The result was delete. Poorly sourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unable to find any coverage in reliable sources to verify the contents of this unsourced BLP. Searched with both the English and Arabic, سارة هاني, spellings of her name. J04n(talk page) 23:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One short interview in musicislifemagazine does not create notability —SMALLJIM 23:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete: G3. FASTILY (TALK) 01:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unable to find any coverage in reliable sources to verify the contents of this unsourced BLP. Searched his name with 'Emmy', 'KSVN', 'ABC7', and 'ABC' all with no success, could be a hoax. J04n(talk page) 22:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete without prejudice. I find that there's no real consensus on the issue of whether or not the subject meets WP:ENT. However, this is a poorly sourced BLP. Therefore, if someone wishes to write a new sourced article it won't be subject to CSD G4. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD, long-term unsourced BLP, was unable to find reliable, secondary sources to verify claims of notability here. Additional sources welcomed. --joe deckertalk to me 22:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Consensus is that a content fork is not needed or, in this form, appropriate. Sandstein 05:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article was a fork created by copy-paste of portions of White flight before consensus for any such split had been formed on the talk page of that article. No reason was given for separating off this content, the original usage of the term, from the original article and the editing history has been lost. The fork was created by a new account, possibly an alternative account of another user, who has not engaged in discussions of any kind. The term "white flight" was originally applied to migration within the US and has been used more widely since, often in slightly different circumstances. The article duplicates content from White flight, with almost no changes and various inconsistencies resulting as a consequence. Mathsci (talk) 07:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. BigDom 20:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contested WP:PRODBLP. Current sources do not indicate notability of the subject or are not independent. Gnews provides no information on the individual. Does not appear to comply with WP:BLP. I, Jethrobot drop me a line 21:54, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. BigDom 20:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Non-notable film with no current independent references. Current refs include a cast listing. Does not meet WP:NFILMS I, Jethrobot drop me a line 21:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unable to find any coverage in reliable sources to verify the contents of this unsourced BLP of a Japanese voice over actress. J04n(talk page) 21:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. BigDom 20:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Has been listed at WP:PNT for two weeks without any progress in translation, does not appear to be especially notable, prod declined Jac16888 Talk 21:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. BigDom 20:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed PROD. Unable to verify. References provided are not on-topic. Singularity42 (talk) 20:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
References provided were referring to the processes upon which the state is postulated - other references will be applied as soon as possible. Will include footnotes and references to philosophical/psychological/neuroscientific publications, appropriate reference to moral relativism and the origin of the concept. I begin to realize that i did not fully explain the origin of the theory, which relies on both philosophical and scientific concepts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rushkovski (talk • contribs) 21:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's schrodinger's cat for ideas. I am applying an already existing concept to another.
If you can place a theoretical cat in a theoretical box, why not an idea? The concept does need to be extrapolated, but as any theory, it has to start somewhere. The core concept is that an idea can exist outside of any context, thus neither good not bad, moral or immoral until observed through normal perception. We can suspend normal human perception of morality and context in several ways, and deep meditation can break down the standard subject/object paradigm, thus creating a context-free environment for the exploration of various philosophical or moral topics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rushkovski (talk • contribs) 21:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Valid point, it could qualify as OR, though it is something that can be shown to exist, and is derived from already existing concepts. Metzinger talks about how the alteration of the perceptual paradigm in his book, by meditation or otherwise creates dramatic changes in the way the neural centers of the brain fire, and the concept applies directly to the idea that the human mind can, under some conditions, forgo the already existing matrix of patters and experience perception uninterrupted by the preconceived notions and the tunnel vision effect of the human psyche, allowing us to examine existing concepts in a new light. On a side note, is there a specific philosophical wiki I might be referred to? (talk • contribs) 21:20, 29 June 2011
I think I have reached the crux of the problem. Anyone out there want to start a wiki on experimental philosophy? The theory is verifiable, but it does smack of OR - the name gives that away. If this is taken down, does it all get deleted or does it stay under my page so that I can work on it? I see no reason to fight this fight until I've compiled a lot more info, and I clearly rushed into the "quick, post it on wikipedia, it's not there yet" side of things without preparing the article first. Not hoaxing though, too much <3 for wikipedia to troll it. Just take her down, until, one day, she may be ready. (talk • contribs) 21:20, 29 June 2011
The result was Delete, based upon the discussion below. There is rough consensus that the coverage meets neither the general inclusion guide nor the inclusion guidelines for actors. The key element were that the sources have significant coverage of the article's subject.
There was some debate as to who stage actors may be a poor fit for the existing guidelines, however it was not sufficient to override the typically accepted encyclopedia-wide standards.
As usual, of course, deleted material can be requested via the restoration process, or simply by asking most administrators.
Aaron Brenneman (talk) 12:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT. Refs largely from agencies, promotional sites, listings or minor mentions. Main editor of article's name may indicate WP:COI. Doddy Wuid (talk) 11:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This listing notes an American Actor of interest, with a substantial body of work. The references include reviews and listings from the New York Times, Playbill, Broadwayworld.com, and Theatre World. This work is of interest to the theatre community, and audiences. Cwands (talk • contribs) 17:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would champion that this subject is notable and the Wiki article is appropriate. This Wiki article isn't just a "long trail of reviews and articles" about this actress, but her involvement in new scripts Off-Broadway and in regional theater for the last 20 years make her a notable Wiki entry. Her work cites productions with such playwrights as Horton Foote, Alex Timbers, Mario Fratti (librettist for the musical Nine), Mark St. Germain (Susan is featured in the premiere of his play The Best of Enemies at Barrington Stage (directed by artistic director Julianne Boyd)), and Andrea Stolowitz. Included in this article are important (new/premier works) American theatrical productions with the Joseph Papp Shakespare Theare in NYC, the Circle in the Square Theatre, La Mama Theatre, Primary Stages, and Ars Nova Theatre. My point being, it's not just her work that is being cited on this Wiki article, its the work of new American playwrights and productions. If the article needs to be rewritten to focus on that, I'll be glad to rewrite it.
Cwands (talk) 21:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am related to the subject, and I have made no effort to disguise that. I believe I am an impartial and competent Wiki contributor, having helped to contribue to two other pages. I must also point out per this subject's body of work is substantial and important to the developing of new scripts in the American theatre, not just her roles and her body of work, but the scope of work encompassed by the reviews and articles that have been written about her work in The New York Times, Playbill, Variety and other important venues. Per your request: Can you indicate the "long trail of reviews and even articles" on this subject before I am convinced?
I strongly believe that this is a valid Wiki page subjectg and should be included in the Wikipedia.
Cwands (talk) 22:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you are now requiring a list all of the reviews for this subject, with all the details citing the subject, in order to justify this subject's Wiki article, then I will add then per your request - but I would like to ask that someone other than Doddy Wuid to make this determination as to the relisting/approval of this Wiki article, as I can only surmise that this reviewer has a bias towards this subject or body of work.
Per the detail for performance for Susan Wands in the Arena Stage production of "A Streetcar Named Desire" (which is not one of the original premier works that is the focus of this body of work):
http://www.cercles.com/n10/londre.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwands (talk • contribs) 19:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
“Susan Wands gave a fascinating, strong interpretation of Blanche. Insanity is clearly closing in on this woman, but unlike the traditional fragile interpretation, Miss Wands’ Blanche is going down fighting” [Plyler]. Another critic found Susan Wands’s performance as Blanche Taut with the psychological complexity and ambiguity that Williams wrote into a part that is, some say (and this includes Williams), based on the playwright’s own unfathomable personality. She slowly, gently and affectingly dismantles the thin veneer of reality that props up Blanche’s world, always keeping one step ahead of our perceptions. It is a moving interpretation, far and away superior to the usual fluttery Blanche [...]. Wands conveys the redemptive idea that here is a woman once made of solid human stuff still clinging to her self- awareness. The slight quavers in her voice, the startled screams, an excessive gesture, the decorative laughs—by these things Wands gradually reveals a lapsing mind. She knows she is doomed, but she wants to be sane enough to observe her fall. In the end, she isn’t. That’s her tragedy. [Huntington, 15 Sept. 2002]
In general, the critics concurred that “audiences will find it easier to relate to Susan Wands’ less-fragile Blanche” [Huntington, 15 Sept. 2002]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwands (talk • contribs) 17:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More detailed references to be added soon.
Cwands (talk) 18:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. "Boom" Talking Broadway.com review:
For a rare example of a storyteller more interesting than the tale being told, you need look no further than Ars Nova. But let the record state that the most fascinating feature of the play that just opened there, titled Boom, is not its playwright, Peter Sinn Nachtrieb, but someone named Barbara. Bearing a bobbed shock of copper hair and wearing a slightly revealing, slightly frumpy black suit, Barbara (deliciously played by Susan Wands) looks like a cross between a schoolteacher and a just-past-her-prime 1960s flight attendant. She moves and speaks purposefully but haltingly; her habit of substituting gestures for certain words suggests someone for whom long-held intentions are being allowed escape for the first time. Yet her obvious discomfort is anything but uncomfortable. Positioned at an antiquated console equipped with an obtuse collection of levers, switches, and percussion instruments (including a tympani), Barbara radiates the self-involved joy of a woman completely in her element. You never doubt her certainty about anything, even when it seems that the people and buildings surrounding her are on considerably shakier ground. In a play tracking the tremors of change, a guide such as this is crucial to maintaining your own footing. But whenever Barbara starts throwing those levers and banging on her giant drum with the pompous intent of an epic film soundtrack, the work she's doing always seems more worthwhile than the work she's creating. It's only in Barbara, and in the sparkling, outmoded sophistication Wands brings to her, that the at-odds halves of the story meld into one. As the play evolves, and as the depths of Barbara's personal connection to her presentation grows less murky, it becomes less shallow and much more appealing. And once Nachtrieb stops relying on Armageddon clichés just past the 90-minute evening's midpoint, his play even begins to assume a surprising celestial beauty.
The most startling part of this is that Boom legitimately earns it, its gradual ebb and flow becoming by show's end a wave of cleverness that at least leaves you with the impression of a show of some significance. That too many involved haven't figure out how to bring that quality to the rest of the show is unfortunate; that Barbara and Wands almost succeed in picking up the slack is its own small, explosive blessing.
Talking Broadway Review of Boom
Cwands (talk) 19:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwands (talk • contribs) 19:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. New York Times, Review of "They Dance Real Slow in Jackson",
The central figure in Jim Leonard Jr.'s play is Elizabeth Ann Willow, a young victim of cerebral palsy (Susan Wands in a wheelchair and braces). Why Elizabeth Ann stopped speaking in her mid-20's is the question the play asks and, in a manner of speaking, answers. The heroine makes it plain that she aspires to soar, but she gets no help from anyone, including the playwright.
New York Times Review of "They Dance Real Slow in Jackson"
Cwands (talk) 19:39, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Variety Review: "Talking Pictures",
Like many of his plays, Foote's "Talking Pictures" is set in the fictional town of Harrison, Texas, during a time of transition. Harrison has a lot in common with Brian Friel's Ballybeg: It's a point of return, a touchstone, a field of the imagination on which an author has played out all his fancies. Nothing happens and everything happens, usually within the span of a few days. Foote is congenitally more upbeat than Friel, but isn't that the American virus? "Talking Pictures" is set in 1929, when silent movies are about to give over in a big way to talkies and the change is generating an almost sexual anticipation in small towns like Harrison....
Susan Wands is quite perfect as Willis' pouty gold-digger wife, Gladys.
[[ http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117909051?refcatid=31%7CVariety Review of "Talking Pictures"]]
Cwands (talk) 19:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. The Record Review : "Leaving Iowa",
At its heart, "Leaving Iowa" is a 90-minute intermissionless play that takes two hours and 15-minutes to complete (including a long intermission).
Susan Wands is also terrific as the June Cleaver mom who shows infinite patience, until she is pushed too far.
[[ http://www.troyrecord.com/articles/2009/07/23/entertainment/doc4a6777fe52c51057808214.txt%7CTroy Record review of "Leaving Iowa"]]
Cwands (talk) 19:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cwands (talk) 19:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. UT Daily Beacon, Review, Triumph of Love:
These “attempts” include multiple accounts of cross-dressing that lead ...... (Susan Wands) to fall in love with Leonide’s different incarnations. Susan Wands as Leontine, Agis’ sister, also enchants. We are convinced more of her love than any of the other characters’, but the way her character arc ends is fairly strange (we actually wonder if she is still in love with Leonide even after Leonide’s true identity is revealed). utdailybeacon.com/.../triumph-provides-enjoyable-complex-story/ -
Cwands (talk) 20:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. TNJN, Triumph of Love:
And Susan Wands stole the show with her brilliant portrayal of Leontine. The youthful transformation that she showed in Leontine was both exciting and inspiring, leaving the audience satisfied in its honesty. Cwands (talk) 20:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. Talking Broadway Review, Henry VI:
...and Susan Wands as the emperor’s one-time lover – and just perhaps the mother of his child – handles her end of the often absurd confrontations with great aplomb.
[[ http://www.talkinbroadway.com/regional/stl/stl26.html%7CTalkinbroadway review of "Henry IV"]]
Cwands (talk) 20:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cwands (talk) 20:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep this Wiki page for Susan Wands, it contains notable information.67.185.194.103 (talk) 02:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep this Wiki page for Susan Wands, it contains notable information.97.94.118.132 (talk) 23:16, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help in resolving this issue. Please let me know if there are any changes I need to make to this article to make it more "Wikified" Cwands (talk) 20:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would have to object to the representation that the body of work reviewed cited in:
#New York Times, Review of "Boom", starring Susan Wands, March 21, 2008 [24]
does represent a notable contribution to American theatre, regional and Off-Broadway credits, and despite the attempt to negate the accomplishments of this performer, this article is of value. The reviewer Doddy Wuid seems to have a personal agenda against this performer - as his continued objections to this listing seem completely subjective. Although this actress is not a celebrity, her contributions to the curent American theatre, especially in new scripts and productions is notable. Just because Doddy Wuid can't see the value in that does not mean that her Wiki identity is not notable. Can I just ask that someone other than Doddy Wuid review this relisted article, as I don't believe his claims are creditable. Cwands (talk) 16:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 02:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:CORP. looks like a blatant advert. references are promotional sources. 1 gnews hit [42]. LibStar (talk) 02:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Contrary to what DickClarkMises suggests, none of the sources cited constitutes substantial coverage in independent sources. Several of them are press releases. At least one of the sources that DickClarkMises gives as "seemingly independent of the subject" is an advertisement (one at monstersandcritics.com) and several are short pieces full of hyperbole and peacock terms, of a kind that is indistinguishable from advertising. A couple of the sources are announcements that someone called "Cam Gigandet" (who apparently is famous) has a contract with ClickR to promote their products, and they could not by any stretch of the imagination be regarded as substantial coverage of ClickR. In short, a promotional article without a single source that can really be regarded as substantial coverage by a reliable third party source. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. BigDom 20:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Was previously deleted at AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Erl. Worked on in a user's subpage since then. Bringing back here to AFD to reassess community consensus on whether this article should be in Wikipedia mainspace, or be deleted. Procedural nom, no personal opinion expressed by nominator. -- Cirt (talk) 15:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (Procedural; nominator retracted nomination) (non-admin closure) —Tom Morris (talk) 20:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A century-old college spoers season with but a single game. Only the most passing of mentions in the given references. I don't believe that independent coverage of this exists. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, let's handle this I agree that (and this is a quote of yours because I cut and pasted) "desperation is no excuse for repeated disruption of what should be an adult, rational discussion." So please be rational and stop being disruptive because you really look desperate to "prove your point". My point was proven several days ago. So let's take a closer look at this:
I'm confident with the discussion and am ready for this AFD to close, anyone else?--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. — Cirt (talk) 01:41, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source less SYNTH. This concept isn't a sociological term or category: as such what we have is a dicdef, as not being a term it isn't explored in any scholarly literature at depth (compare and contrast to the commons), it involves major factual errors (positing that the contemporary middle classes arose directly out of the peasantry. The technical content properly belongs at peasantry, or history of the european peasantry, lumpenproletariat, artisan, proletariat, etc. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Spartaz Humbug! 02:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Long unreferenced article about local sports club with no significant claim to notability. Contested prod prevented previous deletion attempt. Sadads (talk) 10:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is Keep, i added two references. Mikeyandreality (talk) 19:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
as well as multiple listings on the RCCC page discussing historical events. Assuming the original article creator has no desire to handle this, I will update this page to incorporate them, and that should satisfy the needs of the WP. Give me some time though, I work well, just not fast GormtheDBA (talk) 17:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot find sufficient RS coverage of this singer, reflecting notability. Others are welcome to try. Epeefleche (talk) 03:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.eliaskaram.8k.com/ http://en.hibamusic.com/Syrie/elias-karam/elias-karam-288.htm http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6UeCejbdvA http://www.6arabyon.com/artist.asp?artistid=152 George Al-Shami (talk) 03:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep He is not very known in English speaking countries so you won't find much about him in English, just like you won't find much about ""Radiohead" in Arabic. On the other hand he is very popular in the Levant and he is often featured in talkshows music festivals etc...--Rafy talk 17:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot find sufficient RS coverage of this person, reflecting notability. Speedy deletion was declined by Cunard. Zero refs, despite being tagged since 2010. Epeefleche (talk) 03:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete without prejudice. Aside from the nom, the only delete !vote I found convincing was Hekerui's as it's not required for an artist to be notable everywhere. Normally, if he's notable in Columbia and France then that's good enough. However, this is an unsourced BLP so I'm going to delete it without prejudice. If someone wants to write a new sourced article it won't be subject to G4. Consider this a no consensus close. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot find sufficient RS coverage of this singer, reflecting notability. Others are welcome to try. Epeefleche (talk) 03:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to ASG_(band)#Discography per WP:NSUPER. Consider this a no consensus close. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:NALBUMS. no evidence of charting or significant coverage. [46] shows mainly directory listings. best i could find was this. even all music doesn't review this album [47] LibStar (talk) 02:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The WP page on the band indicates "The band plays a mixture of punk rock, southern rock, stoner rock and metal." Yeesh. I'm not going to give an opinion on the encyclopedia-worthiness of this page other than to ask a grand philosophical question: Is there a problem with having a ridiculously low notability gate on pages on albums? Or does the Pop Culture Compendium task of Wikipedia mean we should look the other way on truly forgettable releases by forgettable bands on the basis that there are people out there that would benefit, acknowledging that keeping the stuff in no way impairs WP's core mission of being a serious free encyclopedia? I don't know the answer to that. With all due respect to the nominator, what does a successful deletion here accomplish? And if we keep this gunk, what does it hurt? Yes, I know that this is not a valid AfD argument, that's why it's a comment rather than a specific Keep/Delete opinion... But, big picture: (1) why are we worrying about stuff like this? and (2) what are we gaining by making it go away? Anybody??? Carrite (talk) 01:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 01:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural nomination on behalf of TR05401 (talk · contribs), who requested technical help. I have not independently verified any of the claims made here or any of the sources present on the article and submit this AfD in accordance with WP:AGF. I am neutral. —KuyaBriBriTalk 19:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. BigDom 20:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary fork of Quickbooks, which already has a small (but reasonably sufficient) section on this. Was speedied once and subsequently prodded on recreation. Sending to AfD this time. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:38, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn per improvements. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 23:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Completely devoid of third party sources. I couldn't find any that said anything other than "Blah blah blah Mashable award blah blah". The last AFD had several WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:BIGNUMBER, with no arguments rooted in policy (and one that was outright insulting). Someone turned up four sources in the last AFD, but they are 1.) incidental coverage of an event, 2.) an opinion piece, 3.) a possible source and 4.) PR. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. The "keep" !voters win this one. There is a consensus that the subject meets WP:GNG. Draft or no draft, significant coverage is significant coverage. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Subject of article has not attained notability standards of WP:NHOCKEY or WP:GNG. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 18:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The published feature stories (non-routine coverage) about this player pushes this article over the GNG threshold required for a stand-alone article. Dolovis (talk) 01:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. BigDom 20:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a supposedly future film that never seems to have gotten off the ground. Article should never have been created in the first place as it fails WP:NFF. A good example of why WP:NFF exists. Rob Sinden (talk) 18:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. An interesting discussion, with a few different points of intersection. First, the keeps have the better of it from a notability standpoint. The original nomination specifically addressed sourcing, and invoked the GNG; this was adequately rebutted, and a number of the comments acknowledged explicitly or tacitly the nontrivial coverage. Thus, the administrative action here is to close the discussion as keep. However, I see a strong consensus that the article should be renamed or merged somewhere, and given the degree of participation here I am prepared to call this a local consensus to the effect that, while notable, the topic is best addressed within another article. This well within editorial discretion, however, I do not see agreement as to a merge target. So, I am making an simple editorial decision (which anyone should feel free to revert) to move the article to Tau (2π), and there is absolutely no prejudice to further move or merge discussions. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC) N. B. Almost forgot about the redirect. Several argued against it existing, and the only argument in favor was for attribution purposes. That's not at issue since the article was kept, so I will delete the redirect from Tau (mathematics). NEVERMIND. Runningonbrains (talk · contribs) simply retargeted the redirect, a more elegant solution to which I defer. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The only source that this article cites (and it doesn't even acutally cite it) is a self-published source by a single mathematician. It fails WP:GNG, and certainly isn't a reliable source. Inks.LWC (talk) 18:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 01:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. This article uses a non-notable neologism that has been coined by the author to deliver a borderline-spammy original research essay about the latest development of the technology business in the Arab world. It fails WP:OR, WP:NOTESSAY and WP:NEO. De728631 (talk) 18:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mkativerata (talk) 20:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to fail WP:GNG. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 02:42, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Subject of article has not surpassed notability standards WP:NHOCKEY or WP:GNG. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 18:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Nurmsook has it backwards when he says that a player who passes NHOCKEY must also pass GNG. Countless AFDs have created precedents that support the practice that if a player passes NHOCKEY, then he is presumed notable and further proof of GNG is not required; however if he fails NHOCKEY then the article can still be kept if the player passes GNG. Reid Boucher meets criteria #4 of NHOCKEY so he is presumed notable, so the significant and reliable coverage found [55] [56] [57] [58] is just more iceing on the cake. Dolovis (talk) 04:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mkativerata (talk) 20:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Topic of article has not attained standards of notability WP:NHOCKEY or WP:GNG ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 17:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mkativerata (talk) 20:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Likely WP:AUTOBIO that makes a notable claim, but one that I wasn't able to verify at all. If it can be proven (from a reliable source) that she played professional basketball for the Atlanta Glory, and that that is a fully pro league, then I'll withdraw the nomination for deletion. As it is, she isn't the subject of significant coverage in independent reliable sources and no evidence can be found to say she meets WP:NSPORTS. The-Pope (talk) 17:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 01:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thoroughly non-notable Lulu-packaged/self-published webcomic about which there seems to be no nontrivial secondary sourcing -- no GNews hits, GBooks hits are all Wikipedia collections, GHits are almost entirely promotional or webcomics directories. Only claim of notability is that its creator, known only as "Lord Dragon Master." has been nominated for something called the "Bondage Award", which seems to be given out by one person, has outlandishly long "nomination" lists, and has such rigorous quality control that Wally Wood is also nominated for Best Artist, despite having produced very little work since committing suicide in 1981.[59] Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The notibility of the comic is the niche market of BDSM related subject matter that removed the obligation for sexual intercourse, while still remaining true and exploring themes of fetishism. The bondage awards are a significant and notable award, as all facest of the BDSM community participate. As noted the creator of the awards receives threats from the industry/vendors regarding the seriousness of victory through the awards. [60] The comic has been featured in multiple podcasts and video comic reviews. [61] It's creator, Lord Dragon Master, is an Architect in Toronto. The comic ranks 13/20 of Wikipedia's top anime and manga inspired webcomic's [62] and 34/50 for Wikipedia's Yonkoma category. This article was already passed over for deletion at it's creation, and has more notability and followers then several other webcomic articles listed on wikipedia.
The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 01:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. Searched using the Japanese and English spelling of his name without success (the Japanese spelling leads mostly to an education minister). I do not belive that the external links supplied on the page for this Japanese voiceover actor meets our criteria for reliable sources independent of the subject. J04n(talk page) 15:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. BigDom 20:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable book - fails WP:NBOOK. ukexpat (talk) 15:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mkativerata (talk) 20:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Biography of an individual of limited notability. His main accomplishments described here appear to be operating several local businesses that are sufficiently unknown that we have articles on none of them.
(Note that this article, and a number of other pages online, are currently the target of a surprisingly large SEO linkspam campaign, for some reason. As such, the Google results for searches on this individual's name are pretty seriously skewed — evaluate anything you find there with a careful eye.) Zetawoof (ζ) 15:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 01:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about a specific model of a railway locomotive. Not the class of locomotive the model is based on (British Rail Class 66) or the manufacturer. It is a product that doesn't meet WP:N - a real locomotive is notable, a model railway manufacturer might be. In outside sources the model only gets a mention in model railway magazines: in the product reviews section, or in product catalogues. Wongm (talk) 13:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 01:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about a specific model of a railway locomotive. Not the class of locomotive the model is based on (British Rail Class 57) or the manufacturer. It is a product that doesn't meet WP:N - a real locomotive is notable, a model railway manufacturer might be. In outside sources the model only gets a mention in model railway magazines: in the product reviews section, or in product catalogues. Wongm (talk) 13:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. BigDom 08:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hotel, written up in spammy tone with no evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mkativerata (talk) 20:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Self published book from an author with no article (who appears to be the author of the article). No references, no coverage from independent reliable sources. Contested PROD. MikeWazowski (talk) 12:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mkativerata (talk) 20:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An upcoming film that is currently in production. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and there is no indication that this unreleased film is so notable that an exception should be made to have an article on it already. Pontificalibus (talk) 12:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. BigDom 08:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable footballer who fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 11:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 01:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary article spinout. A page full of WP:INUNIVERSE info that does not attempt to establish any notability through reliable, third party sources. Also far too detailed for Wikipedia, thus falling under WP:TRIVIA. -- Teancum (talk) 11:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. BigDom 08:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced Biography for over 18 months, with no significant coverage in independent reliable sources able to be found. Lots of coverage in blogs and related organisations, so I may have missed something, so if references are able to be found, then I'm OK for the article to remain. The-Pope (talk) 11:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. BigDom 08:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable footballer who fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 11:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. At present, there is no proof that Cardozo has played in a fully professional league. If evidence comes to light, there will be no prejudice against recreation of the article. BigDom 20:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable footballer who fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 11:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. BigDom 20:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unverifiable. The article uses three different names for the person, "Vinkler Vladimir", "Frantishek Vinkler" and "Vladimir Frantsevich". It also uses two names for his wife, "Elena Musatova" and "Elena Pavlovna". The only thing that I could find that relates to this person is a number of sources mentioning a "V. Vinkler" who created a large sculpture for the theatre in Omsk. However, I couldn't find his full name, nor any other information about him, using a number of different searches, and looking both at reliable and unreliable sources.
For those more able to look through cyrillic sources, "Винклера" seems to be the Russian version of Winkler (another version of V. Vinkler). If anyone can find reliable sources in cyrillic (or other non-western scripts), I would be more than happy to withdraw this AfD, but as it stands this is a 99% unverifiable biography. Fram (talk) 09:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 02:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable in its own right. Fails guidelines at WP:NFF which states "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles" and there is nothing here that isn't already included at The Lone Ranger#Planned Lone Ranger film, which is where it should be as per the guideline which also states "Until the start of principal photography, information on the film might be included in articles about its subject material, if available". Just by calling it a "film project" shouldn't be a way to circumvent established guidelines. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 01:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD: Ephemeral project. No independent sources. Does not meet WP:GNG. Crusio (talk) 07:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. BigDom 09:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unable to find any notable sources on the subject. Also have reason to believe that the main contributor is the owner of the site in question) which constitutes a conflict of interest. PROD was also deleted. Skamecrazy123 (talk) 06:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am the creator of this article - ravdag. indeed, I am also the owner of the website solarcomics.com. the website's goal is to educate the children of today , which are the grown up's of tomorrow to start use solar energy instead of petrol and atomic energy. And most important - the website is a completely non profit website! My only goal is to try to make our world a better place for the benefit of the next generation. I have invested a lot of time and energy in order to create these comic figures and children really love them ! think of it - how many comic figures like batman, spider man, x-men etc. have an educational influence as well ? and all the figures mentioned above ( and hundreds of more ) have their own Wikipedia page. Big companies like Marvel Comics can use all their energy and funds in order to create publications for their comic figures, and no one would think about deleting their Wikipedia pages. So just to be fair - if you are offering to delete this article then i think the same should apply towards all other comic figures in Wikipedia. Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravdag (talk • contribs) 08:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1. I am pretty sure that companies like Marvel have no problem creating a Wiki User or paying someone to do it for them. 2. " The comic characters are notable enough " - Meaning - They spend millions of dollars on commercials on T.V , Internet etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravdag (talk • contribs) 08:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. My single Interest is to help and make a change for the best of our earth. I really don't think that it contradicts the Wikipedia policy. 5. You keep on saying that I am the creator of the website and the page. yes- it is true. as you know it;s very easy to open a new user with no contact to me. I am trying to be fair and just and not bend the rules. Please Consider that. 6. If you think the page can be better you are most welcomed to edit it by yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravdag (talk • contribs) 08:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. It's impossible to know if you have more Wiki user names or not because unlike me non of the users listed above are using their real identity. so I have to ask : a. Why not use your real name as a Wikipedia editor?. b. How can I know that you are not a marvel or some other companies employee? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravdag (talk • contribs) 13:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC) 8. Regarding the notability issue - How can you claim it's not notable when there is a full comic book about this figure ? What makes it more or less notable then any other comic figure ? If tomorrow I will set an advertising campaign of 100 million $ about the solar man comics will that make it more notable??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravdag (talk • contribs) 13:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC) 9. I think it will be fair if only users using their real name and identity would take a part on this debate as my Linkedin profile is published above. 10. Please read my arguments and reply to them in a logical way and not just write to delete or not to delete the article. 11. There is a third party source- The Comic book of solar-man ( and all the people who read ( and liked it )) ( if you are interested I will send you an edition of it ) and the website solarcomics.com which contains this comic book. What is the different between these third party sources then any other comic book that exists in the world? Please adhere to my arguments before replying or changing the article. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravdag (talk • contribs) 14:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find evidence that meets the criteria of WP:NBOOKS or WP:GNG, please post it here or on the article page. Thank you. I, Jethrobot drop me a line 22:38, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note - In answer to your questions ("so I have to ask : a. Why not use your real name as a Wikipedia editor?. b. How can I know that you are not a marvel or some other companies employee"), I do not use my real name because I expect a small modicum of privacy and there is nothing I can do to convince you that I'm not a Marvel employee. If you wish to ask me any more questions could you please direct them to my talk page, as this is not the correct forum for things like that --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 15:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I see that someone is changing the earlier posts and not notifying anyone about it as user Skamecrazy123 (I have no idea what this name stands for and if I should take him seriously) have deleted part of his first post on this page and erased the link to my linkedin profile that has started this debate. I believe that this is not only a violation of the Wikipedia rules but also a violation of any possible debate or discussion. So I think it is beneath my basic honor to participate in this kind of debate when : 1. I am the only one identifying his real name and identity, and 2. The other participants of the debate take for themselves the right to change their previous posts without notifying about it.
The result was speedy keep. The article survived four previous AfDs. This AfD serves no purpose beyond disrupting the project. Owen× ☎ 16:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable subject matter per Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Current sources are still only an urban dictionary and a dictionary of slang. Quick search found not much more than forums and a few mock youtube videos. Section that attempts to establish notability completely unsourced. Calmer Waters 05:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 02:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be an average programming book. No indication of what makes it notable. FuFoFuEd (talk) 00:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 05:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N Long-term unreferenced BLP, long-term tagged for notability. Unable to find reliable, secondary sources to evidence the notability of this manga artist under the general notability guideline. Previously a contested PROD, additional reliable sources, as always, welcomed. joe deckertalk to me 04:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Westboro Baptist Church#Counter protests. Spartaz Humbug! 02:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While I am certainly not defending Fred Phelps, this particular article is about just one of a myriad of counter-protest signs that have been mentioned in numerous media appearances about Westboro Baptist Church counterprotests. While many of them are humorous, and make good points, individual signs certainly do not meet Wikipedia's threshold of WP:NOTABILITY for having articles about them. This one should be no different. It should also be pointed out that the sign/slogan that "God hates figs" parodies, God hates fags, is also a redirect to the Westboro Baptist Church article. I would think the same redirect for this article would be appropriate as well -- we could even go one step further and redirect directly to the counter protests subsection in the WBC article. WTF? (talk) 04:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. 12:23, 5 July 2011 Jimfbleak (talk | contribs | block) deleted "Veritasism" (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veritasism) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article about an unverifiable religion with no coverage in secondary sources. The proposed deletion was contested with the edit summary "Reason for deletion is insufficient, for sources back up the article and one can not deny the existence of a religion." However, the sources currently cited in the article do not mention a religion or Veritasism by name. Additionally, since the article was created by Veritasism (talk · contribs), I'm concerned that there may be an element of self-promotion (although not blatant advertising) and that a conflict of interest is present. —C.Fred (talk) 03:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article is indeed made by a name that is the same name of the religion, but with no intention of self promotion in any way. All views of this article are written from a neutral point of view (just as required by Wikipedia's guidelines), just as the Catholic people who contributed much of the Catholic Wikipedia page. The sources used did not mention the existence of Veritasism because Veritasism is not yet as large as many other religions. It is rather newly introduced to the world and is hoping to gain the same respect from the viewers of the page as the viewers of Judaism, Mormonism, Christianity and Islam get.-Veritasism (talk) 04:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All sources cited in the article support the beliefs of the religion do not acknowledge the religion's existence because it is not their purpose to. The purpose of the sources are to provide insight to the goals and beliefs of the religion. Also, as stated above, the religion is very new, however this does not provide any reason for the religion to be treated as anything less than what it is. -Veritasism — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veritasism (talk • contribs) 04:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The sources do not in any way say that the religion does not exist, they are just on a different topic and do not mention any religion of any sort, for they are research articles/papers. As for the notability, I will say this. According to dictionary.com, a religion is: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. That is the guidelines of Veritasism, aside from the superhuman agency (which is clearly noted as not being accepted in Veritasism), and the followers of Veritasism follow these guidelines in the manner of any other organized religion. The followers alone verify the validity of the religion.-Veritasism (talk) 04:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a few more aspects to my article. Veritism is the set of beliefs from which Veritasism stems from. I urge you to read the works of Alfred Globus and then reconsider your views on deleting this article.-Veritasism (talk) 04:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then I know nothing else that can convince you the notability of Veritasism. I have presented you with proof of its existence and you outright objected to it. Alfred Globus writes about veritism and the set of beliefs that is uses, and Veritasism is almost literally veritism, but in an organized fashion. The system is believed to be written in the mid to late 1960s, so it is nothing new to the people who associate themselves with it.-Veritasism (talk) 05:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete I, personally, have read much of Alfred R. Globus' works and he wrote an entire book on veritism. The religion, "Veritasism", whether is notable to the average reader or not, supports everything that Alfred Globus writes about. To my knowledge, this all seems to be not made up, Alfred Globus has been around for many years. -Fullinstinct (talk) 12:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
— Fullinstinct (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Do Not Delete The argument that the article is not sufficiently referenced and unverifiable is irrelevant. There are many articles on wikipedia that don't have ANY sources to back them up. The sources in this article prove the basis of the religion. The source prove and show studies to back up the claims of the environmental effects on the human mind. Which was what the basis the article is about. I personally see no reason to delete that article. It is a new topic and one can not expect there to be others articles about this topic on the internet.-037adb (talk) 15:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
— 037adb (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Now I am sensing hostility from your part whereas this is supposed to be from a neutral standpoint. All ideas and religion were created at one time by an individual or groups of individuals. By saying it is a stupid or irrelevant is close-minded of one. A person with views of that sort shouldn't be deciding whether articles are deleted or not, for they have a biased opinion on the subject.-Veritasism (talk) 16:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT DELETE
I see this as a new growing religion, and it should be given a chance to prove to us that it can be notable, and be use to many people on Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SteezyVegas (talk • contribs) 07:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
— SteezyVegas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
If the sources don't verify the existence of the religion, but merely the overall concepts that the religion espouses, then it constitutes original research to collate those sources into proof of a religion whose existence can't otherwise be verified. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 03:09, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing anything notable about this person at all. —Chowbok ☠ 02:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a spammy autobio. TallNapoleon (talk) 06:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Out of the Vein. (non-admin closure) —Tom Morris (talk) 07:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Declined speedy. Credit to the author for providing valid sources, but the song fails notability now just as it did the first time we did this - it has never charted on Billboard's major charts, or to my knowledge even minor charts. There is no reason for a separate article when this information can instead improve the article page. I urge the author to consider this suggestion before commenting; a redirect can be used to bring up the article page. This is normal for non-notable singles. CycloneGU (talk) 02:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 05:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contested Prod: Notability not established, doesn't appear to be anyone other than a investment manager. Sounds more like a CV The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 01:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The subject appears not to be notable under the WP:GNG. The book "Saving Sammy", apparently written by his mother, seems mostly to be a source about PANDAS, although that book is probably also not notable enough for an article. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 01:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
None notable release per WP:NALBUMS, album did not chart nor did it receive independent coverage. If anything is a minor release as it was only released to a single retailer. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 01:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 02:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No references (and the one external link seems to be dead), no assertion of notability, article is too much 'how-to'. RJFJR (talk) 02:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. soft deletion Spartaz Humbug! 02:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:ORG. nothing in gnews. and mainly directory listings in google. not that WP:GOOGLEHITS is a reason either way for 370 ghits is quite low for any entity. LibStar (talk) 02:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 05:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
nothing in gnews, gbooks reveals Books LLC which uses WP as a reference. google just shows a whole lot of WP mirrors. maybe there is foreign language coverage, but this has been unreferenced for 4 years and I can't find reliable sources. LibStar (talk) 03:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Lufthansa heist. There is a consensus that Rodriguez does not merit his own article. As there is an appropriate redirect target, there is no need to delete the article. Mkativerata (talk) 20:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rodriguez is not notable, he is only known for being a member of the team of the Lufthansa heist. Rodriguez does not pass Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Crime victims and perpetrators. Rodriguez falls into WP:ONEVENT as he is only known for the one event of the Lufthansa heist. Vic49 (talk) 19:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 01:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fails to meet the criteria for notability for music or other claimed activities. It appears to be an advert for a non-notable member of a non-notable band. The only sources given are trivial or passing references. Article has been tagged for as a possible advert and for a lack of sources for over six months. No reliable source have been forthcoming and neither can a good faith search find any. SabreBD (talk) 07:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Spartaz Humbug! 02:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. No evidence that this club has participated in the national cup, therefore failing WP:FOOTYN; also fails WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 12:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 01:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bio of an Hindu swami with no evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I added 2 new sources today.Wipsenade (talk) 08:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Closed as a keep.213.81.117.254 (talk) 17:01, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 01:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
List is original research.
1. List topic is not notable. Search for sources produced negligible results.
2. Reliable sources have not been supplied which demonstrate that groups singled out in the list had any "deaths attributed" to them. In fact the entries are individuals, not groups. – Lionel (talk) 16:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. — Cirt (talk) 01:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does not appear to meet standards for notability. G-hits turn up ghost enthusiast websites, conspiracy blogs, Art Bell fan forums, etc. but I am unable to find multiple, serious and independent sources meeting WP:RS that cover the concept in a significant way. The subject originated on Coast to Coast AM talk radio several years ago but has since failed to gain any mainstream traction: no academic folklorist or established news outlet has seen fit to cover it in depth (or even in passing). Examiner.com, About.com and ghost-hunting websites are not particularly reliable sources and do not justify a standalone Wikipedia article, per WP:RS and WP:FRINGE. Perhaps a suitable target article can be found for a MERGE, but I'm not optimistic. LuckyLouie (talk) 18:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The subject must be notable because there is so much written about it. Part of what seems to make it difficult to build a proper article could be in tying shadow people to the experiences described as part of sleep paralysis, but this can be done if properly sourced. There are at least two feature films already mentioned here and there is also at least one feature length documentary "Your Worst Nightmare ~ Supernatural Assault" available on YouTube which discusses the beings encountered within sleep paralysis, with experts including professors from Harvard and the University at Waterloo and others. Also there seem to be at least seven different books written about this.
According to WP:IRS, one acceptable source may be "authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject." Whether or not one believes in something, the paranormal, fairies, gnomes, unicorns or even the Almighty, each subject will have people who are considered authoritative about it. Heidi Hollis is so regarded and appears to be the first to have written a book about Shadow People and the Hat Man, "The Secret War: The Heavens Speak Of The Battle," Writer's Club Press, ISBN-10: 0595203310; and has authored two other books and numerous magazine articles, including a regular paranormal advice column. She has appeared on the "Coast to Coast AM" radio show at least four times, three of them discussing this topic as an expert. She has also appeared on "Discovery Channel's Mystery Hunters," Fox Wake Up News, participated in the Steven Spielberg/Sci-Fi Channel series "Taken," and many others. She has been the host of two paranormal radio shows: CBS Radio's "Heidi Hollis~The Outlander" and HV Talk Radio's "Heidi HOLLERS (with Heidi Hollis)." She often speaks at conventions and expos across the country. Her personal site is http://www.heidihollis.com, and her site discussing this topic: http://www.jesusisnojoke.com/theshadowpeople/
Those credentials should establish that what she writes about the subject is able to be sourced here. The next two book authors have also been called upon as experts and could probably be similarly vetted, and then their writings allowed as sourceable materials:
"Shadow World: True Encounters with Beings from the Darkside" by Brad Steiger, Anomalist Books, ISBN-10: 1933665270, ISBN-13: 978-1933665276 http://www.bradandsherry.com
"Darkness Walks: The Shadow People Among Us" by Jason Offutt, Anomalist Books, ISBN: 1933665378, http://www.anomalistbooks.com/offutt.html (Brad Steiger also writes the foreward in which he praises it as "the most thorough and complete work yet written regarding the mysterious beings that we have come to call collectively, the Shadow People")
About.com article, "Shadow People: What Are They?" by Stephen Wagner includes an interview with Jason Offutt), http://paranormal.about.com/od/ghosthuntinggeninfo/a/shadow-ppl-what.htm (About.com is owned by the New York Times Company, and this should be sourceable, or Offutt's statements as an expert, likewise)
"Dark Intrusions: An Investigation into the Paranormal Nature of Sleep Paralysis Experiences" by Louis Proud, Anomalist Books, ISBN-10: 1933665440, ISBN-13: 978-1933665443
"Shadow People: A Journal of the Paranormal" by C.T. Shooting Star, Publisher: iUniverse.com, ISBN-10: 9781440115653, ISBN-13: 978-1440115653
And a fictional story based upon the phenomenon, "The Non: A Story of the Shadow People" by Vaalen Rhane, AuthorHouse, ISBN-10: 1425969704, ISBN-13: 978-1425969707
While sleep paralysis seems to be a common starting point for shadow people experiences, it has its own WP article and has its own scientific explanations, and then the paranormal or hallucinatory experiences are worthy of a related but separate discussion. Out-of-body experiences would be a good comparison, some think they are real and some think they are vivid dreams, and likewise the common experience people seem to have with near-death experiences. It's the same type of thing and each of these has its own article and authoritative experts to source. I hope this offers a little more perspective on notability and possible sourcing. LaLaFoote (talk) 09:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Medical cannabis. Spartaz Humbug! 02:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced, dubious, non-notable, lacks content, orphan. Mjpresson (talk) 18:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Medical cannabis. Too little material for a stand-alone article.Novangelis (talk) 02:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]