![]() |
The result was merged with Shutterstock. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of notability offered. I expected that the CIO of Shutterstock would have been interviewed or something, but nothing shows up in my searches. I'll gladly cancel this AfD if anyone can find reliable sources, but I'm not seeing any. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 23:53, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 01:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. I've no knowledge of this ever being used for anything, and the project is essentially dead. Specs112 t c 23:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While I can verify the author's involvement in the cryptographic community, there is no indication for notability of the algorithm at all. Note: Not to be confused with ABC (stream cipher), ABC (Accumulated Block Chaining), and ABC (Advanced Block Cipher). Honest statement by the author in his paper: "The author assumes that the expanded SAFER diffusion layer is MDS (Maximum Distance Separable) which, if proven, would be the only new thing in this paper." – Suggest deletion. Nageh (talk) 23:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily deleted under CSD A10. Non-admin closure. Safiel (talk) 05:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is already an article at Multimeter. This would not be an appropriate redirect because there is no evidence that the word is in use (Google search only brought up this page). Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 22:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
((cite web))
: External link in |publisher=
(help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(help)((cite web))
: External link in |publisher=
(help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(help)((cite web))
: External link in |publisher=
(help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(help)The result was delete and redirect. Unanimity amongst the commentators that this school fails our notability standards as do most (but not all) elementary schools. Normal practice is to redirect such elementary schools to the school district and I see no convincing reason in the discussion not to do so in this case, particularly as a redirect meets, in my view, WP:R. As DGG states, elementary schools get little vandalism and I have added this one to the '000s on my watchlist in case it does! The only mergeable fact is the grades and I have added that from the primary source so there is no need to maintain the article history. TerriersFan (talk) 03:15, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Notability of this article is in question. –BuickCenturyDriver 22:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I found no significant coverage. This is a non-notable magazine. SL93 (talk) 22:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Hasn't, as yet, played in a fully professional league. There is obviously some interest in the name coincidence but the clear consensus is that the coverage that this has produced is insufficient to meet the relevant notability guidelines. TerriersFan (talk) 22:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Aricle about a footballer who has not played in a fully pro league, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT. All coverage is due to his name, and not significant, meaning the article fails WP:GNG as well. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of notability, no independent references. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 21:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Even after disregarding BO's WP:JUSTAVOTE, there is a weak consensus to delete. WP:TOOSOON seems to apply here. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable boyband, doesn't appear to be coverage in any sources (that aren't related to founder Perez Hilton) - Created by Single Purpose Account - Speedy A7 correctly applied as the but removed in good faith as editor believed that article establishes the band to be notable based on who created it. Fails WP:MUSIC as well as WP:GNG. Non-Neutral, Nothing verified, probably falls under a WP:PRODBLP as well Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 21:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Outer Space Treaty. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No such treaty. No evidence of notablitity of the proposal. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 01:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I found no significant coverage for this video release. This was deleted in a 2008 AfD. I suggest WP:SALT if this is deleted again. SL93 (talk) 21:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 01:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I found no significant coverage for this video tape. SL93 (talk) 21:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Black Kite (talk) 01:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article should be deleted as it describes a term which is a misnomer for the phenomenon it describes. It's a misnomer that is occasionally used but not common enough to have notability. There are also no reliable sources or references Vexorg (talk) 21:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was close as speedy delete. ... discospinster talk 22:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Almost certainly a WP:HOAX. Unreferenced, and not a single mention of her online, let alone any WP:Reliable sources in English or Spanish to support any of the claims made for notability. Article's creator has a history of disruptive editing. Scopecreep (talk) 20:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Shiatsu. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable topic. I propose that this article should be merged into Shiatsu - possibly a short note to say that some practitioners have adapted Shiatsu for use on non-human animals including horses. Salimfadhley (talk) 20:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to List_of_Family_Guy_characters#Bruce. Protecting for a week, if it gets reverted after that then it will be longer Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
non notable minor character, never a major or important role in any episode and has more then enough coverage at List_of_Family_Guy_characters#Bruce. User:JohnnyLurg keeps readding the page with no edit summary and ignores my query on his/her talk page. CTJF83 20:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Our Version of Events. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable song, article is almost entirely WP:OR, no sources, bad formatting (e.g. WP:CAPS). A UK chart placing of #178 does not assert notability as far as I can see. - eo (talk) 16:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Polytechnic University of the Philippines. Unnecessary content fork that is merely copy-pasted from the university article, with no indication of how this subject is independently notable. Additionally, the nominator has withdrawn the nomination for deletion and recommended a redirect, making this articles for deletion discussion moot. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk 19:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Proposing to merge with Polytechnic University of the Philippines as the article in question is very short and may be non-notable at that, thus it does not warrant a separate article of its own. Article has already been tagged with a WP:PROD in the past. I just checked the Polytechnic University of the Philippines and seeing as the article in question has its content copy-pasted beforehand, I propose to just redirect the article to the main PUP one. Xeltran (talk) 19:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. I have, of course, ignored the SPAs who offered no new perspective on the issue Black Kite (talk) 01:30, 19 April 2012 (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)) . |
Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable academic. Does not meet WP:PROF (neither of the two journals of which he is editor is notable itself)" (both journals are now also at AfD), dePRODded without any stated reason. In the absence of evidence of notability: Delete. Guillaume2303 (talk) 19:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some questions - answers to which might help: can we provide any evidence that Vedat Akman's academic work is notable according to our WP:Prof criteria? Is it well cited or reviewed in multiple independent reliable sources? Is the TV show a "notable" show? Is it a nationally broadcast show with many viewers (What kind of channel is BEA TV - is it like PBS in the US) and do we have any evidence of this from reliable sources? What is maxihaber? (Msrasnw (talk) 10:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Some answers - Pittsburgh University Press is as reliable as Cambridge Press (look at the university ratings) that should clearify notability as well because he is the editor in chief and founder of two journals there... TV show is broadcasted on cable D Smart 245 very popular well known nationwide cable network and program is available on Setallite nationwide TurkSat (it is not a university campus tv channel) you can look at the frequency detail on tvs web.... Maxihaber is an independent online sectorial newspaper very popular especial with IT firms. Well again all sources are in Turkish so you need to speak Turkish to really to verify but if you like I can post you Turkish links there are many... Plus this not his first TV programs he did programs with Channel E Turkey's first Business channel sold later and became CNBC-E, he had program on TV8, Karadeniz TV which are national tv channels... hope this answers question. Thanks. (ozkazanci (talk) 15:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]
(ozkazanci (talk) 15:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.140.183.2 (talk) [reply]
Ps. He is also the founder and honorary president of JCI İstanbul Crossroads International Film Festival which is at its 7th year now. http://www.jciistanbulcrossroads.com/eng-2011.asp this years winning film was fantastic. I found this link on internet but probably someone will cancel that too so before that happens please look at the history of the festival. It is a great event last year winners came from France. http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossroads_Uluslararas%C4%B1_K%C4%B1sa_Film_Festivali Bye. (ozkazanci (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
The result was delete. Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vedat Akman Black Kite (talk) 01:30, 19 April 2012 (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)) . |
Article PRODded with reason "New journal, no independent sources, not indexed in any major selective databases. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals", dePRODded without stated reason, but with addition of two non-selective databases. Hence, PROD reason still holds: Delete. Guillaume2303 (talk) 19:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PKP: Inclusion verified: http://pkp.sfu.ca/ojs-journals. Open Archives Registry: Inclusion verified: http://www.openarchives.org/Register/BrowseSites. UIUC OIA registry: Inclusion verified: http://gita.grainger.uiuc.edu/registry/searchform.asp. WorldCat (OCLC) OAIster: We registered our journal, but we’re working with OCLC to have the journals display in the results. Ulrich’s: http://ulrichsweb.serialssolutions.com/search/94665581 and http://ulrichsweb.serialssolutions.com/search/3116753. Have to request a correction to the record, though, because they incorrectly list the publisher, which should be University Library System, University of Pittsburgh. EBSCO: Verified. Have a signed agreement. http://old.library.georgetown.edu/newjour/: Verified. You can search for them online at that URL. Directory of Open Access Journals http://www.doaj.org/doaj?func=suggest&owner=1: Submitted but the journals do not yet appear. Do know they have a back log but will look into this further. Electronic Journals Library: Previously submitted but have submitted them again. EBSCO databases already included. CABELLS-USA Submitted and under review. JournalsSeek Submitted and under review. ABI/INFORM-USA Submitted for review. Index Islamicus: submitted for review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alenbohcelyan (talk • contribs) 13:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vedat Akman Black Kite (talk) 01:31, 19 April 2012 (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)) . |
Article PRODded with reason "New journal, no independent sources, not indexed in any major selective databases. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals", dePRODded without reason given, but with the addition of some non-selective indexes. hence, PROD reason still stands: Delete Guillaume2303 (talk) 19:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PKP: Inclusion verified: http://pkp.sfu.ca/ojs-journals. Open Archives Registry: Inclusion verified: http://www.openarchives.org/Register/BrowseSites. UIUC OIA registry: Inclusion verified: http://gita.grainger.uiuc.edu/registry/searchform.asp. WorldCat (OCLC) OAIster: We registered our journal, but we’re working with OCLC to have the journals display in the results. Ulrich’s: http://ulrichsweb.serialssolutions.com/search/94665581 and http://ulrichsweb.serialssolutions.com/search/3116753. Have to request a correction to the record, though, because they incorrectly list the publisher, which should be University Library System, University of Pittsburgh. EBSCO: Verified. Have a signed agreement. http://old.library.georgetown.edu/newjour/: Verified. You can search for them online at that URL. Directory of Open Access Journals http://www.doaj.org/doaj?func=suggest&owner=1: Submitted but the journals do not yet appear. Do know they have a back log but will look into this further. Electronic Journals Library: Previously submitted but have submitted them again. EBSCO databases already included. CABELLS-USA Submitted and under review. JournalsSeek Submitted and under review. ABI/INFORM-USA Submitted for review. Index Islamicus: submitted for review.
The result was redirect to Crowd funding. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be a neologism. -- Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No indication of meeting football notability criteria or general notability. Only source is the club website. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 18:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Move to List of terrorist incidents, 2012. While there isn't strong agreement in the discussion below when you look at the bolded votes, there does seem to be strong agreement within the discussions that this article diverges significantly from the format and inclusion criteria of the dozens of articles covering 1970-2010, for no particular reason. Deleting the article wouldn't accomplish much, as it contains a lot of information which does fit the long-standing inclusion criteria. I'll move this article over the redirect at List of terrorist incidents, 2012, and I'd encourage interested editors to remove entries which do not fit the long-standing inclusion criteria in the 1970-2010 articles. I'd also encourage the same work to be boldly done on the two 2011 articles. ‑Scottywong| yak _ 17:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"List of armed conflicts and attacks, January – June 2012" has developed into a score card for those committing non-encyclopedic mayhem to keep track of and coordinate their efforts via Wikipedia. The entries include a variety of motives, (political, criminal or other unknown), a variety of actors (state or non-state), and a variety of incident types (conflicts and attack) so long as the incident involved the use of a weapon (armed). This is contrary to the long-accepted inclusion criteria listed at List of terrorist incidents. Moreover, the list alters the 1970-2010 pattern of stand-alone sub-articles developed for the "List of Terrorist Incidents" topic (See the older articles linked from Template:List of Terrorist Incidents). In addition, "List of armed conflicts and attacks, January – June 2012" misappropriated the ((List of Terrorist Incidents)) template so that List of terrorist incidents readers are brought to the "List of armed conflicts and attacks, January – June 2012." While the "List of terrorist incidents" topic generally was found to provide encyclopedic information, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of terrorist incidents, the "List of armed conflicts and attacks, January – June 2012" goes well outside of encyclopedic information. "List of Terrorist Incidents" and its related 1970-2010 articles have long term consensus. "List of armed conflicts and attacks, January – June 2012" exceeds the scope of the long consensus developed in connection with "List of Terrorist Incidents". The article should be deleted. As for redirecting to List of terrorist incidents, 2012, the creator of the "List of terrorist incidents, 2012" page,[25] User:X17:2l, is blocked indefinately as being a sock puppet. In this case, it may be better to delete and wait for an editor in good standing to create the "List of terrorist incidents, 2012" article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy redirect to One Direction and protect the redirects. There is no justification for overriding the result of the previous AfD after so short a time. Any appeal should be made at WP:Deletion review, but off-site canvassing and SPA activity will not help there, either. JohnCD (talk) 18:58, 11 April 2012 (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)) . |
Delete: Re-creation of previously deleted articles. Pop singers who aren't individually notable outside their group. Any minor notable details can be, is they aren't already, edited into One Direction. Can I suggest that the closing moderator protect the articles from re-creation? SplashScreen (talk) 17:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
--XDITZRACHEL (talk) 18:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)I don't know why you are posting that, it has no relevance. There are still loads of info on each member, that haven't been added yet, you could delete some of the info in the members section on the one direction page, and keep it on the individual's pages. I know lots of info that hasn't even been added yet.[reply]
--XDITZRACHEL (talk) 18:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC)Most of the info added is from their books, not tabloids.[reply]
--XDITZRACHEL (talk) 18:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)May i just say, There is still loads more info that hasn't been added to these pages yet, They have only just been made. Most of the info is from their books and have been said by themselves, not by tabloids, And the members section of the one direction page will get way to messy and overcrowded if you keep putting more information on it. You could add more detail to the info if they have their own pages. And please do not post tweets i have on my personal twitter, it has no relevance here and i like to keep it private from people.[reply]
Well I'm sorry if I don't want people on here posting MY tweets or looking at MY twitter. Some of you are being extremely rude. 'New members are prospective contributors and are therefore Wikipedia's most valuable resource. We must treat newcomers with kindness and patience—nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility. It is very unlikely for a newcomer to be completely familiar with all of the policies, guidelines, and community standards of Wikipedia when they start editing. Even the most experienced editors may need a gentle reminder from time to time.' --XDITZRACHEL (talk) 18:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted the tweet.. Nobody even looked at it anyways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XDITZRACHEL (talk • contribs) 18:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedied G10 by Jimfbleak (G10: Attack page or negative unsourced BLP: highly pov, accusations of corruption). Housekeeping closure. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any references that mention this group, under either name. Reference provided does not mention them or hacking at all. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 16:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedied G1 by Jimfbleak (G1: Patent nonsense, meaningless, or incomprehensible). Housekeeping closure. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not a notable Micronation Shirt58 (talk) 15:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 15:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be a certain way of playing the Forza Motorsport video game. I cannot find significant coverage of this particular variety. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 15:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Though the bolded "deletes" outnumber the "keeps", sources have been presented in this discussion and there has been no discussion/rebuttal of them. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet WP:CORP ThatManAgain (talk) 09:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not really notable, this borders on advertising, rather than anything more substantial. It looks like it's only employees who are editing this too. - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable. Dan653 (talk) 21:38, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any evidence that he has played a match for a fully-professional football team per WP:NFOOTY. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 14:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete per unanimity below -- The Anome (talk) 21:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy declined. This is an unsalvageable synthesis of original research, where is isn't outright a hoax. "The human body operates on a voltage anywhere from 10-100 mV." is the start of the nonsense, and it gets worse from there. Just because it's got little blue numbers in brackets doesn't mean the sources are being correctly used. Wtshymanski (talk) 13:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Read's like an advertisement. No credible reference provided. The only "news" link available is of an online PR site, where the PR is once again submitted by concerned website's employee only. Fanofbollywood (talk) 11:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
The result was keep. Notability established via added sources. joe deckertalk to me 15:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt an intelligent, successful architect but there is no in-depth reliable independent coverage to substantiate Wimer's general notability. I can find nothing substantial online other than a video interview and a quote in a news article, not enough to warrant an article about him. At best he deserves a mention in the SOM article. Sionk (talk) 12:53, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have added additional citations to support this article on wikipedia. The subject is internationally recognized as an architect, has displayed work in exhibits all over the world, has been interviewed and created many projects across the globe. I believe notability has been met in this case. If additional information is desired to expand this article, please advise. Kmsom (talk) 22:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added additional information from sources. It's important to note that Wimer has been interviewed extensively about his projects. He was featured on the inaugural cover of Architect Magazine (refer to http://archpaper.com/news/articles.asp?id=785) SOM is a collaborative practice and most published work about people at the firm are related to the iconic buildings that they designed as opposed to about themselves as individuals. I believe notability has been met here, and that the article is relevant + should be retained on Wikipedia. Kmsom (talk) 18:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 01:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Future albums are not notable without substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. None provided, none found. SummerPhD (talk) 03:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Biography of a living person sourced only to the subject's website. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have to be an extremely good luthier to get noticed nowadays. I don't think Peter is there. There is this, but not much else. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unable to find reliable, secondary sources which provide in-depth coverage of this musician to evidence notability under WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. joe deckertalk to me 03:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article is largely a tribute page created by the daughter of the deceased subject. While many claims of notability are asserted, I cannot find any reputable independent sources that meet the standards required by WP:CREATIVE. This nomination will likely upset the author, and I am sorry for that, but I have formed the opinion that the article does not satisfy WP:Notability. WWGB (talk) 02:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable: Discusses a former charity that ceased to exist in 2001 (although no references to show it ever existed in the first place); can't find any mention of the charity using a quick Google search; the page currently includes one dead URL, but no other Wikipedia articles linking here -- Peter Talk page 22:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. The administrative/political/geographic entity is claimed to exist, and it is not up to us to determine its status. DGG ( talk ) 04:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No need for a claimed territory. Only needs to be described in the article for the territory claimed. Although it may exist on paper, even the PRC doesn't actually have a Taiwan Province Government, so why have a page for something that doesn't exist? This is the same reason why Republic of Taiwan page has been merged to Taiwan Independence. Besides the old boundaries that the PRC keeps and shows on this page is as useless as the old mainland China provinces the ROC had in old maps. There are no mainland China ROC provinces pages so why should THIS one exist? Mistakefinder (talk) 09:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC) Or at a minimum, merge to Taiwan Province. Mistakefinder (talk) 09:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable software, no independent references. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 08:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. A7 speedy deletion Davewild (talk) 19:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not evidence of notability, created with phone number and address, obvious advertisement. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 07:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Close, AFD placed in conflict with another one. Defer discussion to the first AFD in the list, please. NAC. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm skipping proposed deletion for biographies of living people; there may be some controversy. Claims for Crown Prince of Tehran - which confuses me, I am unaware that a city would have such a chain of royalty. There is also Kurusha Arya Magzub which was deleted A7 a couple of days ago. I am not seeing notability of any sort here. -- Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 01:34, 19 April 2012 (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)) . |
Fails GNG. Not the subject of multiple instances of substantial independent coverage in so-called "reliable sources." Heavily spammy in content and sourced in a highly dubious form. Carrite (talk) 06:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 01:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominating this unofficial StarCraft expansion pack after over a week of no references provided (including on StarCraft page) as failing to pass WP:GNG -- multiple, reliable, independent sources with broad coverage; preferably reviews and critical reception, as this is a video game. Neither regular, news, book, or specialized VG search turned up any usable sources for establishing notability. I cannot really search for Hungarian sources, but searching .hu only sites, I only found this (translated). However, this is just 1 source. I'm hoping more can be found. Article itself is one long WP:GAMEGUIDE. I guess the source above can be used for a short paragraph in StarCraft or somewhere, but is not backing any current content. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 08:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some atricles about it:
This is the most detailed expansion pack for Starcraft 1. Even more deteiled than Retribution or Insurrection. I suggest shortening instead of deletion. Christo161 (talk) 14:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)Christo161[reply]
There were some Hungarian reviews in PC Guru and Gamestar magazines. Are those count? Christo161 (talk) 03:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Christo161[reply]
Here are the Hungarian reviews (scanned from magazines):
Christo161 (talk) 17:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Christo161[reply]
I found this small review also:
Christo161 (talk) 18:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Christo161[reply]
The result was delete. The argument for deletion is the one based on policy: there are insufficient reliable published sources for notability ; DGG ( talk ) 19:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:MOVIE. None of the sources meet WP:RS, and I cannot find any other sources that verify the release or distribution of this movie. The film was released directly to DVD, so it was never screened nationally. Furthermore, this is an independent film company, with no other releases. With no verification that the movie is notable, it should be deleted. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSICBIO. A Google search for scott lykins spinz will show no reliable sources to establish notability. szyslak (t) 05:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Obvious keep on the person: books have been written about him., which we have always considered sufficient. As for the bibliography, I 'm closing as very strongly suggested merge, with elimination of minor material. I don't think there is consensus to keep such detailed bibliographies, except for writers (and, analogously, filmographies, lists of compositions, etc. for other creative artists.) DGG ( talk ) 19:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's an impressively high puffery quotient in this one, but once that gets stripped away, the thing is pretty hollow. We have reams of text telling us what a Great Man this Borrelli cove was, but that cannot mask the glaring lack of independent sources—and no, a random list of books and theses is no substitute for citations; as the information is unretrievable, it's of no account to us. I did, out of curiosity, look over Three Decades of Peace Education around the World in an attempt to gauge the depth of coverage myself, and the results hardly spoke well of Fra Borrelli's standing within the realm of independent, reliable sources. One of his articles and a book he co-wrote are cited, but essentially in passing, and not in any encyclopedically usable form. I have no idea what kind of coverage Trotta, Tafuri & Co. give the late priest, but the burden of showing it's significant enough to pass our notability criteria rests not on me, but on any wishing to keep the article. I encourage anyone to try, but if the effort fails, we should delete. - Biruitorul Talk 04:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related page:
Keep: I think the coverage of Fr Borrelli in the early 60s was substantial and Morris West's (1957) Children of the Sun. [On life in the slums of Naples and the work of Mario Borrelli. With plates, including portraits.]. Heinemann, 1957 might be sufficient evidence of this for notablity. The article lists a play based on the book and a "This is your life" on TV (9 October 1961) but I don't know much about these yet. There is another biography of him - from Worldcat The tiger of Naples : the story of Father Borrelli and the street boys by Brian C Peachment, Religious Education Press.1978. (Msrasnw (talk) 19:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 03:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Elk (disambiguation). Redirects are cheap. Very cheap. Black Kite (talk) 01:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Completely redundant to Elk (disambiguation). Not a likely search term, orphaned as well. Essentially a disambiguation content fork. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Unsourced BLP and a trout for the dumbass who non-admin closed it in 2008 :( Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's no indication that she meets the notability criteria for martial artists or actors. In fact, there's no sources given that even support the claim she's a martial artist.
The result was keep. Bmusician 06:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable World War II correspondent. The entire article is sourced from the subject's own memoir. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 15:47, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is an unsourced article about a club with no supported claims of notability. Papaursa (talk) 02:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 14:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem to meet notability requirements. He was briefly executive vice president of Warner Records, and... I don't think anything else he's done is even likely to come near the notability guidelines. All the sources are horribly trivial mentions, and some of them (such as http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/industry/retail/rhino-records-documentary-premieres-in-los-1005324232.story ) doesn't even mention the information supposedly cited to them. But then, this was created by paid sockmaster group account User:Expewikiwriter, so it's somewhat understandable. 86.** IP (talk) 02:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 15:47, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I found nothing that shows this organization is notable. This article was deleted via PROD over a year ago. The only two sources for the article are passing mentions of the organization in articles about individual martial artists getting promoted. Papaursa (talk) 02:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 15:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable, likely promotional. Calabe1992 02:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Concern was: Minor actor with no real notability. (Almost all of the sources are dead links) Eeekster (talk) 01:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Concern was: Notability not established (most of the sources are either dead links or unimpressive). Eeekster (talk) 01:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Deprodded. Not sure if a secondary character in just one film and a voice acting role in a 13-episode cartoon are enough to meet WP:ENT. No other significant roles, no sources found. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The term seems like just a new name for an already existing model. Also, there are no "content" editions since the creation of the article in 2006. Google of the term leads to nothing relevant. Hence, Delete per WP:NOTDIC and WP:Notability. Geeteshgadkari (talk) 11:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The assertion that this fails WP:CRYSTAL was not adequately refuted. No prejudice against re-creating the article if/when this becomes a reality. ‑Scottywong| soliloquize _ 20:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:CRYSTAL. Nothing official at all about this. Any needed material could be added to the IIT-JEE article till there is reasonable media coverage. There has been some media coverage, but most of it is about proposals, and nothing concrete is there, least of all a name for the test. Lynch7 18:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No indication of WP:notability. Only reference is to a youtube video seemingly posted by his company. Award referred to does not seem to be notable. noq (talk) 11:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Romsey#Events. I agree that there is nothing additional here worth merging. And I'm not sure the minor fights are encyclopedic content, although the refs to those articles should be included.. DGG ( talk ) 01:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a simple street fair; nothing really notable about it, as far as I can tell. JoelWhy (talk) 12:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge into an article for the district, which has yet to be constructed. I suggest it be done by moving this article to the appropriate title, and then adding material. DGG ( talk ) 01:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Subject is not a notable politician, military officer or diplomat. Fails WP:POLITICIAN; WP:MILNG; WP:MILPEOPLE; WP:DIPLOMAT; WP:NRVE. Five bedroom bedroom B&B built by descendant of notable person seems more WP:SOAP. Vttor (talk) 01:20, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[56] Is it mentioned in the book Insight Guide: New England? I see "Marble Inn" and "marble mansion" but not Marble Mansion Inn. Can't search inside properly to see what it says. If its not on the National Register of Historic Places or some notable state list of significant places worthy of mention, then it might not be notable. Dream Focus 23:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've received a text that may be of considerable benefit to this discussion. It's "The Historic Architecture of Rutland County; Vermont State Register of Historic Places" published by the Vermont Division for Historic Preservation, ISBN 0-9619912-0-8 wherein it states that "(t)he activity that is the subject of this publication has been financed in part by Federal funds from the National Park Service, Department of the Interior." The Fair Haven section is covered in pages 121-140. Pgs. 121-127 covers the history of the town and residents. Pgs. 128 & 129 are of maps, Town of Fair Haven and Fair Haven Village, respectively. Pgs. 130-132 describe 105 "Sites Listed in the State Register of Historic Places" in the Town proper. Starting on page 133 is a section about the Fair Haven Green Historic District (map on page 134), with a listing that commences on page 134 of the buildings that comprise the Fair Haven Green Historic District. The building in question is number A33 (page 135), described as "House, 1867, Architect/builder A.C. Hobson. French Second Empire style, stone, Mansard roof, 2 1/2 stories. Features: belvedere, marble, porte cohere, hood moldings, transom, quoins, enriched cornice, enriched frieze, Italianate porch." Also listed on the property are two out buildings: A33a Pump House c. 1885, and A33b Carriage Barn c. 1875. No building in the district is singled out as a separate landmark, while the Fair Haven Green Historic District is labeled as "Listed in the National Register of Historic Places" (pg. 134). Vttor (talk) 17:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Suggest that someone figures out whether its a term or a genre or a theme or a tone genre or a style genre, write the article with that in mind, and then revisit this at AfD later if necessary. ‑Scottywong| squeal _ 21:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing has changed since last time, when I wrote "Previously deleted, non-existent genre. There appear to be no sources discussing it as a legitimate subgenre of heavy metal. The term is certainly in use, as a swift Google will attest, but the phrase is generally being used as an undefined/undefinable catch-all for an unconnected selection of bands that don't conveniently fit into other genre boxes. Searches of Google Scholar, News and Books also pull up hits, although the search is complicated by hits to "dark metal" in other usage. I found this in the New York Times, but the article is clearly talking about bands like Anthrax, Megadeth and Slayer." Previous discusions here, here, here and here. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 22:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No indication that this organization meets notability requirements. No specific claim of notability. No third party sources are provided to support notability. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 00:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. consensus seems clear after the relisting DGG ( talk ) 01:11, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a non-notable person using entirely self-published sources. Was a proposed deletion but that was incorrectly removed. Total-MAdMaN (talk) 20:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Consensus is that the sources provided don't establish notability per WP:GNG or WP:NONPROFIT. ‑Scottywong| spill the beans _ 22:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NONPROFIT i.e: "Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards: The scope of their activities is national or international in scale. Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources." also fails additional considerations as it is not a "Nationally famous local organization". Delete Jarvis Sherbourne (talk) 01:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete Only special interest groups here grasping at straws to keep this wikipedia advertisement of their organization up it seems. the criteria for non-profits is clearly not being met by this page. They are not a National or even provincial/state organization. Their membership numbers and accomplishments are in question and limited to the city of Toronto. Most of their claims can not be referenced by any reputable 3rd party source. The city of Toronto provides most of their funding. I nominate this page for deletion, barring any new evidence that this group has chapters or has offshoot organizations outside the Province of Ontario. The now non existent Ottawa Carlton association is the only loosely associated group i can think of and was only linked by the fact Dan McIntrye was a part of both, no formal integration has ever been made public.*** — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uproar k (talk • contribs) 20:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to AMC Theatres. Black Kite (talk) 01:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A business venture that failed and never had an impact while it existed. Only one such location ever opened. The venture's failure in itself is also not notable. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. No qualifying sources provided to establish notability per WP:GNG. ‑Scottywong| soliloquize _ 22:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable pornographic model and former actress. See WP:PORNBIO. Coverage in reliable sources is scant and trivial to satisfy the general notability guidelines. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the criteria should be changed to 'model' which is more suitable, more defining of her career and where she would be notable. The reason you can't back-up notability for Chloe under the pornstar criteria is because, well she isn't and mainly known as a natural erotic model.
She has appeared on Metro Tv's Naked New York in 2003 and Ksex radio which broadcasted in Los Angles also in 2003- both of which have video documentation on Chloes' official website chloevevrier.com members area. She has appeared in over 400 magazines and wrote the forward (also appears on the cover) for Tom King's 'Busty' book and appeared on the cover of Lisette Ashton's 'Forbidden Reading' both published in 2006. Additionally, she was a regular writer/columnist for Danni.com from 1998-2002 writing over 25 articles for her 'School of Love' column. She is an active writer/photographer contributor for Bachelor Magazine in Japan. Chloe has reported on serveral erotic conventions worldwide and contributed a documentary report on the World Erotic Art Museum published in September 2007 for Bachelor. She is the longest active, large natural breast model and most published worldwide of all time. You may not find direct reliable link sources for the aforementioned but its factual, the data exists (in print media) and she is a notable person on this planet due to prolific contributions to the field of entertainment.
WP:NMODEL WP:ANYBIO
http://www.gingerlynn.com/ksex/index.html http://nymag.com/metrotv/nakedny/ http://chloefanclub.com/ http://www.amazon.com/Busty-Nexus-Tom-King/dp/0352340320 http://www.amazon.com/Forbidden-Reading-Nexus-Lisette-Ashton/dp/0352340223 http://models.danni.com/models/mod117.html http://www.weam.com/web/index.php?categoryid=13 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1love4all (talk • contribs) 18:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, this doesn't really seem to fit the speedy deletion criteria but this material is clearly hopelessly irrelevant for an encyclopedia. Pichpich (talk) 00:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn. It's clear this is going to be kept. Honestly I thought the article was a prank or something at first, but it does seem to have a purpose after all. Especially now that I've given it something resembling an intro. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No context. No purpose. The content is mainly composed of dab pages (for instance, "List of A&M Records artists" disambiguates between current and former) or redirects to categories. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 14:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(View AfD) There is already a list of Nobel Laureates by Country-List of Nobel laureates by country,so,it's quiet unnecessary to create a new article of Nobel Laureates by a country.Give a proper reason why it should not be deleted.A previous nomination for deletion of the page can be found here.Thank You.--Skashifakram (talk) 07:21, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(View AfD) I am nominating the following pages for deletion-
The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 14:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation between two people who don't have articles, i.e. not a disambiguation at all. Geschichte (talk) 08:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not a disambiguation page, but an anthroponymy page, subject to Anthroponymy standards. "If at least two articles matching the surname or given name of the subject of a name article do not exist, then the surname or given name list article would not be notable and should not be created. A properly sourced article about a name may still be notable without a list." Since this page isn't properly sourced, or sourced at all, the two Nalci's mentioned need to have pages of their own. I'm not saying they don't deserve pages, but it makes sense to write the article first. DoctorKubla (talk) 07:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable musician. No charted albums or songs. No indications of any significant coverage, nor meeting any of the other criteria of WP:BAND. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. after a relisting, I do not see consensus on the sufficiency of the sources DGG ( talk ) 19:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No indication this software has lasting notability. Author contested prod.
What few sources I found from a search of the name were just routine coverage in a very saturated field of products. OSborn arfcontribs. 22:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"If you conduct the same search for Basecamp, you get the same results. As someone who used Wikipedia to sift through a lot of really awful Project Management software in an effort to find an alternative to Basecamp, I created this page because I found the project management software pages linked from the list very useful. In terms of notablity, Projecturf is one of the more notable pieces of software. I agree that there is a lot of saturation, but looking at the list of project management software on Wikipedia, I see A LOT of items that probably should be deleted (there is a lot of dead, obscure, and lesss notable items listed). I also feel very strongly that the Projecturf entry is not one, and ever bit as notable as Basecamp, Apollo, WunderKit, MS Project, and OmniPlan. Veraxus (talk) 23:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC) Veraxus"[reply]