The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article is written like an advertisement and it can be clarified well. I suggested to delete the article or merge to an article. Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 22:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable band on a non-notable label. The chart positions seem to be fake. There is no entry for this band at US Billboard nor does a book search come up with anything in British Hit Singles & Albums [1]. De728631 (talk) 22:33, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:27, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not an appropriate topic for a list. All this list is about is which fictional characters killed which other fictional characters and is nothing more than trivia. This also fails WP:NOT per WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:IINFO. You can call it fancruft if you like as I believe this is a text book example content that is of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans. And I doubt that even the enthusiastic fans will find this list all that interesting. —Farix (t | c) 22:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, unknown subject (as only search result seems to be a couple of one minute YouTube clips), OR, essay.
I think that about covers the main points, it seems to be an essay with some strange links and full of OR without recourse to a particular subject apart from anger at mines and their ecological consequences. Chaosdruid (talk) 22:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Aside from some reservations and a merge suggestion by Hrafn, nobody but the nominator is arguing for deletion. The issue of merging can continue on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reads more like "List of aliens claimed by people to have pale skin, blonde hair or other subjectively-interpreted Scandanavian features." Article looks to be a holdover from the bad old days of Wikipedia when well-intentioned UFO buffs were keen on building a number of niche articles based only on iffy UFOlogy sources and original research. The sources now cited are reliable, but the phrase "nordic types" or the word "nordic" is merely included among a laundry list of descriptions of aliens people claim to have seen. Other sources just mention aliens with long blonde hair. Or pale skin. There is no significant coverage of the concept found in reliable sources. Passing or trivial mentions of something do not justify a stand-alone article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Jenks24 (talk) 12:04, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No notability that I can see, and only passing mentions in the references. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable book Chaosdruid (talk) 21:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. v/r - TP 00:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reasons for a deltion are next. I have found a 2 serious books about Hungarian history which says nothing about principality. 1. (http://books.google.com/books?id=y0g4YEp7ZrsC&lpg=PP1&dq=hungary%20history&hl=sk&pg=PA18#v=onepage&q&f=false) In the article, you can read, its written that the founder of state is Istvan, before that the Hungarians were not united (he was elected as a king in 25 Dec. 1000/ 1 Jan. 1001) 2. (http://books.google.com/books?id=SKwmGQCT0MAC&lpg=PP1&dq=hungary%20history&hl=sk&pg=PA12#v=onepage&q&f=false) again nothing about Hungarian principality in 9th century, its wirtten that in the 896 when the Hungarian, Kabar and Turkic semi-nomadic people came to the Carpathian basin: "it was a no reason to believe that Hungarians considered a Carpahian basin as a their new home" Authors are Hungarian historians and sources are reliable. There is a nothing about "Principality of Hungary" But its next books, I can a find later, whose says nothing about Hungarian principality. It exist only one book which used this therm for this early period (http://books.google.com/books?id=Bz7aKaJNfokC&lpg=PA19&dq=%22Principality%20of%20Hungary%22&hl=sk&pg=PA19#v=onepage&q=%22Principality%20of%20Hungary%22&f=false). This historian has a specialization about modern history espetialy about Stalinism. Information in the book is: "Magyar clans from Asia came in the late 9th century and established a principality of Hungary." This therm was for a first time used in the 1993. There are no concrete years and nothing more about this "principality". On the other hand the seriouse books says nothing about existention of Principality of Hungary. They says that Hungarian, Kabar and Turkic tribes were a semi-nomadic and its no reason to believe that Hungarians considered a carpathian basin as their final home. This user makes a lot of such edits without consensus, for exmaple in Royal Hungary (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Royal_Hungary&action=history) deleted and redirected article without discussion at talk page. Royal Hungary ([5]) was a province of Habsburg Empire and this user tries to make a Separe Article about continuity of Hungarian Kingdom, which was divided in 16th century between Ottoman empire, Habsburg empire and Transylvania. He made a article Hungarian invasions of Europe (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Royal+Hungary%22&btnG=Vyh%C4%BEad%C3%A1vanie+kn%C3%ADh&tbm=bks&tbo=1&hl=sk#sclient=psy&hl=sk&tbo=1&tbm=bks&source=hp&q=%22Hungarian+invasions+of+Europe%22&pbx=1&oq=%22Hungarian+invasions+of+Europe%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=161150l166399l0l166520l29l23l0l0l0l6l209l3040l7.13.2l22l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=144a467f858ec791&biw=1246&bih=645) and this therm does not exist. It were a raids, as it is a written in the next 2 books above (usualy the moss-trooping raids). User is not open for discussion and he is a problematic and calls other users nationalists who hates Hungarians ([6]). Samofi (talk) 21:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sources says nothing about "Principality of Hungary". Just the term is mentioned in the book from Hodos without explanation and more proper informations. Other sources says nothing about the existention of this "principality". --Samofi (talk) 21:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source: The assebly was ordered to attack the Hungarian Tribal Alliance/Principality [9], You can find a lot of sources about the pagan Lithuanian Principality. This was my final comment here. Because this discussion is closed.Fakirbakir (talk) 09:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A very minor political party, it never even contested an election. Because of this, I do not believe it is sufficiently notable for an article of its own, although it should be (and is) mentioned in the articles on the Liberator Party (with which it later merged) and the Working People's Alliance (which it was involved in establishing), both of which did contest elections. Number 57 21:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable former presidential candidate who has never received any degree of electoral success or mainstream coverage. None of the sources in the article demonstrate notability, and all fail the RS criterion. It's worth noting that LaMagna received only eight primary election votes when he ran for president in 2008, finishing far behind Ole Savior (whose article was recently deleted at AFD on notability grounds). The companies LaMagna founded don't seem to be notable either. Difluoroethene (talk) 21:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:38, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does not seem to satisfy WP:PROF. Max-brod (talk) 20:33, 5 September 2011 (UTC)— Max-brod (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The result was delete. v/r - TP 00:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP is not a directory. TBM10 (talk) 20:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. v/r - TP 00:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
contested prod. i can find no third party discussion of this website anywhere, although there are passing mentions aplenty, prod contestor asserted that there was some, but gave no examples. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The blog is part of WSJ online. The passing mentions aplenty will include other blogs/news sites mention All Things Digital as the site that broke the news, got the interview etc. The reason given for deletion was 'Spam'. This Article just needs improvement or merging into the A. I know nothing about a contestor asserting there were 3rd party discussions, but to kick off the examples:
Here is the citation from the article of Walter Mossberg. What was his column 'Personal Technology' in the WSJ now is All Things Digital http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.05/mossberg.html?pg=1
Again, the All Things Digital article just needs some work, not deletion. It could be merged as a section in the articles on the founders or the redirect from the D: All Things Digital to Walt Mossberg could be removed (in time) and a new All Things Digital/D: All Things Digital article be made. Deletion of this article would impede improvement. PrtScn (talk) 21:12, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well the conference is notable. There are alternatives to deletion for this article. The site is a tech news blog under the WSJ banner so finding the 3rd party discussions to solve the notability issue will be hidden under some very expensive SEO work to get ALL Things Digital urls to the top of the rankings for anything you can search for with 'All Things Digital' as part of the search string. Norlam editing will bring this article up to scratch or see it merged with another.PrtScn (talk) 22:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - as others mentioned, the All Things Digital conference is one of the most prominent conferences in the digital industry, with Walter Mossberg and the WSJ crew consistently pulling in the top names and CEOs in the field. The blog has a lineup of journalists that are must-reads in each of their fields. How this can be up for deletion is baffling. -- Fuzheado | Talk 03:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Search did not return any WP:RS and he does not meet the guideline for WP:N Cantaloupe2 (talk) 19:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The A7 speedy deletion tag was rightfully declined but this should still be deleted. No indication is given that this blog has any importance. Actually that's not quite true: some indication is given that the author is viewed by other bloggers as an idiot, a troll and a plagiarist. I guess it's better than nothing but it's not necessarily a good sign and it certainly doesn't even come close to the basic notability requirements. (Bonus deletion marks for the fact that the username suggests that the article's author is also the blogger) Pichpich (talk) 18:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to K. T. Kunjumon. v/r - TP 00:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The film was announced in 1996 and has been shelved. Clearly fails WP:NFF Commander (Ping Me) 18:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. v/r - TP 00:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable enough for WP. The article is poorly referenced and liable to going out of date.
The result was delete. v/r - TP 00:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of notability for WP. The article relies solely on one source and is liable to going out of date as existing golf courses close or amend their membership policy, or new ones open. TBM10 (talk) 18:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:54, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced WP:BLP fails WP:ENTERTAINER. I can find a handful of references in reliable sources which confirm that the subject exists (e.g. [12][13]) but nothing which constitutes substantial coverage. Pburka (talk) 17:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All coverage WP:ROUTINE. Fails WP:GNG and WP:FOOTYN. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 16:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. v/r - TP 00:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Entirely in-universe treatment of a fictional element from a TV science fiction series. Almost completely unsourced, no documentation of notability, not a hint at any out-of-universe perspective. Compare parallel case of Victory class destroyer, also nominated. There seem to be yet more of this kind. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. v/r - TP 00:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Entirely in-universe treatment of a fictional element from a TV science fiction series. Completely unsourced, no documentation of notability, not a hint at any out-of-universe perspective. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. v/r - TP 00:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Only a handful of fights, none in the last 3 years, none with notable organizations, none against a notable fighter; fails WP:MMANOT and WP:GNG. TreyGeek (talk) 15:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The list of players to have won a medal is unreferenced, and just because they were with a team that won the title, it does not mean that player actually won a medal. Also, the Football League Championship is effectively a re-branding of the English 2nd level and it is not apparent that any list should start at this point anyway Eldumpo (talk) 15:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to fail notability. After doing a quick google search I failed to find more than 1 or 2 references with limited information. Kumioko (talk) 15:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Trial and conviction of Joshua French and Tjostolv Moland. v/r - TP 00:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Both of the persons convicted now have their seperate articles, in addition to a third article about the trial. Solotaig (talk) 15:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. v/r - TP 00:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet criteria of WP:NBOOK; I am unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 15:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Two unique book reviews have been added voicing their own thoughts and opinions on the book. [The book has been the subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the book itself.[3] This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary.] MaxBoothIII (talk) 15:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bram Stoker award recommendation link inserted MaxBoothIII (talk) 17:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An additional unique book review has been added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abnergoodwin (talk • contribs) 19:26, 5 September 2011 (UTC) — Abnergoodwin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The result was keep. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reason Opguip (talk) 14:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC) Does not make the notability guidelines for college athletes[reply]
The result was delete. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Written like an ad, awards referenced to own site. fairly clear it is meant as an ad pageCantaloupe2 (talk) 06:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Any discussion to merge can happen on the talk page. v/r - TP 00:28, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can find nothing to confirm that this expression is verifiably used somewhere. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 13:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable, no assertion of notability. Back-office ouitfit. No references. No third party sources and article has been around since 2006 Velella Velella Talk 11:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Courcelles 09:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Spam. Xyz or die (talk) 08:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. v/r - TP 00:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 07:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Jafeluv (talk) 10:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Genealogical biography of subject that is not known for fame, achievement, or notoriety. Article combines material from three unreliable and contradictory sources to reach a conclusion not stated or consistently supported by any of the sources. One reference is an individual's collection of unauthenticated research material presented on Ancestry.com, another is a name listed among hundreds with no indication that the name on the list refers to the subject of the article, and the third reference is a personal hobbyist's website. Professional genealogical studies and research are only considered reliable, when based solely on primary documentation. Anything less is wishful thinking. See WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:SYNTH. Cind.amuse (Cindy) 05:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:38, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This album seems to lack notability, and the band doesn't have its own page, which appears to have been intentionally merged to the lead singers article. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:16, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. v/r - TP 03:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
List is incomplete and is biased to only a handful of Alberta's numerous rural municipalities. Two requests for populating a list for the balance of the province have gone unheeded on the article's talk page. The article's creator was notified of the second request on the creator's talk page. Although it is unlikely a list of every single unincorporated community in Alberta may never be complete since there are so many, no effort has been made to at least cover the entire province. Hwy43 (talk) 04:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further detail about the insufficient coverage noted above, here is a breakdown of the list article's coverage:
Therefore, this is far from a comprehensive and unbiased list that covers all rural municipalities and Indian reserves in Alberta. The article is also unreferenced. Hwy43 (talk) 04:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as the list would seem to be encyclopedic and part of a set of lists of Alberta's communities. PKT(alk) 15:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable game, possibly made up. --Σ talkcontribs 03:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete g11, advertising for unfinished, selfpublished book series, article written by (of course) books' author-to-be. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:16, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Book series with no assertion of notability. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 02:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. (WP:CSD#G8) All the linked pages have been deleted. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural nomination. The page was nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Dominant group (disambiguation). Below is the discussion:
All of the disambiguated articles are up for deletion, and Dominant group was deleted. This is not a useful page as this is a non-existent topic, solely exists in the WP:SYNTH of a wikipedia user. Cerejota (talk) 06:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(end of copied discussion)
Cunard (talk) 02:12, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. This is the strangest AFD I've ever seen. I've made this close without consideration for the MFD which I am considering another discussion. Feel free to DRV if anyone disagrees. v/r - TP 03:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural nomination. The page was nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Status Quo (disambiguation). Below is the discussion:
Per WP:TWODABS, this dab page is not needed. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 17:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This DAB is needed to resolve a conflict in naming between 5 subjects. The DAB has been vandalized to remove the additional subjects to make it look as if it is a DAB for only 2 pages. Check the history of the DAB and you will see. AQBachler (talk) 18:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Check your references please. The band was on a major televised show, so not exactly nameless. AQBachler (talk) 18:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(end of copied discussion)
Cunard (talk) 02:04, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. v/r - TP 03:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does not pass WP:PROF. This article was created by Gsard, whose username closely resemble that of the subject. Possible COI. H-index of 19 as per Citations Gadget. Only one paper with over 100 citations according to GScholar. No major positions held in any major university. — Fιnεmαnn (talk) 01:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was snow keep. Consensus is that as a recipient of a Gemini Award, Todosey passes WP:ENTERTAINER. Goodvac (talk) 17:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable actress. Article has been around over 2 years, and insufficient sources. AfterEllen is a blog and isn't a reliable source. Me-123567-Me (talk) 01:08, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. v/r - TP 03:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is an event with no indication of notability. It appears to simply be routine sports coverage. The event also lacked notable fighters. Papaursa (talk) 00:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actress with just a single credit in an as yet unreleased film. No significant references that would pass the WP:GNG; fails WP:ENTERTAINER, no multiple major roles, no awards etc. Tassedethe (talk) 00:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. v/r - TP 03:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First off, the title is wrong, and, if kept, it probably should be moved to Jamaica Plains Music Festival Jamaica Plain Music Festival. Beyond that, this festival does not seem notable to me as a one time, local, and relatively small event (as far as music festivals go, only 1000 in attendance.) BUT, there are some OK sources and its informative and well written. Also, I can't speak of the notability of the performers involved...so I think it at least deserves to stand up to a standard AFD test, and have some more folks with better understanding of notability requirements to take a look. Quinn ░ RAIN 00:36, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Slon02 (talk) 04:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hoax article Dlabtot (talk) 00:31, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. v/r - TP 03:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Subject does not strike me as notable. Editors are invited to look through the history and study the long, long list of external links--I don't see how any of those, or any of the hits found by Google, are to reliable sources. Then again, perhaps the standards for reliable sources are different. Drmies (talk) 00:04, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some of the external links that Drmies deleted because he deemed them unreliable. They may not be notable sites, but they are definitely legitimate - look at how many other games they have written about. Indiegames.com article Impulsegamer Review ZTGameDomain Review Indie Game Reviewer Review Default Prime Review Green Man Gaming Review Desura Community Ratings PC Games And Reviews Review Rampant Games Review RPGFan Review Review (Dutch) Indie Superstar Interview Games of Experience Interview kollisionsabfrage Interview (German) By the way, newbie here. I am just editing the discussion to add my comment in. Is that the correct way? Does the timestamp get added in automatically?
Take Indie Superstar's interview for example, it's definitely a legitimate source since it writes for so many other games, so it should be real and thus reliable. Now then, when you called it self-published, did you mean that the site might have published a made-up interview that the game creators submitted? Diculous (talk) 19:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. v/r - TP 03:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure this guy is non-notable, but listing here because most of the possible sources are in Serbo-Croatian (?). I can find some evidence that this guy exists and has performed from time to time, but most of the news articles I can find with this name are for other people (someone active in Muslim organizations, a politician or two). The article itself doesn't make a good case for notability. On his MySpace page he has 13 friends - I'd expect a successful musician to have a few more than this, to put it lightly... Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sign of news or other coverage of the Chicago-area singer described in the article, and the "official website" does not exist. There seems to be a European journalist by roughly the same name. Sharktopus talk 01:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. v/r - TP 03:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable actor/musician. Some google news hits but nothing substantive as far as I can tell. Pretty underwhelming list of credits, and now he's no longer acting and instead a member of a redlinked Led Zeppelin cover band. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable; it contains no sources at all and contains original research and trivia. Golden Sugarplum (talk) 14:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related page for similar reasons:
The result was delete. v/r - TP 03:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence this road is notable. Numbered routes are generally encyclopedic topics, but not every section is independently notable. Article contains no sources. Kinu t/c 06:23, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. v/r - TP 03:46, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unremarkable publication. No third party references given. Biker Biker (talk) 09:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to KAZENERGY Eurasian Forum. I'm going to be a little bold to resolve this. When a conference series is notable , we usually make articles about a series of conferences, not individual ones . The relevant contents has been moved to KAZENERGY Eurasian Forum, no redirect is needed to preserve the history, but its a possible search terms, so I'm closing Delete and Redirect. I removed a good deal of promotional content at the combined article also, and perhaps a further trim is needed--for this & also the earlier conference sections there. DGG ( talk ) 01:57, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article is pretty much a program for a conference, and that's not what encyclopedias publish. Content aside, I can't find any justification for the topic as being of encyclopedic relevance (per WP:N etc). Drmies (talk) 16:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no independent, reliable, significant sources about the forum. I only see announcements and ads. Maybe an article could be created about the forum itself, but there nothings to make the 6th annual event notable. Bgwhite (talk) 21:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The rationale for the removal of the "Speakers" section in this 6th KAZENERGY Eurasian Forum article is unsubstantiated based upon precedent, and is based upon the opinions of User talk:Cantaloupe2, rather than precedent and guidelines. Open this link to view the "Speakers" section of the article that was removed. Thank you. Northamerica1000 (talk) 00:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. v/r - TP 03:46, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Promo for a non-notable company. A7 refused because of "several reliable references" being "included", which isn't true (the references all either fail RS or aren't substantial coverage). Miracle Pen (talk) 17:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. v/r - TP 03:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Almost immediately after its creation, the article was proposed for deletion twice. The creator first claimed that the book's notable publisher established its notability, but this is clearly untrue; notability is not inherited. The references are just blog posts and passing mentions by some book reviewers. I don't think this meets the general notability guideline. Interchangeable|talk to me 19:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. v/r - TP 03:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am unable to find significant coverage for this choir. While notable people have been a part of it, it was obviously before they were famous. The article describes the choir as "many talented children and teens- singers, dancers, choreographers, gymnasts and actors." Joe Chill (talk) 20:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep or merge to BC Film Commission. Seems like a non-controversial merge with no further need of debate. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:01, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Company promotion for a company that in the light of its business (film-industry) is not very often mentioned on the internet (7710 hits). It does not look very notable. Night of the Big Wind talk 21:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. over seven days, since it was relisted all deletes including nominator have opined to keep. —SpacemanSpiff 20:42, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No convincing sources found. Could be a hoax. Night of the Big Wind talk 21:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete as failing WP:GNG. Given the long history of caste-based discrimination we need to be careful about quality sources here. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:13, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Off2riorob (talk) 03:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of notability. Cites consist of passing mentions in articles about many webcomics, or pages created by the webcomic's author. Guy Macon (talk) 11:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One could only hope that some of the effort that is going into the above keep votes would go into actually improving the Sinfest Wikipedia page. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:29, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]