The result was keep. The Bushranger One ping only 07:40, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category seems superfluous; we already have [[Category: Paleoconservatism]]. Difluoroethene (talk) 23:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 07:40, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Consensus is that WP:GNG is not met. TerriersFan (talk) 22:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable church; 900 members is fairly small, and there are a lot of churches (including my own) that have far more members than 900 and yet still don't satisfy GNG. Was created by a user who has a history of creating articles about non-notable topics. Difluoroethene (talk) 23:05, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete - the Qatar Stars League is a fully pro league but no evidence that he has played a game there. Separately, the consensus is that he fails WP:GNG. TerriersFan (talk) 22:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of notability, youth player who just started training with first team .. fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG TonyStarks (talk) 22:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Procedural nomination after an attempt to nominate by an IP editor. consensus - all comments keep, no objections (non-admin closure) Off2riorob (talk) 18:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An IP tried to renominate this but didn't finish the process. Notability is apparently still in question. Ten Pound Hammer and company • (Otters want attention) 21:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, if an unknown IP tries to delete this article, we have to go through this process again? I thought majority of Wikipedians reached an agreement ... 6 months ago. Why a single IP can re-question that consensus? Anyway, in addition to the 19 sources already used in the article, Mr Asselineau was aired on many radio and TV programs:
--Lawren00 (talk) 23:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep per WP:SNOW; non-admin closure. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Production has not yet begun, too early to have a page magnius (talk) 20:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. joe deckertalk to me 22:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Prod removed by user said to be a marketing manager for the publisher. Prod concern was "No evidence that this author is notable in third party reliable sources. Book may be marginally notable, but author is not," and I do not feel that this has been addressed. This author does not meet WP:BIO. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 20:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. joe deckertalk to me 22:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable young player; has never appeared in a fully-professional league, and fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 19:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. joe deckertalk to me 22:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
article fails to establish notability. article fails WP:ACADEMIC, WP:GNG and WP:RS Amsaim (talk) 19:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Cayman Islands#Notable Caymanians. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter (talk) 15:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Duplicate. There are so few notables from the Caymans, that they are kept in the main article Cayman Islands which editors steadfastly defend. So this is merely a redundant duplicate, or maybe even short a few names. Student7 (talk) 18:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support deletion. There's no reason for the article to exist. Have also started a support/delete discussion section in the discussion area of the article's talk page. Lhb1239 (talk) 18:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the article Cayman Islands as a section Bar Code Symmetry (talk to me) (What i've done) 19:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 07:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable artist. Fails WP:GNG with zero Google News hits and zero Google News Archive hits. Only reference is to some sort of Altavista clone (self-published). Only reason I didn't speedy for A7 is because the author/subject claims that they have an exhibition in the Louvre. I smell a hoax but I don't have any information that proves it to be other than a gut feeling. OlYellerTalktome 13:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 04:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cricket club fails inclusion guidelines per WP:CLUB, WP:GNG and WP:CRIN. Slightly confused what league the club plays in as I'm having a hard time finding which one it does play in (don't know if the editor is on about a Division 11 or a Division 2 (11) - eitherway like its fellow Irish cousins it falls short. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 17:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok the Division is eleven. There really is no comparison between a Wisden award and Sports Illustrated's Faces in the Crowd. The Leinster League is semi-pro and features many international players. More in depth covergae can be found in feature articles on the Cricket Ireland Website http://www.cricketeurope4.net/DATABASE/ARTICLES4/articles/000024/002400.shtml which is the governing body of Irish Cricket and Cover Point the Irish cricket magazine http://www.cover-point.com/post/Dundalk-Cricket-Club-Leinster-Division-11-Champions.aspx
The achievement of winning the Division in their debut year and being the only unbeaten club in the whole of the 14 Divisions is a not incosiderable one. EddieLu (talk) 18:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok whatever, I'm clearly fighting a losing battle, the governing body of Cricket in Ireland and the Irish Cricket Media think the club has achieved something, but it counts for nought in Wikipedia. EddieLu (talk) 21:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do what you like, I don't really care. The club exists it has done something quite significant in Irish cricketing terms despite what the "editors" of Wikipedia may or may not think. BTW Jayron32 I found your remarks rather patronising "Being the best in the 11th division of anything in Leinster isn't much of an accomplishment." I'll let the guys know they've been wasting their time effort and hardwork over the last two years then. EddieLu (talk) 07:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's the inconsistency that I find difficult, our near neighbours Knockharley Cricket Club have an entry they also play in Division 11, other than being older they are not particularly more notable than us and yet there is no intention to delete that article. EddieLu (talk) 11:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jayron32 you really are a very annoying individual, I'm 47 not 7 years old, I was simply making a comparison with a similar club. I'm not bothered as to whether the article is deleted or not, I'm simply pointing out an inconsistency. EddieLu (talk) 12:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. The Bushranger One ping only 07:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does not qualify as a notable Wikipedia article. Further, other then being on the National Registry a search for articles and references about this church on Google, Yahoo, Webcrawler and other prominent search engines does not yield many if any information at all about this church. In fact the local Episcopal church in New Jersey does not even show it as an active congregation. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 16:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Actually it was Withdrawn at a time when consensus was to Keep.(non-admin closure) Off2riorob (talk) 14:06, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This text is copied from an article I am currently working on in my Sandbox. Please delete this unsourced, copied text, which could also be considered content forking at this time. Another Believer (Talk) 16:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete - consensus that the subject fails WP:GNG. TerriersFan (talk) 00:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I PROD'd this article for being unsourced. In response, the author of the article / developer of this software added a link to his website, and to a book description page on Barnes and Noble and removed the prod template. The page on Barnes and Noble says 'Please note that the content of this book primarily consists of articles available from Wikipedia or other free sources online.' - so this cannot be a reliable source. I've looked, and I can't find any independent reliable sources. I believe this article fails the general notability guideline. MrOllie (talk) 15:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. joe deckertalk to me 17:56, 26 September 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 by an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. The only contributor of substantive material has concurred in deletion. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I PROD'd this article for being unsourced. In response, the author of the article / developer of this software added some links to his website and removed the prod template. All sources currently in the article are the author's own website. I've looked, and I can't find any independent sources. I believe this article fails the general notability guideline. MrOllie (talk) 15:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, quite right, there are no independant sources(yet), feel free to delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael.couck (talk • contribs) 11:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was OTRS declined, speedy deleted G12 by Lectonar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Non-admin closure. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 21:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Regardless of the status of the pending OTRS ticket, this article serves as a UN-issued opinion piece against the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, and, once the biased content is removed, does not expand upon Sri Lanka Armed Forces and Sri Lanka Army. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 15:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin Distributor108 has recently been blocked from editing, and as such, will not be able to respond to further rationale for deletion. Yunshui (talk) 10:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the OTRS tag and decline to certify the content. No statement from the site or content creator has been received in ticket 2011091910012951, only the word of an anonymous emailer who then told me to make costly international calls to receive undocumented statements on copyright that cannot be referenced in court should a copyright issue arise. And they were rude to top it off, asking whether I sought a UN resolution on the matter. OTRS certification declined. – Adrignola talk 13:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter (talk) 15:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst it is a CSD:A7 candidate in it's current form, the pre-stubbed version is an autobiographical CV, with no significant coverage able to be found in independent reliable sources. Previous AFD was withdrawn with no participation from anyone other than the nominator. The-Pope (talk) 14:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. joe deckertalk to me 18:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Footballer fails WP:NFOOTY as he has not played at a fully-professional level of football. Also fails WP:GNG due to a lack of any significant media coverage past WP:NTEMP and WP:ROUTINE. --Jimbo[online] 13:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Tastily kept. The Bushranger One ping only 07:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a manual. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 10:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. G5, creation by serial sockpuppeting hoaxer SPI:Akshata Sen —SpacemanSpiff 12:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NMODEL and WP:GNG. Google searches revealed nothing significant -- no high-quality articles about the subject. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 09:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. joe deckertalk to me 18:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cannot find any sources to support the claims made on the page that assert notability (e.g., the "pioneer" of "Kabbalistic realism" should be mentioned in a news article or two). Can only find auction results, official pages and blogs. Nikthestoned 09:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete, G12 by Rhaworth. Non-admin closure. Blueboy96 12:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing wrong with the topic at all, what i am wondering is in its current state, should it be deleted? Bailo26 09:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. No prejustice against recreation if this becomes notable. The Bushranger One ping only 07:31, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was very tempted to speedy this as a hoax, but at the very least it's original research backed only by a reference to the author's personal website, and as such it fails to meet the standards for inclusion. Contested PROD. Favonian (talk) 08:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. nomination withdrawn after article improvement - no votes to delete. (non-admin closure) Off2riorob (talk) 00:12, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable software stub. Marked as single-source since 2007, the single source is link dead. Three incoming wikilinks, the software producer (which has the software in a list, with no content), a disambiguation page and a list page. PROD contested in 2009. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to List of The Big Bang Theory episodes (season 1). (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter (talk) 15:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
TV episode article that fails to establish notability. The only reference is tv.com, and this only establishes the original air date. The article is essentially just a plot summary and therefore fails WP:PLOT. The article was redirected to the appropriate entry in the episode list article but the article creator restored the article, which is why it has ended up here. AussieLegend (talk) 07:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following recently created, related articles, for the same reason:
The Luminous Fish Effect (The Big Bang Theory) does not include references or even a plot. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:17, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter (talk) 15:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:GNG. nothing in major australian search engine trove. [4]. gbooks shows 2 small mentions from the same book [5]. LibStar (talk) 06:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. joe deckertalk to me 18:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is mostly a vanity / puff-piece. He is a non-notable person co-founded a non-notable organisation (EMCC) which does not have an article on Wikipedia, and probably never would. The references given only really confirm that he exists, not that he is notable. Biker Biker (talk) 06:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Subject isn't notable - doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE Dkchana (talk) 21:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep all. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
also nominating:
another sprawling series of useless fighting results that don't meet WP:EVENT. some of these events for a mere few thousand attendees. third party coverage besides sherdog is needed. LibStar (talk) 05:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Weak, but enough to keep. Article needs further referencing though. The Bushranger One ping only 07:25, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
there seems to be not a single reliable source which discusses this game, hence not notable. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to The World of Synnibarr. The Bushranger One ping only 07:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:AUTHOR with flying colors. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 07:23, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to fail WP:NBOOK - coverage appears to be one online review. Nat Gertler (talk) 05:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete clearly fails notability - kindle and lulu release have no barrier to entry and no sources suggest any notability. Failedwizard (talk) 15:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to VCU Rams. The Bushranger One ping only 07:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fails basic notability standards. It's a club sport. There are hundreds of thousands of club sports teams across the United States and maybe 0.0005% of them are notable. The fact that this is VCU's first year fielding a football team of any kind also does not make it notable. Jrcla2 (talk) 04:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete Hero's 2007 in Korea, procedural keep the other three. Consensus that Hero's 2007 in Korea fails WP:GNG. The other three were not AFD templated, nor was the creator notified, so interested editors may not have been aware of the AFD. No problem with immediate relisting. TerriersFan (talk) 00:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
also nominating:
another sprawling series of non notable fighting results that fail WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 03:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 07:20, 26 September 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 conetested for procedural reasons. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 06:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
also nominating:
another series of useless fighting results that fail WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 06:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. No prejustice against undeletion/recreation if more sources are found The Bushranger One ping only 04:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Judgîng by the article, he was a very good man - but morality alone does not satisfy our notability standards, which he appears to fail. The article's English is not the best, but we can at least assume that it was not written by Manav himself due to this edit summary, which refers to him in the third person. He appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Interchangeable|talk to me 02:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete - though the subject seems potentially notable, sufficient time has been given for the production of the necessary reliable sources, and they have not been forthcoming. Consensus is that the notability standard has not been met. TerriersFan (talk) 01:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unverifiable self-promotion BLP, violating WP:Autobiography, WP:Notability, WP:Conflict of interest (see editing history). -Kez (talk) 01:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I do not know who created this entry in the first place (personally I woudn't know how to!), but I have, of late, been keeping it up to date. Everything here is verifyable. If you Google titles of books and names of choirs, for instance, all the fact are easily found on-line. I would ask as a courtesy that the lists of academic publications remain - these are here not as a point of vanity but rather to show researchers where to locate important articles on aspects of 18th century musicological research - surely that is what encyclpaedias are for? - the dissemniation of knowledge? Also, it would be normal for encyclopaedic entries on composers to list their works. In the case of Beethoven this would be by opus no.- with Mozart it is by Koechel no. I do not have opus numbers but this is a list of all the published works, which is growing all the time herev theybv atre listed by publication date. I can see perhaps why you might feel this article is a bit like a CV - what is absent, perhaps, is more biographical detail - and perhaps this should be added, but I have been extremely shy to do this myself and have not wished to unduly change the wording of original article - whoever wrote that. You have seen much more activity of late with the editing since it has been a rather productive year with some 20 new musical works being published and 6 new text books in the last 12 months. I would be extremely disppointed if you felt that the article shoud be deleted. I would hope that as a contributor to some of the most prestigious musicalogical publications in the world and as a composer whose works are perfomed all the way around the world that 'Nigel Spingthorpe' would merit an entry on this encyclopedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.56.193 (talk) 20:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 06:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. There are no reliable sources that can verify that this term is used to describe these neighbourhoods. The talk page indicates that it is an informal name used by the residents. That may be true, but it needs to be verified by reliable sources. Singularity42 (talk) 00:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. The only substantial contributor agrees it's not currently notable, even if Power Girl works there. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I found no significant coverage for this company and the article has no references. Fails WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 00:26, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Average Joe (TV series). Courcelles 06:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article fails to meet notability guidelines of Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_requires_verifiable_evidence clearly states that: "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: 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 or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason. Sources of evidence include recognized peer reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally." My point is that: how winners of seasons two (Gil Hyatt - redirected to Average Joe (TV series)), three (Samantha Trenk), and four (Nathan Griffin - redirected to Average Joe (TV series)) of the same show, Average Joe, shouldn't have articles but the winner of season one which is Jason Peoples should?? If "winning a national reality TV contest is an assertion of significance", then it should be for all, right? also it is not a "national reality TV contest" anyways, since a national reality TV contest is a contest with competitors from all over a country and not just a very few certain cities. Also it only has one reliable reference and other information are still unclear to be true. Wholly unreferenced biography of a wholly non-notable person. His short-time "Fame" has never gone beyond reality TV, therefore fails Wikipedia:Notability. JuventiniFan (talk) 07:37, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]