![]() |
< 1 December | 3 December > |
---|
The result was merge to Alaska Department of Fish and Game. MBisanz talk 01:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not unique. Every state has these. Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 20:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Skylar Grey. MBisanz talk 01:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
per WP:NMUSIC not really enough information to warrant an independent article — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 20:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 10:11, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing special about this recent pinball machine, and no particular media notice. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:58, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme 07:56, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article was deleted by PROD in July 2012. An anonymous editor has now requested undeletion, which I have done. The PROD reason was "This product does not appear notable; no evidence of notability. Fails WP:N and WP:V." I disagree about WP:V, as the subject of the article is about a proprietary system, and documentation on the company's web site is perfectly verifiable. However, WP:N is a different matter, as there is no evidence of satisfying the notability guidelines. The subject is a part of the organisation of a proprietary system, with no existence or relevance outside the operation of that system. Apart from documentation on the company's own site, there are mentions in blogs, wikis, and other unreliable sources, and a few brief "how to" notes for users of the system, but no substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. (Although it is not a reason for deletion, for context it is perhaps worth mentioning that the article was created by a single-purpose account, the user of which stated that he was working for Cisco, the company responsible for this product.) JamesBWatson (talk) 09:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article was initially nominated in 2006 and was deleted but resurfaced after 4 months. Unfortunately, it seems nothing much has changed since then, a Google News archives search provides this (brief mentions) and this (focuses more with one of their artists than the company itself). Google News archives also provided three Music Week results here (at the bottom, second to the bottom and the third is at the next page). Google News UK and Google Books provided nothing useful. I think this is a such a small company that their website redirects to a blog after clicking "enter", no professional or detailed website. SwisterTwister talk 06:43, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:40, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mackensen (talk) 23:24, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
doubtful notability, ru-wiki article was deleted because of that Postoronniy-13 (talk) 10:57, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mackensen (talk) 23:25, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable actor / filmmaker. A "lead role" in a film that has been in production since 2006, but not yet released, and producer/director credits for several films of little notability. Award for "best story" from a film festival of little note. Other awards cannot be verified. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Boston Tea Party (political party). MBisanz talk 01:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Subject fails both the general notability guideline and WP:POLITICIAN. The article survived the first Afd based on the fact that she was the nominee of the Boston Tea Party, which at the time she was. However, (as detailed in the article) she was later removed as the nominee by the BTP well before the election (and before the party disbanded), apparently for misrepresenting her credentials (see Talk:Tiffany Briscoe). She didn't appear on any state ballots in the 2012 election, and article's citations are mostly non-reliable sources and dead links. Clearly non-notable and should be deleted. Ddcm8991 (talk) 20:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article presents a new theory based on the idea that photons have mass and an off-centre nucleus. It is straight copy of this paper published last month in the Indian Journal of Science and Technology. Copyright permission is claimed on the talk page, with an OTRS ticket number. Whether or not the physics is any good, Wikipedia does not publish original research: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it. If you discover something new, Wikipedia is not the place to announce such a discovery." Searches turn up quite a lot of "New Quantum Physics" but nothing about this one - unsurprisingly, as it was published only last month. JohnCD (talk) 22:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme 07:56, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This musician fails WP:GNG for lack of substantial coverage about him by third parties. He also fails every part of WP:MUSICBIO. Because I've also got identical doubts about Undercover's notability as well, I'm nominating it here also; it fails GNG and NMUSIC. JFHJr (㊟) 21:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 10:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely inappropriately worded for an encyclopedia article, and has a very strong feeling of hoax to it (in particular, none of the cited links are actually links, and the four links to alleged Chinese Wikipedia articles all do not exist). Unless somehow this can be established as real and sufficiently notable, iDelete it. --Nlu (talk) 21:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 10:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't merit a stand alone article. Seems to be political coatrack Hell In A Bucket (talk) 21:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme 07:57, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article is a large list of football statistics for the qualifiers of a competition. Delete per WP:NOT as WP:RAWDATA. Odie5533 (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is the normal number of teams who enter the FA Cup. The external link is there for the results to be verified and that is the normal way for every season in the FA Cup history. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012%E2%80%9313_FA_Cup_Qualifying_Rounds and this season is no different. Have a look at previous seasons from 2012-13 to show this.
I take it you are not an association football/soccer fan. The FA Cup is one of the oldest cup competitions ever and so many clubs enter that they have to have so many rounds before it gets into the 1st Round Proper. The seasons in English football is not showing the Qualifying Rounds for many seasons at present, and I am hoping to fill in the gaps right up to the 2007-08 season.
I have done this for many seasons in The Football League Cup: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_League_Cup and Scottish League Cup: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_League_Cup
This page does not deserve deletion because so many teams enter.
Darrin01
The result was merge to Gangnam Style. Subject is significant, but doesn't quite justify a content fork per the opinions below (and the duplicate !vote). v/r - TP 20:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article is related to the following discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gangnam Style phenomenon; at any rate, there should not be three or four spinoff articles detailing the same thing, and content would best be put in a "reaction" section of the original article. I suppose a secondary article regarding the phenomenon or reaction would be appropriate, as well, but not 3 content forks. dci | TALK 18:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Michig (talk) 20:10, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seems rather fake. Searching on Google News for "punch-out!!" anime retrieves only one false positive. Since the supposed series has a release date of 2014, it's likely that anything in Google News archives or Google Books is a false positive. Also, you'd expect sites like IGN to be abuzz with news of such a show, but hits on the WP:VG/S search look like false positives, too. CtP (t • c) 17:58, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. Nomination and delete vote are by sockpuppets evading a block. Monty845 18:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not really notable. Ggg1829 (talk) 16:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - because of criteria met in WP:SINGER
“ | 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. | ” |
“ | Has won or placed in a major music competition. | ” |
The result was merge to Big Ten Conference. MBisanz talk 01:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a directory. TBrandley 23:25, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Devoid of content, save for an infobox, for a city of 13,000. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 15:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. (non-admin closure) — WylieCoyote 15:47, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fails notability tests - work is not completed, not commissioned and not widely covered in mainstream sources. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 15:30, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. The person's notablity is very much under doubt. From the article, it definitely looks like the article is created only by his follower, and is not more significant except the fact he was influenced by xyz, and influenced abc, both of whom again have questionable notablity. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:29, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Michig (talk) 13:40, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NFOOTBALL, despite what the page creator put of a Filipino footballer playing for Laos at the 2012 AFF Suzuki Cup. This player has yet to make international debut or play in a fully pro league. Also fails WP:GNG. Mas y mas (talk) 13:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Unless I've missed one, it's not clear to me that sources really cover this as a class, rather than as individual examples (which is perhaps a pedantic distinction, but perhaps not). That said, the argument that it's a non-encyclopaedic cross categorization falls flat on its face; the nationality of players on a national team is not a random category, List of footballers born in Scotland who prefer dark lagers over light lagers this is not. So, policy wise both positions are fairly weak. Augmenting that, the headcount is about tied. I can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. WilyD 07:42, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wish I was nominating just for the ridiculous title, but I'm not - there is recent consensus at another AfD that these kind of articles are non-notable. GiantSnowman 12:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Baltimore Orioles minor league players. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme 07:57, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable per WP:BASEBALL/N. Career minor leaguer ...William 11:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Michig (talk) 13:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable per WP:BASEBALL/N. Career minor leaguer
The result was no consensus. This discussion is a classic example of why we need a stable notability guideline for businessmen. Mackensen (talk) 23:19, 9 December 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 WP:NOTABLE, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:ONEEVENT Not encyclopedic, just a run of the mill news story. If Michael Mastro had been notable in his own right, this would rate a mention on his article. But there is nothing to warrant a separate article. Harry the Dog WOOF 14:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Background (by article creator) This article started its life as The Bankruptcy and extradition of Michael Mastro. It was moved to "Michael Mastro" by an editor who replaced the stub template and plastered the article with several "multiple issues" tags. The article’s new name does not represent the contents of the article, but since I am not endowed with article-moving rights on Wikipedia, I was not able to revert this move - and had to ask this editor to revert his move. Instead of reverting the move a discussion has been initiated on the talkpage. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not novel at all. This isn't an argument, it's contradiction. Where, in our policies or guidelines, do you find the material that leads you to believe that the GNG is an invalid "keep" rationale or has anything to do with speedy deletion? Jackson's bankruptcy was over a sum about 1/900th as large as that of the subject here, and Mastro's press coverage has been continuous for years and been far deeper than a routine "so and so filed for bankruptcy." VQuakr (talk) 17:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I maintain that if WP was frozen as is, but then hundreds or even thousands of dross articles were added, the overall quality would not be lowered, because all of the useful information would still be there. Everyone would still get just as much utility out of WP with or without those dross articles. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've made a start on Mastro's personal history, but info is sparse, as he was only barely notable before the bankruptcy. However, he was interviewed for his property business (cites now added) and mentioned in local social reports. I also found some court records (added) for those interested in exactly how much he was in debt. Cheers! The Steve 05:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This subject fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Even when the organization and its founder are mentioned, the actual topic of coverage is something else entirely, usually discrimination or a particular suit. The coverage doesn't amount to coverage substantially about this organization. Also, most sources I'm finding strike me as less than reliable (press releases, human interest) to support the magnitude of importance apparently claimed, especially in past versions of the article. For example, this rather promising CBS url leads to a piece authored by a "C4CFED." All that reliable sources indicate as far as WP:CORPDEPTH is this organization exists. This article was apparently created by the organization's founder, Wardjordan (talk · contribs). JFHJr (㊟) 07:05, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to List_of_Mayors_of_Wolverhampton#20th_Century. MBisanz talk 01:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Local politician, no indication of how he might meet WP:POLITICIAN RadioFan (talk) 14:26, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Michig (talk) 13:47, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
site is dead, no other refs given. no indication of notability. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 10:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Michig (talk) 10:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
no indication this has any notability, only ref is website, no significant google hits i can find. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 10:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This band appears to fail WP:GNG and may not quite meet enough criteria of WP:BAND. Several searches have not yielded coverage in reliable sources. Sources in the article are blogs, Myspace pages and commercial sites. Per the article, they have released albums on various record labels that appear to be of the lesser-known variety, (except for Domo Records, so the topic seems to meet criteria #5 of WP:BAND). Is this enough to demonstrate overall topic notability for a standalone article? Per WP:BAND, a topic "may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria" of WP:BAND. However, this does not guarantee topic notability, because the phrase "may be notable" is used, rather than "is notable". Northamerica1000(talk) 09:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:CRYSTAL. The games are still about 9 years away. Ishdarian 08:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC) Ishdarian 08:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete both. Michig (talk) 10:13, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This topic about an art gallery appears to fail WP:GNG. After source searching, only this source has been found, [11], which provides only sparse coverage. The topic does not appear to have received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:45, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Michig (talk) 10:10, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This topic about an American heavy metal band fails WP:N and likely WP:BAND. Not finding any coverage after several searches, including those in GNews archives and Gbooks. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete The content originally posted was vandalism, and since the only other contributed has brought the article to AfD, there is no reason for keeping it. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:30, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
stub, original content was inappropriate and removed, but there will be a 2014 bowl. is this too soon? (this is not my area of expertise at all). Mercurywoodrose (talk) 08:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD with "This page should not be deleted as it is relevant information on an educational institute. While the institution may not have many of sources as it is a new institute, there are enough sources to qualify an entry on Wikipedia (refer to sources 4, 6, 7)". This is a promotional article for a business that fails to meet WP:ORG. §FreeRangeFrog 16:39, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Damascus University. MBisanz talk 01:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This fails WP:GNG. I propose it because an educational organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources which this department hasn't been. Note: Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources (if any at all) is not sufficient to establish notability.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) -- Cheers, Riley 00:06, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very marginal notability--the best secondary source that actually talks about her, rather than just mention her as having (had) a job, is this--2,803 words from the Washington Post's society pages. Drmies (talk) 21:39, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The subject participated in a reality television show for aspiring singers. Cut in the first round (of 20 vocalists), did not place, and was barely shown. Notability not established in accordance with WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG, which requires significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Cindy(talk to me) 14:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 01:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed Prod, BLP sourced only to primary sources, finding difficulty in locating in depth coverage in reliable sources to establish GNG Nouniquenames 14:14, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme 07:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Novelist who had one award of unknown notability. Lots of external links to his work, but no significant coverage by WP:RS. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:16, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus after almost a month, defaulting to keep. Michig (talk) 10:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
no indication that this was ever a notable paper. Perhaps it can become a redirect to The Daily News (Palo Alto), with any content merged, but im not sure if that paper is notable either. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BASIC - none of the references are specifically about this person and searches for '"Robert Bell" "klickex"' turn up only the briefest or mentions in reliable sources: e.g. [33] [34]. SmartSE (talk) 17:40, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~ JamesBWatson: also contributed to broad ranges of articles on ocean racing, super yachts, banking, geographic locations - however, confirm: restricted to primary/specialist knowledge fields verified by secondary reports. 22:02, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Note I'm sure this Bio Subject doesn't give in-depth or personal interviews. Published articles would therefore be hear-say at best! 26th November 2012.
Comment: Best i can find is this university article (alumni magazine) [35] and a reference from an online newpaper of the awards results (the annual ICT industry awards in NZ) - [36]; an article from the Silicon Valley Forum [37] and a youtube clip of a TV show on local TV in California that he interviewed for: [38]] - although it's verbally referred to as "Derick Bell" - it's credited as "Robert Bell" - clearly of KlickEx.
Note: I'm actually surprised at how many people look at this page! [39] anyone know how to get more detailed info on uniquie visits, etc? Is it family of Robert or... what?!
The result was delete. Michig (talk) 10:00, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article about trivial, non-notable topic. The only (invalid) references are web sites that have a follow button. I seem to remember a similarly named article that was deleted a few months ago. - MrX 02:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. No evidence or argument presented towards showing notability under the general or specialized notability guidelines j⚛e deckertalk 07:25, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Notability has yet to be established. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 22:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Michig (talk) 09:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article consisting of what seems to be original research with no evidence of notability and no references. - MrX 02:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Michig (talk) 09:54, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a non-notable subject, without any references. - MrX 01:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme 08:00, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Due to the fact that the article has barely any information, a Wikipedia article on this person is not necessary. I am proposing deletion. -- SelfEx1led (talk)
SelfEx1led (talk) 01:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Swissair. MBisanz talk 01:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. My original concern was "Fails WP:CORP. I can't find any significant coverage of this company in any independent sources." I can't see any reason why that would have changed. SmartSE (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Verging on an A7; I see no need for separate encyclopedia articles on these applications.
I am also nominating the following related article for deletion:
The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This topic about a graffiti street art campaign in Western Canada appears to fail WP:GNG. Source searching is not yielding significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. I found this one dead link article: ([41]). Also, this custom search in Google News archive doesn't yield anything ([42]) and searches in Google Books are also not fruitful, including custom searches such as this one. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:34, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No explanation of significance. Longbyte1 (talk) 22:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to The Tigger Movie#Soundtrack . MBisanz talk 01:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication in independent reliable sources that the song is notable. PROD removed without explanation. Buck Winston (talk) 00:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Fushigiboshi no Futagohime. MBisanz talk 01:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article about a fictional kingdom in the Fushigiboshi no Futagohime television show that fails WP:N. Google News archives and Books searches are not yielding any coverage in reliable sources (RS). Customized searches likewise did not yield any results in RS. Also, the article is written from an in-universe standpoint; it lacks sourced analysis and real-world context. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Product lifecycle management. MBisanz talk 01:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see no differences between this and Product lifecycle management.
Though not cited in the article, it apparently is based on the book Michelson, Bruce (2007). Closed Loop Lifecycle Planning®: A Complete Guide to Managing Your PC Fleet. Addison-Wesley Professional. ISBN 9780321477149 , a book held in only 100 libraries. according to worldcat. DGG ( talk ) 19:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This fails WP:ORG. The references in the article don't look reliable, and the only mentions of Virtual Rendezvous I can find online are in "teach yourself Java" books written by Charles L. Perkins, the organization's founder. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 02:58, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. DGG makes a fair point about the number of potential citations for his work, but the fatal flaw remains that – despite having been around for years – the article remains without a single independent, significant source on the subject. (And, indeed, nor can I find a single one myself that is not the University's or a simple directory listing). — Coren (talk) 23:00, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fails notability, due to no reasons for being notable which are supported by sources. At least, it should be incubated IMHO. But since the article has existed for over 5 years without sources, my suggestion is it is deleted. 1292simon (talk) 08:52, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:WEBCRIT. — ṞṈ™ 06:55, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
.....apologies, if the above, should be in the talk section of this page--Padraigobrian (talk) 18:36, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Despite having been listed for a month, the best sources found are, at best, insufficient to reach GNG (a review and an incidental mention in an article on a festival where they performed). — Coren (talk) 22:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BAND. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme 08:03, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do not meet WP:ORG. Amartyabag TALK2ME 01:19, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Michig (talk) 09:47, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable law academic. No independent references at all. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 10:23, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Amateur rugby team with a fairly short history. Nothing beyond routine coverage. One source simply states that one of their junior coaches died. I really don't see these local amateur clubs being suitable for encyclopedia articles. Michig (talk) 13:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) -- Cheers, Riley 00:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:CRYSTAL, this article should be deleted, as it is simply too soon for an article at this stage. TBrandley 08:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NOTDIR Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 08:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. There is just enough marginal notability about that company's software that it seems like a plausible destination for redirects. — Coren (talk) 22:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another article relating to the Sable research group, recently deleted at AfD. The only coverage appears to be from people associated with the research group. Michig (talk) 09:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In 2010, two research papers on Soot (Vallée-Rai et al. 1999 and Pominville et al. 2000) were selected as IBM CASCON First Decade High Impact Papers among 12 other papers from the 425 entries.[2]
The result was redirect to Soot (software). — Coren (talk) 22:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently non-notable product of the Sable Research Group, an article on which was recently deleted at AfD. The only coverage appears to be primary. Michig (talk) 09:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Junior Eurovision Song Contest. Michig (talk) 09:36, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article currently lists two sources, one leading to the frontpage of the official Junior Eurovision website, which does not confirm that the contest will run in 2013; and the second is to Ketnet (in Dutch) which is an application form for 2013, but no confirmation from the EBU of the 2013 contest taking place.
The article is essentially bare, no date, not host, and a bit WP:Crystal. [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 00:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to List_of_universities_in_Somalia#Somaliland. MBisanz talk 01:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
==Merge or Delete==
I suggest that this article should be merged with one already existing given that it contains no other notable information. 26oo (talk) 16:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Dispatches (TV series). MBisanz talk 01:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm nominating this article for deletion as it fails to meet the notability status as required by Wikipedia guidelines. K. (talk) 18:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 01:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It seems likely that this person created an autobiography for self promotion. Regardless, I can't imagine that an actress in local theater productions should be considered notable, regardless of her level of talent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaxelrod (talk • contribs) 21:40, October 5, 2012
The result was delete. Discussion participants found the alleged film unverifiable, and likely a hoax j⚛e deckertalk 07:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Article about a film from Trinidad with claims of it being a "blockbuster" and a review without sources that I couldn't find anywhere. There's even a wikiquote template there that leads nowhere. I don't believe this meets WP:NFILMS. §FreeRangeFrog 00:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. No sources, no keepy. — Coren (talk) 22:41, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can't find anything that shows this to be really notable, other than forums. Cloudbound (talk) 22:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) -- Cheers, Riley 00:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a structure that was never built. Even its mid-1990s proposal is unclear in its significance, what with the completion of the Gillette Stadium in 2000. A recent prod attempt failed with the rationale "there is more data out there on how this would have changed the neighborhood and supposedly improved the region", which I doubt. More importantly, that sort of information would be much too speculative. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 01:15, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete per WP:A10 -- article duplicates NWA East Three Rivers Championship. — CactusWriter (talk) 19:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article is not about the NWA North Dakota Championship. It is about poorly done article on the PWX Three Rivers Championship which already has an article. Plus is it worth having an article on a championship that is not that notable? Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 06:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It does exist, but it's not that notable. The promotion the NWA North Dakota Championship is used in isn't that notable. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 05:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]