![]() |
< 3 February | 5 February > |
---|
The result was keep. LFaraone 02:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Apparent autobiography, or at least someone with a similar name created the article. Non-notable minor league hockey player. A prod tag was removed by the article's creator. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 22:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. LFaraone 02:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a box set containing recordings that already have their own articles. Box set not notable enough to have it's own as it does not seem to meet WP:NALBUMS. --Non-Dropframe talk 22:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily deleted by Fastily (WP:CSD#G7, author requested). --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does not seem to meet WP:NBASKETBALL. --Non-Dropframe talk 22:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG, also seems that persons recommending delete have possible COI as they are creators of similar pages or go to alma maters different from the ones on this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.78.142 (talk) 22:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. LFaraone 02:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed prod - see article talk page. I cannot find any evidence for this place, let alone the extensive history given in the article. Fails WP:Notability and WP:Verifiability. The proposed film that the author mentions on the article talk page, and about which there are "rumours" according to the article, is Devils hill, which I have nominated in a separate AfD. Jll (talk) 21:56, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Note: 1 IP voted twice, maybe thrice Xavexgoem (talk) 16:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted this BLP is for Al Garza II, son of the founder of the Matrix System. The subject has no supported claims of martial arts notability. His MMA record on Sherdog is 1-2, but the author keeps changing it to 15-2. Training with notable fighters does not show notability (WP:NOTINHERITED). Having received a $2000 government contract doesn't show notability, either. Finally, I can find nothing to show his writing passes WP:AUTHOR. Papaursa (talk) 21:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It should noted that Al Garza's MMA record is before Sherdog became an online fight status. He has been fighting since 1996 and his record is 15-2-0. Sherdog has only 2 fights recorded because when they started recording fighters they didn't have access to his total record. His government contracts show credibility for his background. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.112.55.60 (talk • contribs) 6 February 2012 98.112.55.60 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The result was speedy delete as a hoax. Kubigula (talk) 04:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NEOLOGISM, zero Google hits. Nat Gertler (talk) 21:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Xavexgoem (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I found nothing that shows this organization's notability. Fails WP:ORG. SL93 (talk) 21:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Snow consensus for delete. Topic currently lacks coverage to show notability. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed prod - see article talk page. Fails WP:Notability and WP:Verifiability. I cannot find any references to this project apart from its website. Jll (talk) 21:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Xavexgoem (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article is more than a month old and yet has multiple issues 1. No biographical information 2. Does not meet the layout requirements 3. Is not adequately referenced.
So please delete Wikishagnik (talk) 19:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Xavexgoem (talk) 16:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This act is not noteworthy because the act was just symbolic—the immigration quotas were for 100 people each. It doesn't deserve an article of its own. The current article misleads—the last sentence is the crucial part—the bill was a token grant of rights.
See http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/historyonline/immigration_chron.cfm
1946
...
The Luce-Cellar Act extends the right to become naturalized citizens to Filipinos and Asian Indians. The immigration quota is 100 people a year.
I tried to dig up secondary sources on the act to correct the article, and realized how non-notable it was:
This kind of an article has real consequences; enotes has already copied us (http://www.enotes.com/topic/Luce%E2%80%93Celler_Act_of_1946).
PS: Even those who oppose immigration, granted a source with an agenda, do not mention this act: (http://www.fairus.org/site/PageNavigator/facts/research_us_laws/). For 1946 we see: "Procedures were adopted to facilitate immigration of foreign-born wives, fiance(e)s, husbands, and children of U.S. armed forces personnel." That is not the Luce-Celler act. It is hard to see why FAIR would fail to mention a notable immigration act, given their agenda. Ajoykt (talk) 04:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In this case there does not appear to be an assertion that the Act does not meet WP:GNG, per WP:BEFORE, only that it is either not mentioned or is only briefly mentioned in a list of specified sources, to the exclusion of all other sources. Moreover the sources that are offered do not look like the type of sources that I would expect to be looking at. My knowledge of the literature that is available on the law of the United States is limited, but, to begin with, does the United States not have publications equivalent to Halsbury's Statutes and the like? James500 (talk) 02:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. Nominator has withdrawn his deletion nomination, and there are no other advocates for deletion. (non-admin closure) Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article is more than a month old and yet has multiple issues 1. No biographical information 2. Does not meet the layout requirements 3. Is not adequately referenced.
So please delete Wikishagnik (talk) 19:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 10:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article has multiple issues 1. No biographical information 2. Does not meet the layout requirements 3. Is not adequately referenced.
So please delete Wikishagnik (talk) 19:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article has multiple issues 1. Does not meet style layout 2. Does not meet notability requirements 3. Does not say much about the player at all
So I suggest delete it Wikishagnik (talk) 19:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I found no notability for this computer virus. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 18:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. LFaraone 02:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A7 speedies on this article have been declined twice before, and a third nomination just popped up. Although I personally see no reason to advocate the deletion of this article, I've brought it here to settle the matter once and for all. Neutral. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 15:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence that this meets WP:MUSIC. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 05:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Iris (software). JohnCD (talk) 10:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:ORG, An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. There is no secondary source that discusses Dexetra (the company) in detail, the sources are about Iris (the product, not the company). The only reference I can find which has an incidental and trivial coverage about this company is this which I believe is not sufficient to meet the criteria of WP:ORG. SupernovaExplosion (talk) 16:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus, default to keep since deletion obviously isn't the correct outcome. Whether the article should be merged to Pez is now beyond the remit of AfD. Deryck C. 16:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of WP:GNG. While cited sources verify the existence of the line, they do not offer significant, focused discussion of impact, relevance, etc. --EEMIV (talk) 16:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable young player who fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 17:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Legality of cannabis by country. Anything useful can be merged from the article's history. Sandstein 17:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article is not what the title says; title is too broad/undefined. Article as it currently exists largely duplicates information in Legality of cannabis by country; encyclopaedia would be better served by a series of articles, one per drug, perhaps, which seems more intuitive a search. Cheers, LindsayHello 17:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Possible renaming can be considered as part of normal editing. JohnCD (talk) 11:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article is better suited for Wiktionary Wikishagnik (talk) 17:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Xavexgoem (talk) 17:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article has multiple issues This article reads like a travel advisory so a website like TripAdvisor seems to be better suited for this article There is no geographical (state, city, country information), population or other info available. Is this a ghost town? Any notable persons from this town? I think articles like this which are more than a month old need to be deleted. If the author is not interested for months then so should we. Wikishagnik (talk) 17:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is not necessary for notable people to come from a town for a town to be notable. The town is clearly not a ghost town since it has public transport services. Inactivity of the articles author is in no way an indicator of an articles notability. The town has been mentioned in a "The Times Of India". This nomination is a clear example of cultural bias.Flaviusvulso (talk) 21:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Xavexgoem (talk) 17:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be a genealogical paper about a WP:NN cobbler who lived in the 1500's. While some of his descendants may be notable, it does not appear that this individual is. As a genealogical study, it fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY, #2, "Genealogical entries." Toddst1 (talk) 15:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Existing references do not verify any asserted information. No indication of notability. Cloudz679 15:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep, since the presence of significant external coverage has been established. I also implore editors involved in this discussion to expand the article with the references given here to prevent another AfD. Deryck C. 16:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good effort but this is an un-encyclopedic article. 1. There is no history 2. This article is best suited for Wiktionary unless many of the mentioned people credit their heritage with their success 3. There is no independent source referred. The website linked is a dead-end. The topic might be good the page isn't Wikishagnik (talk) 15:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Deprodded with "secondary and tertiary colleges are generally accepted as notable". However, I still think WP:GNG trumps that, as I find virtually nothing in the way of sources. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 14:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Hyperion Cantos. Consensus is that this should not be a separate article, but there's disagreement about whether and what to merge. A redirect allows merging whatever's useful (and sourceable!) later from the history. Sandstein 20:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Plot element from a series of novels, not independently notable (WP:GNG) for lack of substantial coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the author of the fictional work described. Not appropriate for a merger, as it consists only of excessive plot summary (WP:WAF). Andy Dingley (talk) 14:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. As a navigational list, maybe retitle? Sandstein 20:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment, this page is simply a massive See Also section, just listing various history articles. This isn't much of an article. If this page was an article, its contents would have to be almost identical to those of History of India, and although there is perhaps some room to say the two topics are not exactly identical, there is no denying that there is such a huge range of overlap that any article will suffer from massive duplication. CMD (talk) 14:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve History of South Asia is a different topic than History of X country articles. A lot of books are available titled "History of South Asia". Before the advent of present-day nation-states, there were interconnection between the different geographical regions. In many aspect, South Asia stands as a unique and unified whole compared to the other regions. For example, South Asian Stone Age is different from Stone Age in general. The article in its current form is unencyclopedic, but there is scope to improve and expand this topic. --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 03:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was : Speedy keep. Masturbation is a suitable topic for an encyclopedia and has been subject of scientific publications. If you disagree with some specific part of the article's content, please take it to the talk page. (By the way, what do you mean by "Wikipedia policies 2.3, 2.7"?) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 14:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This and other articles on masturbation infringe Wikipedia policies 2.3, 2.7. In addition any attempts to make articles more scholarly and objective , even though they are not really general encyclopedia subjects, are being immediately deleted. RevRoland (talk) 14:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. I'd also like to politely ask that the nominator please stop being disruptive and vandalizing the article itself. OSU1980 14:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy keep, bad-faith disruptive nom. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 14:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article contravenes Wikipedia guidelines on content policy. As confirmation, all editing to make the article more objective have been consistently deleted or 'vandalised' RevRoland (talk) 14:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And in September he had another swipe. Then again he comes out of nowhere with a AfD. I have 'watched' this page since I did the major rewrite some years back, and all serious suggestions have be taken to the talk page and integrated someway. This is the first time that vandalism has taken the form of a malicious AfD (edit conflict)--ClemRutter (talk) 15:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]Modern naturism is often associated with 'swinging' or sexual promiscuity, and some naturist magazines cater for this. Naturism may be seen in traditional terms as a form of natural witchcraft where no formally laid out ceremonies are involved.
The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to do this. I am sure you are quite excited about this product but I found the following strong negatives
1. No News articles or scholar reviews of this software. I am sure your page has this but its not enough 2. The only hits in Google are the odd troubleshooting questions. Please note that blogs don't count as articles. 3. The only reference on this page is the home page of the project and that's not enough. You need more independent websites.
Please get this work done urgently. Its important to keep this page Wikishagnik (talk) 14:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I added third party news references. Anil.verve (talk) 17:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Sourcing/hoax concerns appear to have been addressed. (non-admin closure) Gongshow Talk 03:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hoax/mistake? Google found only mirrors of Wikipedia, without sources since 2005 and with unreferenced stub template since 2009. Bulwersator (talk) 14:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A non-notable alternative medicine modality. No sources found discussing it on google scholar and only three references on google books. The first two are references to a guy who practices CS (i.e. in the "about the author/s" section it mentions this) and the third is a wikipedia reprint. There do not appear to be any reliable sources that substantively discuss it, and Wikipedia is the third link to show up on google search with most of the rest on the first page being people who do it. I recently gutted the page since most of it was unjustified or used a series of unrelated articles to advance a synthesis. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced, written as an essay, possibly non-encyclopaedic material. Fails WP:NOT. Osarius Talk 11:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This page was incorrectly listed (the discussion page wasn't created, so was redlinked in today's log). As a purely procedural move, I'm listing it properly, and contacting the editor who attempted to nominate it. It should be recognised that the nominator (User:Electricpussycat) has made very few edits outside of this article and this attempted nomination, so there may be issues there. I'd leave the discussion open a day or so to see if they come and provide a deletion rationale, but I totally understand if someone wants to close it early as a speedy keep. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 16:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC) Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 16:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was soft delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. (Won the usual industry awards they all have.) Philafrenzy (talk) 10:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Xavexgoem (talk) 17:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable local restaurant. Only sources appear to be Dallas-area news outlets, with one mention being a rather trivial listing of restaurants in the entire metro area. I counted several pizza places in that list, with just two or three brief sentences devoted to the subject of the article. The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
((cite web))
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(help); External link in |publisher=
(help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(help)I have found a nice mention on gayot.com. Unfortunately, that site is currently blacklisted. I submitted a request to have it de-listed. Pawsplay (talk) 06:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Snow closure. Deletion concerns appear to have been addressed. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 04:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Insufficient sources. TFD (talk) 04:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Bmusician 01:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Few sources exist to support an article. TFD (talk) 03:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Bmusician 01:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N Львівське (говорити) 03:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Procedural keep as no reason for deletion offered and no deletion !votes. No prejudice against a nomination if reasons are identified. StarM 02:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N Львівське (говорити) 03:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Procedural keep as no reason for deletion offered and no deletion !votes. No prejudice against a nomination if reasons are identified. StarM 02:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N Львівське (говорити) 03:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to iCarly (season 3). (non-admin closure) Bmusician 01:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable episode. Tinton5 (talk) 01:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to iCarly (season 3), from which the text was lifted verbatim. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 04:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Consensus is that this is still too much of a neologism for Wikipedia. JohnCD (talk) 18:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neologism, apparently almost unused by anyone but Mansuri & Ceruti. DGG ( talk ) 01:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Deleted as A7 by Quarl. Non-admin closure. "Pepper" @ 13:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for notability for 9 months and devoid of secondary sources to support notability per GNG or musician. I've looked for reliable sources related to the musician and his new album but have found nothing. Two other articles created by the same editor have also been deleted for lack of notability. Slp1 (talk) 01:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Subject is an author, photographer and actress but the consensus is that she has not achieved notability, in WIkipedia's sense, in any of these fields. JohnCD (talk) 12:32, 13 February 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:BIO, Non Notable subject[16] with some self published material. Clearly Using Wikipedia for Self promotion Hu12 (talk) 01:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is meant to be impartial. The comments by "hoary" are personal and sarcastic attacks indicating a lack of impartiality which totally contravenes Wiki's rules and ethics. If you read "hoary"'s user page, he has voluminous negative feedback from the Wiki community, being referred to as "the personification of everything that is wrong with wiki and the internet in general, one person who has a bee in his bonnet about something and won't listen to consenus and people with more experience and knowledge"
Sockpuppetry, posting under multiple accounts is illegal in Wikipedia and yet out of the blue, two users both with a specialist interest in Japanese history are citing this article for deletion. I am going to report this user to admin under suspicion of sockpuppetry under the usernames "hoary" and "Yunshui"
Jude Calvert-Toulmin has been referred to as an author in the Sheffield Star and in NowThen magazine, links cited by other users. She is listed as an actress on the IMDB, links cited by other users. She is included as a photographer in a list of contributors to a major photographic exhibition at the Mall Galleries: http://www.portelli-popicon.co.uk/index.php?inc=media - George583— George583 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 12:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable theory of behavior change that is essentially original research. No clear record of mainstream scientific peer review. Completely unreferenced article created by a SPA. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 03:28, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 11:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No major notability since at the end of the show that he had not won, but no current third-party sources. Therefore, it fails the present notability requirements. ApprenticeFan work 11:59, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete for lack of independent notability. Deryck C. 16:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTABILITY - gnews hits are all press releases, job listings, or minor mentions; ghits quickly come down to database entries and other minor matters. Nat Gertler (talk) 22:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. The article would be strengethened if independent reviews of his books can be found and cited. JohnCD (talk) 18:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Author and pastor with no evidence of notability. Can find nothing of note from news sources of Google Scholar. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Mortal Engines Quartet. – sgeureka t•c 10:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Plot element from a series of novels, not independently notable (WP:GNG) for lack of substantial coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the author of the fictional work described. Not appropriate for a merger, as it consists only of excessive plot summary (WP:WAF). Sandstein 19:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All I could find on this album in gnews and gbooks was one passing mention, and Allmusic doesn't seem to know it. Zero refs. Tagged for notability and refs for over 2 years. Epeefleche (talk) 20:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 15:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Real product, possibly popular, not notable. Like most beverages there is an entry on the trade website bevnet. Otherwise there is no significant coverage, and there is little hope of expanding this article past ingredients, sizes, and availability. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 22:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Unfortunately, without a single obvious redirect target, redirect isn't a good option. Deryck C. 16:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find significant (non-trivial) coverage of this person in multiple reliable sources that are not local reports of his running (e.g. the Wicked Local Newton link). The second reference provided in the article (Craig Crawford) is a broken link. Subject doesn't meet criteria of WP:POLITICIAN as he his only a candidate and has not held prior elected office. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 00:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]