![]() |
The result was keep. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:05, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No indication of notability per WP:GNG. As a politician he was never elected and doesn't qualify per WP:POLITICIAN. As an actor he's held only minor roles which do not qualify per WP:ACTOR. The first time this article was nominated for deletion it was removed because he was nominated for a New England Emmy. This might qualify per WP:ANYBIO if he had won, but a single nomination is not considered notable. Importantly, most of the info here is not backed up. All but one of the links are dead and the only piece of confirmed information is that he once taught a permaculture class. West Eddy (talk) 23:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 19:39, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of notability. Promotional tone. References are from the organisation Dmol (talk) 22:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I found no notability. The official website seems to just be a Wordpress blog. SL93 (talk) 22:48, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 07:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Totally unremarkable earthquake with no fatalities, not even any injuries it seems, nor even any property damage... should even be a speedy delete. Colipon+(Talk) 19:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 19:40, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like just another day in China, which has in excess of 80,000 civil disturbances each year. The event seems like a minor disturbance, whose significance is either minimal or unclear Ohconfucius ¡digame! 11:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
“ | Soon hundreds of people began gathering,[1] and eventually thousands of people arrived on the scene and went after the police. They flipped the police cars and followed the police back to the station.[3] The situation was later controlled. | ” |
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) →TheSpecialUserTalkContributions* 01:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Already previously deleted A7 (Band), this recreation fails to meet WP:BAND. The supplied references to this underground band, although in notable newspapers, do not provide significant cover establishing notability for this unsigned, uncharted band. Other sources are basic review listings. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Babies are a nationally known band. They have toured nationally and internationally as a solo act and as an opener for such bands as: Guided By Voices, Wavves, Titus Andronicus (band), Best Coast, Times New Viking, Real Estate, and Yuck (band). They are clearly part of the indie rock establishment. They have been reviewed by Pitchfork media which is seen as a gatekeeper to notability in the independent music community. They are talked about in detail in notable News sources: The New York Times, New York Magazine and The New York Observer. Two members of The Babies are members of the bands Vivian Girls and Woods (band). The article for the band is justified.Thriley (talk) 23:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)`[reply]
Keep WP:BAND says that a band is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself.. The Babies has articles about it in the New York Times, New York (magazine), and New York Observer, which are reliable sources. I despise garage band articles, but based on the references, this band is definitely notable. NJ Wine (talk) 00:48, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 08:56, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are no references not associated with either the actress (a minor, by the way) or a production she was in. In short, it is unreferenced. Especially since the subject is a minor, this page should be deleted. Does not meet WP:BLPSOURCES Gtwfan52 (talk) 21:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:42, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet notable per WP:NFOOTBALL, as he hasn't yet played a professional match. No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Proposed deletion contested by page creator. Scopecreep (talk) 18:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 19:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Has not played in a fully professional league and has not made a full senior appearance. Simione001 (talk) 00:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was nomination withdrawn due to sourcing rescue. Bearcat (talk) 23:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is effectively an unreferenced WP:BLP; while it does cite a significant number of "references", every single one of them is a bare URL that links to a dead or nonexistent page, which means that the article's content is currently unverifiable until someone can find new ones. As always, I'm willing to withdraw this nomination if somebody can salvage it with updated and properly formatted referencing, but it's distinctly not properly referenced in its current form. Delete if referencing hasn't been repaired by close; while he's presumably notable enough to be kept if the article is referenced properly, we can't keep articles that nobody's prepared to work on maintaining or cleaning up. Bearcat (talk) 17:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep until someone can look into locating additional references.Turqoise127 18:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 08:36, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I feel it's a shame that this article hasn't improved, but is still relying on the shaky foundations of blog posts and opinion pieces, violating WP:RS. It smells even more of WP:NEO and I can't find any of the arguments that it met WP:N very convincing (a Google search does not notability establish, nor does the abstract, unsourced idea that this is a well established term). The author originally asked for a chance to give the article to have 'a chance to grow' but later admitted he admitted he himself had 'been swayed towards delete throughout the discussion. I was just trying to find more sources to see if the article was salvagable'. I think, in lieu of some new foothold appearing to bring the article up to standard, it does not deserve to stay. Rushyo Talk 17:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Egg Centric and Sergecross73, you appear to have good faith opinions, but the effect of a banned user mucking about has drowned them out. Bear in mind that you don't need an AFD discussion for a redirect. Uncle G (talk) 10:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails notability by my standards. In light of other survivor contestants getting nominated and this article's AFD history, I am nominating this one for deletion since it's not likely his other accomplishments would turn heads. I am suggesting we redirect this to Survivor: Gabon. --CobraGlass (talk) 15:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete. The next thing you know, we'll be writing articles about our next door neighbor who spent his life playing video games. UsedBeen20 (talk) 08:27, 19 May 2012 (UTC) (Sock account)[reply]
Administrator note The nominator of this AfD is a
Confirmed sock puppet of banned user Don't Feed the Zords (talk · contribs). --MuZemike 21:07, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was already speedily deleted by User:Jimfbleak. Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a hoax. Cannot find any sources except social networking sites, which suggests that the character is "made up" by someone. jfd34 (talk) 14:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was dealt with. This was the result of two attribution-free copies-and-pastes by Marc Shepherd (talk · contribs), which left an orphaned history here that was turned into a disambiguation between the two copies. I've done a fairly complex history merger to clean up the resultant mess. If you want to understand the details, see my deletion, rename, edit, and undeletion logs for today. The full history of the original article is now in one place at IRT Eastern Parkway Line, back where it began in 2004, and IRT New Lots Line has the best history that I could fix up to indicate that it began as a copy and paste, although it now erroneously appears that someone other than Marc Shepherd did the copy and paste. Uncle G (talk) 16:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An inappropriate disambiguation page listing two different New York City Subway Lines that do not have the same name and were not built at the same time. While they do connect with each other, every other subway line has at least one connection to another line and the New Lots Line is an elevated two-track line while the Eastern Parkway Line is an underground four-track line that also connects to the IRT Nostrand Avenue Line. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 13:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) →TheSpecialUserTalkContributions* 01:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Was nominated previously, due to vandalous edits that weren't detected. As for now, the subject hardly meets WP:PROF, and the main contributor, User:FSUlawalumni is a likely COI. C(u)w(t)C(c) 12:59, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:41, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Youth sports teams are not generally notable, nothing to suggest this one is any different. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. CSD G7. I've looked at the history and in my judgement, the only substantial edits are from the article's creator who is the one requesting deletion. He just didn't know how. If anybody disagrees with this close and/or wishes to make a "keep" argument, let me know and I (or another admin) will restore the article and reopen the AFD Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated on behalf of User:Josh the newcastle fan. No opinion, myself. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:16, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:41, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One 3-minute appearance in a fully professional league, although it technically satisfies WP:NFOOTY, it doesn't seem to make the subject more notable than before. Also fails WP:GNG too due to lack of significant media coverage. I PRODed it at first, but then I realized it's not a good idea, so I'm running it through AfD instead. – Kosm1fent 12:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete as a copyright violation SmartSE (talk) 21:22, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unable to find any reliable sources independent of the subject of this BLP. He has one release on Raucous Records and one self-released album, so don't see him meeting WP:MUSICBIO. J04n(talk page) 12:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 08:57, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable fringe event with no web presence except the external link. Article seems also to be a copyvio of the external link. Bazonka (talk) 11:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about the book, which is not notable under WP:BKCRIT. Even though it's author has a article on Wikipedia, The book itself fails to meet the notability criteria on Wikipedia. Max Viwe | Your Turn 11:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a great lack of reliable sources that can confirm that this film meets our film notability guide. However, given that this seems a Kurdish film, that may be part of the problem of locating sources. Finding sources reasoning similar to that given at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akar Araz. Canuck89 »–—►(click here!)◄–—« 04:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. CSD G12. You're correct Gene93k. Almost the entire article is copied from different parts of mtk.edu.az. If somebody actually wants to write an "article" about this school then go for it. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At the point of nomination, this is an unsourced article in promotional style. Notability has not been demonstrated. Ymblanter (talk) 10:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Mount Elgon and delete history per consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:57, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly eligible for G3, but I'm bringing it here just in case... There appears to be no record of the community described here; all sources suggest the area in question is populated by the Bagisu, Sabiny and Ogiek tribes, not "Elgonians". This strikes me as an attempt to start a movement, which is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Yunshui 雲水 09:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete, Copyvio by User:Seraphimblade. Lenticel (talk) 01:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:GNG. this is part of a recent series of copy and pasted material (translated) by one editor who has now been warned twice. lifted from http://www.embafil.com.ar/Paraguay.html . no actual embassies just honorary consuls. those wanting to keep must show evidence of actual third party coverage of a relationship. LibStar (talk) 07:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
((cite web))
: External link in |publisher=
(help)The result was keep. (non-admin closure) →TheSpecialUserTalkContributions* 01:08, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article consists largely of speculation about a season that has yet to begin filming. It contains information which may or may not turn out to be true. Not appropriate per WP:FUTURE. This is a case of WP:TOOSOON, article should be created when real information becomes available. Basic confirmed details can be posted to American Horror Story for the time being. West Eddy (talk) 06:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to List of Desperate Housewives characters. After condensing appropriately. Sandstein 08:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article is entirely unsourced, consisting of WP:INDISCRIMINATE info and original research. Tgeairn (talk) 06:44, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 19:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:N (WP:GNG), and WP:NACTOR. Her only performance was in the film The Aristocats. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 06:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirected to List of Glee episodes to be consistent with the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glee (season 4) (note correct capitalization of "season"), which closed on 12 May. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article consists largely of speculation about a season that has yet to air. Not appropriate per WP:FUTURE. This is a case of WP:TOOSOON, article should be created when real information becomes available. West Eddy (talk) 05:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. There is no support for deletion apart from the nomination, although the possibility to merge with the election article may deserve consideration. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:00, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet notability criteria under WP:POLITICIAN Arbor8 (talk) 02:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
-- Eggsofamerica 2:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
The result was redirect to K.O.D.. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This track is not sufficiently notable independently from the artist who originally recorded it. I'd propose a deletion or simply merge the relevant information back into the artist or album's page. Note that this appears to have been a download-only release which did not chart significantly in any country. Salimfadhley (talk) 22:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 13:34, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Claim of alien abduction with no assertion of notability over the myriad other claims; poorly sourced with much WP:Original research and speculation tacked on; no significant online coverage of the incident from WP:Reliable sources. As the article itself notes: "It was strange that this abduction is very little known. No press got ever involved in the case, and the only investigating team is the PRA, led by John Auchlettl". Proposed deletion contested by page creator. Scopecreep (talk) 02:29, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. Article about university professor had been badly vandalized. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:25, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article is clearly not factual. Hstevens86 (talk) 02:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:29, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable field grade officer. Enough work went into this one that I wanted to put it to discussion. A nice bio, but no assertion of notability. EricSerge (talk) 02:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 13:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This list only contains one item, and was a contested PROD. I took a quick scan through the list of anime conventions for one and found no other free conventions there. In any case I feel like this is a case of WP:Overcategorization and possible WP:OR with no reliable third party sources to back up a free convention claim. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:29, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Product not important Mjs1991 (talk) 01:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. The current notability guidelines for schools presume notability for high schools, as they are generally considered notable enough in their individual communities. English-language sources on a Malaysian high school would be few and far between; this does not indicate a lack of notability. (non-admin closure) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-encyclopedic article about a Malaysian high school that gives no indication of its notability. A quick google search does not turn up any reliable sources which could be used to establish notability or expand the article. Applicable policies include WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:GNG/WP:NRVE, and maybe WP:PROMOTION. Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 02:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. Article nominated before by the same editor; the result is the same, even more forcefully so. See WP:NOTAGAIN. Drmies (talk) 18:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
She is not established as notable for a Wikipedia page. LF (talk) 00:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
((cite web))
: External link in |publisher=
(help)((cite web))
: Check date values in: |date=
(help); External link in |publisher=
(help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(help)The result was keep. With all the "delete" !voters doing "heel-face turns", there are no longer any arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no any reliable sources, which say, that such airport exists. If you see satellite image, you can see, that there is no airfield there: there is only road and channel. Dinamik (talk) 21:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:08, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No notability found for this shopping center. SL93 (talk) 00:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to List of Kinnikuman characters. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Although the series is notable, I found no coverage for this character. SL93 (talk) 00:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 19:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No independent verification of notability, both sources are linked to the magazine's parent organizations Downwoody (talk) 03:33, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Colapeninsula (talk) 11:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. This thing has been open long enough: non-consensus is clear. Drmies (talk) 19:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another unnotable accounting software for which I couldn't find any RS. Although it might be notable ("Nowadays, ContaPlus is the "accounting standard" in Spain with more than one million customers.") it's completely unreferenced and this cited sentence might be added by a PR agent. mabdul 11:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. No consensus about whether to keep, merge (including where to) or keep. The latter options can continue to be discussed on the talk page. Sandstein 16:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This unreferenced article is about an unremarkable proposal. There's not enough material on the subject to create (and cite) a reasonably sized article. | helpdןǝɥ | 15:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Article needs tagging and/or trimming, but there is certainly no consensus for deletion. Drmies (talk) 19:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence that Muller meets the notability criteria. The article on Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations states Assistant Secretaries-General are often deputies within Departments or Programmes, reporting to their respective Under-Secretary-General - this would not appear to be sufficiently high enough to be inherantly notable, and Muller does not appear to meet notability on other grounds. Apart from the Star-News coverage for his obit, the other coverage I could find is minor (along the "Muller, former ASG will be talking at a meeting", kind of thing). PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:04, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello PhantomSteve,
Please Keep. I posted the new, updated information on the Robert's page for you to see. Please have a look to see if it is acceptable from your point of view. If not, what changes you suggest?
There are tens of thousands of websites on the Net referring to Dr. Muller. It is enough to google with the search term “Dr. Robert Muller” (in quotation marks) to see that (447,000 results). Some of those websites refer to other people. I checked the first ten pages. More than 60% of them refer to Robert Muller we are talking about here.
Your opinion so far was based on incomplete info. It is not your role to search for the information yourself. That's understandable. I am convinced though that you will change your opinion based on this new info, simply because the notability of a person with tens of thousands websites referring to him can't be denied.
As for the article in Wikipedia I am doing my best to improve it according to the Wikipedia requirements. I will appreciate very much help and any and all constructive opinions to improve it further, from people like you, who know much more how the Wikipedia works than I do. Thanks for your time.Kaczdan (talk) 17:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Besides being very popular (tens of thousands of websites referring to him) Dr. Muller meets the following notability criteria:
I added some external links (below) to the article with more information on the life and work of Dr. Robert Muller
Kaczdan (talk) 19:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion the sources are reliable. They may not be mainstream, but they are not extreme, either. Not being mainstream doesn't make them unreliable. I have always believed, too, that Wikipedia is here to reflect the world community as it is, not only what is accepted and/or promoted by the mainstream media.Kaczdan (talk) 02:37, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree with Phantomsteve that the article, as it was on 20:15, 11 May 2012 (UTC), qualified for deletion. The article has been rewritten to meet the criteria set by Wikipedia. It is a completely different article now.
Dr. Muller's notability can't be denied (he meets several notability criteria, as indicated in my previous posts), the references are there to confirm that the facts listed in the short info about him are true, and the external links are there to shed more light on Dr. Muller's life and personality. Kaczdan (talk) 16:31, 26 May 2012 (UTC)Kaczdan (talk) 17:27, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence that this organisation, while worthy, meets notability criteria. All the references are either self-published, or very minor (i.e. a single sentence). PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article cites several peer-reviewed journals and relies only on Global Fund references when citing specific Board decisions and background information on the initiative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icarus7994 (talk • contribs) 08:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC) — Icarus7994 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The AMFm is currently one of the most-debated initiatives in global health - it has been covered by many independent and reliable sources. However, many of these sources are themselves quite biased (pro and con), especially when compared to the AMFm website. As the author of the AMFm Wikipedia article, I opted to use the AMFm website as the reference for the key events and descriptions of the model. However, I will re-edit to add more independent sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icarus7994 (talk • contribs) 12:56, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
New reference just added: as part of the Copenhagen Consensus, a panel of Nobel Laureate economists concluded that AMFm was one of the best investments to advance global welfare. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icarus7994 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for these comments. I will go back and update the entry with more links from independently verifiable sources. Off the top of my head, the AMFm has been covered in both the New York Times and Nature - both of those are high impact factor and should address some of the notoriety and independent coverage concerns. I will also make sure the existing references are more explicitly linked to the content on AMFm, instead of malaria in general. I appreciate your interest in this - it is only making the article stronger. --Icarus7994 (talk) 02:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for these comments (noted: clarify RBM connection). I have not had time to re-work the article this week but will try to do so over the weekend. However, in the meantime, here are the links to the NY Times and Nature articles I was planning to include: [NY Times] and [Nature1] and [Nature2]. Unfortunately I don't have access to the 2010 Nature article that the letter of complaint references either. For me, the 41 hits on Google News (which is not even a complete list, since at least the NY times and Nature articles do not appear in it) do demonstrate notoreity and coverage by independent sources. How many other Wikipedia article subjects have endorsement by two sets of Nobel laureates, coverage in the NY Times plus two of the top-10 impact factor journals (Lancet and Nature), and represent an investment of over 300 million USD in a way that has not been tried before? I believe there has likely been significant local press coverage of AMFm in the African countries where it has been implemented. Would it be helpful to include these as references as well (as long as they are available online)? Or should my focus be on peer-reviewed journal and international press? Thanks for your help! --Icarus7994 (talk) 08:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just did a quick search of the Financial Times and found quite a few AMFm mentions: [Financial Times] I will be sure to include these as references. --Icarus7994 (talk) 08:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -Scottywong| confabulate _ 23:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Completely unsourced, completely in-universe. It's time that the policy we're supposed to support gets applied even to DC & Marvel comics, despite the fanboi uproar this will no doubt engender. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:33, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn. SL93 (talk) 22:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I only found trivial mentions for this book. SL93 (talk) 23:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
((cite web))
: External link in |publisher=
(help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(help)((cite web))
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(help) (subscription required)((cite web))
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(help) (subscription required)