The result was speedy delete per A7. ... discospinster talk 23:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
its just a kind of test page Socialservice (talk) 22:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 02:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of claims to notability, but I'm not seeing anything that fulfills WP:BIO criteria. No real major awards; no non-trivial coverage in a major media source. Prod tag added in May was removed. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. It's possible that such a law may exist and apply to some local email lists or discussion groups but without sources or significant coverage, there's no way to verify it. Please see verifiability, not truth. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have rather doubtfully declined a blatant-hoax speedy on this and bring it here to give its author time to defend it if he can. Sources provided do not mention either Gundlach or his Law, and searches find nothing relevant. If not a hoax, there is no evidence that this is more than something made up one day. Fails WP:Verifiability, WP:Notability and WP:NEO. JohnCD (talk) 21:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 02:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No indication of notability, no encyclopaedic content, no sourcing, WP:NOTADVERTISING Kilmer-san (talk) 20:22, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete for this absolutely useless list. A case could be made for g11 as well. Safiel (talk) 20:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. As a regular closing admin at AFD I really should comment that battleground behaviour in AFDs is extremely disruptive especially when the perpetrators appear to be inventing their own inclusion criteria. No-one has accepted the additional sources provided and the consensus based on policy is clear once all the childish argumentation and name calling has been excluded Spartaz Humbug! 03:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot find sufficient RS coverage or other indicia of notability of this singer. Tagged for notability since 2010. The result at the prior AfD was no consensus, with the closer indicating "This has been a poorly-attended debate ... Please note that in the circumstances, it will be in order to list this at AfD again in early course." Epeefleche (talk) 20:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
--Epeefleche (talk) 01:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]"Wikipedia is not a promotional medium. Self-promotion, paid material ... and product placement are not valid routes to an encyclopedia article. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it – without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter. Neutral sources are also needed to guarantee a neutral article can be written—self-published sources cannot be assumed neutral; see Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for discussion of neutrality concerns of such sources. Even non-promotional self-published sources, like technical manuals ... are still not evidence of notability as they do not measure the attention a subject has received.... routine news coverage such as press releases, public announcements... is not significant coverage."
* Strong and speedy delete If this singer was a Mongolian yak herder who was famous only in a particular area of Mongolia and had been featured in The Yak Gazette (in lead linotype) would that make it any clearer? Nikos is not nearly sufficiently notable in the English-speaking world (read: you need an electron microscope to pick up English-language evidence he even exists) to merit inclusion in an English encyclopedia. Delete per Wikipedia:Notability (music) and WP:ARTSPAM. Greg L (talk) 22:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Nipsonanomhmata’s argumentative and aggressive style on this page is not advancing his cause. His argument that Nikos is is particularly well known in the United States is not supported by the citations in the current version of the article upon which I formed my opinion. Sorry. Greg L (talk) 23:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have been furiously editing this article for one week only. I was not furiously editing the article at the beginning of June which averaged 250 hits per day. Nor do I think that I personally am motivated enough to generate 250 hits per day (on any article). Moreover, you are missing the point altogether. What does the hit rate of a Wikipedia article have to do with the criteria for WP:MUSICBIO? Hit rate means nothing. Moreover, I think you'll find that the hit rate of most articles increases when they are put up for AfD as more editors than usual take a peek at the article whether or not they comment in the AfD. And this article has been put up for AfD twice in a month. If you are going to comment on an article you should do so objectively and stick to the criteria that matters. Instead of inventing criteria that have no bearing whatsoever. Nipsonanomhmata (Talk) 10:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Common sense applies at all times on Wikipedia (Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy) and the totality of the picture as regards Nikos is clear here: he is not in the least bit notable for an English-speaking readership. How do we know this? As hard as you’ve worked on the article despite the challenges of two AfDs, the current version of the article with all those Greek-language citations just drive home the fact that he is not the least bit notable amongst an English-language readership. It’s all Greek-Greek-Greek down there. And on the subject of “Greek”…
Do tell, is there even a Greek language Wikipedia article on this guy? Entering Νίκος Τατασόπουλος into the Hellenic Wikipedia produces this “Did you mean” search result (English translation). If there is such an article, that’s where this article belongs. If there isn’t, that’s where this article belongs. If there isn’t an article on this guy in the Greek-language version, he doesn’t belong in any language-version of Wikipedia.
Importantly too here, the Grokstats hit rates for Feb-2011, March-2011, and April-2011 prove that the world-wide, English-language interest in this character is zilch. I dare say that the internal Wikipedia links pointing to that article probably generate the majority of the three or four hits per day the article is seeing.
How many ways are there to demonstrate that this is probably the least notable English-language subject one could imagine? I thought Sewer cover in front of Greg L’s house had set the record for most trivial article.
To not heed common sense here would be to cave to the following specious arguments (from Wikipedia:Wikilawyering):
Yet another excuse to side-track the argument. Still harping on about how many hits the article gets when it is not a criterion of WP:MUSICBIO. Introducing a new argument about the lack of English language citations. Allow me to enlighten you as to how many English language citations there are for this article (the scientific way):
Current (as at 7th July 2011 at 3:45pm EST).
References (in actual order):
1. Greek 2. English 3. Greek 4. English 5. English 6. Greek 7. Greek 8. English 9. English 10. Greek 11. English 12. Greek 13. English 14. English 15. English 16. Greek
External links
1. English 2. English 3. Hebrew
9 out of 16 references are in the English language (that’s 56.25%)
7 out of 16 references are in the Greek language (that’s 43.75%).
When including the external links:
11 out of 19 references are in the English language (that’s 57.89%)
7 out of 19 references are in the Greek language (that’s 36.84%)
1 out of 19 references are in the Hebrew language (that’s 5.26%).
No surprise there since the musician is an American-born citizen. The stats say "English-English-Greek" (approximately) and not "Greek-Greek-Greek". Nipsonanomhmata (Talk) 19:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Epeefleche (aka “wiseguy”). Since there are more English-language Google hits on me than this bouzouki-playing Nikos dude (875 to 600), will you do a Wikipedia article on me? I’m more apparently more notable than he is. But I’m too bashful to write my own and I know you’ll do me justice. You can start with my contributions to a new way to make fuel cells and can then touch upon my exploits setting off big-ass oxy-acetylene balloon bombs as July 4th noise makers. I was telling the story in a machine shop of this monster balloon I set off (actually a beach ball) and some machinist dude remembered it even though it happened eight years prior. He lived twelve blocks away from ground zero (a six-foot diameter blast zone scrubbed clean down to hard-packed earth). He said “My wife and I were asleep when there was this hellacious explosion and a painting fell off the wall.” I’m apparently legendary. That beats this bouzouki stuff any day.
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 02:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed PROD. I can find no reliable sources to support this product's notability. Singularity42 (talk) 20:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. A move away from "Chinese" can be discussed on the talk page. (non-admin closure) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This reads as pure WP:OR and WP:SYNTH; it's possible that a decent article could be created here eventually, but none of the content is suitable as it stands. Indeed, 'Chinese' is not a language; Cantonese and Mandarin (amongst others) are. →ROUX ₪ 19:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 02:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After creating this list, I had second thoughts and speedied it. BenMacDui asked me to reconsider. I'm still about 70% in favor of deletion, as it seems a bit contrived, but I thought I'd bring it here for more opinions. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 02:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable fictional group. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 19:22, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 02:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't really justify notability - has no references - much of it reads like an advert. Reichsfürst (talk) 17:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Consists entirely of plot details and fictional history; contains no assertion that the planets are notable outside of the series or franchise. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep, nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. Edgepedia (talk) 12:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)}[reply]
Non-notable author of non-notable book. Nothing to suggest any of her assertions are true. PhGustaf (talk) 16:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mkativerata (talk) 20:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced WP:Listcruft. Proposed deletion contested by an anonymous editor. At Talk:Piers Morgan Tonight there is a brief discussion of splitting the listcruft to a separate article, and it's noted that there is a List of The Daily Show guests. There is indeed a whole category: Category:Lists of The Daily Show guests. I would argue for deletion of all of those too, but that's a separate matter. Gurt Posh (talk) 15:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Article withdrawn by creator. WWGB (talk) 08:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. joe deckertalk to me 14:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to fail WP:Notability (people) I can find very little on this poet. Article creator appears to have conflict of interest with the subject. Unexplained PROD removal by article creator. Safiel (talk) 14:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 03:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PROD has previously been contested. Tournament is a non-notable cricket tournament. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 13:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)][reply]
Allegation that it is not notable
The wining of Canada in the 3rd tournament is also published on the offical website of Ahmadiyya Muslim Community.[1] The videos are on Youtube have a Standarad Youtube license. You have said that there is no media coverage, here are proofs of media coverage
The match of Germany VS Canada can be seen in these vidoes which are a recording of MTA 1. How can you after this say that there is no media coverage of this tournament. Please tell me that how will you recongize a article is notable?--Nokhaiz Kaunpal (talk) 14:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)'[reply]
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 03:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This person, as an individual, doesn't seem to be subject to significant coverage, directly and in detail, by multiple reliable sources ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢ 13:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 03:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
COI and NPOV issues aside, band does not appear to pass WP:BAND. Pianotech Talk to me!/Contribs 11:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. joe deckertalk to me 14:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the apparent claims to significance, I can't find anything online to show notability. The one independent reference (variety.com) doesn't even mention the company. There may, of course, be print-only reliable third-party sources that cover the company, but I think this unlikely considering its nature and recent founding. —SMALLJIM 11:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was both articles speedily deleted: Schizopop under CSD G7 (author blanked the page) and SchizoPoP Manifesto under CSD G11(unambiguous advertising or promotion). JamesBWatson (talk) 13:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable neologism per WP:NEO, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, highly WP:PROMO wording. Proposed deletion reverted without edit summary by the article's creator. Gurt Posh (talk) 10:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related page for the same reasons. Note that in this edit summary the article's creator notes that the article is about his own work. Gurt Posh (talk) 10:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mkativerata (talk) 20:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Technical nomination. This article was PRODed by Crusio. The reason for PROD was: "Ephemeral project. No independent sources. Does not meet WP:GNG." I think that the deletion needs more broader discussion. Beagel (talk) 10:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep - nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete !votes. TerriersFan (talk) 14:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
School is not notable. I did a Google search and most of the 45 results were social media pages, blogs and listings in directories. Additionally, no other page on Wikipedia links to this article. Nikthestoned 09:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was procedural close, non-existent file, files should be in WP:FfD. Non-admin closure. Quasihuman | Talk 11:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They wanted to delete my logo for copyright violation, this logo is a copyright violation Kids4Fun/TALK 09:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. joe deckertalk to me 14:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:N; was previously prodded with the rationale "Doesn't exist as a place name, much less as a suburb, though it is a street in Castle Hill and is an irredeemable stub (see http://www.ga.gov.au/place-name/ )" The central claim of the article is false - it is not a suburb of Townsville, affluent or otherwise. There is a development name of Yarrawonga *Point* but this fails WP:NOT and would merit a line at best in Castle Hill, Queensland. Checking authoritative sources (the above, also [8]) demonstrates that the only Yarrawonga in Queensland is a bore (waterhole) somewhere near Charleville [9], and an administrative parish which surrounds it, both of which are unpopulated and are not themselves notable. Orderinchaos 08:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Old Harry's Game. Courcelles 05:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural, more than a dislike of the article. This has twice now been turned to a redirect [10] [11] by TreasuryTag, once with the summary 'So many thing wrong' and the second reversion being because 'taking it to AfD would be disruptive'. I don't hold with this - I've always seen undiscussed redirection as being 'deletion by the back-door', thus a bad thing for its secrecy, not because conversion to a redirect is necessarily wrong. As I evidently can't stop the redirector from doing so, I'm bringing it to the public forum of AfD as the best available option. Andy Dingley (talk) 07:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mkativerata (talk) 20:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not meet the general notability guidelines and fails WP:BOOK. I say Delete ceradon 05:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn. Per WP:NPLACES fulfilled by Phil Bridger. (non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot drop me a line 18:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Bangladesh village with no third-party references and no claims of notability. The article reads like a novel in some places:
In any case, fails to meet criteria under WP:NPLACE and more generally at WP:V as I cannot verify this place exists. I, Jethrobot drop me a line 05:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn by nominator, please feel free to Trout this user. I, Jethrobot drop me a line 18:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Town in an Indian District. Article is a long and plodding travel guide with one deadlink of a reference. After searching for notability in the news and on the web (removing facebook and wikipedia as search terms), I came up with a lot of maps and addresses of local businesses. Also, Wikipedia is not a travel guide. I, Jethrobot drop me a line 05:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mkativerata (talk) 11:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Album by a local Minnesotan Band in 1985. There are some mentions of the album based off of a controversy with Tipper Gore and the P.M.R.C here, here and here, but I wanted to get some consensus on whether this constitutes notability. I, Jethrobot drop me a line 04:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn so I can get my eyes checked. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 03:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fancruft, trivia, no sources besides from Google itself. Last AFD was in 2006 with WP:ILIKEIT and "too big to merge back" as only arguments. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 03:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 01:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A low ranking SS soldier accused of misappropriating funds is not my idea of notable. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 01:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Movie soundtrack for which no information is available. In contesting the prod, the creator used promotional wording to add the plot of the movie itself, for which there is no article. No evidence of notability for either the movie or the soundtrack. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 01:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 01:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BASIC and WP:CREATIVE. Can't find any reliable source for which Brad COllins is the subject GcSwRhIc (talk) 11:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. — Cirt (talk) 01:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BLP with no independent third party references in more than a year. no notability claim Stuartyeates (talk) 06:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet criteria of WP:BIO or WP:POLITICIAN since he is a candidate and not an office holder (actually he's not officially a candidate yet). The election-related references in the article mention him trivially, as a possible candidate, if they mention him at all. Non-election-related references given are about the company, not the individual (ditto for the awards). Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 04:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve made some changes to this article, most specifically to the sources used. The Wikipedia standards for notability include that the subject be covered by multiple secondary independent sources, and though non-secondary/independent sources are mentioned, the vast body of information in this article comes from secondary verifiable secondary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emb3333 (talk • contribs) 05:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have further cleaned up the references on this page. There is no original research, and the information is easily obtained from secondary independent sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emb3333 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
hospitals are not inherently notable and must meet WP:ORG. this small 23 bed hospital gets 1 gnews hit and mainly directory listings in google. LibStar (talk) 02:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. — Cirt (talk) 01:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot find sufficient RS coverage of this singer, reflecting notability. Others are welcome to try. This is a BLP that has been tagged for need for third party RS refs since 2007. It is also an orphan; zero substantive articles link to it.Epeefleche (talk) 02:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 01:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The musical director for just one film, Toofan. Toofan is a 2011 film released in India. Unable to find any other project he may have done. He also goes by Elvin Joshua and there were more Google hits on that name than Ellwyn. Editor and creator of the article uses Ellwyn Joshua as a name. Bgwhite (talk) 08:38, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 01:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unremarkable toy line. Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party reliable sources. RadioFan (talk) 18:56, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article consists of references that are generally not accepted, When I Googled her, I found pretty much nothing. ceradon 00:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 01:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tone is a little too promotional, and notability is not quite enough. Jasper Deng (talk) 19:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. He exists, but not enough to meet notability guidelines. J04n(talk page) 00:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Person himself fails to meet all notability standards per present sourcing of article. Delete. Playing a miniscule role in a fringe lunacy does not make you notable. Also COI, article was created in original [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bart_Sibrel&oldid=4408693 advertising form" by user "moonmovie": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Moonmovie was this article injected for propoganda purposes? Expunge all fluffery. Merrill Stubing (talk) 20:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 01:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No indication of WP:notability. Google searches not finding anything significant in WP:reliable sources. Disputed prod noq (talk) 23:53, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]