< 2 November | 4 November > |
---|
The result was delete. Tone 22:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
also nominating:
another useless of sporting results with no third party coverage. fails WP:SPORTSEVENT. LibStar (talk) 23:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 22:35, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He's a non notable MMA fighter. He's had 3 total fights, none with a major organization. He fails WP:MMANOT.
I am also nominating the following related pages because none of these fighters pass WP:MMANOT either. I realize it's a long list, but I thought I'd just put them in 1 list instead of opening up many AfD discussions. Papaursa (talk) 23:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Froilan Sarenas is the middleweight champion of the URCC an organization which has put on over 50 shows and has been in existence since 2002. He has also been the subject of a feature in a major MMA website [1] and his name has been mentioned in national newspapers in the Philippines on multiple occasions. [2] [3] [4] [5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.3.67.78 (talk) 06:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that Froilen Sarenas meets the following criteria because his name has been mentioned on multiple national newspapers in the Philippines and on multiple MMA websites:
Subject of multiple independent articles/documentaries--articles should be from national or international media, not just local coverage or press releases from organizations 58.8.176.82 (talk) 16:53, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reagan Penn although does not have a lot of fights under his belt, search him on youtube. he has many great video's on brazilian jiu jitsu with his brother B.J. Penn. Also as long as he is B.J.'s brother Reagan will be a search term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grungephreak (talk • contribs) 03:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1:Subject of multiple independent articles/documentaries--articles should be from national or international media, not just local coverage. 2:Promotes a large number of events annually--the more fights it has sanctioned, the more notable. 3:Has actively been in business for several years - the longer the organization has been around, the more notable. 4:Large number of well-known and highly ranked fighters.
I had linked 3 articles mentioning him, all three of which are well known publications that include, Fighter's Only and Bloody Elbow This guy is the pioneer of MMA in Pakistan, introduced the sport and runs the only MMA organization in the country, PAK MMA, and organizes events and seminars through out the country on a regular basis, the fact that there is almost no publication regarding MMA in south asia we donot have any media coverage, instead we use our own site to promote the sport in South Asia (www.pak-mma.com) Has been in Martial Arts since 2006, actively competing in the Muay Thai circuit since 2008 and will make MMA debut in 2011 in One FC. So 3/4 requirement are being fulfilled, then why the deletion? Apart from that he will be the first person to represent Pakistan in International and Professional MMA event, ONE FC, and apart from all that if that is your criteria, then why did you not delete Radeem Rahman's page who is also the first MMA fighter to represent in country and has only fought once? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.10.129 (talk) 13:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting Tim Newman was mistake!!! Please reinstate Tim Newman has competed in BAMMA twice now, at BAMMA 4 & BAMMA 5, and he is set to make his third appearance at BAMMA 8, which will mean he will meet another criteria supporting notability with WP:MMANOT, as this means he would of competed at a top tier promotion three times. Yes he hasn't competed three times yet and there always the chance he could get injured before then but until it is announced he is injured, it would be for the best to reinstate his page for now due to being part of the card, and if he does compete at the event, this should be made permanent. He has also been the mark of numerous articles along with being part of the BAMMA events he has competed in and there are far worse MMA fighter pages that are given the benefit of the doubt on Wikipedia anyway so I hope someone will back me up on this. (BigzMMA 14:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigzMMA (talk • contribs)
The result was merge to Noida. v/r - TP 02:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think, but I am not sure, that this is an article about a newly built or soon to be built neighbourhood in Noida. No references, no structure, not clear what the author wants with this article. Better start from scratch. Night of the Big Wind talk 22:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Traffic snarls ( ! ) being documented in papers like "India Today","Hindustan Times"
Moreover one can see that Mahamaya flyover and its adjoining areas fall under Noida.The Noida article in WP has this to say "Many villages are visible from the Noida Expressway, beginning from the Mahamaya flyover to Greater Noida on both sides." But I strongly believe that this article may be even more effective if merged with Noida.The parts which are not backed up by reliable source may be deleted."Pull Paar' is a hindi word and thus article may also be renamed to "Areas adjoining Mahamaya Flyover". Vivekananda De--tAlK 13:56, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Nominator has withdrawn (non-admin closure) —Tom Morris (talk) 20:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Entire article is unsourced, only 3 references to very minor details, and per BLP, unsourced material may be removed - effectively this would neutralise the whole thing. Since this article is not suitable for BLPProd, i'm sending it here to seek views from other users. BarkingFish 22:21, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Tone 22:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The notability of this book is not stated Oddbodz (talk) 21:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 22:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced article that is either a personal essay or a hoax. unverifiable and not notable. Prod contested without reason, so bringing here to discuss. Sparthorse (talk) 21:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 22:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable professional gamer. Ridernyc (talk) 17:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 06:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable neologism. While the "seduction community" itself is notable, that notability does not transfer to every phrase used within the community. Delete per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Average_frustrated_chump_(5th_nomination), Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Concepts_in_the_seduction_community_(2nd_nomination), and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anti-slut_defense. Kaldari (talk) 20:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep without prejudice. Apart from the nomination, the delete votes give no argument beyond an assertion of "not notable". The keep votes have pointed to references, and although they do express some reservations, they are well reasoned. Due to the expressed uncertainty, I am adding the "without prejudice" qualifier to indicate that this AFD need not be the final word for the time being. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"short lived (from the article!) beatles cover band only together for 1 year, no significant coverage. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Tone 22:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No reliable sources. No evidence of participation in sanctioned international competitions. No evidence that this team exists as a National Team. Hairyns (talk) 20:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. I'm speedying this as G11, entirely promotional without any way of improving it by normal rewriting. If it wasn't clear from the enough from the article, its clear from the discussion DGG ( talk ) 00:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
![]() | If you came here because of Johnathan James Recor's canvassing for help/votes on his personal Facebook page, 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)) . |
Promotional article for a local college personality of questionable notability. Significant WP:COI of late, as the article creator and major editors have been blocked for sockpuppetry. Google news search on "Johnathan James Recor" shows zero results. Standard search shows primarily social media, blogs, unreliable and/or primary sources. Some minor coverage from the school paper, but no significant coverage found from independent reliable sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Sources apparently exist. Now someone please improve the article. Tone 22:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article was deproded without addressing the original concern. It has still been tagged for lacking reliable sources for 5 months. I have been unable to uncover reliable sources myself as well to establish notability. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Deletion concerns appear to have been addressed. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 02:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 10:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:GNG for notability and WP:V as facts can't be verified via non-existent references, which is particularly troubling for a BLP. He has written several books, and you can find those books on Amazon and on Google books, but I don't find sources talking about the person. The ghits for this name are unrelated persons. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Tone 22:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Sp33dyphil © • © 07:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Black Kite (t) 18:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article was previously tagged as a CSD for spam (G11); in addition, it was a copyright violation. However, I rewrote the article and de-spammified it, adding two less-than-reliable refs in the process - but it's all I could find that was good enough. I'm also in doubt about the notability of the article and whether it meets WP:ORG, as most of the information on Spire are self-published materials online. HurricaneFan25 15:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. v/r - TP 02:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Colloquial alleged term for a specific auto part with no evidence of notability of the part or the term. Flunks WP:NOTE, WP:SPECULATION, WP:DICTIONARY, possibly also WP:NEO. The specific auto part itself is encyclopedically covered at Starter_motor#Gear-reduction_starters. —Scheinwerfermann T·C18:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please see improved article and reconsider delete recommendations. Bradkay (talk) 23:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Er…huh? Wikipedia has standards (V, RS, etc.) for material used to support assertions. You are reminded to assume good faith, please and thank you; I really did mean what I said: the "Highland Park Hummingbird" moniker would be appropriate for discussion in context of the Chrysler gear-reduction starter at Starter motor. —Scheinwerfermann T·C18:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 10:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in doubt that this article is encyclopedic. HurricaneFan25 | talk 18:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Discussion of possible merging/redirecting can and should continue on the article talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
no claim of notability, no references, and anyway there's technically no such thing as a heliosynchronous rotation in this sense (as opposed to sun-synchronous orbit), since the sun isn't a solid body and different bits spin at different rates, but with no references and no notability, please !vote a DELETE Teapeat (talk) 17:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On second thoughts, please vote MERGE since examination of the history shows that the article was split out to sunsynchronous orbit, so we should maintain the history.Teapeat (talk) 17:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:39, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Barely known author, hardly meets notability criteria. Created by User:Martinbamford, probably violating WP:AUTO. bender235 (talk) 17:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 22:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable high school drama teacher without any significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Only refs supplied are in the local community paper. The-Pope (talk) 16:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 22:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A "proposal" for a museum is a dubious topic for a wikipedia article at best. This one seems to be the one man activism campaign of its founder and there seems to be no indication that it meets the standards of notability or verifiability. Ajbpearce (talk) 15:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
non notable band, no google news hits, all google hits are either self published, or routine/database coverage. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, your points are not valid to call a band like Vargotah "non notable". I suggest you re-google (and check more than the first 10 enties) and re-check your argumentation. I don't think that Allmusic.com releases pure "database information" but nothing than physical product releases. This is ridiculous. Check the release rooster like CDs, singles and remixes. This band has regular releases, intensive touring schedule and huge fan-base. Please stick to facts. I kindly invite you to differ between editing and vandalism in future, so please remove the deletion notice from the Vargotah articles. Thank you. Prowikia (talk) 15:49, 3 November 2011 (CET)
The result was keep. apparent consensus DGG ( talk ) 17:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contrary to the leader in the article "List of catchphrases is not for a favorite quote, it contains catchphrases that meet the wp:notability guidelines..." I believe this is just a list of favorite quotes, with no indications of notability on the quotes (although some quotes clearly are), and the scope of this article is potentially insane (any media, any culture). Not encyclopedic. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 22:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable software product. Does not meet CSD criteria. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 16:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Insufficient references to verify notability. Only 5 is anything more than a passing mention or a primary source, and even that seem dubious, given that almost the entire text is a quote from the club secretary. WP:BEFORE hasn't turned up anything better. Yunshui 雲水 13:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn, see below. Yunshui 雲水 14:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article contains nothing more than a definition and is not likely ever to be more than a definition. Delete in accordance with WP:DICTIONARY Exok (talk) 13:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Per rewrite by Catfish Jim v/r - TP 02:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable original research cruft. Ukraine Calling (talk) 12:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:12, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With just over 19.000 internet hits, 2 Google Scholar, 0 (zero) on Google news and 7 on Google Groups, there are not so many really independent and reliable sources. A lot of hits are local websites, blogs or the own website. I regard this organization as not notable. Night of the Big Wind talk 11:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Iranian Kurdistan. This AfD is a mess, made worse by many contributors having misunderstood the article in question (thinking it is about Azerbaijan not Azarbaijan). The best solution judging by all the arguments made is to redirect the article to Iranian Kurdistan, which is far more detailed and covers effectively the same topic. The redirect is preferable to a straight deletion, as as some people have pointed out, the phrase "Azarbaijani Kurds" itself seems to be a legitimate one. As a side-note, it may also be worthwhile naming the Iranian Kurdistan article "Kurds in Iran". Number 57 11:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is not any RS.Smells of WP:POV, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and WP:Partisanship.This article is a fork as we have already Iranian Kurdistan, Kurdish population ,History of the Kurdish people and host of such articles.This article is basically a product of nationalist WP:SOAPing. --Orartu (talk) 05:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
, "In Iran, three provinces are inhabited predominantly by Azerbaijanis: East Azerbaijan Province, West Azerbaijan and Ardabil" but Iran governments want to change the majority in favor of Kurds in West Azerbaijan province, and for reaching this purpose, want to create history for Kurds in Azerbaijan, then Azarbaijani Kurds can be also politically motivated concept and also contradicts WP:NOTADVERTISINGand WP:PROMOTION.Pan Kurds, Pan Iranists(Pan-Farsists) and Pan-Turks or other groups can expand Kurds in Iran article, this article Azarbaijani Kurds is problamatic and confusing and must be deleted.The ancient attendance of ethnic Kurds in Iranian Azerbaijan is completely POV (as I mentioned above) and is basically a product of nationalist WP:SOAPing, but about present attandance of ethnic Kurds in Azerbaijan of Iran, there are materials in Kurds in Iran, and diiferent groups can expand it neutrally.--Orartu (talk) 07:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The name should be changed to Kurds in Iranian Azarbaijan (or Kurds in Iranian Azerbaijan) --Alborz Fallah (talk) 07:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a simple search on Google scholar reveals that term is used by many scholars. Kurdo777 (talk) 14:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Take to the talk page. Per Dream Focus, the nomination sounds more like a rationale for a merge discussion than a delete. Suggest this be a proposed merge on the talk page. v/r - TP 01:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
no reason for a stand alone article. Occupy London would be a better place for this. Disputed prod noq (talk) 09:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Moving comment below from talk page:)
KEEP The Occupied Times of London is a significant publication which is independent of Occupy London. The publication of the paper has created great interest in the media and even the Museum of London requested a copy because of the historical significance. It is now in it's 3rd issue and has been printed as a broadsheet since issue 2. To delete or merge this article would be wrong as it clearly refers to an important historical event. If you need it to be edited in any way please let me know. Thank you. Mallorcasaint (talk) 16:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. G12 Copyvio Alexf(talk) 10:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of this material isnt about the subject directly, and the team doesnt appear notable. [41] The driver may be notable.[42] John Vandenberg (chat) 08:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WP:IAR v/r - TP 01:54, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable professional gamer. Ridernyc (talk) 08:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable professional gamer. Ridernyc (talk) 08:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 22:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An author of one book. Book is published thru Blue Leaf Publications, a small, print-on-demand house. No reliable references in the article or that can be found, however she has a common name. Prod was contested Bgwhite (talk) 08:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Maternal health. Tone 22:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Although it is well referenced this looks like a student essay. Uses a lot of words to say very little. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Concern was: No indication of passing WP:NSONG Eeekster (talk) 03:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. v/r - TP 01:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article fails to meet WP:PROF and setting up Ikon (which has no article) is not by itself a rationale under WP:BIO. A search on Google News finds some mentions in relation to Ikon but does not appear sufficient to expect the notability criteria to be satisfied in the near future. Fæ (talk) 04:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) HurricaneFan25 00:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced, non-notable article about a Turkish television show. Fails WP:N. 11coolguy12 (talk) 06:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Snow closure. Deletion concerns appear to have been addressed. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 18:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't meet NHOCKEY. Couldn’t find significant coverage from websites. Tubetest (talk) 20:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. After changes, there appears to be no consensus to delete. v/r - TP 01:50, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While the individuals in this tag team may be notable, the references are for the individuals, not the pair AS a pair, thus the subject matter fails general notability. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Evidently, one or more editors active on WP:PW received divine inspiration of the great need (as in the old Internet in-joke, "I see a great need") to create one article after another on current WWE tag teams. Based upon the erroneous linking referenced above, articles are being created by taking another article as a template and just copying everything over. It would appear the philosophy inherent is that their favorite wrestling websites will in time provide the necessary sources. I contend that the vast majority of these new articles fail the ten-year test, that without common sense intervening this problem will continue to manifest itself over and over again, and that these editors and WP:PW as a whole are failing to recognize tag teams which were not only very notable in their era, but remain historically significant today. Let me throw out a few names and tell me if you see any articles on these teams:
All of the teams I mentioned above have passed the ten-year test. The most egregious examples, IMO, follow below:
In summary, like I mention above, we will continue to see needless AFDs on needless articles until someone wakes up. The usual approach has been for other editors to tell me "If you care enough about it, then that's your job, not mine." I haven't really been that active with pro wrestling articles; I may have other things I wish to work on. The impression I get from many who work primarily or exclusively on pro wrestling articles is that they treat this like a parallel universe form of video gaming, where barnstars and GA nominations and the like is all that matters. Ask them where their priorities are at before you ask that of me.RadioKAOS (talk) 08:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I request that this AfD does not conclude and close before I add more reliable sources in a few hours and brush up the article. Thanks. Starship.paint (talk) 10:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another comment - I don't wish to belabor the point, as abundant evidence exists in various talk pages that it's being made largely to a hostile audience. However, popular wrestling websites commonly held out as "reliable sources" push a certain point of view in order to attract readers who believe in that point of view. That's what in turn attracts advertisers. When contributors make a habit of parroting that content on Wikipedia, they tend to forget that Wikipedia lacks advertising for a reason, and part of that reason is to prevent the presentation of content being hijacked by certain points of view. Unfortunately, that's exactly what has happened here, thanks to the regulars in WP:PW and their "path of least resistance" approach. WikiProjects promote and enable undue weight, IMO, but that's another argument for another time. Persons with any knowledge of pro wrestling beyond what they see on their favorite weekly cable television program or on pay-per-view are likely to walk away with the impression of Wikipedia resembling something not unlike cultural depictions of The Boy in the Plastic Bubble based upon the philsophy inherent here. Using press release-like information found on wwe.com (or any other website, for that matter) as a guide in shaping the content of the encyclopedia is just beyond bogus. That's exactly what I see not only with this article, but most of the recent push to create articles for WWE tag teams.RadioKAOS (talk) 22:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) HurricaneFan25 00:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable documentary. Article basically consists of a table of contents, and in this batch of hits I find no substantial discussion whatsoever, just mentions. The graphic and artistic designers were nominated for an Emmy, but that in itself is not enough to make it a notable topic. Drmies (talk) 16:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
looks like an advert! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.133.112.79 (talk) 19:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) —Tom Morris (talk) 09:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One-time reality-celeb. Doesn't otherwise seem to cross the bar to WP:GNG. Likely vanity bio – substantially contributed to by a single account. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) —Tom Morris (talk) 09:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Small-time actress. Citations contain nothing but trivial mentions; Gsearch is disappointingly replete with directory entries Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) HurricaneFan25 00:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article was created again. I found it while patrolling. It's not my area of expertise, but, I'm doing this out of good faith based on the prior deletion so folks can review it. Thank you! SarahStierch (talk) 05:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I created this page. I am using Gargoyle FW since this is the only one which allows capping users bandwidth per IP address. No other firmwares allow that. Antidos (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 22:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TRIVIA, WP:OR. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. My rationale for deletion is similar to the one at AfD for William Adams (judge). At the moment, this is passing news. However, if it produces some lasting singnificance, it can be brought back. Tone 22:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. Also fails Wikipedia:Notability (events), since it lacks "significant, non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time." Edison (talk) 04:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge into the event (currently titled Beating of Hillary Adams, also subject to AfD). While the subject doesn't make the bar as a county rather than state judge, they are still an elected official and have an amount of presumed notability already — in any case they are a public figure so the BLP claims carry a lot less weight. Being a judge and having the police chief state that they "believe that there was a criminal offense involved" is, in itself, notable, particularly when you're a judge working on child abuse cases and the claim against you is child abuse. Then being quoted saying "It looks worse than it is" guarantees you additional notoriety, as evidenced by deep and diverse international news coverage extending far beyond the usual short news cycle. I think we'll be analysing and referring to this as a case study for the foreseeable future — indeed we already are.
The result was Procedural close. Already has been speedy deleted (G11) (non-admin closure) —Tom Morris (talk) 14:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced BLP and fails to meet notability guidelines under WP:POLITICIAN EricSerge (talk) 04:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 23:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominating a page previously deleted at least 3 times already, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josh Valdez. References fail to demonstrate notability per WP:BIO. Article is written like a promotional piece and, even if notable, would require a substantial re-write to have an encyclopedic tone. References are all press releases. There is suspicion that the article is written by a COI editor as the article was written & photo uploaded by a seemingly single-purpose account, User:CrownP. ~PescoSo say•we all 03:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 22:58, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a rivalry between two football teams of high schools of modest size. Currently it consists of a table of scores dating back 53 years. I'm sure the two schools keep reasonably good records of the final scores of these games so the current content may very well be verifiable even though one might argue that such sources are not independent of the subject. In any case, even disregarding that issue, it's hard to see how one could construct an article of any depth and in particular an article which does not consist essentially of a long table. Wikipedia is not a sports almanac. Pichpich (talk) 03:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete CSD-G3. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 12:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
this was CSD:a7, but I think it didn not qualify, so I deleted it. Moving it to AFD to see what the community thinks. tosh.0 giving web redemption might be notable. shrug. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Nominator has withdrawn. (non-admin closure) —Tom Morris (talk) 09:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to fail notability guidelines. Since a PROD might get reverted, it is up on AFD. Cutecutecuteface2000 (talk) 02:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think I should withdraw this. Cutecutecuteface2000 (talk) 02:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cutecutecuteface2000 (talk) 02:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot find a reliable source for most of this material. Not even the IMDb entry documents most of it. The acting roles were very minor; the directed series seems minor also. I consequently have some concerns over all the material submitted by the very clearly COI editor, and would appreciate it if those more knowledgeable in the field double-checked it. DGG ( talk ) 02:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was SNOW delete. Absolutely no reasons for keeping have been put forward. If we ignore arguments about side issues, such as whether a photograph was a different person, how old the subject of the article is, whether an editor has acted dishonestly, etc, and look instead at the arguments about whether the article should be deleted or kept, we have 100% support for deletion. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable person. Was declined speedy. Extremely weak references aside, only claim to fame is being a 1st Assistant Editor on a movie. Possible hoax. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Goodvac (talk) 08:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Inability to demonstrate notability. Laundry list of blogs and facebook links doesn't qualify as reliable sources to verify notability. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC) see below[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 23:01, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:SPORTSEVENT. merely a results listing with no long standing notability. LibStar (talk) 01:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Deleted in accordance with WP:CSD#A1. Acalamari 10:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Guide/essay/something else Wikipedia is not for. →Στc. 01:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Apparently, the issues can be solved with editorial work here. Default keep then. Tone 23:03, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think this article can't be ever possibly reasonably sourced and, as such, should be deleted and its contents maybe merged into general articles about Weebl. Have a nice day. Running 01:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 23:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. No claim of notability here, rather this is a billboard for promoting a nonnotable event, and nonnotable people. This looks more like a magazine article, not an encyclopedia article. RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 01:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Lalamusa. Content may be merged at editorial discretion. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a notable park, as any Google search quickly bears out. Drmies (talk) 20:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 23:03, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails to meet notability guidelines Mrfeek (talk) 00:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Deleted A1 by Nyttend. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 12:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very short, Un-encyclopedic, possible vandalistic article Breawycker (talk to me!) 00:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. m.o.p 17:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRYSTAL/WP:HAMMER —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Deletion concerns appear to have been addressed. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 03:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRYSTAL/WP:HAMMER —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hammer doesn't apply because the name and track-listing are known (just not the length of the songs). As for Crystal, the release date has been set by Columbia Records, so it's definitely "almost certain to take place." -- Irn (talk) 19:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 23:04, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRSYTAL/WP:HAMMER —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Pretty clear consensus: and as for notability, I don't keep track of "page 3 girls" and I've heard of her. (non-admin closure) —Tom Morris (talk) 09:35, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very vague notability. Would suggest deletion. Cloudbound (talk) 21:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
declined speedy. this is a non-notable author, friends. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]