![]() |
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 06:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
non notable unsourced software, not to mention terribly translated to the point of being almost unintelligible, prod declined without explanation by editor with likely COI based on username and developers name Jac16888 Talk 21:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. If anybody wants to merge anything let me know. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A recreation of a deleted article, and technically fits G4. However, with possible additional sourcing turned up since three years ago, I find it prudent to run a new AfD. A google book search turns up this for example. It's not much, but there is quite a lot of different sources that provide of more-than-trival yet less-than-in-depth coverage. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find reliable sources for this. Dougweller (talk) 20:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very questionable notability for this band. Got a few albums out. Some sources include http://www.smnnews.com/2011/08/19/like-moths-to-flames-recording-new-album/ and http://www.absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?t=2509252 but there isn't enough here to really speak of significant coverage in multiple independent sources. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 06:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. Though everybody knows about screamers and all that stuff, we've seen no reliable sources of Internet Prank. Otherwise just games and screamers post all over the Internet. Also, the first part of the article before the "Internet Prank" should be merged with Highlights for Children. New Living Wiki Editor (talk) 11:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. However, since the 2 previous relisting administrators did not find the participation/arguments sufficient for a "keep" close, I'm going to close it NC. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 02:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think there's a reasonable assertion of notability in the article. It's been around for more than two decades, is frequently required for job placements in South Africa, and is taught in many third party courses. There is a link to the Cape Town University of Technology short course in Pastel in the article, but many other such courses are available (e.g. this one). A quick look at Google Books shows that it's mentioned in many published books, with full textbooks solely devoted to Pastel. I am not an accountant, but pretty much anyone who has browsed job ads in south africa knows Pastel. (examples: financial accountant job ad salesperson job ad bookkeeper job ad --Slashme (talk) 12:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Both of the keep votes in this discussion were textbook WP:OTHERSTUFF votes. No one refutes the claim that this episode does not meet WP:GNG. If you believe thet "Alex (Skins)" is a plausible search term such that it should be a redirect, feel free to re-create the article as a redirect. —SW— confess 22:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
non notable individual episode, all plot, using promo websites as sources. Using this delete as a trial balloon to see what action should be on many related and similarly unsource, non-notable individual episodes. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What if I cut down the plot? Will that help? Or should we just redirect all the Skins episodes? Unreal7 (talk 22:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable; local museum which lacks significant coverage by independent reliable sources. It is also known as The Women's Museum of California, but despite its sweeping choices of names it is actually the San Diego Women's Museum, focused entirely on the women of San Diego County. I found very little Reliable Source coverage under any of these names. The only significant news coverage I could find was in January 2011 when they announced a name change, and in fairness I added that reference to the article; otherwise the article is entirely self-referential. All other news hits I found were passing references, calendar items, and occasional local coverage when they announced their Hall of Fame nominees. Not enough to meet WP:ORG in my opinion. (Note: there is some news coverage under the name California Women's History Museum which was not about this museum; it was about a proposed museum in Sacramento that was never actually created.) MelanieN (talk) 17:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Even after discounting the spas, there is a weak consensus to keep this article. However, if the sources are translated and it's not felt that they represent significant coverage, then no prejudice against a quick (but not speedy) renomination. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Promotional article for a writer/filmmaker of questionable notability. Google news search shows zero results. Standard search shows a lot of primary sources, along with trivial mentions and unreliable sources, but little significant coverage. Claim of being voted one of the "Top 5 Cultural Personalities" shows zero results outside this article. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. —SW— converse 21:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PROD contested by User:Khvmty with the explanation of "the player was prominent on the US National U-17 and U-18 teams and has been in good status with an MLS team for two years". However, the article fails WP:GNG as having not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and WP:NFOOTY as the subject has not appeared in a fully professional league. The article can always be userfied in the creator's namespace until the subject becomes notable, if/when it does. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. —SW— talk 21:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mess of an article which seems to contain information on two different players (see history). GNews searches show that there was a player but no sources are significant. It seems clear that neither player ever played professional American football. Fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG Tassedethe (talk) 16:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 06:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clear case of WP:BLP1E: this runner is famous only because he allegedly cheated during a marathon – one so unnotable it doesn't even have an article, at that. I'm honestly surprised this article lasted so long... Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted by User:RHaworth under criterionn G12 as an unambiguous copyright infringement of [3]. Non admin closure. "Pepper" @ 10:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does not assert notability and does not provide any references, most notably third-party references, to support notability. Only 140 Google matches as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PragmaDev and RTDS has 1,180 matches on Google. 140 matches is for the exact phrase "PragmaDev RTDS". RTDS is the most active tool based on SDL technology standardized by ITU-T. I added this entry because all other tools on the UML Tools page had a dedicated page. I made a first shoot but I am planning to improve it in the coming weeks if the page is maintained. Would that be ok ? --Manu31415 (talk) 21:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. I'm going to AGF and say that this school likely exists and it's also true that in the past "high schools" kinda got a free pass but it can't be verified that this is an accredited high school and whatever kind of school it is, it fails WP:GNG. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article appears to have been largely copied from Riverdale Country School. Searches fail to indicate the presence of any facility in Kolkata with the name "Riverdale High School". The school's "official" website is a Blogspot page. In sum, I believe this article to be a hoax. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. The Bushranger One ping only 23:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Following on from a discussion at WT:FOOTY the consensus about this and other English leagues below level 11 is that they do not appear to have inherent notability. This article also looks like it fails WP:GNG so should be deleted. Adam4267 (talk) 15:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link Struway, read the story, which looked quite familiar - this needs to be addressed, too. Cloudz679 04:45, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete. Speedy deletion criteria G11 (Unambiguous promotion) and A10 (Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic). For G11 the first sentence of the article says it all: "This is a personal and philanthropic project started by Dakotta .J.K. Alex to educate and bring awareness to more people on the diversity of the Jewish diaspora." For A10, we already have History of the Jews in India. It is not acceptable to create a new article on a subject of an existing one in order to promote a particular point of view, or to "bring awareness" to an aspect of the subject one wants to publicise. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article is similar to History of the Jews in India. This can be deleted as detailed article is already present Madhuric (talk) 12:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. CSD G3 Hoax Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There does not appear to be a radio station of this call sign in Kokoya, because there does not appear to be a place called Kokoya. Given the editor's history, I am led to believe that this article is a hoax. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. CSD G3 Hoax Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can find no sources of information about a television station called MKOV. The article is not clear enough (nor written in anything close enough to actual English) to decipher where this television station might be located in order to narrow a search for sources. The website listed (mmedia.com) appears to have nothing to do with a television station of any kind. Given all this, and the editor's history, I believe this article may well be a hoax. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. joe deckertalk to me 20:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be no claims of notability except for running 2 martial arts schools, which clearly fails WP:MANOTE. In addition there appear to be no reliable sources--2 of the sources are from his schools, while the third one (mindef Singapore) reads like an ad. It has links to the school, tells how to contact them to set up lessons, and makes comments like "find yourself as nimble and quick as Jackie Chan!" Papaursa (talk) 02:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. There is consensus (including apparently now by the nominator) that the sources added establish notability.Rlendog (talk) 17:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Song fails WP:Music. I could not find any sources to establish notability. No mentions of charting, either. Tinton5 (talk) 00:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would stubbing it Help?--Scottdelaney1067 (talk) 01:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is because i stubbed it. And no chart info may be known yet either.--Scottdelaney1067 (talk) 01:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
maybe replace the deletion tag with a speedy deletion tag?--Scottdelaney1067 (talk) 01:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 06:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see no indication the subject passes WP:MUSIC. Biruitorul Talk 01:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 06:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD, plus 2 of the 3 artists that actually have an article listed aren't even notable plus Girl Talk has released only one thing under this label which is Stop Cleveland Hate and I'm not sure if that is notable either. JayJayTalk to me 00:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, and create Category:Chinese Tea Ceremony schools. The arguments against this article on notability grounds are compelling, and would apply equally to a list. However the same notability criteria do not as strongly apply to categories, and this suggestion by The Bushranger seems to satisfy the requirements of all parties; no non-notable article or list, but the articles in question are linked together and accessible via a common page.
The notability of the articles that now belong to the category was not a matter for discussion in this nomination. Should they subsequently be deleted and the category rendered empty, clearly it can be speedily deleted under WP:CSD#C1. waggers (talk) 12:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This organization does not seem notable. I can't find any good sources for it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep, per additional sources. Rlendog (talk) 17:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This organization does not seem notable. I can't find any good sources for it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For searches also try trad. Ch.: "陸羽茶藝中心" and also "lu yu tea art center". icetea8 (talk) 04:45, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Rlendog (talk) 17:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This organization does not seem notable. I can't find any good sources for it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For searches also try "行政院農業委員會茶業改良場" or "茶業改良場" and "Tea Manufacture Experiment Station". icetea8 (talk) 04:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. —SW— spout 21:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Declined CSD. References are trivial mentions that don't support notability. One possible non-trivial coverage (behind registration-wall) but one reference is not enough to support notability. Written in a promotional tone and not possible to be re-written in an acceptable manner due to lack of sourcing. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 15:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Darraghonline (talk) 21:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
* References
I'm not qualified to say what makes a source substantial but all are external, unconnected, and with the exeption of Fingal CEB professional media organisations. I have also updated links within Wikipedia to Agile's customers as seven of the nine have their own entries within Wikipedia. Darraghonline (talk) 13:57, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
((cite web))
: External link in |publisher=
(help)The result was delete. —SW— yak 21:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PROD contested by User:Aokegible with no explanation given. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 11:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Rlendog (talk) 17:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 18:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 17:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PROD contested by IP with no explanation given. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 11:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Withdrawn by nominator. joe deckertalk to me 20:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no expert on linguistics (and I don't know how to do that publication citation rating thing), but this BYU associate professor's achievements look a mite weak to my inexperienced eyes. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete. Virtually certain hoax, no indication of significance, and no response from author when asked to provide evidence. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD - PROD reason was "None of the "references" cited even mentions Alif Hilmi Azmir, nor can I find any mention in any reliable sources. Likely hoax, and if not then no evidence of notability" -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This page has been blanked as a courtesy. |
The result was Nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. meco (talk) 10:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Though it claims a large financial turnover I can find no coverage online in reliable general news sources about Aker American Shipping or its alternative(?) name, American Shipping Company ASA. Generally it is listed on various financial websites and dirtectories. Possibly its shipyard may be a notable landmark, but that shouldn't contribute to the notability of the holding company, should it? Judged by Wikipedia's WP:NCORP notability guidelines, this company doesn't seem to tick the boxes. Sionk (talk) 09:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
((cite web))
: External link in |publisher=
(help) (subscription required)((cite web))
: External link in |publisher=
(help)((cite web))
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(help) (subscription required)((cite web))
: External link in |publisher=
(help)((cite web))
: External link in |publisher=
(help)The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reference is bogus, there is no entry for this settlement in the TERYT (nominated for deletion on plwiki) Bulwersator (talk) 09:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Feel free to re-create it as a redirect to an appropriate target. —SW— confer 21:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find any indication that the film was notable (or that much more information was available than was already listed in the article.) I propose this article to be deleted for lack of notability. Mgm|(talk) 07:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 17:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable theory of education. I can't find much on it. I can't even find the books that are supposed references for the article. A search for "Living theory press" brings up this very Wikipedia article. Harizotoh9 (talk) 07:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. I am willing to userfy per the request. Rlendog (talk) 16:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:MMAEVENT, WP:EVENT and WP:SPORTSEVENT, the coverage that this "event" received was totally routine in nature (consisting of the event announcement, who is going to take part, and the results) the article does not attempt to demonstrate the event's lasting effect and show that the duration of coverage lasted beyond the end of the event. Mtking (edits) 06:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 05:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing other than a minor award nomination. →Στc. 05:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. As User:Dravecky points out, this is likely a notable topic, but the article here is best dealt with using the good old WP:TNT. If userification is desired, ping me. The Bushranger One ping only 05:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Only source is an opinion column. Article is essentially a short POV statement. PROD declined without explanation by IP that is likely the article creator. Safiel (talk) 04:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy deleted as obvious vandalism. Mgm|(talk) 08:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Biography of a non-existent person. Page is a copy of Doug Stanhope. Hirolovesswords (talk) 04:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. The Bushranger One ping only 05:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Subject doesn't seem notable, and the article does not have any RS Fasttimes68 (talk) 03:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 05:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No independent RS on the notability of what seems to be just a person with a couple of YouTube channels. Sources are all related to the subject. Does not satisfy WP:GNG. The name of the user who created the page also seems to suggest the article violates WP:SPIP. Michitaro (talk) 02:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete under G5. — ξxplicit 22:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
*Obviously Keep - The article about the pop singer from Pakistan have its own importance and Bilal Khan is a notable musician in Pakistan. You may the see the evidence of his notability on youtube (Bilal Khan on youtube).
Hence, it should not be deleted as the article have reliable sources and external links.
--- Angel from PAKISTAN Let's talk about it! 02:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment to keep !votes Please read WP:MUSICBIO and indicate which specific criteria you think this artist meets, and show WP:RS that can be used for WP:VERIFIABILITY. "I like this guys music". "because". are not valid reasons to keep the article. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was drained. The Bushranger One ping only 05:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable public accommodation. No significant coverage in news or book. Bongomatic 01:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. No prejudice against recreation if and when he makes his debut for Army United The Bushranger One ping only 05:42, 3 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) 00:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 05:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actor BLP unsourced since creation in 2006, except for IMDB. A Google and Google News search reveals several apparently passing mentions of him in his first role, which is mentioned in the article, and nothing since. Appears to fail WP:BIO. Sandstein 10:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 05:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I have no idea what this is. As far as I can tell, it's not a list of notable programs aired by some channel, which maybe is acceptable. This is unverified, and directory information at best. Drmies (talk) 17:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Independence Public School District. The Bushranger One ping only 05:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Middle school that does not seem to meet our notability guidelines. -- Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete/Userify.. Consensus is to delete. As the creator has expressed a desire to have the page userified, I have done so; redirecting the original location and/or creating Earless rabbit can be done through the usual channels. The Bushranger One ping only 05:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There was a rabbit without any ears. A cameraman stepped on it and the poor animal died. It will now be stuffed and exhibited. Sources confirm this happened. PRODded with reason "Not notable. Just a minor single event". DePRODded without explanation. However, PROD reason still stands, and WP is not a newspaper. Hence: delete. Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article has no secondary sources to establish notability outside of the confines of those groups closely affiliated with this organisation. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). The previous AFD asserted reliable sources that covered a particular prank, not the organisation itself. As the organisation was not the primary focus, these sources do not qualify as indicators of notability. All other sources are self-published or closely affiliated with the subject. The JPStalk to me 18:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SnowAddict The Steve 11:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No Consensus to delete. Only one participant in the discussion has characterized their opinion as "Keep" but the sources and arguments presented by the nomination and previous comment do not argue strongly for deletion. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does not appear to be notable outside of the connection with the LFW house. This is the best I could find, but I don't think it's enough. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 05:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No reliable third-party coverage to establish notability per WP:CORP. Kelly hi! 22:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WP:TOOSOON. "do not delete" !votes are obviously all the same user; there is no information provided beyond a release date - not even a track listing. No prejudice against recreation after the album is relased and has proven notable. The Bushranger One ping only 05:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRYSTAL based on a blog-like website that give no relevant information. Can be userfied until there is a mixtape AND relevant information Night of the Big Wind talk 23:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No relevant information, and it's unlikely there will be any before the album's release. Huon (talk) 15:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]