another collage which claims to be about sex integration but which in fact is a random assortment of things the creator presumably finds interesting. What useful content there is here is redundant to other articles. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1. Reskin '88, none,
3. Anker '97, Occupational sex segregation (OSS),
4. Hartmann '76, none,
5. Simpson '00, none,
6. Haj '92, none,
7. Etheridge '84, OSS,
8. Ben-Ari '07, none,
10. Bickford '97, none,
14. Psacharopoulos '91, none,
15. Foss '84, none,
16. Sullins '00, none,
17. Chaves '93, none,
18. Chaves '99, none,
19. Fathi '97, none,
20. Hoodfar '04, none,
21. Preston '04, none,
22. Brinton '93, none,
23. Ravanera '02, none, and
27. Svedberg '09, none.
Sex integration articles having none of these are Sex integration and homosexuality and Sex integration. The authors are referenced in the other articles because the other article also addresses an issue that accompanies or is associated with that article. Here is a breakdown of author overlap:
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 18:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notability of List in question, not sure if it is necessary or provable through the links provided. User who created this is trying to advertise for his search engine. Karl 334 ☞TALK to ME ☜ 16:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Inflection. And whoever wants to merge (and source!) stuff should feel free do so from the history. Sandstein 19:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stub that contains no substantive information not covered more thoroughly in Inflection. Duoduoduo (talk) 17:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 18:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No notability established. All refs are blogs or very local papers and may also be from Press releases. Some refs unavialble outside the USA. No hits, No coverage outside Florida Velella Velella Talk 22:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the two articles of note are from 2007 and reference another band the rest fall under WP:SPS and WP:IRS(Ke5crz (talk) 22:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]
The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 21:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A Commodore 64 (c64) musician. "He makes dance/house remixes of C64-SIDs, and in 2002 he released a C64 remix album named Instant Remedy" Album is available for download on c64music.com (article says c64audio.com, which is now dead)... not what sure c64music.com is about. Only info from searches comes from forums and youtube links. Bgwhite (talk) 05:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Bombardment. v/r - TP 23:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This 1-sentence article appears to be a dictionary definition, solely, and as such not appropriate for a wp article. Epeefleche (talk) 03:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 04:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Negative BLP that seems to fail WP:GNG. Just one source and that one is dead. IQinn (talk) 03:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 04:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot find sufficient RS coverage of this band reflecting notability. Others are welcome to try. Epeefleche (talk) 03:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 04:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot find sufficient RS coverage of this singer, reflecting notability. Others are welcome to try. Epeefleche (talk) 02:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. joe deckertalk to me 18:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot find sufficient RS coverage of this singer, reflecting notability. Others are welcome to try. Epeefleche (talk) 02:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 18:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No significant coverage that establish notability. Moray An Par (talk) 12:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. v/r - TP 23:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Town mayors are not notable per WP:Politician. Previous afd cited a "notable" scandal. Link provided is dead. No significant coverage on subject that establishes notability. Moray An Par (talk) 05:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. v/r - TP 23:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable neologism for a musical "up and coming next big thing"; fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NEO. Orange Mike | Talk 01:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. v/r - TP 23:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:BAND. a band with no notable achievements. passing mentions in gnews [19]. LibStar (talk) 02:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All up sufficient coverage to establish notability in their field of music.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 10:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. v/r - TP 23:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This was originally deleted under G11 "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". It was then created via the Articles for creation process. However, I do not see that despite the many references there is enough to show that this meets the guidelines for notability.
While I appreciate the work that has gone into this article, I feel that the provided references are far short of what we would expect to see in an article about a truly notable subject.
As I type, the following references are present in the article:
Although this sounds like nice serviced apartments, that is not enough! I feel that a better place for this article would be at AboutUs.org, Yellowikis, Wikicompany or MyWikiBiz. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, i understand that the article is put up for deletion, may i defend myself on this?
1) Wikipedia is a platform for info, and facts, acting as an encyclopedic reference; i have written this article based on facts and data i collated, though there are points that are read as sounding like an ad, may i know then how i can rephrase them so that it doesnt reflect as one?
2) Wikipedia is for constant updates and inputs of readers who know about a certain topic, so that they can continue adding on; in that case, why should it be considered for deletion almost like within one day after being approved, without letting more readers have the chance to add their knowledge in?
3) Notability -
1) Tripadvisor: what i understand is tripadvisor do screen and have a strict procedure of allowing postings; on what basis are reviews considered non-reliable?
2) the awards listed including HPB and BCA - these are two govt bodies in Singapore, then how should it be for it to be notable?
Alot of times, i see them in print but not listed on website, as such, then how can i prove their notability? I sincerely seek your kind understanding that i am not speaking on behalf or for on the organisation, it is more of a sincerity and determination to understand how i can write an article to ensure that it is notable? I believe alot of contributors who gets their articles rejected have the same question in their minds. Sincerely, we are trying to contribute to wikipedia because we have benefitted from it, and thus like to share our knowledge, but if it gets rejected and we do not know how we can rectify it, then we will just leave with this question forever in the mind. It is not just about one article, it is for many more articles to come that i write this in good faith. Hope this can be considered. Many thanks. --Shoppiee (talk) 04:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC) — Shoppiee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Hi Phatomsteve
Thanks for your replies, have noted them. Would like to seek your advise on these then: i have found some print articles which i gather from their website: These articles i believe are scanned copies from magazine and not from direct source unless proven otherwise: http://treetops.com.sg/en/publication/59.html An article by The Edge magazine; http://treetops.com.sg/en/publication/60.html An article by Travellution magazine; http://treetops.com.sg/en/publication/48.html An article by TODAY newspaper;
2 other articles i manage to find: http://trendsideas.com/ViewArticle.aspx?article=14665®ion=23 An article from Trends magazine; http://www.ourpagesonline.co.uk/flipBook/index.asp?ID=192 An article from Upward curve magazine;
Will these be better? I am trying hard to look for more sources, maybe in the meanwhile you can let me know if im on the right track. Thanks. --Shoppiee (talk) 06:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)— Shoppiee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Hi pardon my lack of understanding. Does it mean if i rephrase it, it will be better? Im sorry if i have written it so much seemingly like an ad. I will amend on that, but for other reasons i do not quite understand:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marina_Mandarin_Singapore - why does this article be fine though it was put up for deletion as well? Is that any signifance for it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conrad_Centennial_Singapore - this article has listed on its restaurants and categories of rooms, and the only references made were to their website, why do they not have any issues either?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damenlou_Hotel - this article as well, significance of it?
Apologies, i hope you can understand i am not trying to involve other articles, but sincerely i do not understand whats the difference? I am not writing for the company like i mentioned, the style of writing my article was with references to these articles are with no issues but i truly do not understand why then these articles are ok?
I hope i am not seen as challenging anything, i am just confused. I sincerely hope you can shed some light on these so that i will know how i should write my article and avoid any unnecessary debates on it. I believe that is the least to everyone who writes an article hope for. Many thanks. --Shoppiee (talk) 11:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)— Shoppiee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The result was redirect. Rlendog (talk) 21:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable album; when it was turned into a redirect to artist's article, original editor reverted with no explanation. No evidence of, or claim to, notability. Article had previously been deleted after PROD in Dec 2008 with reason "'Non-notable mixtape with little or no media coverage of substance. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums.'" Nothing seems to have changed since then. PamD (talk) 20:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Maumere. v/r - TP 23:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article on a statue in Flores, Indonesia. Uncited, and a search reveals no reliable sources to prove notability per the General Notability Guidelines. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete without prejudice. Treating as an uncontested PROD. Article can be recreated or undeleted per a request at WP:REFUND. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This small record label doesn't seem to be notable. Google search turns up a lot of junk. Raymie (t • c) 18:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no official information of PAGCOR, or any reliable party about this building. They do not have a particular plan for this building, f.e. which construction company will be involved, when construction will start, what the estimated time of completion will be. The building is not included in recent information of PAGCOR. PAGCOR Tower is nothing more than a short-lived proposal. The visions of this huge building appeared in magazines in 2008 and have been around since on forums. A short-lived proposal is not notable. This article was kept the first not because it's noteworthy, but because some ip's were frustrating the deletion process. Leo db (talk) 11:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 18:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
open source software lacking significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Contested prod. Not clear how this might meet WP:GNG RadioFan (talk) 12:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 04:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No credible claim of notability as found through independent sources exists here. We have the competition's own website, a couple of self-published sites, and passing mention in a newspaper (which is now a dead link). Nothing approaches the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" standard. Biruitorul Talk 15:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: previously nominated under a different title, here and here.
The result was merge/redirect to Pichilemu City Council. Notability has not been established but the content would enhance the target. TerriersFan (talk) 22:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A building of essentially no architectural or historical significance, serving as town hall for a city of 12,000 (that's what? 200th largest in Chile?), and barely mentioned even in local sources. How exactly is this notable? Biruitorul Talk 15:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DePRODed. Article has been abandoned with no attempts to provide informative content. Contains only a title and an infobox. Searches reveal no reliable sources or content for expansion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. —GFOLEY FOUR— 23:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Business people - troublesome article - often attacked - protection refused at WP:RFPP - not notable companies and as such not notable person/brothers - Off2riorob (talk) 18:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 18:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The resaon given for protection / deletion by Off2riorob is not accurate: Off2riorob objects to factual and verifiable information being inserted in the article that does not reflect well upon its subject persons, Off2riorob preferring only comment that sets the subject persons in a positive light. Noted that Off2riorob persistently removes this information, yet WikiID300, the contributor that inserts the information, does not edit any other information, which tells the story.
The insertion that Off2riorob objects to is:
Christian Candy, through his vehicle Solomon Capital, expanded his operations in 2010 into the mining sector. Solomon and owns a 65% majority [1]of the ordinary shares of Metals Exploration Plc (AIM: MTL)[2], a gold and molybdenum miner operating in the Philippines. On 23 July, 2010 Solomon made a 13 pence per share bid for Metals Exploration Plc.
During this contentious bid, viewed as not recognising MTL's potential in the view of its CEO at the time of the offer[3] a written submission was made by certain minority Independent Shareholders, who regarded the Solomon Capital offer as opportunistically low, to The Takeover Panel[4]. This submission alleged that an illegal “Concert Party” comprising Solomon Capital and others was in existence during the bid period in breach of Rule 9 of the Takeover Code[5]. The Takeover Panel then blocked Solomon from making further purchases of MTL shares in the market[6]. In the face of these very serious allegations Solomon effectively abandoned its full takeover bid in 2011, entering into a subscription and shareholders agreement[7] with, inter alia, Metals Exploration Plc and certain Shareholders. This agreement extraordinarily allowed shareholders who had sold to Solomon Capital at 13p to recover their shares at the same price, and provided for certain additional protections for minority shareholders against actions that might be taken by Solomon. Subsequently, it being satisfied the dispute was settled, no further action was taken by the Takeover Panel[8].
Today Nick is CEO of Candy & Candy and Christian is owner of the Guernsey-based investment company CPC Group. Christian Candy resigned as a director from Candy & Candy in March 2011 after two years of loss making financial performance: the firm recorded a pre-tax loss of £889,735 to 30 June, 2010, with turnover down from £19m to £8.6m, and having lost £547,325 the previous year[9]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiID300 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 18:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notable? Not sure... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 23:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Much less notable still than James Lentini, who is very non-notable to begin with (as was pointed out at that AFD). Incarnatus (talk) 23:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 04:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't read spanish, but it doesnt appear the subject "starred" in the TV series listed on IMDb; rather that he had minor, but named, roles. Refs all go to social media sites. v/r - TP 00:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. v/r - TP 23:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:ENTERTAINER. Nikki♥311 00:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Withdrawn and no delete !votes. (WP:NAC). duffbeerforme (talk) 11:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot find sufficient RS indicia of notability of this person. The article has zero third party refs. Epeefleche (talk) 00:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. — Cirt (talk) 04:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable Night of the Big Wind (talk) 00:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy close. Nominator blocked as a sock puppet of User:Thisbites. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
vandalism that is going to be painted over Yotemordis (talk) 00:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 04:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks a bit like copyvio. Very strange to start an article with a external link. Duplicate Detector Night of the Big Wind (talk) 00:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep, nominator has now been blocked for abusing multiple accounts and this nomination is clearly flawed. BencherliteTalk 01:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable bio Yotemordis (talk) 00:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 18:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
businessman with insufficient notability to meet criteria. references are blog posts or links to companies or organizations without reliable sources. Warfieldian (talk) 14:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC) This contribution is not meant to describe a notable individual as much as to correctly reference the both the organizations and individuals involved in the founding of Facebook which is referenced within the article and external links. There are several individuals listed within the article which are all directly connected to Fees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Collegeeditor (talk • contribs) 14:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G11 by Phantomsteve (talk · contribs) (non-admin closure). Jenks24 (talk) 06:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:ORG. a non notable scholarship organisation as reinforced by a mere 3 gnews hits [21]. LibStar (talk) 07:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]