![]() |
The result was keep. Bmusician 09:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Little to nothing here is verifiable through reliable secondary sources. The article currently has multiple YouTube videos as sources, plus a Tripod fansite, neither being acceptable. Other sources in the article are all primary. As with PBS idents and American Broadcasting Company logos, no notability is proven to the logos themselves as no independent sources discuss the history, critical analysis, etc. of the logos. Only the encyclopedia source seems reputable, but to what extent does it discuss the logos? I say not much.
While the article was sent to AFD twice before, the first was kept entirely due to WP:ILIKEIT, WP:PRETTY, WP:ITSNOTABLE and whatever the hell "Why is it that some people refuse to see the historical aspect of logos?" is (I say "non sequitur"). AFD the second was no consensus, due in part to one user clamoring that sources do exist but utterly failing to prove it and/or fix it. I see no good sources as it stands, nor any proof of separate notability. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:53, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
((cite web))
: Check date values in: |date=
(help); External link in |publisher=
(help)((cite web))
: External link in |publisher=
(help)((cite web))
: External link in |publisher=
(help)The result was Delete. Keilana|Parlez ici 00:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PROD contested by Rupert1904 (talk · contribs). Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:07, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of the article is not notable. Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 13:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as ((db-a10)) (duplicate of the article Omalo). Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is in a foreign text (I think it is Hebrew). I cannot tag it as CSD A2 due to the foreign glyphs and the fact that I do not know what language it is. Oddbodz (talk) 22:26, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. ‑Scottywong| babble _ 16:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I originally tagged this article with a 'bias tag'. However, upon further review, I've come to the conclusion that this article should be deleted (or, at least, drastically edited.) I find references to "visual reading" in the context of reading, but this is a general phrase that does not appear to have anything to do with the technique Hyo Sang Shin supposedly developed. The only thing I can find related to Shin + "visual reading" are links to the book he's selling. All of the research/references appear to be about general concepts of speed reading, not anything Shin developed. Finally, the claim that students are reading 1,000 wpm w/ good reading comprehension is almost certainly utter pseudoscience garbage. (Either that, or this guy deserves a noble prize, because this claim requires near super-human abilities.) JoelWhy (talk) 22:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Joel,
It looks to me that you are clearly upset about my request to substantiate your attack on the article with any scientific evidence. If you are upset, it does not give you the right to pour your emotions and call other people's work "garbage". How much do you know about speed reading? Did you actually bother to read about "visual reading" method? If not, I suggest you do your homework first before pouring dirt over other people's heads. I am considering raising a complaint about your libelous remarks about the author of the book and the method. Please remove your libelous and unsubstantiated remarks if you do not want the issue to be escalated any further.
As I wrote before, I welcome any constructive critique of the article.
Kind regards, Natalia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.19.3.170 (talk) 22:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just, M., Carpenter, P. The Psychology of Reading and Language Comprehension. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1987.
Noah, T. "The 1,000-Word Dash." Slate. Newsweek Interactive Co. LLC, 18 Feb. 2000. Web. 15 Oct. 2010. <http://www.slate.com/id/74766>
Rayner, K. "Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research." Psychological Bulletin. 1 Nov. 1998, Volume 124, Number 3: 372-422. JoelWhy (talk) 23:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Joel, Being scientific means providing a well balanced point of view. Your point of few is obviously biased... The discussion on how speed and comprehension are connected is in no way conclusive. Science is full of inconclusive discussions and unanswered questions. The references you cite are in no way representative of all the research into reading and comprehension. Moreover, the two references you provide are more than 10 years old. Newsweek interactive is not a scientific journal. What makes you think that book lacks notability? The author's method is patented in South Korea, and the author is due to receive patents for his method in the United States and the United Kingdom. The book has this information. I hope you had a chance to look at the last pages of the book prior to making your judgement of lacking notability. Moreover, Shin's method has been tested for more than 7 years and the book contains case studies to support his method. I did complain about your comments and calling other people's work "garbage". Kind regards, Azbukva Azbukva (talk) 01:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment. I would like to point out that Notability Guidelines which you referred me to clearly state the following:
For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort. If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself, or: Ask the article's creator or an expert on the subject[6] for advice on where to look for sources. Place a ((notability)) tag on the article to alert other editors. If the article is about a specialized field, use the ((expert-subject)) tag with a specific WikiProject to attract editors knowledgeable about that field, who may have access to reliable sources not available online.
Neither of the editors has approached me regarding this issue before placing "deletion" tag on the article. I can provide more evidence to support the notability criteria for Shin's method, including publications in other media sources. The deletion tag was placed on the article not for notability criteria... I believe the person who placed the tag thinks that Shin's method is pseudoscience garbage, and that is clearly an insult. What else can you call it? Constructive criticism?Azbukva (talk) 10:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. both. JohnCD (talk) 21:33, 16 April 2012 (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 procedurally as the article had been previously deleted by PROD. The delete rationale remains valid nonetheless. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following article for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion besides nominator's. Nominator's argument is also something to be avoided. Bmusician 09:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominating as non-notable organization. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete G3 (vandalism/hoax) by user:Malik Shabazz. NAC. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it might be a micronation. No sources on Hordaland available that I could find. -- Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 20:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No indication of notability. Can only find nine Google results (all Wikipedia) for the name. ... discospinster talk 20:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Discounting the numerous sockpuppets and SPAs, there is a clear consensus that this does not meet the notability requirement. JohnCD (talk) 20:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a non-notable literary theory, as any Google Book, Google News, or JSTOR/MLA search easily verified. The only references are the author's book and a few newspaper articles from an Albanian newspaper, whose reliability on local news is probably without par, but whose authority in matters of literature and philosophy is not established. The External links section looks impressive, but look carefully--there are no reliable sources there, only blogs and other short, non-notable articles. Besides notability, the article seems a pretty clear attempt to publicize the author, whose own article was recently trimmed drastically to remove puffery. Drmies (talk) 19:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dear all,
Many thanks for your good discussions. It’s a pleasure to make your acquaintance, and to get a chance to thank each and every one of you for your kind services toward Protonism. I find your criticism carefully considered and meant to be helpful. In addition, I greatly appreciate the invitation by some of my supporters to take part in this ongoing discussion.
Unfortunately, you are catching me at a particularly crazy time, and I recently made a vow to myself to decline all such participations for the foreseeable future, in order to concentrate myself on a very demanding dissertation project which I plan to defend this coming summer. I really regret losing this chance to share my thoughts on the matter, but I trust you’ll understand and forgive me.
On another note, I would like to ask a favor of you: please be considerate when giving me credit for works that I haven’t done and praise that I do not deserve. The first is destructive and the second is unhelpful.
Thanks again for your kind invitation to participate, and my regrets for not being able to take part this time. I hope there might be another chance for us to be in touch sometime in the future. Meanwhile, here’s wishing all of you the very best with your own work.
Please contact me if you need help or have questions.
Sincerely,
Gjekë Marinaj
[Contact info removed]
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.246.247 (talk) 18:45, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Call for snow on this deletion - the "do not deletes" are quacking loudly. Collect (talk) 12:35, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 20:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PROD removed by IP. Concern was: Appears to fail the notability criteria for musicians; article created almost entirely by Expewikiwriter (since banned for apparent promotional editing). Stuartyeates (talk) 19:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Keilana|Parlez ici 00:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:GNG. It's far too a general term to be worthy of an article. We have no reliable sources discussing this subgenre in detail, simply a handful of bands claiming it as a label as they don't won't to be tarred with anything else (we had exactly the same discussion at dark metal, which is repeatedly deleted). Without significant, thrid-party coverage discussing this as a separate subgenre, i.e. not interviews with bands describing themselves as such, this lacks even the faintest shred of notability. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 20:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hey, The Encyclopedia of Heavy Metal says its a genre, it must be true. ;) The Steve 05:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Yasht101 11:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing indicating it's notable. JoelWhy (talk) 17:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 19:52, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This page would only work as a molecular formula disambiguation page, but there are currently no Wikipedia articles on chemicals with the chemically unlikely molecular formula C8H3NO, so this page is unneeded. The text contains no information that cannot be derived from the chemical formula itself (and the "scientific name" given is nonsense). ChemNerd (talk) 17:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Subject is notable only for one verifiable event. Coverage of individual is minimal and not well documented in reliable sources. Does not meet criteria - WP:N WP:BASIC.Differ (talk) 11:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 16:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing notability here. He appears to be just one of a seemingly neverending procession of "up and comers". --Bongwarrior (talk) 16:21, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 16:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable local Florida attorney. The extensive references provided are scans of articles posted on the subject's own website - in many cases, the links are incorrect and result in 404 errors. However, in the references that can be found, Antinori is found to be a run of the mill defense attorney and later state's attorney with little to claim of notability. In later life, he appears to have become something of a gadfly seeking support for his proposal to amend to US Constitution. This article appears to be part of the campaign to give that proposal legitimacy. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Nomination withdrawn. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 01:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. I can't find any reliable sources on this subject that are independent of John M. Smart's paper, so I don't think that this hypothesis passes Wikipedia's notability guidelines. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 15:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 16:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we need the book's subplots to have their own Wiki page. Plus, this wiki page is a train wreck. JoelWhy (talk) 14:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Keilana|Parlez ici 00:11, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't meet WP:CORP as far as I can tell - while there has been some coverage in reliable sources, they are either brief mentions, or in local news, neither of which are sufficient to demonstrate notability. Note that a lot of content has been removed recently, for various reasons, and that the original author was a paid editor. SmartSE (talk) 14:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was boldly redirected to Mirror#Decoration. Nominator and article creator are more or less in agreement that the primary page for the topic is sufficient. Tone was also a concern here; consider discussing avenues for expansion at Talk:Mirror. Non-admin action. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Probably should merge this page into the general Mirror page. Even if we don't, this page's tone is entirely inappropriate. JoelWhy (talk) 13:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 16:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First AFD was kept due to WP:ITSNOTABLE arguments and nothing else. Second nomination had the article's creator clamoring that sources were available, but outright failing to prove it. Nowhere has it been proven that multiple independent sources have given the logo any attention. The three sources in the article dedicate no more than one or two sentences each, failing the significant part of the whole reliable sources thing. I have looked and cannot find any sources which significantly and independently discuss the logo's history in depth. The fact that Paul Rand designed the circle logo can be moved to ABC's article, but the rest is unsourced, indiscriminate fancruft. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 13:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Boldly redirected since nom also !voted for it. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 14:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing to disambiguate here. Only the Frost poem is known by this title, and the source of the phrase is clearly discussed and linked to in that article. The Poe use is not really ambiguous with respect to this phrase except, perhaps, as a partial match. ShelfSkewed Talk 13:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Matt Finish. ‑Scottywong| comment _ 16:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Short-lived band - no references, no evidence of notability AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Athabasca University#Research. A redirect is cheap, even if not likely to be very useful. WP:UNIGUIDE#Faculties and academic colleges does not support Me-123567-Me's argument. JohnCD (talk) 16:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Notability has not been established. While the university is notable, we can't list every university department or program. Page could be redirected to the university page. West Eddy (talk) 12:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No Consensus to delete. In considering all the comments in this AfD it is apparent that there is no consensus as to whether the positions she has held make her notable or not. Eluchil404 (talk) 09:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find anything to indicate notability. Simply working in the oil industry, even in a good position, does not make someone notable. It's unclear what affiliation she actually has with Athabasca University, but even being the chair is not a notable position outside of the university. West Eddy (talk) 12:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 20:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable despite the hype Peter Rehse (talk) 12:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Yasht101 11:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article was resored at request after an the last AfD closed as no quorum, and was soft deleted. I do believe the original rationale stands, so this could be seen as a relisting of the original debate. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G7 page blanked by author JohnCD (talk) 17:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No Proofs Sandeep (talk) 11:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree but we can give some time to the article that's what i think --Sandeep (talk) 05:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 20:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable film with no references. -- Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 08:19, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 22:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable daughter of television parents. Fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:NOTINHERITED. WWGB (talk) 08:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Thomas Lourdes (novel series). The discussion was not very conclusive, but while the books seem notable the author, under his nom-de-plume, is not, and redirection to the article about the books will enable a searcher to reach what relevant information we have. JohnCD (talk) 21:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Author of three books published by TOR/Forge. No references available. -- Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 08:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 13:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete as it appears that the article is probably a copyright violation. Nick-D (talk) 07:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be transcribed from a document of some sort, and appears to be a procedural briefing accordingly. We are not the place for this. -- Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Completely fails WP:GNG and is the very reason for WP:NOT. Just another "garage band"-type article to advertise a minor organization with little impact. Wer900 talkessay on the definition of consensus 02:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 10:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Listing per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 March 21. I abstain. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 21:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Possible hoax, and if not that it doesn't appear to be notable. I initially proposed a merge into Traditions and student activities at MIT but comments there seem to indicate it doesn't appear notable, and I can't find anything really on it. Shadowjams (talk) 02:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. or Merge Article shows no notability. Now has a few citations. A bare stub. Comments on Talk:Traditions and student activities at MIT shows reasonable web searches finds no mention of this event. Lentower (talk) 13:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Rewrite. There are 20,000 hits on google for the terms (Revels Cultural Fest of MIT), so it seems notable. Anybody from Manipal Institute of Technology here who can comment? The article originally ascribed this to Massachusetts Institute of Technology, but googling suggests that this is an error, so I edited the article; it now reads Manipal Institute of Technology, which is correct. The home page for the festival is http://www.revels.in/ (The Manipal Institute of Technology Wikipedia article, for what it's worth, does mention Revels). Might be nice to retitle the article to make it more clear which MIT it is. Perhaps "Revels - Cultural Fest of Manipal Institute of Technology." Guy who reads a lot (talk) 22:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is a culfest, and general practice at WP:INEI is that culfests are not inherently notable, i.e. they require coverage per WP:GNG. However, I found quite a bit of coverage when I looked for it: 2012 edition: [29], 2009 edition: [30] [31], 2010 edition: [32] [33], 2011 edition: [34], 2007 edition: [35] [36], 2004 edition: [37]. I'm pretty sure it is enough for WP:GNG. --Muhandes (talk) 19:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Magazine published by and for a grammar school. Article basically consists of a listing of the two issues published up till now and fascinating tidbits of information like the surface of the school (61,606m2). Article PRODded because of a lack of independent sources, dePRODded without stated reason. In the absence of any evidence of notability: Delete. Guillaume2303 (talk) 20:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. ‑Scottywong| prattle _ 17:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
non notable per WP:ONEEVENT, there are 50 guys like this a year, it's not Miss America or something like that Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. ‑Scottywong| confabulate _ 17:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable website, fails WP:N and WP:WEB. No reliable independent sources in the article, and no such sources found through web searches. Very few web hits anyway, no matter if I look for "Judaean Coins Archive", "Judean Coins Archive", "Judea Coin Archive" or "Judaea Coin Archive": excluding Wikipedia and its mirrors, and the website itself, less than 50 sites even mention this[38]. The only books noticing this site are books that simply copy Wikipedia articles, not actual written books. Fram (talk) 11:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Andrew Landeryou. Page history is still accessible, so feel free to merge anything worthwhile. ‑Scottywong| chat _ 17:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have idly checked this page numerous times over the last few years after running into the website VexNews online, which is little more then a blog for political attacks from the far right. From what I can see of the editing pattern here it looks like the original users that created this and the related articles was the actual owner of the site VexNews, who was promptly banned for disruptive and COI edits. Since then, any attempt to make constructive changes to these articles, which has been few, due to the limited significance of the article, have been met with an eventual IP edit that reverts to the same content the original 'owner' submitted. I think the safest option now is simply to delete this and deny this owner the notoriety he clearly desires. Senor Freebie (talk) 09:26, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. ‑Scottywong| spout _ 17:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unable to find any coverage in reliable sources, or any indication that the subject might pass the general notability guideline. The article has been deleted via proposed deletion twice, and then recreated without improvement. -- Lear's Fool 07:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Food Not Bombs. ‑Scottywong| gossip _ 17:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing indicating notability. A lot of the references are from the website of the company that Butler started, and as for the other references I don't think "Hippie Chick Diaries" and "Planet Waves Daily Astrology" really count as reliable sources. Maybe the content can be merged to the Food Not Bombs page... if that meets notability criteria. As for this page, it fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO MisterRichValentine (talk) 01:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. No prejudice against re-creating the article with sourced, non-OR content. ‑Scottywong| speak _ 17:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
neologism, synth, OR, the thinnest of threads thrown together to make a piecemeal trace of an article. Weeded it a bit, but there's really nothing there Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Sandstein 08:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article was speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G11 (spam), then undeleted and sent to AfD per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 March 16. Please see there for possible reasons for deletion; this is a procedural nomination. Sandstein 16:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Maps in a Mirror. Consensus to delete, but it seems to be a valid redirect, so I'm going to boldly redirect it. Page history is still accessible, so feel free to merge content. ‑Scottywong| babble _ 17:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. The article makes no assertion of notability, and the subject is is a not-notable story by a notable author. (I put a tag questioning the notability on the article a year ago, and there has been no edits to suggest that the story is notable in that time.) Guy who reads a lot (talk) 21:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. ‑Scottywong| gossip _ 17:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. The article makes no assertion of notability, and the subject is is a not-notable story by a notable author. (I put a tag questioning the notability on the article a year ago, and there has been no edits to suggest that the story is notable in that time.) Guy who reads a lot (talk) 21:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. ‑Scottywong| confer _ 18:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me to be a non-notable localised league/association. A google search only brings up localised sources, nothing too widespread, quite difficult to establish WP:N. It fails WP:CRIN from my interpretation, as it is not of Grade standard. My main concern is notability, I am struggling to see how this league is particularly notable and how it can be demonstrated by reliable sources. If someone wants to give it a try, good luck!!! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 20:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep, per arguments below, meets WP:GNG Samir 16:37, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I deprodded because I think it needs a full AfD to find any hidden sources, however the article is written in peacock-ish terms. Google search reveals promotional material, and almost all sources in the article itself are either near verbatim copies of the article text, or have almost no bearing on the article's claims itself. This appears to be largely promotional, and of dubious notability. Shadowjams (talk) 03:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree entirely, this is all factual information. Regardless of your elitist prick ideas, there is an entire community of musicians here ready to ram this down your throats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelco83 (talk • contribs) 03:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right, such as 2. Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelco83 (talk • contribs) 03:17, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the article, it clearly states the information and is cross refrenced from ZZ Top's own wiki site.
1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself.[note 1] Meets this criteria with the recently published album It Takes Everything, and Francine on ZZ Top's album Rio Grande Mud.
6. Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles. Played with Jaco Pastorious, and Jerry Lee Lewis.
Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article. Read WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E for further clarifications) Francine by ZZ Top, Livin On on the Sugar Hill compliation album. Live Performance on Midnight Special with Jerry Lee Lewis and Wayne Cochran and the C.C. Riders.
11. Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio or music television network. ZZ Top Francine US, Jazz legends BBC UK — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelco83 (talk • contribs) 03:29, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That said I'm still extremely reluctant to make the call of non-notable. Call it a feeling. "Feelings" have no place in an AfD debate, though, so I'm gonna go comb through Google results and maybe attempt a reason-based "keep" !vote later. Angrysockhop (talk to me) 04:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Francine is as much Cordray's as it is ZZ Top's, if you wan't to argue whose song it is, perhaps you should wiki up the information. ;) Also, this is some really nitpicky stuff. Kenny Cordray is a guitar legend who didn't always take the lime light. To deny this would be out of pure spite. He's more than notable, especially compared to some of the other "artists" that have a page. I still don't understand why there is so much resistence to this when I'm merely filling out information when Kenny Cordray has already been refrenced by ZZ Top themselves. Go to itunes and preview any song he's got, he's not a joke, he's the real deal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelco83 (talk • contribs) 04:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to contest being restricted from edits as the rule says you cannot make an article about yourself, blood relation should be free to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelco83 (talk • contribs) 06:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would understand your point, but in comparison to other articles, this is pretty dry stuff. If you want to challenge my sources as credible, thats fine, but I have hit on more than 1 criteria for notability. Instead of a recommendation of deletion, why isn't the article flagged for needing more information. I just wanted to get this started, I don't want to write the whole thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelco83 (talk • contribs) 13:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is the nitpicking thing we're talking about now. Lets nit pick this statement. Which sources do not back up the claims?
We put up a USA today article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.246.89 (talk) 12:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC) Are ya'll done with this farce? There is more than enough to keep Kenny Cordray on wikipedia.org. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.246.89 (talk) 12:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC) The article pages that were uploaded have been deleted, used an alternative source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.246.89 (talk) 00:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was not flustered over this, but I will flame someone using "peacockish" to describe my writing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.155.116 (talk) 15:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, I'll slap your clowns with libel accusations, keep your dogs on a leash. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.155.116 (talk) 02:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no lawyer, but its easy to see that it was one of wikipedias editors that broke this so called civility. Who is running this outfit, clearly this group of editors are way out of line. It looks like Kelco was provoked and was defending himself. I'm sure whoever is in charge would loath to see the actionable position he's been put in by you guys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.249.194.129 (talk) 15:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete all un-struck (?) articles. ‑Scottywong| gossip _ 18:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominating multiple articles on clubs from the same semi-professional football/soccer league. A single article from this league was nominated first as a test case: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Korea First Bank FC. The same arguments from that AfD apply here: non-notable club, fails WP:NFOOTY/WP:FOOTYN, etc. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 15:10, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 17:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable Peter Rehse (talk) 04:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC) (categories)[reply]
The result was merge to Bowser (character). ‑Scottywong| spout _ 18:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable video-game voice actor. No major field contributions. MBisanz talk 04:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 17:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable Peter Rehse (talk) 03:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 17:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Insufficient notability and verifiable reliable sources. Contested PROD. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 03:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
unfortantly this is a tv show its on adult swim which is part of the cartoon network after 9pm pst lineup, however it only continues showing racial terms as if its funny or appropriate, its a black version of jackass meets sketch comedy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.8.251.26 (talk) 06:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the evidence shown here is more than enough for this to be removed from the afd list.Gyopi NG (talk) 04:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 17:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. ‑Scottywong| express _ 18:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article was speedily deleted per WP:CSD#A7.Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 March 30 decided to send it to AfD instead, which is hereby done. This is a procedural nomination, I am neutral. Sandstein 21:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to 551st_Electronic_Systems_Wing. There is a 50/50 split on whether to delete or merge, so a redirect seems indicated; if there is anything worthwhile to be merged, that can still occur Black Kite (talk) 10:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very sad but not notable per WP:AIRCRASH Military crashes are very common....William 11:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was deleted per WP:CSD#G4 by Deskana (talk · contribs). (non-admin closure) Jenks24 (talk) 09:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, local wrestler, extensive in-universe and lacking independent coverage. MBisanz talk 03:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. ‑Scottywong| prattle _ 18:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No notability shown, creator seems to be an SPA Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Creater is an economics honors major from the National University of Singapore. You can view my profile here: facebook.com/junialum. This article was added on a neutral basis purely for academic reasons and do not contravene any guideline on Wikipedia. If parts of the entry needs to be changed or edited for clarification, please inform me (author). This article has provided significant coverage on this issue with a comprehensive case study. Sources are reliable with independent references. There is no question of self-publicity, advertising, etc. I do not in any way belong to any persons or organizations mentioned in this article. The article itself cites problems and is not a positively biased write up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junialum (talk • contribs) 06:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted by Boing! said Zebedee as "(G6: AFD requests removal after a move; this was originally a redirect)". Non-admin closure — Frankie (talk) 16:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Misnamed material moved to differently named article. This article no longer referenced. (Quick delete). Nominated by originator. Student7 (talk) 01:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article was deproded by article creator without addressing the underlying concern of lack of significant reliable source coverage to establish notability. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 21:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I propose this page for deletion for the following reasons: 1. This individual is not internationally known. 2. Lack of hits to the page justifies its futility as a proper Wikipedia article. Oblivionzero (talk) 17:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)— Oblivionzero (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I don't think this page should be kept. So, if I want to make my sister its own Wikipedia article telling her life so far, it's okay? This is Wikipedia, not Facebook. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oblivionzero (talk • contribs) 00:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC) — Oblivionzero (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The result was Redirect/Withdrawn. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 22:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article page is a near duplicate of Aranmula Kottaram the only 2 differences is that this one has capital letters for no apparent reason and the other has an additional external link. May be considered WP:CSD#A10 but both articles are pre-2011 creation date. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This page has been nominated once. At the time, I opposed it. However, I think he has a clear notability problem. He only got 8% of the vote and I have heard little from him since he lost the election Casprings (talk) 04:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Autobiography of person lacking coverage in independent reliable sources. The award for her band is not major and her band is not notable. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello - I apologize for creating this page, I was bored and I love writing in wiki format. Please do not take the Choke the Word Page down because I messed up. AnomicAli (talk) 15:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Viz (comic). ‑Scottywong| gab _ 18:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable, unsourced since forever, redirect undone for no reason. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 22:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article about two separate companies that needs to be split. However I don't think either company is notable. Marcus Qwertyus 20:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Rigby & Peller. JohnCD (talk) 22:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DEL#REASON- subject fails to meet notability guidelines for people in general - not "the subject of the subject of multiple published secondary sources". Also does not meet the critera for WP:CREATIVE nor WP:ENTERTAINER JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]