![]() |
The result was delete. Great arguments by Struthious and Cunard. This is how an AFD is supposed to play out. Unfortunately for the article, the consensus is to delete. v/r - TP 14:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One significant role in the film Sydney White didn't result in any media coverage. Fails WP:NACTOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0815244/ (IMDb entry for the 2007 film Sydney White), Bonner is listed as the 13th actor, indicating he did not have a "significant role" as required by WP:NACTOR. Directing The Karaoke King does not establish notability because the film does not appear to have received much coverage (per a Google News Archive search). Appearing in the East Coast premiere of a Pulitzer-prize-nominated stage performance is insufficient because the work was nominator for a Pulitzer, not Bonner's performance. Bonner does not inherit the notability of the work merely because he played the lead role in a stage performance of it. From http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/01/13/2585985/the-elaborate-entrance-of-chad.html, I found that Bonner's performance was for the Caldwell Theatre Company, which appears to be a local theatre company. The media coverage is confined to Florida: The Palm Beach Post, The Miami Herald, and the Orlando Sentinel. Because the media coverage is primarily local, because the coverage is insignificant, and because Bonner's stage performances were for a local theatre company, I do not believe he passes WP:NACTOR, ("Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions").
The article is currently an unsourced Wikipedia:Biography of a living person and fails Wikipedia:Verifiability because the only two links in the articles are http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2033267/ and http://www.allrovi.com/name/p540865, directory websites that are unreliable.
No prejudice to recreation if at least two reliable sources that nontrivially discuss Bonner can be found, which would allow him to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 17:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why would performances for local theatre companies not contribute to notability? Local television stations are usually notable, including many public access television stations; local radio stations are notable; and the programs produced locally and broadcast on these stations are often notable. By the way, the Boca Raton performance from this year is not the only place that Bonner performed in the title role in The Elaborate Entrance of Chad Deity - the East Coast premiere mentioned above was this one in Philadelphia in 2009, I believe. (As reported in a Boston paper.) At the very least, per the Google News hits the guy has been in stage performances all over Florida as well as the various roles mentioned elsewhere in the country and on film and television.
I also don't think that the coverage of him not discussing his career biographically, but only discussing the performances he was part of which are the reason for his notability, is a problem. If you look at other aspects of notability (people), biographical coverage of the person themselves in RSS isn't necessary: for academics, for example, it says that many academics "are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources" or in WP:CREATIVE something like an artist's works being included in a collection is what makes them notable, not that they themselves have been discussed. For a non-person example, no one has written any articles in a RSS that specifically discuss Florida State Road 9336 but that doesn't mean that it isn't notable.
Also, I don't see why you think that verifiability is a problem. Where he went to high school or college would be verifiable in those schools' year books and other records, his birth date would be verifiable in hospital or Social Security records or his driver's license if it was even challenged, etc. Verifiability isn't about whether a person reading the article can verify what's in it via hyperlinks to online sources that are in the article, it's about whether the information in an article is of a type that can be verified. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 20:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Catch the action at the Caldwell Theatre Company, 7901 N. Federal Hwy., Boca Raton, through Feb. 12. Performances are at 8 p.m. Wednesday-Saturday, 2 p.m. Wednesday and Saturday-Sunday. (also some Tuesday evening shows). Tickets are $27-$50. Call 561-241-7432 or visit www.caldwelltheatre.com.
When: 8 p.m. today 2 p.m. Sunday (also, 8 p.m. Jan. 30 and 31 and Feb. 1, 2 p.m. Feb. 2). How much: $10 general, $9 seniors, $6 students. Where to call: 407-823-1500. BOX: BEHIND SCENES Director Douglas Turner Ward will participate with actor Robert Hooks in a conversation about the funding of the Negro Ensemble Company at 7:30 p.m. Thursday in Eatonville as part of the Zora Neale Hurston Festival. He's also one of the honorees at the festival's gala next Saturday night. For more information visit the festival Web site at www.zoranealehurston.cc
These articles provide little substance other than what I've quoted above and are routine announcements because they provide merely short plot summaries, cast lists, dates, times, and prices. They fail to offer critical analysis about the plays but more importantly, they fail to offer critical analysis about Bonner's performances. I will accept as establishing notability two articles that provide nontrivial coverage about Bonner. They can both be from Florida sources. The sources here do not provide such coverage, and I have been unable to find any. To retain a biography of a living person when reliable sources say little about him is untenable. The verifiability and BLP policies prohibit the use of school yearbooks and other primary sources in BLPs. Because their use is impermissible, the information should be deleted until they can be sourced to third-party reliable sources. Cunard (talk) 00:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]Where: Mad Cow Theatre, 105 S. Magnolia Ave., Orlando. When: 8 p.m. Thursdays-Saturdays, 3 p.m. Sundays, through Oct. 30 (also, 8 p.m. Oct. 26). Cost: $20 general, $18 seniors and full-time students; pay what you wish Oct. 26, with proceeds going to Hurricane Katrina relief. Call: 407-297-8788. Online: madcowtheatre.com.
Note that there is a blurb in the footer of that article that looks somewhat like the abstracts you quoted above. Here are a couple of articles that appear from their lead-in to be similar to the above, but the full article is paywalled: Palm Beach Post, "'Bridegroom' Pairing Lacks Chemistry, Coherent Script":Even the title character is a metaphor. "He stands for the American dream, for the illusion we all have that if you work hard you’ll be rich," says Donte Bonner, who plays Chad Deity here after originating the role in the East Coast premiere last year in Philadelphia. "Chad is a young, hip, cool black guy, rich. He’s got everything he could possibly want — muscle cars, everything – in the kind of America that America likes to see."
A fan of World Wrestling Federation matches since he was a kid, Bonner was ready for the physical workout the play demands. "I do a ‘bulldog,’ which is where I have a guy in a headlock and I leap in the air and smash his face to the ground. And there’s a ‘power bomb,’ which is Chad’s trademark move, where I put a guy up on my shoulders and slam him down on his back," he says. "You’re going to wonder how we can do it eight times a week."
The answer is the coaching and wrestling choreography of WWF veteran Pablo Marquez, who says the key is knowing how to take a fall. "That’s probably the toughest thing to overcome, the fear of falling backward without panicking and trying to put your hands down. That’s when you get hurt," he cautions. "My art is to make it look like it is hurting you, but in reality it’s really not."
Bonner calls Chad Deity "a very current play with very current characters and enormous relevance to today," but he suspects that audiences will leave the Caldwell talking about the wrestling moves. "We’re going to be doing for-real serious pro wrestling that will make you really uncomfortable," he says. "That’s a 100 percent promise. That’s my one purpose in this show, to make my wrestling matches as bad-ass as possible."
But, the blurb which Google News gives us: "Catherine Trieschmann's The Bridegroom of Blowing Rock will emotionally invest themselves in two characters:a black Yankee soldier (Donté Bonner) with a..." lets us know that one of the pairing that lacks chemistry that the article is about is Bonner. Next, Philadelphia Inquirer, "Nimble, funny, thoughtful headlock on wrestling":If you're going to tell a heart-wrenching romantic tale between two star-crossed lovers -- or any lovers, for that matter -- the actors playing them must have that mystical, magical, wonderful quality called chemistry.
When the chemistry is right between two characters either in love or falling in it, the audience is more than willing to take that journey with them. But when there's isn't any chemistry or just a modest amount of it, well, no one is...
On tonight's wrestling card, we have the American who stands for everything good we learned in civics, or from Mom or by eating apple pie - Chad Deity. He's pure of thought, black and beautiful, resplendent in ringside bling and a shining gold jockstrap. He's built like your proverbial brick facility.(His given name is Darnell, butshhhh!) Opposite him is the Fanatic, whose wrestling resumé has him representing al Qaeda, Hamas, and for good measure, the...
The rest of that one is paywalled but it seems pretty reasonable to assume that the full article is at least somewhat similar to the Chad Diety piece above so that is much more than an announcement of the performance. (Or, rather, the above Palm Beach Post piece is a column mentioning several different performances, so these others entirely about the play may provide even more coverage.)
Okay, actually, I just realized that these archives are giving the word counts of the full articles, so I don't know about the Miami Herald one but even the Orlando Sentinel articles are definitely much larger than the abstracts you've been quoting above.
The verifiability and BLP policies prohibit the use of school yearbooks and other primary sources in BLPs. Because their use is impermissible, the information should be deleted until they can be sourced to third-party reliable sources.
Your conclusion just doesn't follow your premise there. We have no reason to believe that those sorts of sources were what was used to write this article and acknowledging that the information is not unverifiable because it can be verified in those types of sources is not the same thing as writing the article using such sources. The policies and guidelines you're citing talk about "contentious material" and "the possibility of harm to living subjects" and "material challenged or likely to be challenged" - they aren't just there to permit someone to bludgeon their way to a deletion on a technicality, they do not mean what you're claiming they mean.
Or even say what you're claiming they say - they enjoin the writer to write "focusing on high quality secondary sources" and "exercise caution in using primary sources" - the things you portray as utterly verboten are not, and it has nothing to do with whether editors assessing the verifiability of unchallenged non-contentious material have to pretend that information that could at the very least be verified in third-party primary sources is unverifiable. The strictures you're implying would mean that something like material verifiable in a published journalist's face-to-face interview with the subject of the article would have to be deleted too, since that would be a primary third-party source also. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 11:29, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]Delete: This is a very old AfD, so I'll put in my delete, which I know will doom it. However, the current delete !votes appear to be correct that the subject doesn't meet WP:GNG. I can't find even one decent article to try to justify this.--Milowent • hasspoken 13:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to University of Southampton. Link to University article from List of student newspapers in the United Kingdom v/r - TP 14:15, 24 May 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)) . |
New university newspaper, which are not inherently notable, and this is not independently notable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see (same user, registered an account now). What would make it notable, or is the subject nature in your opinion inherently unsuitable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave4291 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC) — Dave4291 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Obviously some news stories relate to the university, but others such as this one and this one, can also be found on the BBC here and here which surely does show its credibility? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.78.158.50 (talk) 06:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC) — 152.78.158.50 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
As an editor of the paper, we have the same readership as the union paper and higher then the media section, both of which have a page on here. We are also well known by all students in Southampton and have recently expanded into Southampton Solent.
If this doesn't count as acceptable for Wikipedia then please explain why! --Tom Steadman (talk) 11:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would honestly argue that by identifying myself as editor means it wasn't a COI, especially as I hand over my position tomorrow. However, i agree how it might look. I've looked for some references, as its really hard to do with a student paper but these are some i came up with. - Regular referrals from Thestudentroom.co.uk a poplular UK forum for university students - Mentioned in local news paper (http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/9585643.The_Hobbit_in_battle_with_Hollywood/) - Referenced in wikipedia http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_Zaentz#section_4 - List of student papers wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_student_newspapers_in_the_United_Kingdom This is the first time i've got involved with this sort of thing, i understand it might not work at the moment but have you any advice at what we could do to help us avoiding deletion in the future? --Tom Steadman (talk) 21:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst I understand the concern of COI I believe that the complete deletion of this page would not be effectively enforcing the COI policy. Whilst COI are discouraged they are no banned and therefore any information which cannot be viewed as a conflict should be entitled to stand. For instance the inclusion of the editorial team clearly has no risk of any forms of conflict. Furthermore the mention of the 'Soton Tab' on the 'Wessex Scene' page which I assume has been written by a neutral is an admission of its existence as a publication. Furthermore with a publication such as this figures of circulation are unlikely to be held by anyone who does not have a conflict of interest and therefore this is unavoidable. Similarly as with the 'Wessex Scene' page it is clear that circulation figures do not need any form of referencing as theirs does not. On the balance of things I fail to see how this page does not have the potential to provide a 'neutral point of view' and therefore its deletion is useless, merely its content needs appropriate monitoring. --Daniel Hogwood (talk) 22:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danhogwood (talk • contribs) [reply]
Furthermore I would like to draw further comparisons with that of the 'Wessex Scene' page. The purpose of these comparisons are clear. As a student publication, similar to that of the 'Soton Tab' and at the same university comparison between the pages is useful. I notice looking at the history of the 'Wessex Scene' page 'http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wessex_Scene&action=history' the user 'Andre666' has edited the page at least four times despite the page clearly stating he was part of the publications committee in 2011-2012. The conflict of interest that would arise from this, in addition to the fact that a lot of contributions to that page have been made anon or by accounts which no longer exist it is difficult to justify the existence of their page opposed to this one. Clearly the purpose's are identical. They are there to inform the public with a brief history of the publications and in addition some functional information. In my opinion this has been achieved and therefore deletion is not an option. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danhogwood (talk • contribs) 21:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a reference from Southampton University which confirms the Soton Tabs nomination for an EVA for engagement with the University. http://www.susu.org/eva/nominee-2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.222.105.221 (talk) 09:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC) — 188.222.105.221 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. Whenever a booster appears at AfD it makes things easy, since it's reasonable to assume he/she will put the subject's best foot forward. Based on Mr. Editor's list of 3rd-party coverage, we're nowhere near notability. EEng (talk) 03:16, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No indication that these awards are notable per WP:GNG. A brief mention on Live Audio Wrestling may be warranted, but not more. West Eddy (talk) 23:23, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. I'm sorry Hazara Birar but if the media in Afghanistan prefers to cover other issues and has ignored this sport then that's unfortunate but media coverage is what we need. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article fails to show any reason why this is a notable martial art and lacks significant reliable coverage in independent sources. Papaursa (talk) 22:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Created by the person behind the concept. I can't find any sources and it appears to be pure original research. bonadea contributions talk 22:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's no indication that he meets any notability criteria, such as WP:GNG or WP:MANOTE, and the only source is a listing of him as a one of the students of someone (and notability is not inherited). Papaursa (talk) 21:54, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michitaro ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.148.27.81 (talk) [reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a BBC children's animated television programme. Subject fails general notability guidelines. A search for reliable sources to support notability primarily revealed a bunch of YouTube videos, Amazon pages, social networking sites, and fan forum posts. An article about The Greatest BBC Children's Video Ever was deleted in 2009. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 21:47, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-professional footballer, fails WP:Footy and WP:GNG criteria. He may made a debut next season or on the bench for all season and quietly retired. Wikipedia is not a Crystal ball. Matthew_hk tc 20:47, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Opinions are about evenly divided, and there is no "delete" argument that is so strong that it would compel deletion in the absence of consensus. Sandstein 09:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
the list is a synthesis of information not based on any reliable source ranking politicians by wealth. For an example of an article which isn't an example of original research, see List of current members of the United States Congress by wealth which is based on reliable sources. Hot Stop 19:10, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
i am perplexed as to why she is considered notable. i have checked throughout googleland but found nothing RS. yes, she is a professor with a named chair. but that is really it. when i recommended it for speedy deletion, there were no references at all. an editor added two: a) a link to the jewish woman's online encyclopedia - read their "about" page to see that any jewish woman can be listed; and b) a link to a book review of one of her books - yes, she was published by yale u press, but, many many people have been published there as well. so,unless i am really missing something, i would like to recommend that this article be deleted for not being notable. Soosim (talk) 18:18, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. However, it would have been helpful if, along with discussion of sources "in" the article, someone could have presented some examples of supersources that are currently "not" in the article instead of assertions that "they must exist". As a personal opinion though, as long as this school has been around I would be surprised is there isn't older press coverage not archived online. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article on a perfectly ordinary little primary school in Aberdeen, sourced entirely from the school's own website and archived stories from local press with routine coverage. No assertion whatsoever that the school is in any way notable. John (talk) 16:33, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Dipankan (Have a chat?) 13:22, 20 May 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]
unsourced contents 15 months taged 꽃 (talk) 16:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Main paragraph was just copied from Lethal Weapon (film series), which is where it belongs. Does not deserve a standalone article because it touches on WP:CRYSTAL and violates WP:NFF. Michitaro (talk) 15:51, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One of the statements by a rather obscure Greek far-left party (Front of the Greek Anticapitalist Left). Nothing encyclopedic. Estlandia (dialogue) 15:23, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Although Beşiktaş JK seasons are usually notable because they play in the top flight of Turkish football, I think this season is non-notable because of the simple fact that it was not held – no games were played at all. Jenks24 (talk) 11:53, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:Notability. The only sources I can find are closely affiliated to the subject. The only reference given is British History Online and I will be surprised if the club is mentioned in that. Charles (talk) 10:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A rugby union club is deemed notable if it has
- played in the top national competition of any nation,
- played in an officially recognized domestic or international competition organized by an International Rugby Board High Performance Union,
- been a founding member of a national rugby union/federation
- provided an administrator, player or coach of a High Performance Union.
If #2, then this criterion means there are a very large number of notable RU clubs in England and needs to be revised as notability is, by implication, exceptional rather the rule. Jpacobb (talk) 17:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No notability and importance. Plans for the tournament scrapped. SocietyBox (talk) 09:08, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Issue raised by the nominator has been addressed now. (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 17:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLPSOURCES--There are none. Gtwfan52 (talk) 07:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to all involved. Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:27, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Second runner-up on a 2011 reality TV show, no assertion of notability per WP:BIO; no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Scopecreep (talk) 06:56, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Church of Universal Triumph, Dominion of God. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely convinced that the church itself is notable, it certainly dosen't have much coverage in the media, but this position certainly isn't. The article should be merged into Church of Universal Triumph, Dominion of God. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:09, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I vote that this article should not be deleted.This church and its leaders have great significance in chronicling the development and the expression of the afro-american religious subculture in the the urban United states of America.The United States of America is an important country and its subcultures are of great interest to the global community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adawablk (talk • contribs) 21:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. v/r - TP 15:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This WP:RPDA is about an event that never happened. It is notable that the planned concerts and their subsequent cancellations occurred, this is not notable in its own right. This article violates WP:IINFO as it's a list of tour dates that never occurred with a few tibits of information. Any relevant information is already mentioned in The Monster Ball Tour - one sentence needs to be added to Kanye West and Lady Gaga. SplashScreen (talk) 11:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while information that may be notable enough to include in an article about the performers, it does fail WP:info Newmanoconnor (talk) 19:38, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. Should probably be merged into the article Texas Education Agency if possible. J (t) 12:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Original author here--would not object if it were merged. Quidam65 (talk) 21:36, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails WP:BIO. Article was created by an advertising for "Gene Odom" -only account with no other edits other than to exploit wikipedia to promote Gene Odom and his websites. Was at Afd previously however due to lack of consensus for this Non-notable subject it was not deleted. Little has improved since. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article.
--Hu12 (talk) 04:42, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Although it needs some cleanup, AfD is not the right place for it. (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 17:32, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
is it self publish advertising? *Annas* (talk) 04:05, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article is merely a list of mentions of the fragrance "Drakkar Noir" in various TV shows and songs. It might have existed, but there's nothing to show that it is any way notable independently. —Ryulong (竜龙) 03:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:GNG. Internet searches for "Nymon Lester" come up with nothing reliable. The Le Monde citation can't be easily verified (contradictory dates are given) and the Daily News link goes nowhere. Possibly a hoax? Michitaro (talk) 02:23, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 08:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I found no notability for this band. Fails WP:MUSIC. SL93 (talk) 02:20, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Porn performer of no discernible significance. Fails all of the tenable PORNBIO alternatives; reported awards/noms are for sex scenes, which by consensus are insufficient to indicate notability. Apparently no GNews hits or nontrivial GBooks hits (name is common and brings up a large number of spurious hits). No reliably sourced biographical information. Only reference is a mislinked page which, if the proper page could be found, would only show an awards listing, so the article is functionally unsourced. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:57, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dependency. A product should not have an article name that is a commonly used word regardless of market share. It is essentially product placement, although admittedly that probably wasn't the intention when the article was created in 2004. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:23, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
--User:bluefox79830 —Preceding undated comment added 02:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:22, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
His writing roles are relatively minor and do not show notability per WP:CREATIVE. West Eddy (talk) 13:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I added several citations about this writer; but even without them, the notion that a critically acclaimed writer for a critically acclaimed and immensely popular (record-breaking in Blu-Ray sales) show is not notable is patently absurd. Keep this article, don't support rampant deletionism.Ashwinr (talk) 19:06, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:21, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No references other than IMDB provided which is not considered reliable. My attempts to establish notability through WP:GNG - no further sources located - and WP:NACTOR - has not been in a significant number of notable films etc - failed. Jay Σεβαστόςdiscuss 13:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This artist doesn't meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, either under NMUSIC or BASIC. The coverage is inadequate to be considered "significant" or "in-depth", even taken in aggregate. The claim (made in the previous AfD) that her inclusion on compilation albums satisfies the notability requirements is not correct, as there is no suggestion that the compilation albums are themselves notable. Bongomatic 03:49, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 05:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable actress and erotic dancer. Cameron Scott (talk) 17:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:18, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing to distinguish this book. It's merely a description of a sporting team/victory; admittedly, a particularly famed one, but the book on the subject does not seem to have the notability of its subject, or indeed any notability at all. Even the article cites merely the book itself. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Consensus is to delete because of lack of independent, reliable sources. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I found no reliable coverage for this website. SL93 (talk) 22:54, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]