The result was delete. Eagles 24/7 (C) 06:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SALAT. This list is overly broad, and would include thousands of entries, even if it were to be restricted to the author's revised subject of only science fiction television shows cancelled after one season. Article's prose is just original research. Singularity42 (talk) 23:24, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a title "List of Popular Science Fiction Shows Cancelled" with a listing where viewing numbers where recorded at over five million? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cams0ft (talk • contribs) 23:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Eagles 24/7 (C) 06:17, 29 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)) . |
Contested proposed deletion. Reasoning given was that all the references used are National Front/white power websites, not reliable sources. Nothing better found in a search. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Eagles 24/7 (C) 06:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bus route with nothing notable and nothing encyclopedic about the article. Did not PROD because of Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Are Bus Routes Encyclopaedic Singularity42 (talk) 22:45, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted by RHaworth (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.worldmusicinstitute.org/event.php?id=466). Non-admin closure of orphaned AFD. Serpent's Choice (talk) 15:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Copyvio --- see talk page. Additionally, the article was prodded under A7, and the prod was removed by an editor who failed to mention why it did not meet the A7 deletion criteria. IN addition, I don't see sufficient RS coverage to meet wp's notablity criteria, though others are welcome to see if they can find it.Epeefleche (talk) 22:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep on the issue of "keep vs delete", no consensus on the issue of a merge/redirect. That can be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable road. Was possibly created due to the same topic facing an AFD at Simple English Wikipedia. PROD declined by article's creator Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 22:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Eagles 24/7 (C) 06:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even though the iPad 2 was released in early March the article still doesn't contain significant amounts of unique content that isn't already in iPad or in iPad accessories. Thus while the topic is notable this article seems to be redundant and efforts to improve coverage of the iPad would be better focused elsewhere on the project. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:38, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Read before voting: We do not contest that the subject is notable. However, we have been unable to write a suitable article and feel that the content is best merged into other articles, as most of it already is. This position is in line with the final bullet point of WP:GNG. HereToHelp (talk to me) 20:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Eagles 24/7 (C) 06:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not every sports rivalry is notable enough for its own article, including this one. PROD removed by author without explanation. Singularity42 (talk) 20:45, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a matter of fact, it kind of does...User:Wackslas —Preceding undated comment added 07:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Simply listing lists does not an encyclopedia article make. Our policies for WP:GNG requires signfiifcant coverage from secondary sources. I found their as been no secondary coverage of "cult checklists" in general. This article as is actually misrepresents several scholars work in the topic area. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 19:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) v/r - TP 18:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Questionable notability. Book series is long but I can only find a third party review of one book (her first) [1] and no third party interviews with the author. Fails WP:GNG. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 19:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Eagles 24/7 (C) 06:35, 29 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 leuage. PROD was contested on the grounds that he played for CD Numancia, however he has only ever played for CD Numancia B, which is insufficient to meet WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I previously deleted this article about a medical product as a copyvio, but Ticket:2011051810012889 does make clear that the text, taken from the manufacturer's website, has been properly licenced. I'm submitting it to a regular deletion discussion because nothing in the article, or in a Google search, establishes the notability of the product. The article creator, identified in the OTRS ticket as the "Senior Marketing Manager" of the manufacturer, is currently blocked by me as an advertising-only account. Even if the product is notable, the article should be deleted and rewritten from scratch by somebody who does not have a conflict of interest, since given its provenance we cannot assume that the current text is a neutral description of the product, and because the article concerns a complicated medical topic, most editors can't easily check it for neutrality. Sandstein 18:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Eagles 24/7 (C) 06:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD - unreferenced BLP. Gsearch shows no hits. Author of article may have COI NtheP (talk) 18:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. This article undoubtedly has significant problems dependent, as it is, in large part on sources written by the application's creator. There is a clear division of views between the deleters who regard the independent sourcing as clearly inadequate and the keepers who are of the opinion that there is enough there. The Oxford and Cambridge references, for example, have split opinion over their status. What is clear, however, is that there is no mandate for deletion and, though we don't count !votes, there is, in my view, a sufficient majority for 'keep' to tip the balance away from 'no consensus'. The best way forward is now to use normal editing methods; a 'merge' discussion could be opened on the talk page, for example, and those parts that are clearly inadequately sourced could be tagged or removed. I would, however, counsel that any large scale excisions should first go to the talk page. TerriersFan (talk) 20:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Msnicki (talk) 18:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if anything should be done, is to merge this article with Ge Wang, who is clearly notable having an article in the New York Times ("From Pocket to Stage, Music in the Key of iPhone") as well as IEEE Spectrum (Ge Wang: The iPhone's Music Man) about his iPhone music software (Smule/Ocarina). FuFoFuEd (talk) 19:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From Wang's "Designing Smule's iPhone Ocarina" I see that Smule's Ocarina is basically an app in ChiP (ChucK on the iPhone). FuFoFuEd (talk) 20:01, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see that Collins' 2010 Introduction to Computer Music has "a selection of popular computer music programming languages": Pd (Pure Data), Max/MSP, SuperCollider, Csound, Common Lisp Music, ChucK, Impromptu. All seem to have Wikipedia articles. FuFoFuEd (talk) 20:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) v/r - TP 12:27, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One single mention in a BBC article. A google search gives few relevant hits. PaoloNapolitano (talk) 17:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Guitar Center. (non-admin closure) v/r - TP 18:06, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Although there is a claim of being the largest distributor of musical instruments in the world, there is no independent verification of this. In later press coverage (and practically all I could find were Press Releases), the company is said to claim themselves that they are the largest distributor in the US. This was originally deleted as an expired PROD, and restored upon request. I found the one semi-decent reference and added that, but felt that this company does not meet the criteria for inclusion, as there is so little coverage - most of the news coverage is from either the company's press releases, or their (since 1999) parent company's press releases; there are minor mentions in books, but not the significant coverage required by the notability criteria. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Whether the content has merit with respect to sourcing etc. is a content question and even if I had an opinion about it, I would not be allowed to let it influence this closure. On this basis, we have no consensus about whether to delete the article because of its alleged content deficiencies. But this disagreement can be solved editorially through talk page discussion about whether (and to which extent) to merge or redirect the article to Islamization of Jerusalem. Sandstein 05:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article is WP:SYNTH. The only two sources which mentions "islamization" in this context are the highly partisan Bat Ye'or and the former Israeli mayor of Jerusalem, Teddy Kollek. The article is also the work of banned user. Frederico1234 (talk) 16:55, 22 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)) . |
Fred, the subject was not "fabricated" - it's a legitimate topic and an article was created albeit by a sock but in this case it does not negate the topic. In fact the Islamization article itself needs lots of work but its contents validate this article just as it validates many other "Islamization" articles such as Islamization in Iran, Islamization of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Islamization of Palestine, Islamization of the Temple Mount, Islamization of Syria, Islamization of Egypt etc, so while it needs improvement, it is a worthy topic. IZAK (talk) 08:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fred, you seem to be ignoring facts of history. For a start, see Occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem by Jordan#Jordanian occupation:
The result was delete. Eagles 24/7 (C) 06:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PROD removed by an IP with no reason provided; this player has never played in a fully-professional league, failing WP:NFOOTBALL, and also fails WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 16:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 01:54, 30 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 league. PROD was contested on the grounds that it merits more detailed consideration. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 00:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
![]() | STUBBED: Participants please note, I have stubbed the article for the duration of this discussion due to BLP concerns. Please see this revision for pre-stub version which is the subject of discussion. - FT2 22:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
The article reads like an essay, and the references are not convincing. Some are not third-person, some are books written by the subject, and the others are mostly news bits quoting Wenzel in his employment capacity. Doesn't seem to satisfy the GNG. MacMedtalkstalk 16:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are numerous problems with this article, of which the main ones are lack of sufficient reliable neutral sources, which is fatal to a Wikipedia article on anybody, and (failing that) notability.
The article is about a professional poker player, poker magazine chief editor, poker author, and past journalist/editor. Arguably he may have a high enough profile in the poker world or elsewhere to support an article. I have considered whether this is a "notable but poorly written" biography (a common problem). However before keeping, there must be sufficient high quality independent sources to demonstrate notability and also sufficient high quality independent sources to write a balanced high quality neutral article. Without those, no article can exist.
The necessary kinds of sources or evidence are not visible online—or anywhere else I can find. I have examined Google / news / books / scholar, and also checked all cites in the article (analyzed below), none are good evidence to support an article. There are other concerns too - primarily that the article contains numerous BLP worries such as negative or positive sounding claims and I can't see any signs of being able to verify these from independent high quality sources either. For this reason I cannot really clean up the article while it's at AFD, and have stubbed it in line with our BLP policy. The lack of reliable coverage means we only have sources for a stub at best, and the lack of sources suggests that notability isn't achieved either and we should probably delete it at this time.
Even if high quality sources exist, then there's a concern over notability:
Taken together is there evidence of notability? How much attention does a poker player need before they are considered "notable"? Is poker-world attention enough or should we expect significant external attention too? I can't judge these but they are also an issue.
Analysis of article citations
|
---|
In summary, of all these, just one item is verifiable salient coverage—and that is brief coverage on BusinessWire related to a specific event, his appointment as editor in chief of a magazine. |
The result was speedy delete per WP:G4. (non-admin closure) Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As it was in the previous discussion, the website is still non-notable. None of the sources cited in the article is reliable or independent. They do not even provide the information for the website, they just contain the name of it. And the article is quite like an adversitement. Seems like a part of the crosswiki ads of this website, on Turkish, Azeri and English Wikipedias. Seksen (talk) 15:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 00:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This school is trying to use Wikipedia as its own website. Everything is unreferenced, does not conform to Wikipedia standards, is choppy, needs major copy editing, and is not written from a neutral point of view. I.e. "The school is a great place for learning Age 4-11 Gender entry Mixed." Copy editing could be done, but the article still doesn't establish notability. Ryan Vesey (talk) 14:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Eagles 24/7 (C) 06:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Author apparently notable for one book only. Google search doesn't turn up any reviews for the book or any interviews for the author. Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 14:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Eagles 24/7 (C) 06:38, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple problems— unreferenced, uncategorized, section written in language other than English, rest poorly written, include section for some biographical introduction, etc. — Bill william comptonTalk 12:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An Indian government website lists the village as a settlement, confirming state, district and block. Anyone know what the other column headings are about? Could be some nice official numbers that could go in to the article. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 14:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Favonian (talk) 18:06, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced BLP. No significant coverage indicating the subject's notability. Same for John Chris Sacedor, a duplicate of the article. Moray An Par (talk) 11:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Spartaz Humbug! 01:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article, under the title Bangs (rapper) was deleted back in January 2011 (and once before in February 2010) as a non-notable artist with no independent references (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bangs (rapper) (2nd nomination)). This recreation in January 2011 is an attempt to subvert the deletion process; had it been noticed then it would have been speedily deleted. I see no substantial improvements to the article to change the previous deletion discussion. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:01, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does not seem to pass WP:GNG. Article claims to be a prominent English teaching company, but is not cited to any reliable sources to back it up. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does not seem to pass WP:COMPANY and is not cited to any reliable sources. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Wendy's. (non-admin closure) v/r - TP 12:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article does not meet the notability. JJ98 (Talk) 09:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. The article is, of course, total baloney, but part of the charm of Wikipedia is that that being based on a nonsense is no bar to having a page. However, it is well sourced baloney and there is no mandate to delete with the consensus being that it meets our notability guidelines. A sound way forward might be to take the 'merge' suggestion to the talk page. TerriersFan (talk) 21:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently a trivial local dispute about the building of a driveway, leading to the self-styled serene family perpetrating a hoax on us and others Crusoe8181 (talk) 08:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) v/r - TP 12:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Possible non-notable musicians only sourced to AllMusic. They do not seem to pass WP:MUSICIAN. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. CSD G12, copyvio. T. Canens (talk) 09:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a machine translation of de:Lapierre (Fahrradhersteller). No attempt has been made to correct errors generated by the google translation and no credit has been given to the original German article. As a copyright infringement this really should be speedy deleted, especially given the points made at Wikipedia:Translation about machine translations and copyright infringement. Biker Biker (talk) 08:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. CSD G12, copyvio. T. Canens (talk) 09:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a machine translation of de:Winora. No attempt has been made to correct errors generated by the google translation and no credit has been given to the original German article. As a copyright infringement this really should be speedy deleted, especially given the points made at Wikipedia:Translation about machine translations and copyright infringement. Biker Biker (talk) 08:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Long-term unreferenced biography of a living person. No reliable sources found to support text. Does not meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. Appears to be promotional. PROD contested by an IP without adding references or adding anything to indicate the subject's notability. CharlieDelta (talk) 06:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 00:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The term is apparently manufactured by the article author; I cannot find any examples of it being used for that purpose. Furthermore, this article was created in the wake of the author's proposed changes to the template Template:Canadian mobile phone companies being rejected. It serves no real purpose that cannot be accomplished in the existing articles about the companies in question. Ckatzchatspy 05:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So it's Telus who uses the exact terminology "coast to coast", albeit with dashes to separate the words. That also implies that Bell, whose coverage matches Telus, is also a coast to coast network. Rogers has very similar coverage. Because the expression is widely used, this article should be kept, expanded, and integrated into the "Canadian mobile phone companies" template. --LABcrabs (talk) 11:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 00:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article is an essay which lacks notability, with almost all of its content not covered by reliable sources, but instead combines a bit of material from the few sources provided with the blanks filled with a lot of content I considered blatant original research (see WP:Original research). The only notable content in the article can be summarized to "plug-in electric vehicles charged with energy generated from solar panels (off-board source) have no carbon footprint" which is not enough for a stand alone article not even a stub. In this case merging is not an option, since the closest article, solar vehicle, refers to vehicles powered by an on-board source that generates electricity from the sun (such possible merge lready was discussed here). The following are common sense examples of fictional article's also lacking notability that follow the same logic and content of the questioned article: wind-charged electric vehicles, coal-charged electric vehicles, solar-charged portable music players (solar-charged iPad?), etc. In summary, the article takes two notable subjects, solar energy and electric vehicle, and simply pasted them together. Also notice that the only relevant link to this article is the Spanish Wikipedia Vehículo con carga solar, which was created by User:Diamondland, who recently, and one more time, has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet (see here) and not surprisingly is the second contributor to the English version.-- Mariordo (talk) 05:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Appears that Meluvseveryone has merged a bit. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 00:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. nothing in gnews. not all shopping malls are notable and this one appears to be very small one. also nothing on major Australian news site [56]. LibStar (talk) 04:58, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Non admin closure (non-admin closure) v/r - TP 12:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:MUSICBIO. an overly promotional article that just uses one source, his own website. gnews contains no indepth coverage, merely lists him as a band member or confirms he's a a drummer. [57] but nothing to justify a standalone article. LibStar (talk) 04:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:57, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unremarkable businessperson. Fails WP:GNG. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted. Non-admin closure. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated this article for deletion because it is a trivial matter relating to the Death of Osama bin Laden. It is also unsourced, may be promoting a company and potentially offensive.Shuipzv3 (talk) 03:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. bad-faith nomination Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 04:45, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does this guy have enough of significance? A third-rate nobody is all he is. Whazuppman (talk) 01:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. bad-faith nomination from banned user Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 04:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable toolbox. Whazuppman (talk) 01:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:57, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to lack any coverage in reliable sources, let alone significant coverage that would satisfy WP:NBOOK; this is unsurprising, because it's self-published. If you look at the creator's username, it's fairly obvious that he's trying to use Wikipedia to publicize his own book. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:35, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Copntested PROD (without any reason) Not clear how this "band" meets WP:MUSIC or WP:GNG. Mtking (talk) 12:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Tucson, Arizona#Education. Per standard practice for primary schools without evidence of notability. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A non-notable private K-5 school. Note: There's a related user (User:ISTucson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)) with a major conflict of interest. He has resumed activity today after creating the article last month. Probably should be reported to UAA. Raymie (t • c) 04:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have begun editing the page to make it more acceptable and will attempt to create a neutral article. I believe the school is notable for their unique program and international recognition. Also, the University of Arizona is doing research of the school (methods, effectiveness, child language learning models, etc...), making the school notable via the University's upcoming research publications. I have created a successful school page for another local school in the past University High School (Tucson). --Qauz (talk) 05:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)qauz[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
blatantly fails WP:ORG. despite existing for over 60 years, nothing in gnews. 6 hits in gbooks [61] with 4 of the books being LLC Books which use WP as a source. LibStar (talk) 05:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked, and cannot myself find sufficient evidence of notability to meet either GNG or Wikipedia:Notability (music). Epeefleche (talk) 06:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 00:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No significant third party coverage that indicate notability. Same reason for the following. Moray An Par (talk) 01:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The subject is potentially notable, but there are no references confirming that. Unless notability is demonstrated through reliable sources, this should be deleted. - Biruitorul Talk 22:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Non-admin closure as Keep. v/r - TP 02:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. Satisfies none of the criteria of WP:NB: the closest is the first as it has a few reviews but all in specialist publications, no general coverage. No other indication of notability. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 00:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am unable to find significant reliable source coverage to establish notability. I have found a few minor pieces with passing mentions in industry specific websites, but not much else to establish notability. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:04, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]