The result was speedy keep. Mkativerata (talk) 22:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable figure from the 1930s. Does not meet notability guidelines. Aiyoriaoshi (talk) 23:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This list is an almost entirely negative list of incidents, and therefore falls foul of WP:NOT - "Articles should not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person." Because it is entirely concerned with off-field incidents, it is only tangentially relevant to the game of rugby. StAnselm (talk) 23:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article had a proposed deletion that I believe was removed in bad faith by an anonymous user. Like was stated on the original proposal, the subject of this article is too obscure and does not have enough notability to have a Wikipedia page. A small amount of exposure on YouTube and minor local media coverage is not enough for a subject to have a page on Wikipedia. In addition, the article is horribly referenced. My views are also shared by editors who have posted on the article's talk page. Rogerthat94 (talk) 23:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for stating that you were anonymous and your removal was done in bad faith. I misread the page's history and thought that the prod was removed in a different edit that was made anonymously and had no summary listed. I submitted it to AFD because I didn't think the subject had enough notability and I still believe it needs a lot more citation, as I have stated above.Rogerthat94 (talk) 00:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP I feel it important to keep small pages like this, as it peaks interest about small things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.59.141 (talk) 00:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why delete the account about her? She's sorta famous. All famous people should be one here. I mean, you have Rebecca Black on here. Why not Jenna Rose? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.84.81.48 (talk) 02:37, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 12:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Fails Wikipedia:BASEBALL/N. Baseball Watcher 23:06, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Playdom, thereby preserving the content for rework in case the game becomes more notable in the future. Deryck C. 21:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet the general notability guideline. The sources are: facebook, a forum, a web traffic page, the game publisher, a self-published blog, and a user generated walkthrough. You need reliable sources (not self published, not forums or communities) that are independent of the subject (not the developer) to WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Deryck C. 21:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
sources provided are hard to verify, google search doesn't bring up much in regards to notability. Karl 334 ☞TALK to ME ☜ 21:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete per G7. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gh87 (talk • contribs) 06:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this article for deletion because its notability has not yet established. Also, this has no sources, making it an orphan. Although she is a popular Hong Kong singer, notability of other Kelly Chen's albums is absent. Gh87 (talk) 21:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted by Slakr (Speedy deleted per (CSD G11), was blatant advertising, used only to promote someone or something.) Non-admin closure of orphaned AFD. Serpent's Choice (talk) 17:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see why this company is Notable for inclusion. It's nicely written, but I do not think it meets WP:GNG. Phearson (talk) 21:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) mauchoeagle (c) 00:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet WP:ORG. Its "notability" is based principally on a single song that became popular on YouTube. Does not meet notability for WP:EVENT, either. Bbb23 (talk) 21:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Deryck C. 20:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of PR releases, no substantial reliable sources. Non-notable. TransporterMan (TALK) 21:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete per G7. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gh87 (talk • contribs) 03:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC) [reply]
Although she is a popular Hong Kong singer, the notability of Kelly Chen's albums has yet to be established. Also, there are no sources, and it is an orphan article. This article has not improved for years. Also, I created this article to spin it off from the article of Kelly Chen. Gh87 (talk) 20:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 07:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not encyclopedic material, or at the very least should be merged somewhere into World War II or something. Diego Grez (talk) 20:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete for verifiability and notability concerns addressed below. Deryck C. 20:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can't find anything for this subject. Is it the same one discussed here? If so, that doesn't change much, since there don't seem to multiple secondary sources. Drmies (talk) 19:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete for lack of notability. Deryck C. 20:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't meet WP:CORP. Nikki♥311 19:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete as a hoax created by a troubled user (blocked). Materialscientist (talk) 01:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently contested PROD. Original reasoning: No references for this supposed Disney movie can be found... likely hoax. This reasoning still stands. ArcAngel (talk) ) 19:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro team. PROD was contested on the grounds that FC Dnepr Mahilyow is in the Belorusian Premier League. However, there is no indication that Mr. Dayneko ever actually played for them. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NOTABILITY. No Google hits related to the organization described in the article. Yk3 talk · contrib 17:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to List of American film actresses and protect, since this is the 3rd attempt to create an article which is a duplicate of another. Given that all instances of creating the article was in the last two weeks, a three-month protection should be appropriate. Any administrator may change the protection settings without my consent if they see fit, however I'd appreciate if I'm notified of the changes. Deryck C. 20:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article was already speedy deleted and recreated twice, but it was suggested that it doesn't scrictly qualify for a Speedy, so I brought it here. This article seems to be a completely arbitrary list of random actresses. We already have an article specifically listing American Actresses here, so this article already seems rather redundant. In addition, this article's section on "Most Famous Movie" falls into either/both WP:OR and WP:POV. The page's author has created numerous other pages with the same format on other subjects, if it is decided here that this article should be deleted, those need to be looked at as well. Rorshacma (talk) 17:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 06:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We are not a transaction site. We don't need to have whole pages dedicated to who is a free agent each offseason, as team season pages and the player pages carry all the necessary information. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of events, as it includes some but not necessarily all events to take place at the old Yankee Stadium. In addition, it gives no argument as to what makes it notable to consider events in such a way. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article where both speedy (A7) and prods were removed. Upshot is that this is a non-notable person who doesn't have any significant coverage outside of the local area, and so does not pass WP:GNG. ArcAngel (talk) ) 17:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Several months ago an article that listed the ages and lifespans of Nobel laureates in literature was deleted. The Consensus was that the list was original research and an indiscriminate collection of information. However, similar pages also existed for the other Nobel Prizes. The reasons given apply to these lists as well, so the lists should be deleted. I am also nominating the following related pages besides the chemistry page, as they are all similar in content.
Dagko (talk) 23:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Claims to be a famous blogger and musician. No indication of importance of Blogging. The claim to fame as a musician are two albums and two EP's on an independent label. No independent reliable sources that give good coverage. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alex is awesome and shud deffo have a wikipedia. he has done loads of stuff that makes him important. he has over 200,000 subscrbers to his channel, he was in fiveawesomeguys, he invited trock, he is in chamelon circuit, he won upstaged, he made rthe top 40 with 'ive got nothing', he released albums on dftba, need i go on???? dftba! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.211.18 (talk) 09:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC) — 92.21.211.18 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Sorry for any misunderstandings. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]"... significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not."
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:53, 26 May 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)) . |
Topic appears to lack notability Health Researcher (talk) 16:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware that blogs could be cited in Wikipedia articles. If they can, this can easily be done.John jacob lyons (talk) 22:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does not the Biology of Religion blog of the Nature Publishing Group count as a reliable source? Also, please bear in mind that this article was not really 'self-published' since it was invited by the editor.John jacob lyons (talk) 08:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I want to suggest that the article at http://www.scilogs.eu/en/blog/biology-of-religion/2011-03-24/the-genetic-priming-of-religiosity-guest-post-by-john-jacob-lyons?sms_ss=facebook&at_xt=4d8bc0721c26ed03%2C0 does establish that Genetic Priming is notable. It is a well-known scientific blog that is recommended by The Nature Publishing Group which is one of the most respected such groups in the scientific world. Furthermore I would add that I was invited to write this piece by the Editor of the blog. The discussion that followed was uniformly positive. John jacob lyons (talk) 19:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As a student of Psychology of Religion, I found this article made a useful contribution to the question of why people are religous and act in religious ways. It has created considerable interest in the academic community of which I am aware. Alice Herron MA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.143.226 (talk) 09:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC) — 87.112.143.226 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The Genetic priming theory has created considerable interest/ discussion among my friends and colleagues in the field of Evolutionary Psychology and in Psychology of Religion in particular. The article is interesting, well-written and potentially important in Evolutionary Theory. It should definitely be retained in Wikipedia. A. Violetta Barzankian-Kaydan, BSc (Psych) Hons, MSc Psych, MA Psych of Religion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.204.222.137 (talk) 14:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC) — 90.204.222.137 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
How Wikipedia Works: Editors new to Wikipedia - thank you for your interest in participating in Wikipedia - should understand that "notability" is regulated by guidelines listed at WP:NOTE. Therefore creating a positive verbal buzz does not constitute notability. Note also that the notability guideline says "The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity.... Sources of evidence include recognized peer reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally," and that "Multiple sources are generally expected". Please also be aware that this discussion is not a vote, and, for future reference, please also read WP:MEAT with regard to soliciting comments from outside editors. -- Health Researcher (talk) 16:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have struggle to find reliable sources which cover this subject in any great detail, thereby i don't believe it is notable enough for inclusion on WP and should be deleted. Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 07:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 07:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro leauge. No reason was given for contesting. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete per G12. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Google him, doesn't show up that many good'n's. Island Monkey talk the talk 14:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete per concerns about notability and lack of sourcing.
I was unable to find sufficient RS coverage reflecting notability. Epeefleche (talk) 14:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. The general consensus in this discussion is that the event has adequate notability for inclusion even though it's a news event. Deryck C. 20:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTNEWS, The article is about a recent alleged terrorism plot. this source says that the case is not being dealt with on a federal level because it was not considered strong enough to secure a conviction. In my opinion, this article should be userfied until such time as the GNG can be satisfied Quasihuman | Talk 14:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Not counting Wee Curry Monster's second "keep" opinion. Sandstein 07:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
long unreferenced biography of article with no clear notabillity and no significant changes in five years. Previous afd prevents me from prodding Sadads (talk) 13:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Non-admin closure. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article makes no attempt to flesh out its notability, and brief researches don't throw up any reliable sources discussing this song directly and in detail. It was deleted via PROD and undeleted following this ridiculous request which duplicates WP:ITSNOTABLE to an extent of true beauty. ╟─TreasuryTag►high seas─╢ 14:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Deryck C. 19:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. My prod reasoning was: "No references, no evidence of notability, can't find anything in google or IMDb, nothing listed on IMDb pages for main participants that seems to resemble this film (eg. the director's IMDb page has nothing since 2007). Appears to be unverifiable." The prod was removed with the summary "This is a new movie & deserves a mention". BelovedFreak 13:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. I'm afraid many of those commenting here have made invalid arguments. Being known and beloved locally does not establish notability for a general audience. The fact that similarly flawed articles exist does not change that. The fact that users arguing to delete this article are not Oregonians and do not have any first hand knowledge of these individuals is a good thing. It means they have no personal feelings about it and are basing their arguments on Wikipedia policy. It seems rather obvious that there was some off-site canvassing here as well, and I note that fans of the duo have previously attempted internet vote-rigging. As is noted below, this is not a vote. Sheer numbers cannot be allowed to overturn well reasoned arguments with a solid base in Wikipedia policy. However I'm not sure I agree with the unusual step of protecting the discussion itself, especially considering that the protection will not expire for several more days despite the fact that it is now over. People often worry a bit too much about such things, a closing admin who is doing their job properly can tell when there is an flood of WP:SPA users stacking votes. Having said that, I am going to take another unusual step and create-protect all of these articles. There is obviously a group of folks who are determined to force this content onto Wikipedia through any means necessary. Protection will force them to do it honestly and in accordance with our content policies. The articles can be worked on as userspace drafts until they have overcome the problems identified here, namely that these individuals and their programs are only known locally and coverage is brief and trivial. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:55, 26 May 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)) . |
Procedural nomination. These articles are about the co-hosts of a podcast that has been deleted following AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cort and Fatboy. Deletion was upheld at deletion review (Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 April 10). Both articles use content from the deleted article (see [18]), which is a violation of the copyright of our contributors unless the history is restored. However, history should not be restored if the material is inappropriate. Bringing it here for review, as either this must go, or that must come back. Note that there is evidently more content from the deleted version in Cort Webber than Bobby "Fatboy" Roberts. Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both - The Cort and Fatboy entry keeps getting deleted, and therefore, both hosts attempted for their own pages. Now they're being penalized for using the same information from their original page? Both personalities are credible radio personalities, from their days on-air to their current status in internet radio in Cascadia.FM. Try listening to their show at www.cortandfatboy.com. It's the real deal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlobach (talk • contribs) 21:06, 19 May 2011— Mlobach (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep both Long time Wikipedia reader, first time Wikipedia, ummmm....debater? Contender? Speak-up-er-er? I looked through the site's policies. Yeah, I don't see a problem here. Some of the links included on the article, indeed, are not in-depth articles. Still, there's two on Roberts' page that are super-duper credible. The AOL interview is 3,000 words! What more do you want?!!! Feel free to delete all the other citations and keep that one then. Who cares? That thing's bullet proof. "Credible," "reliable," the works! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.178.19.17 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 19 May 2011 — 68.178.19.17 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed prod. Bio, almost certainly autobio with no evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently a small bit of Brewarrina, New South Wales, at best; Not notable as such, Geoscience, doesn't recognise any such place Crusoe8181 (talk) 12:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Deleted as a recreated article. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 22:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article was previously successfully deleted (under PROD) due to it consisting almost entirely of SYN, OR and NEO. This view was shared by multiple users and the deleting admin. The page has today been re-made by recently unblocked user Neilpine, it should be noted he was blocked for his behavior in articles such as this relating to 'power in international relations'. It should also be noted that he was the original creator of the page in question. The reason I bring this here is that the restoration went ahead without the deleting admin being contacted or without any explanation and I believe it should be deleted once again. G.R. Allison (talk) 12:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete under criteria A7: Web content with no indication of importance. Marasmusine (talk) 11:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable game. Fails WP:GNG. Of the 7 given references, 5 are to the subject's website (not independent). 1 is to another wiki which isn't reliable. The other is to a Gamespot forum that simply has two posts advertising the game (not reliable and probably not independent). The author has created the page several times in with slightly different names, all of which have been deleted or userfied to this article which has again been moved to mainspace. The other two I can find are Athanaton and Athaenara. May need a multi-article salt. OlYellerTalktome 12:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Keep, but a bit of a weak keep at this point in time, so I would recommend further discussion on the article talk page, giving those that expressed keep some time to improve the article, and a further look at a later date as to a need or not for a later reevaluation. -- Cirt (talk) 06:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cut-and-paste from Boomerang_(Australian_TV_channel)#Currently_airing_on_Boomerang - redundant to the section in this article. Peripitus (Talk) 11:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Non-admin closure. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed prod (whose disputant, quixotically, admits that this building is non-notable). No evidence of third-party sourcing for this structure. Also unlikely search term, so no real point in leaving as a redirect. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedily deleted on request from author (CSD G7). JamesBWatson (talk) 12:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bit of a tricky one. Autobiography of an apparently successful business man. I can't see any evidence of encyclopaedic notability. I can't find any significant coverage in reliable sources, although there are some trivial mentions. There is apparently a poet with a very similar name so there may be some confusion in sources.
However, if this man is Morten Sondergaard Pedersen, (Danish business man, same age) there is a bit more coverage. A BBC article from 2005 mentions him being arrested, alleged fraud etc. There is a similar Times article about a Danish "pornographer" suspected of fraud. If this is NOT the same man, I really don't think there's enough to demonstrate notability. If this IS the same man, there may be enough, but it may be a case of WP:BLP1E. BelovedFreak 11:18, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 16:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see any evidence that the subject of this (auto?)biography meets notablity guidelines. He is a published writer and has "skirted on the periphery of the media", appearing on Countdown and Fifteen to One, but I can't see anything here that demonstrates enough notability for an article. Couldn't find any significant coverage in reliable sources either. BelovedFreak 11:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Non-admin closure. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confused stub, lacking substantive referencing. Whilst allegedly "an important post-war social researcher", the topic is not a social researcher at all, but a minor architect. No evidence of substantive reliable third-party sourcing. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. There appears to be no consensus at this time between those that wish to keep versus merge, but certainly not anything here to result in delete. Therefore, further discussion should take place on the talk page, with regard to merger or not. -- Cirt (talk) 06:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obscure, if "spectacular", waterfall. No substantive, reliable, third-party coverage. Brief mentions in guidebooks appears to be all. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus, default to keep. This discussion has established some notability, but most of the discussion revolved around the guidelines's application rather than the subject's notability. With an inconclusive debate about how to apply the guidelines, I'm closing this discussion as no consensus, default to keep. Deryck C. 19:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable William M. Connolley (talk) 10:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know this is a small sample, but I think it is fair to conclude that having a few papers with 50 to 100 citations is pretty normal for a math professor, and not a sign of notability. Perchloric (talk) 23:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the deletionists here are currently ghostbusting departed quantities. Input would be appreciated. Tkuvho (talk) 16:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 06:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This character is non-notable, not being discussed "direclty and in detail" by multiple reliable sources, as stipulated by WP:SIGCOV. The reasoning behind the removal of the PROD-tag is especially flawed: "a simple Google search indicates this to have been a real character and to have been played by that actor" seems to fly against WP:ITEXISTS and WP:GHITS, while, "This article is also linked to by about 20 or 30 other articles, which also speaks against deletion," (technically true, but only because of it being linked to in a navbox) is essentially a WP:POPULARPAGE violation. ╟─TreasuryTag►Lord Speaker─╢ 09:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Deryck C. 19:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:N. No sources can be located to establish this topic's notability. –Dream out loud (talk) 08:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 15:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
previous AfD is here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr Zhongjun Cao. now that time has passed since his death I see no long standing notability as per WP:EVENT and WP:EFFECT. people get murdered for supposed "racial" reasons all the time. LibStar (talk) 08:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Hikita Bungoro. Non-admin closure. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Toyogoro was another name for Hikita Bungoro. Since this article is an unsourced stub, I believe it should be deleted. JReyer (talk) 07:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Userfy to User:Warracres. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable band. Contributor might be affiliated with the organization. Moray An Par (talk) 06:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. New user article. User should not be bitten. --Djc wi (talk) 06:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be non-notable, as I cannot find sufficient RS coverage, having done a wp:before search. Epeefleche (talk) 05:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, بهرام کلهرنیا Farsi search [25] shows some quality but not enough to assert notability. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 14:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep, as notability of subject has been established by this discussion. The discussion below suggests that further sourcing of the article may be necessary, but I won't make it part of the closing condition. Deryck C. 19:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unable to find reliable, secondary sources providing in-depth coverage of this voice actor. The name is sufficiently common (e.g, the significantly more notable computational linguist of the same name), however, that there's a chance I've missed something. Long-term unreferenced BLP. joe deckertalk to me 23:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. General consensus leans towards keep and nominator wishes to withdraw the deletion nomination. Deryck C. 19:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is an insecure, inefficient, and flawed-by-design cryptographic protocol whose only notability is its insecurity. (Plus, even the description of the protocol on this page is erroneous.) Nageh (talk) 16:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC) Afterthought: I think I need to retract my AfD vote. The issue I was trying to bring up was that there are tons of flawed authentication protocol designs, and IMO most of them are hardly notable. Protocols like Needham-Schroeder and Otway-Rees are way more notable, were used in practice, provide the basis for many other similar protocols, but do have design flaws as well, just as earlier versions of Kerberos. On the other hand, we do have articles on protocols that are equally non-notable as Woo-Lam, and are present simply because Bruce Schneier chose to cover them in his Applied Cryptography book. Sigh, even Woo-Lam is covered in his book, so I guess I'm at loss. :/ Nageh (talk) 10:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
((cite journal))
: Missing or empty |title=
(help)
The result was SPEEDY DELETE. JIP | Talk 05:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Content duplicates Family tree of the Māori gods. Unreferenced, appears to be a test page. 78.26 (talk) 05:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was unanimous delete. Deryck C. 19:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No sources, article name needs to be changed. First name should probably be Shekhar Vedulla. Very confusing article. No evidence of notability presented. 78.26 (talk) 04:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Filmmaker has only completed a fifteen-minute short. Fails WP:ARTIST. The Interior (Talk) 02:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet WP:BAND, lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Claim of award as "best live band" is not referenced making judging the notability of that difficult. In the end an unsigned band is going to have a difficult time meeting WP:BAND without some good media coverage. The only references provided are self published or to a music sales site. RadioFan (talk) 17:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable company lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Fails WP:WEB and WP:COMPANY. ttonyb (talk) 23:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Super Technologies. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just one service from a specific phone company - I see no notability here -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure). mauchoeagle (c) 00:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article is: Promotional, Stub, Mainly from primary sources Eftertanke (talk) 11:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:36, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Essay that should only be a dicdef. delete - UtherSRG (talk) 21:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC) UtherSRG (talk) 21:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Astrium. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod Daniel Case (talk) 15:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was soft delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Poorly sourced article on rare promotional CD. Originally, this article was about one song on the disc. As sources were insufficient for that, it was changed to its current focus. Neither one has significant coverage in independent sources (see article talk page for specific problems with the sources. Not notable as a song or a CD, per WP:NSONG/WP:MUSIC. SummerPhD (talk) 15:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:36, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Singles generally do not meet WP:N, no mention of notability no references. A Previous AfD seems to have passed because everyone thought it was an album, Article says it is about single no mention of hitting any charts. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No indication of notability, importance; no sources; no bands signed to the label with articles Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 15:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Being a Playboy playmate does not make you and your twin sister notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability criteria. Damiens.rf 01:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to 2011 military intervention in Libya. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Content fork from 2011 military intervention in Libya. Scant news coverage; does not merit its own article. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable band lacking reliable sources » Swpbτ • ¢ 03:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 05:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This page is against the Manual of Style for disambiguation pages for several reasons. There is one definite redlinkable article (although it is not redlinked) and one possible. However, it does not look like these articles are being worked on so this is just an unneeded placeholder that does not direct the reader to intended content. Furthermore, it goes into more detail than is needed to disambiguate the subjects (even though the subjects are directed to the same article), and the on top of that there is controversy over its accuracy. "Jerusalem of the West" might be an alright See also since there could possibly be some confusion and it is certainly related wording wise. "East Jerusalem" is the exact opposite wording wise but is related subject wise if looking at similarities of the legal issues. Axe tis disambig and bring it back when there are two articles (even then questionable) written that needs a disambig. I can see the use of this disambig in the future but it is nothing but trouble now. Cptnono ([[User talk:
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is classic wikipedia not a directory territory. These are simply lists of shows broadcast by the networks. They're not encyclopedic, difficult to maintain, and basically covered by numerous other pages, including the primary network pages. Shadowjams (talk) 08:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:38, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is classic wikipedia not a directory territory. These are simply lists of shows broadcast by the networks. They're not encyclopedic, difficult to maintain, and basically covered by numerous other pages, including the primary network pages. Shadowjams (talk) 08:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is classic wikipedia not a directory territory. These are simply lists of shows broadcast by the networks. They're not encyclopedic, difficult to maintain, and basically covered by numerous other pages, including the primary network pages. Shadowjams (talk) 08:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is classic wikipedia not a directory territory. These are simply lists of shows broadcast by the networks. They're not encyclopedic, difficult to maintain, and basically covered by numerous other pages, including the primary network pages. Shadowjams (talk) 08:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is classic wikipedia not a directory territory. These are simply lists of shows broadcast by the networks. They're not encyclopedic, difficult to maintain, and basically covered by numerous other pages, including the primary network pages. Shadowjams (talk) 08:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:38, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:38, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is classic wikipedia not a directory territory. These are simply lists of shows broadcast by the networks. They're not encyclopedic, difficult to maintain, and basically covered by numerous other pages, including the primary network pages. Shadowjams (talk) 08:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:38, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:38, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is classic wikipedia not a directory territory. These are simply lists of shows broadcast by the networks. They're not encyclopedic, difficult to maintain, and basically covered by numerous other pages, including the primary network pages. Shadowjams (talk) 08:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:38, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is classic wikipedia not a directory territory. These are simply lists of shows broadcast by the networks. They're not encyclopedic, difficult to maintain, and basically covered by numerous other pages, including the primary network pages. Shadowjams (talk) 08:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 15:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is classic wikipedia not a directory territory. These are simply lists of shows broadcast by the networks. They're not encyclopedic, difficult to maintain, and basically covered by numerous other pages, including the primary network pages. Shadowjams (talk) 08:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is classic wikipedia not a directory territory. These are simply lists of shows broadcast by the networks. They're not encyclopedic, difficult to maintain, and basically covered by numerous other pages, including the primary network pages. Shadowjams (talk) 08:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is classic wikipedia not a directory territory. These are simply lists of shows broadcast by the networks. They're not encyclopedic, difficult to maintain, and basically covered by numerous other pages, including the primary network pages. Shadowjams (talk) 08:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This stub seems to have been created for promotional purposes, and I can't find any other sources that cover Mr. Watts in detail other than the one in the article. The source in the article is from a media magazine, and it seems of limited use as a source as the entire magazine is aimed at promotion. The creator also appears to have a conflict of interest. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 15:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable minor league baseball player, who, as far as I can conjecture, is no longer playing professionally. This individual never played above the mid-minors and spent most of his career in the lower minors/independent ball. The majority of the references, if not all, are WP:ROUTINE. Alex (talk) 18:33, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
:*Actually, the older AfD has some sources of coverage. But I am no longer convinced that those alone are quite enough under current notability standards. Rlendog (talk) 20:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
:*I should also point out that I don't regard the Milwaukee Journal article as trivial, just inadequate on its own or with the other non-independent or trivial sources. Rlendog (talk) 20:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 05:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:PORNBIO and WP:ENT, no indication the subject can satisfy the GNG or any other specialized guideline. No relevant GNews or GBooks hit with any substantive bio content. Claimed "NightMoves Award" is by prior consensus insignificant; cited music video appearance is a series of very brief shots, not more than 10 secs total, not a significant role. Survived prior AFD 4 years ago under greatly relaxed PORNBIO standards no longer in effect. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC) (categories)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:PORNBIO with nominations in only a single year, no nontrivial relevant GNews/GBooks hits. Subject has a very small number of porn credits and appeared in an episode of a low-profile reality TV show, failing WP:ENT and the GNG. Article was created by a sock of the now-banned user Benjeboi, deleted uncontroversially by PROD, and recently reinstated after a REFUND request by an SPA with no other edits who also appears to be another Benjeboi sock. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is two sentences long, and reads like an essay. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. As this is a Belarusian band it is unlikely that there are many English sources available. Consensus is in favor of keeping the article. (non-admin closure) Alpha Quadrant talk 22:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot find sufficient RS coverage to reflect notability under wp's rules. Epeefleche (talk) 00:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]