The result was Delete. With the consensus clearly leaning towards deletion, and beacuse we already have Islamic economics in the world. Fram (talk) 14:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Created as a joke, basically: a parody of Economic history of the Jews. See that AfD for further context. Note that Islamic economics in the world already exists. This is essentially a POV WP:content fork of that, intended to highlight the slave trade. Note also that every paragraph but the lead is simply a summary of an existing WP article. 28bytes (talk) 23:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Economic history of the Arab world Reason is, Discussion of the Arab world and its history is an encyclopedic topic. I and other editors have now made this into a reasonable article on this topic, albeit with room for expansion. Islamic economics in the world is a pretty big topic. It probably makes more sense for economic history articles to focus on coherent topics, and Economic history of the Arab world is a long overdue companion to Economic history of Europe, Economic history of Africa, Economic history of Britain, Economic history of France, etc. Economic history of Germany is a particularly good model. The since unified German state is not much more than a century old, and the article does a reasonably good job of covering such topics as guilds, the rural economy and peasants, and the development of towns that were similar across the German world, just as many economic institutions have been similar across the Arab world.I.Casaubon (talk) 00:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Consensus clearly leans towards deletion, merging to Christianity and slavery is not needed as the contents came from there, and ending up with a redirect from this title to Christianity and slavery would be not really NPOV. Fram (talk) 14:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Created as a joke, basically: a parody of Economic history of the Jews. See that AfD for further context. Could an actual encyclopedic article be written on this topic? Possibly. But until someone is interested in actually doing so, this WP:POINTY WP:COATRACK POV-skewed mess does not belong in the mainspace. 28bytes (talk) 23:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Jujutacular talk 11:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:WEB extremely low sourcing what so ever and none found through Gnews The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These two sourcs are enough to establish notability. However, there are more references, all of which are already present in the Wikipedia article. See this article from Washington Business Journal (titled "HotPads gets new digs, plus a cool $2M in funding") and this article from TechJournal South. Significant coverage in four independent reliable sources, two of which are from indubitably major publications, substantiates the fact that notability per Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (web) is fully established. Cunard (talk) 09:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]Pros: This is where to begin if you're starting from a premise as broad as "rent or buy." In addition to a search that shows sale and rental properties together by monthly payment, it has a "rent ratio heat map." This shows the areas that are better to buy in, vs. those where it's more practical to rent, according to the price-to-rent ratios (an affordability calculation arrived at by dividing the price to buy a house by the annual cost of renting a similar house). There's also a map of homes in foreclosure and listings for those properties.
Cons: Some rogue listings mistakenly appear in the wrong place — for example, a listing on a Washington, D.C., map was actually for a property in Oak Harbor, Wash.; a rental in Upper Manhattan was actually for a property in West New York, N.J.
The result was keep the whole shebang with leave to renominate any of these individually. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a player who has not played in a fully professional league, failing WP:NFOOTBALL, and has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, failing WP:GNG. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 23:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, why are only Cork City players up for discussion here? Should you not have listed the majority of players from all clubs in the League of Ireland and IFA Premiership if you're going about a mass deletion? Hsetne (talk) 05:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I read WP:COMPANY and I don't think this one is notable enough. Jeff Song (talk) 23:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 19:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable product info. If the catalog info was cut out, there'd be no content. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 23:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of this article does not appear to meet the general notability guideline.He is an undrafted junior hockey player who won WHL Rookie of the year, but the community should decide if this satisfies the WP:NHOCKEY guideline for ice hockey players. Onthegogo (talk) 22:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete - speedy deletion per lacking evidence of notability (also unreferenced BLP). Materialscientist (talk) 01:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article is an unsourced BLP that show no notability and is about a non-notable filmmaker. Article fails WP:BIO Jessy T/C 22:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not really an ambiguous phrase, as none of the examples provided on the page include "Dusk and Dawn", or even come passingly close enough to justify disambiguation. bd2412 T 21:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not a notable person. A lot of the info just promotes her JDDJS (talk) 20:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Ironholds (talk) 15:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article claims that Micheal Fitzgerald is an actor who is also a race car driver. The article lists no reliable sources that Fitzgerald is an actor. IMDB is in the External Links, but IMDB is not considered a reliable source WP:RS/IMDB. His race car driving notability is not established by an article about Sony working with his employer, Cork Racing, that only mentions Fitzgerald's name in passing. Another reference to his employer's website should not be used as the sole source of notability. A third reference mentions a Michael Fitzgerald being named best dressed man at an event; however, Michael is spelled differently ("ae" vs "ea") and does not otherwise qualify that this is the Michael Fitzgerald who starred in movie "XYZ" and is a race car driver with "ABC". This article is potentially building Frankenstein WP:DBTF, as no reference even mention the actor and driver are the same person. There is a press release that I found on the Internet that supports this article, but the press release is from Fitzgerald's employer, Cork Racing, and is hosted online by a PR firm. This article is lacking reliable sources that are not affiliated with his employer and that establish this is all the same Micheal (or Michael) Fitzgerald. Bagumba (talk) 08:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With regards his racing experience Formula Ford is not a professional racing series, nor is Cork Racing an employer. In fact if you look up the webpage michealfitzgerald.com it automatically redirects to corkracing.ie indicating it is possibly a webpage set up by the subject himself. As for the acting experience he is one of probably hundreds, if not thousands, of actors who have had minor parts in the series' 20+ year run. I can see no current notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darlough (talk • contribs) 21:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further references added Hunterscarlett (talk) 09:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)— Hunterscarlett (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
*KeepThis man is doing Irish racing drivers proud and his uncredited racing films are superb. He is proving there is life beyond racing using the skills gained in racing. A true life coach in the making. Keep her lit boyo! Irelands loss is Australia's gain. JdRacingPaddy (talk) 01:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Féadfar an t-alt seo a fheidhmiú ar fhoras sealadach gan fuireach lena dhéanamh amach an bhfuarthas na nua-shócmhainni;JdRacingPaddy (talk)
The result was keep on the issue of "keep vs delete", no consensus on the issue of merging. That can be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:GNG. not all aqueducts are notable especially one as unremarkable as this one. this one gets nothing in gnews [6] gbooks reveals WP mirrors. LibStar (talk) 06:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable company. Insufficient secondary source coverage. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 21:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about a film that has not started production. Nominating for deletion per WP:NFF. Arfaz (talk) 19:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete production hasnt started yet Bob House 884 (talk) 23:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article about an individual final in a schools rugby competition fails to meet notability guidlines. Article lacks content of note to merit a separate article and the subject matter is covered adequately in the main competition article at Medallion Shield. Weejack48 (talk) 18:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable future release per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NSONGS Mo ainm~Talk 16:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Listed for 2 weeks with only one delete !vote aside from the nominator which is based on WP:NOEFFORT. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page or somebody can be WP:BOLD and just do it. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable product. Ridernyc (talk) 10:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 20:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable product. No significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Bongomatic 04:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete per consensus and as an unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am admittedly not an art expert, but I fail to see how this man passes WP:ARTIST. The article, which is without references and the external links provide little in the way of significant coverage by reliable third party sources. The article was started by a now blocked account that spammed several other articles with links from a blacklisted site and those links were written by, yes, qi peng. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of the BLP, thus does not meet GNG or BASIC. The subject also does not meet POLITICIAN in that he has not held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, he merely ran for state office. This article was previously deleted via PROD but reinstated after the decision was contested. J04n(talk page) 19:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 18:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be a neologism, google search only finds two authors who've used it, and those are in the context of matrices rather than lines. Physics is all gnomes (talk) 19:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
pure unadulterated spam WuhWuzDat 19:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This user is trying to vandalize topics edited by me after taking things personally, as such this is pure vandalism. and should be speedy kept according to WP:DENY. for more information please refer to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iran Software & Hardware Co. (NOSA).
On the note of credibility and importance I share with you 1 very credible link for now , if you need more just search google. this is the link to United Nations Industrial Development Organization regarding the park in question. [7] Thanks, and Wuhwuzdat, lets be adults eh. Rmzadeh ► 19:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 18:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed speedy. This is an article which asserts the basic existence of its topic, but fails to demonstrate any actual notability — he's a local councillor in a municipality which isn't large enough for its mayors to pass WP:POLITICIAN just because they exist (and as per WP:OUTCOMES, we have much lower and more flexible standards for mayors than we do for aldermen.) And the only sources here are a generic election results table and a photo on the municipality's website; although the disputing editor asserted that Mr. Long meets WP:GNG on those grounds, both of those sources still fail to provide any evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. So no matter how you slice it, I still don't see how this is anything but a delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G11, also WP:CSD#G5, yet another re-creation of self-promotional article by a yet another sock of indef-blocked user Dr. Jagatjit Singh Kohli (talk). JohnCD (talk) 18:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
IP, likely a sock of the author, removed CSD. Article meets WP:CSD criteria A7, G11, and G12. Copyrighted material has been copied from lots of places, including [10] and [11]. Monty845 17:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 23:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary stat list, which is essentially a duplicate of the census. This is not notable per Wikipedia guidelines, as an collection of stats/indiscriminate list. Contested PROD on grounds that as Hinduism is main religion in Guyana that this is inherently notable, see Talk for contester's full objection. Ravendrop 16:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 18:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been the site of spammy promotion for months now -- SPAs show up to make big additions lacking appropriate sources. What this means is that, if he were in fact notable, we would surely have seen sources for it by now -- and since we don't see the sources we should conclude he is not notable (fails e.g. WP:ANYBIO) and delete. There is a small number of other sources available -- an article in the Guardian, for example -- but giving only incidental mentions rather than extended treatment. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Withdrawn without other objection joe deckertalk to me 23:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by nominator. Changes made to the article since nomination clearly (in my opinion) establish notability through the GNG criteria. Respectfully, Cind.amuse 09:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clare Mulley has written an important book on a notable subject, Eglantyne Jebb, founder of Save the Children. As illustrated in 6 external links, the book has received favorable reviews in print and electronic media, including The Times, The Guardian, The Daily Mail, The Express, the BBC and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Nihil novi (talk) 09:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, this is Clare Mulley. Thank you very much to those people who helped put the appropriate references etc on this page. Dear moderator, is this discussion now closed, and if so can I remove the red 'this article is considered for deletion' box form the top of the wiki page? Thanks all, Clare — Preceding unsigned comment added by Margaret Webb (talk • contribs) 11:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 23:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article, Mustafa Hijri, should be deleted from wikipedia because there is no a reliable source claiming he is a notable person, and the source does not say anything about him. Nautilyus talk 13:54, March 29, 2011
The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability, WP:SNOW. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTABILITY -- this is a comic strip that has appeared in one school newspaper for less than a year, with no substantive ghits or gnews. Nat Gertler (talk) 14:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 00:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Singer has released no albums; only claim of notability is a large number of twitter hits, and a claim about some music chart which, as far as I can tell, doesn't exist. Singer may well eventually become notable, but is not notable yet. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 00:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of notability established through significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Previous AFD closed without consensus; WP:NPASR. Only sources are the organization's website and a press release. (Initial A7 CSD removed.) Cind.amuse 12:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand Whpq's point about the previous "assertion". Elaborate? A3camero (talk) 03:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 20:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Previously PRODded. Does not appear to meet WP:ORG based on the article content and references. Stifle (talk) 12:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. joe deckertalk to me 19:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Slightly out of the scope of CSD-A7 IMHO, but no credible claims of notability... signed to DMG records, which he is also CEO of; one single released. No references, other than external links to facebook, youtube and twitter. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 11:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable, non charting song. Was redirected to band, but that was reverted by an ip user. Ravendrop 11:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable per WP:BIO, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Proposed deletion contested by creator. Shire Reeve (talk) 11:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jujutacular talk 11:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lengthy discussion between editors regarding the references in the article
|
---|
|
1. At 1,500 local book groups, MeetUp.com has a larger network but is a commercial site. – this is a footnote, not a source.
2. Handcock, Nancy. Spirit of Service: Your Daily Stimulus for Making a Difference, (HarperCollins: New York, 2008), p. 10. – The source states: "Go to www.readerscircle.org, an Internet resource that helps people organize and sustain reader's circles. The site has a wealth of information; you can also post a listing on the site to attract potential members and connect with authors who will speak with your group by phone." As Kinu (talk · contribs) notes above, this is a directory entry. Directory entries do not establish notability because they are not as calculated and selective as sources that purposefully delve into a specific topic.
3. Exclusive book clubs writing a new chapter in social status," Wall Street Journal, March 4, 2005. – Reader's Circle receives a tangential coverage in this source: "In New York, legal assistant Sarah Milks has a boldfaced posting on a Web site called readerscircle.org that starts off: NOT ACCEPTING NEW MEMBERS AT THIS TIME. Despite that warning, 200 new applications have poured in over the past year, all but one of which were rejected." While a Wall Street Journal source generally establishes notability for a subject, Reader's Circle receives merely a one sentence mention. The remainder of the paragraph is about the group founded by Sarah Milks. In my opinion, the commentary about both Reader's Circle and Sarah Milk's group is of insufficient depth to establish notability for either of the topics.
4. Carter, Chelsea J. "Book clubs evolve as page-turners," Los Angeles Times, Jan. 6, 2007. – The source states:
The coverage here, as Cindamuse (talk · contribs) notes above, is trivial. Reader's Circle is mentioned as an example to the proposition by the article's author that book clubs are evolving as page-turners. The paragraph after the trivial discussion about Reader's Circle is:Norman Hicks founded Reader's Circle, a website aimed at promoting an alternative to the traditional book club, as a way to meet people after graduating college. Rather than have a group read one book and follow a structured format, Reader's Circle promotes bringing people together in public settings, such as coffeehouses, to discuss a variety of books at once.
"I think a lot of people were drawn to it because they could read what they want, talk about it and get suggestions for other books," said Hicks, 29.
Because Book's Circle is only mentioned in two sentences (excluding the founder's quote), along with similar website PaperBackSwap.com which is mentioned in a few more, there is not enough here to pass the bar of Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires significant coverage.It's that same idea behind PaperBackSwap.com, an online book club that allows members to trade their books with others. The site also makes a book-of-the-month selection and offers live online chats for its members to discuss books, said founder Richard Pickering of Atlanta.
Tangential coverage in the "Notices" section of a community newspaper is not enough to pass the notability guidelines. Second, it is original research to use this source and the next two to verify that "The term has passed into common usage, appearing in press announcements as a taken-for-granted expression."Joan Kuster and Edith Trestik will be hostesses for the Tuesday, April 8 th Reader's Circle at the Garden City Community Church. The book will be "Broken" by William Coper Moyers , a former resident of this Village. They will meet at 12 noon and it sounds very interesting.
This is a community listing like the previous source.Book Club discussion of "Twilight." Tuesday, 12:15 p.m., Room 2234, RCCC South Campus. The Reader's Circle Book Club will read "Twilight," by Stephenie Meyer. This book was selected with RCCC students in mind, but everyone's invited. Discussion will emphasize characterization, heroism and the contrast of the film version. Contact Amelia Likin at likina@rowancabarrus.edu.- "Faculty Writes" panel discussion. Wednesday at 3 p.m., Room 106, South Campus.
This source is also a community listing like the previous two sources.The Reader’s Circle, a Hoboken book club has their next event for this Thursday March 17th at 7PM to discuss the book A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man by James Joyce.
The Reader’s Circle book group meets at 7:00PM in All Saints Church at 701 Washington Street in Hoboken, NJ. The Reader’s Circle is a community event. All book lovers are welcome. Free coffee and cake is offered at each monthly event. For more information email: readerscircle123@aol.com.
The references are either primary sources or passing mentions, neither of which enable Reader's Circle to pass Wikipedia:Notability. A Google News Archive search returns mostly directory-type mentions or unrelated results. Likewise, a Google Books search also returns trivial mentions.
I appreciate the work Normanrobert (talk · contribs) has spent crafting this article and responding to the arguments for deletion here. However, because the sources lack the depth and reliability mandated by Wikipedia:Notability, this article must be deleted. Should Normanrobert find secondary reliable sources that provide significant coverage about Reader's Circle, the article may be recreated. Cunard (talk) 10:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Normanrobert, Reader's Circle can be recreated if significant coverage is found. See the three references at Starfall (website) for example. Though Starfall has few sources, it has received enough coverage in third-party reliable sources to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Three reliable publications devoted entire articles discussing it. Quality is more important than quantity. If you can locate three third-party reliable sources (e.g. newspaper or magazine articles) that devote five or more paragraphs of at least five sentences each (excluding quotes) to explicitly discussing Reader's Circle the international organization (and not the local chapters), then Reader's Circle will pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and the article may be restored. If you find those three references, feel free to leave a note on my talk page, so I can review them. I will even write the article for you so that you will not have to worry about Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Cunard (talk) 09:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poorly sourced BLP. Only references are primary. Subject does not meet WP:PROF or WP:POLITICIAN. Lacks in-depth coverage in reliable and independent sources. Cind.amuse 10:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete under criteria A7. Articles on web-based games need to describe how they might be important in the first instance. Marasmusine (talk) 16:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Game No Longer exist, or never existed in the first place - possibly a vanity entry by the games author Jaruzel (talk) 09:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Marasmusine (talk) 09:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pure WP:FANCRUFT, the "articles" are nothing more than a chart of cars and tracks available in various iterations of the game with no actual text or establishment of notability. We are not a game guide for video game players. A select number of notable cars or tracks can be mentioned on the games' main articles, but there is no reason to list every single item available to a player for any racing game. Article was previously deleted for the last version of the game over 5 years ago, same reasons apply now. The359 (Talk) 08:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. There have been several comments posted here from brand new or unregistered users, and these votes are usually given less weight since they tend to indicate canvassing or recruitment among people unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy. Even so, I have found that some of the points made on the keep side are valid and relevant, in particular the one about radio air time, but by itself this is not always sufficient. (It depends somewhat on the nature of the program airing it, and the frequency in which it is aired.) The bulk of the argument from established users has clearly been against the article, and since Ms. Mewse's album has not yet been released, the argument that this article is premature for an up-and-coming artist appears to be based on sound reasoning. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article heavily relies on primary sources to try and demonstrate this person's notability, and most of the references and Google hits are merely links to interviews about her performance and/or are lyrics databases again, which doesn't appear to meet WP:BASIC for biographies. The page says that "Her debut album is due to be released in May 2011" but unfortunately it's not May 2011 yet. Also, since this person is a singer, she also needs to meet WP:MUSIC, and the interviews don't cut it. In all, the most I could find was one single reliable source from a news clip, which could be dubious since it only mentions her in passing, and attending a single event would hardly count as a tour. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 08:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gemma Mewse is a fantastic up and coming artist, she is very genuine and plays live shows all over the place therefore she is a real entity and should be recognized by Wikipedia as an artist featuring on radio 1 definitely constitutes a good enough reason for her to be recognized by such a large organization as Wikipedia which is built up by the users and as Gemma as a user I believe the website should honor her contribution to the growing knowledge of this website.92.236.92.4 (talk) 20:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
a credited site that will pnly allow the posing if justified.
promoted through Renegade - Music House.
I believe that Mewse's achievements to date comply with wikipedia's regulations Gary802 (talk) 14:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
link from last.fm re camden crawl http://livemusic.fm/band/gemma-mewse Link from gig reveiwer re camden crawl http://www.gigreviewer.com/gig-reviews/camden-crawl.html Link of semi short listed finalist Camden Crawl http://www.addictmusic.co.uk/news/camden-crawl-2010-announce-emerging-talent-awards-short-list/# link to review camden crawl http://www.rapidbeatpromotions.com/forum/showthread.php?s=4778e792bfbf7da2d6133cb354e7ea50&t=7040 link to Hop Farm Festival Eagles and Morrisey Headlining http://www.carling.com/music/festival/information/the_hop_farm/Gary802 (talk) 23:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@ Joe decker & company, well if thats the case you'll spend the rest of your life putting right and deleting pages from wiki. What amazes me there are people dying of starvation illness and poverty. Japan is in a mess, corruption and grief everywhere including our Parliament and you and your small minded group of web police are pathetic enough to go to such lengths,to delete a page .And no doubt you will come back to me about rules etc !!! like you've never driven over 30 or 70 mph and been righteous through your lives,get a life you sad load of cretins do some good in the world life is hard enough without having to put up with crap from no bodies like you lot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.46.37 (talk) 21:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gemma Mewse Performs at Hopfarm festival 2011- [[22]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.175.0 (talk) 15:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
talk:92.24.174.175|talk]]) 09:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Honestly fella, 'Big Time' is a very subjective thing to be saying since for people in third world countries hitting the big time would be having something to eat for a month, here in this country that's pretty much nothing. apply it to the music industry, for someone who had no fans and no support to come and get as much support as Gemma has, that's pretty big. and given the term big time, I believe that what she has achieved is 'big' and the time is 13:22. That big achievement she has has followed through until now and will for ages, that's the big time fella. All the best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forgetyou (talk • contribs) 12:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Big Momma. Calls to expand this article beyond a mash of the film articles have not been met. Jujutacular talk 12:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This new article is just a synthesis of the three articles about the individual films. There are other "(film series)" articles that are very good and add information about the subject, but this is not one of those. It is a pointless stub. Spidey104 17:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO, and WP:POLITICIAN as he has never actually held an office (see point 3 for clarification). OlYellerTalktome 07:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. CSD G3 blatant hoax Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find anything on Google about these two that can't be traced back to this article, and that includes Google Books and the Google News Archive. The two links in the article have nothing on these two. I'm really thinking this is a hoax, but considering the article has been around for more than three years, I'm really hoping I am wrong. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
About a now retired soccer player who easily fails WP:FOOTYN and WP:GNG as they have not played in a fully pro league (the CSL is not fully pro); nor has he played internationally. Contested PROD, with request that it be taken to AfD. Ravendrop 03:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 03:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. Little or no coverage online aside from the subject's own website. No reliable sources found online (using Google News, Books, etc.), which may explain why there are none in the article to begin with. Only a disambig page and other non-article pages (mostly unregistered user pages) link to this article. Article is also written like an advertisement. User who created page may have connection to subject. Levdr1 (talk) 02:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. The keep side has provided a sufficient argument that the content is verifiable enough, the Sacramento Bee article certainly counts as a reliable source (and addresses many of the notability concerns), although I am somewhat disturbed with the article sourcing material to WorldNetDaily (this source should be used with caution). I am not particularly concerned about the rationale given by Unscintillating, since there is no significant contradiction between being called "City Seminary" one place and "City Seminary of Sacramento" another place. I am leaving the decision of whether to rename the article to "City Seminary of Sacramento" up to editorial discretion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a theological school, it is small and not notable. Wikipedia is not a directory for every single school that exists on the world. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 02:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In my opinion, Unscintillating's argument here is a bit pedantic. After all, we have an article Stanford University and don't insist that it be renamed "Leland Stanford Junior University" even though that's its official name. Quibbling about the absence of the word "of" from a website banner is trivial. We are dealing with two unrelated issues: Is this seminary notable? And if it is, should the article be re-named "City Seminary of Sacramento"? I say yes to both questions. Close the AfD, and rename the article. And then it will be done. Cullen328 (talk) 00:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Any Institution
With a Name like "City Seminary"
Located in Sacramento County' -- http://www.cpec.ca.gov/CollegeGuide/AdvCollegeSearch.asp --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Hey, the article failed to mention that Po' boys aren't made out of "boys". Entertaining article, it's a damn shame we can't keep it :( Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Listcruft mostly composed of original research. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 02:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure this is a real car (although it doesn't appear to be a blatant hoax). There is a car called the Porsche Carrera, however. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 00:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was nomination withdrawn. Raymie (t • c) 01:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seems OK at first glance, but unlike some similar programs (Mingus Mountain Academy) is not in the Arizona Interscholastic Association for sports. Article also seems to have some slanted writing to it. This article was isolated for a long time from other AZ school articles due to the development of two independent lists. Raymie (t • c) 01:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Consensus is clear that this does not meet either GNG or POLITICIAN JohnCD (talk) 17:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable minor political candidate who has never been elected to anything. Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. Lincolnite (talk) 13:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 09:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural nomination. The creator of the article was not notified of the previous AfD and asked on my talk page for it to be restored. Since that AfD got only two "delete" !votes other than the nominator, I have restored it per WP:NOQUORUM and am relisting it to allow further debate. I abstain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:36, 29 March 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)) . |
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a banker with a folk art hobby. There is no evidence of notability here. Gigs (talk) 13:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jenks24 (talk) 04:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable person.Author (dubiously?) contested BLPPROD. OSborn arfcontribs. 17:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC) (Note: This AfD was only listed in the AfD log on 13:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]
The result was keep. joe deckertalk to me 23:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable magician lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Fails WP:BIO and WP:ENTERTAINER. ttonyb (talk) 16:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tony you are the first person to actually try and discuss the articles.
As for the point about libel it simply states in tags that one of the reasons for citation is to avoid libel,etc. As the reasons behind the lack of notable references has been brought up by myself before I concluded that this might be one of the reasons the article is still tagged and was wondering why. It clearly has no slander/libel elements within it.
In general I can understand 'wiki -notability' but this leads us to an uncomfortable situation where people on the edges of arts and discoveries will be brushed over and any half-assed idiot from a reality tv show will qualify. Again it's all subjective, I simply feel wikipedia is a collective gathering of knowledge, some of which people may not have heard of before they went searching for it and should not start limiting itself to those who can get 15 seconds of limelight in the 'mainstream'.
When being drunk and obnoxious qualifies to be a 'wiki' entry and dedicating over 30 years of your life to an art-form is not I worry about what we are learning. — kalchulainn
The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Jujutacular talk 12:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article had been tagged for speedy deletion per CSD G11; I declined the speedy because the page does not look unambiguously and exclusively promotional. But due to the rationale given for the speedy tag per the respective edit summary in the article's revision history, I felt that I should take this article to AfD for discussion. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 22:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 09:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article lacks third party reliable sources and does not explain the importance or significance of the subject. Only independent source is a directory listing noq (talk) 01:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 20:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article was deleted back in 2009 for being non-notable/copyvio and after having a quick look for sources I would say that is still the case. Does not meet current standards of notability. --> Gggh talk/contribs 03:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 01:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unknown NYC playwright. Notability per WP:CREATIVE is questionable, to say the least. Google search yields no credible sources. bender235 (talk) 00:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Notability not established via reliable sources. joe deckertalk to me 20:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relatively new company, much of the material is written like an advert. Doesn't seem particularly notable to me. bd2412 T 15:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
The result was DELETE. Notability not established or demonstrated. postdlf (talk) 03:06, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No demonstration of notability in cited references. No in depth coverage from third party sources offered. Warfieldian (talk) 18:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Rick Astley discography. JohnCD (talk) 17:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NALBUMS. No coverage I can find, the one external link provided does not include the subject. Muhandes (talk) 18:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Potentially non-notable minor league baseball player and manager. Sure, he managed and played for a long time, but his career doesn't seem very illustrious. In short, he might not pass the GNG. Alex (talk) 21:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 03:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod - a quick search yields no indication that it is notable. References are self-published or not reliable. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 22:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]