The result was Keep - nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 14:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ineligible for BLP PROD because of date of creation, this article is a BLP and has no references whatsoever. I tossed up between a CSD and an AFD. I chose AFD because it mirrors the BLP PROD timescale. No notability asserted. There are many Spanish rhythmic gymnasts. Is this one notable? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:19, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted WP:CSD#A3 "a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks." JohnCD (talk) 00:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For obvious reasons. AutomaticStrikeout 22:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme 23:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
She's a witch, LOL. Fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:BK, and WP:GNG. Article was created by an arbcommed wikispammer who has written dozens of articles about people who've attended a "witch festival" that he hosts. Qworty (talk) 22:31, 12 November 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)) . |
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:BK, and WP:GNG. Has been tagged for sources for over five years with no improvement whatsoever. This article about a cofounder of the Starwood Festival was written by another cofounder of the Starwood Festival. It is part of this enormous atrocity of spam that has existed on Wikipedia for over five years [9]. The AfD on the other cofounder is here [10]. The arbcommed user who created these two articles has dedicated himself since 2006 to writing and defending articles about his Starwood Festival and all of its participants. He's violated WP:COI, WP:RS, WP:BIO, and also WP:CANVASS--so the closing admin should pay particular attention to any meat puppets showing up here. Qworty (talk) 22:01, 12 November 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)) . |
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser TSU 01:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In-universe and excessively long, with no critical third-party sources. A few lines could exist in the main article, but there is neither need nor rationale for this split. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Prod removed by article creator. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 22:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 20:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unremarkable subsidiary. Wasn't able to find any references that weren't primary sources (company's blog, press releases, etc). Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 22:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser TSU 01:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One-hit wonder indie band with no indication of persistence that fails WP:MUSIC; a song of theirs got heavy play in 1993, but it did not chart anywhere, and the band itself never went major. Everything indicating persistence of a cult following is dated to no later than 1997, and several of those sources are certainly trivial. MSJapan (talk) 20:19, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser TSU 01:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No RS to establish notability, and thus unencyclopedic. The tone of the article is also wholly speculative - the subject is "thought to be" many things without proof. Of the two sources, one is a Letter to the Editor, and the other is a website frontpage. MSJapan (talk) 19:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser TSU 01:40, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not site any sources or reference. It is too small. The topic is not encyclopedic. Hence, it should be deleted. Rahuljain2307 (talk) 19:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to LMFAO. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme 02:09, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not inherited, this person is not independently notable outside of LMFAO. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:24, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to University_of_Waterloo#Housing_and_residence. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser TSU 01:40, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable dormitory at a university. The award, which might have seemed a possible basis for notability, is from the Ontario Masonry Contractors' Association, for "Structural Design Award--Institutional (Universities, hospitals, government buildings, etc)" — one of 15 awards they give each year. I consider it minor, because only province-level, because only one of many such awards each year, and because from a non-notable organization. The few other references are from within the university. DGG ( talk ) 00:23, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Kinu t/c 21:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All references are primary sources. Tagged as not notable. None of the active roster seem to be notable either, and even if one is, the record company doesn't inherit notability. PROD tag was removed, but no reason was given. Del♉sion23 (talk) 00:56, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy deleted A7 Peridon (talk) 19:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. No indication that this animated show has any notability whatsoever. The article doesn't even say what TV channel it airs on. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 18:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. SpinningSpark 12:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced article, thus failing notability. Jetstreamer Talk 19:42, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. SpinningSpark 12:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No references at all, thus failing notability. Jetstreamer Talk 20:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. SpinningSpark 12:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A WAMP package, combining preexisting software into a single distribution. No third party sources, so this does not meet the general notability guideline and should be deleted. I looked for additional sourcing but only found a few non-RS blogs, though the search was made a bit difficult by the generic name of this software package. I am also nominating the very similar article on the commercial edition of this distribution:
- MrOllie (talk) 18:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(half of this is in regards to Wamp-Developer Server)
Please clarify your position, or suggest specific improvements, instead of general statements and tags.
I have listed why Wamp-Developer Server is notable on it's page, in the Notability Section, with references to 3rd party sources.
In addition -
1. You can see the website going back to 2003 on the Internet Archive - WayBackMachine (http://archive.org/web/web.php), making this WAMP one of the original 2 or 3 WAMPs (with XAMPP and easyPHP). If this is a problem - most WAMPS Comparison_of_WAMPs listed wouldn't stand up to this.
2. "combining prexisting software into a single distribution" ... this is wrong. Wamp-Developer uses it's own C# and .NET coded application and managerial framework, which sits on top of the web-server components. It's a 200,000+ line application. Not only does it provide original software, but it also manages the WAMP components completly different than from other WAMPs such as Xampp... Allowing switching between Apache, PHP, and MYSQL with 1-click and no new installs.
3. "No third party sources" ... I have listed 3rd party sources for multiple statements of fact. Can you clarify what you are looking for? You can search the internet or StackOverflow and ServerFault for mentions of "WampDeveloper" or "Wamp-Developer". There are MANY results. Also "Web Developer Server Suite" (the previous incarnation/name).
4. The page Wamp-Developer Server was created because MrOllie and previously Ronz reduced the Comparison_of_WAMPs page of all links to entries without a Wikipedia page. These were entries of WAMPs with, in some cases, 100s of thousands of active users. Wikipedia guidelines here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:LISTN#Stand-alone_lists ... clearly state that Lists do not have to contain notable entries as long as the list (as a group of entries) is notable itself and it's not "large" (10 entries is not large, I removed 10 dead WAMPs from that list a long time ago myself, but never active projects). This produces a problem such as this. Even a catch 22 in some cases.
Also...
5. Wamp-Developer Server was published days ago, is being actively changed to fit wikipdia guidelines, and has maintained the "New page" tag from inception. This type of speedy deletion submission is concidered by wikipedia guidlines to be in bad-faith, as far as I can tell.
Vorlion (talk) 19:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
— Vorlion (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
— Vorlion (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
I have looked at your history, and you are trying to delete pages in the web-development area (forum software, php frameworks, etc) that are not only notable in every point of the guidelines, but are in the top lists of their category; while at the same time, leaving lesser notable pages in place.
You're history (removed of spam cleaning and reverting) shows no real additions to anything since your first day.
You've also been intentionally general in your responses.
I don't think I or You should discuss this further as we both know there would be no point... And leave this to whoever makes the final decision. Hopefuly, it's not you! (I have no idea how the deletion process goes).
I would ASK you for 1 thing though, as outlined in my previous point #4…
Wikipedia guidelines here -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:LISTN#Stand-alone_lists
... clearly state that Lists do not have to contain notable (or wiki-paged) entries as long as the list (as a group of entries) is notable itself.
If these pages do get removed, I'd like to add the active non-wikipedia-paged WAMPs back to Comparison of WAMPs. Or better yet, for you to do that (as you culled the list).Vorlion (talk) 21:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme 02:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable website. The website has come under heavy criticism in recent days from a number of blogs. The current web page is sourced primarily from these critical blogs. But, despite the blog-war ongoing, and the website getting a lot of negative attention across the web, there are no reliable sources in the article to show the site's notability. The couple of RS on the page are for tangential subjects, not the topic site itself.
On top of all of this, the site's owner is now attempting to scrub the page. But that all aside, we still have a small-time website that IMHO simply does not meet the notability criteria. TexasAndroid (talk) 22:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially, the top 4 are squatting on this article and engaging in vandalism on behalf of their non-notable websites.75.70.221.14 (talk) 09:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 20:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Insufficient evidence that this particular club branch is notable. AllyD (talk) 18:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Alaska lunar sample displays. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser TSU 01:36, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the lawsuit is itself independently notable, and I believe the notable information is already there in the Alaska lunar sample displays article. Delete. (If consensus is not to delete it, perhaps merge it.) --Nlu (talk) 16:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SPA (record exec, maybe Vassal himself) created. Spam/vanity. All the sources are passing mentions, none significant coverage, in spite of there being an insane number of them. Being listed as "producer" in a number of places doesn't pass GNG. For disclosure, I've previously salted another version of this article after it was recreated many times as a copy vio. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Simply not notable. Can't prod it cause someone deproded it. Can't speedy it cause there's no right speedy. So left with wasting others time. duffbeerforme (talk) 16:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep (withdrawn), as Cyclopia was the last one with a !vote for deletion. Thanks for the good work, everyone. CtP (t • c) 23:24, 12 November 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]
Non-notable historical person; no hits for "Nectarius of Digne" on Google Books, News, or News archives except for this, which looks like a brief mention or false positive. CtP (t • c) 15:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was The result was delete. The delete camp makes a policy-based argument based on WP:NOT that I have to allocate substantial weight to in comparison to the keep side, which relies only on notability. Notability does not guarantee that an article should be kept, it only establishes minimum eligibility.—Kww(talk) 15:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD : This sports event fails WP:NOTNEWSPAPER policy, there is no attempt in the actual article to demonstrate any lasting significance, the sources are primary news sources of the routine type any sports event gets that NOTNEWSPAPER explicitly says "is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia". There is no analysis in any of the sources of why the event is in any way encyclopedic. Mtking (edits) 20:35, 27 October 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)) . |
*Keep and advise topic ban for nominator who is woefully ignorant of MMA as he just copy and pastes the same dishonest boilerplate delete vote across every MMA related article he can find. I don't know if he bombed out in his MMA debut or what, but clearly he's trolling the MMA articles. The article concerns an event that is notable for many reasons: Nate Quarry was the first TUF participant to earn an UFC title shot.[1] Nate Marquardt made his UFC debut and was later tested positive for nandrolone.[2] It was the second-ever UFC event on free television,[3] with the telecast drawing a 1.5 overall rating in the United States.[4][5] Now perhaps the most laughable part of the nomination is to say that the event is not encyclopedic. For Christ's sake, it appears in multiple published print encyclopedias: [12], [13],etc. What is encyclopedic for multiple printed encyclopedias is certainly encyclopedic for the ultimate paperless encyclopedia. Finally, even in the worst case scenario the nominator offers no reason why the article could not be merged and redirected. Who are we protecting that we would have to red link this article, but keep a discussion about it? Oh, and it is also an insult to these notable fighters to denigrate them and defame them as "non notable". You should be ashamed!! --172.162.38.35 (talk) 14:19, 28 October 2012 (UTC) — 172.162.38.35 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Blocked for Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:00, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
*Over the weekend, I saw the excellent film Silent Hill: Revelation 3D (don't take my word for it, just see it yourself!) and so was feeling pretty good until I stumbled upon this farce here! :( As such, yeah, I agree with a speedy keep of the article and emergency topic ban of Mtking from MMA related AfDs per LlamaA1. --BStudent0 (talk) 12:35, 29 October 2012 (UTC) — BStudent0 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Block-evading sock of Special:Contributions/63.3.19.129 and sock-puppet of User:Mdtemp (school) as well. See SPI. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep .. Per all above. Miufus (talk) 01:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC) Sock-puppet of LlamaAl; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BStudent0. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:36, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Organogallium chemistry. MBisanz talk 00:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As noted at COI, the Organogallium peroxides article largely is the creation of User:Halvagar and the cited sources are papers written by M. R. Halvagar, both having Halvaga in common. User:Halvagar keeps removing tags place on the article.[16] The topic alredy is covered in Organogallium chemistry, and there is no apparent reason to WP:FORK or WP:SPINOUT a Organogallium peroxides article. Delete. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:48, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 02:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Outcome of the last nomination was "no consensus" with a invitation to resubmit. Having gone through my watch list I have reexamined the matter, and I feel that the flagrant conflict of interest by the more or less sole author of the article calls for blowing it up at the very least. It is promotional, and even the third party references (e.g. this Ziff-Davis article) give me the uneasy feeling that, as a term, it doesn't actually mean anything. At the very least we need an article written from third party sources by, well, third parties. Mangoe (talk) 13:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have been involved with the Innovation Journalism Program at Stanford and especially for Pakistan, we have seen a significant improvements in the quality and approach of the journalists towards innovation. [1] and [2] The Pakistan INJO Program was designed to create value for the journalists to better understand innovation and competitiveness related issues by the Competitiveness Support Fund and later on acknowledged by the industr itself[3]
The Voice of America, Urdu Service did an exclusive interview of Amir Jahangir on the impact of the Innovation Journalism on the Pakistani information ecosystem[4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajjano (talk • contribs) 11:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 02:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Should be merged with Nagar(princely state) or the Hunza-Nagar District articles. 3 articles on the same topic seems quite too much TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete: G7 author requested deletion
I was the author of this test article. Please delete this immediately. TheKaramanukian (talk) 10:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 00:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been able to uncover any evidence of notability in terms of WP:AUTHOR or WP:BK. Where is the WP:42? Her writing has not been covered in WP:RS. There are a few hits on bookseller sites, but as we all know, that in itself will not satisfy WP:AUTHOR, WP:BK, or WP:GNG. Qworty (talk) 10:26, 12 November 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)) . |
The Steve 09:26, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Teish is one of the most notable authors in her field. She is one of the authors in the Sage Woman magazine and has taught at many of the Universities in California. Here is a link for Sonoma State University where she is noted as a lecturer for the psychology department, https://www.sonoma.edu/Psychology/spirit.htm. Here is a link to a documentary that has her interviewed and that is cited on the website, http://www.nfb.ca/film/goddess_remembered/. Here is a link to indicate her performances at the San Francisco State University's Poetry Center's Women Working in Literature conference in 1985 and 1987, http://www.sfsu.edu/~poetry/archives/t.html. Most recently she has the keynote speaker for this years Earth Medicine Alliance annual conference. Links to this information can be found on their website. http://earthmedicine.org/2012-conference-celebrating-ancestral-wisdom/ and she recently did workshops for the Earth and Spirit Council, http://www.earthandspirit.org/NaturalWay2/NWspeakers/Luisah-Teish-20111021.htm. in 2012 the anthology Shades of Faith was also listed on the Huffington Post as one of the 27 books that every Pagan should have on their shelf, Luisah Teish is published in this book, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/31/pagan-books-27-essential-_n_1556931.html#s1036941&title=Shades_of_Faith. This is one of the most notable artists, writers and lecturers around. Personal vendettas should be put aside. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrystalBlanton (talk • contribs) 06:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First Light, something can be notable but not qualify for a standalone article if there is not enough sources of "significant coverage". In this case we are seeing many small 'mentions' of her, suggesting notability, but nothing really of significant coverage. So according to WP:WHYN it would be redirected somewhere. However, I think you found some decent sources and I'll try to wring water from stone so we can get at least a paragraph about her by combining all these sources. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 01:40, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is much too short and needs to be expanded, but this person is quite notable and certainly should be mentioned in Wikipedia. Folklore1 (talk) 00:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Category:Visa requirements by nationality. MBisanz talk 00:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This page seems completely non-notable, with no possibility of ever becoming otherwise. — further, Francophonie&Androphilie sayeth naught (Je vous invite à me parler) 09:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Advanced search for: "The Farm Group" | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
|
Looks to me like a big advertisement. The Banner talk 08:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For your information, The Banner: Ashley Ganly-Kesington (according to xyr several CVs on the WWW) is a PR officer and publicist at The Farm Group.
Uncle G (talk) 10:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On notability grounds - PROD was deleted without explanation. Not exceptional as either martial artist or comedian. Peter Rehse (talk) 06:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:08, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Although this article was accepted at AfC I do not think anything here amounts to notability. Essentially everything is unsourced with the only outside sourcing being the ACLU section. DGG ( talk ) 06:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Outside sourcing includes more than the ACLU section. The Witchcraft Museum is sourced to viable and reputable sources newspaper and online sources, the early life section is sourced to legitimate magazine articles and the rest is sourced to Plaisance's own written books and online forums, all of which are reputable. JAuthement (talk) 14:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 02:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. The article has had zero third-party sources that establish any notability for over two years, and searching online has yielded none either. The article fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. - SudoGhost 05:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) AutomaticStrikeout 21:11, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Meets NOTNEWS and RECENTISM, fails WP:PERSISTENCE, fails WP:CRIME. This entire case caused a local stir, but was over and done with in the span of a week, and there has been no significant further coverage since. MSJapan (talk) 05:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 00:08, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NGO, WP:ORG and WP:N. Notability not established. Most sources are from In Defence of Marxism website (marxist.com) or from webpages that are affiliated with the organisation or its national sections meaning the article relies heavily on sources close to the subject, none of the remaining sources independently verify the notablity of the IMT itself, entire sections of the article (Theory and Tactics) consist of original research. Most of the article is basically a linkfarm to websites belonging to the IMT's national affiliates.No improvements to the article since the 1st nomination in May. Previous AFD was the subject of off-wiki canvassing. Downwoody (talk) 04:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 00:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The initial no consensus AfD indicated issues of WP:RECENTISM, WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:NOTNEWS. A Google News search today seems to show that those assessments were accurate, as there is nothing of note after the initial flurry of coverage. This is clearly not going to meet persistence, and much of the speculation in the keep votes as to future notability has come to nothing. MSJapan (talk) 04:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm yet to find a delete voter who votes 7 different articles in 10 minutes in identical style, if you find someone doing that for keep or delete let me know. LibStar (talk) 23:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 20:39, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Previously deleted in 2011. The new version includes two AVN award nominations from 2012, I declined a G4 on that basis although I agree with the tagger's comment on the talk page that this still fall shorts of WP:PORNBIO. January (talk) 10:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme 02:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't pass WP:BAND, WP:V in current form, and has been tagged with ((notability)) for close to five years. Should be fixed (if possible) or deleted. Bjelleklang - talk 13:04, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Was tagged for notability three years ago. No progress. Same lack of sources at the Swedish page. Spar-stangled (talk) 11:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Kinu t/c 23:55, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sources provided prove notability per the guidelines for corporations, nor are they very useful for verification. They are either unreliable (like Crunchbase) or not about the website in question (Seattle PI). Steven Walling • talk 05:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme 02:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem to satisfy the notability guideline for unreleased media. Slashme (talk) 15:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability for as-yet unreleased film. Slashme (talk) 13:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability that I can see. I would speedy, but it's clear a lot of work has gone into this, so it should get a full dicussion. Gigs (talk) 06:20, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Band that appears not to be sufficiently notable to warrant an article. Unsourced. No coverage found. Their one album release didn't appear to receive much/any coverage. There was an ancient VfD for this article but at that time the subject was the fictional musician from A Clockwork Orange. The existence of this article appears to be being used as partial justification for articles on the band members and their subsequent bands. Michig (talk) 10:14, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
--Michig (talk) 10:23, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 00:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what the point to this list is. Recasting a character is a basic part of television - this is just dealing with soap operas. This information is already included in the relevant articles on the chartacters themselves. This is a collection of trivia, a trivia list. My view is that this is just WP:LISTCRUFT and it fails number 3 on WP:IINFO - given that the list in incomplete and already extremely long, it can never realistically conform either.Rain the 1 11:15, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Kinu t/c 00:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Little to no reliable secondary source coverage. Merge into artist's article. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 11:38, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. SpinningSpark 19:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article does not cite any sources, and as best I can find, the term has only been once used by a reliable source (here, by the Congressional Research Service). (Several sources refer to Robert Byrd, late President pro tem, as the Dean, but none of them is reliable, or appears to be quoting a more reliable source.) However, since the term is completely synonymous with the much more frequently used "President pro tempore of the Senate," which is not only a formal position, but a constitutional office, and carries no added privileges or responsibilities (unlike the Dean of the House, who swears in the Speaker), I suggest that this article should be deleted, and replaced with a redirect to the article on the President pro tem, which could include one line in the intro reading something like "The President pro tem has also been referred to as the Dean of the Senate, paralleling the title of the longest-serving majority-party House member." Francophonie&Androphilie (talk) 19:26, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme 02:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rapper with a handful of mixtapes but who has never charted. Of the four external links, two are dead, one is a mindless interview, and one doesn't mention him at all (and the article's single reference doesn't mention him either). All I can really find on Google are articles that merely compare him to the (unrelated) slain rapper Dolla. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 04:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme 02:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Reason given on the prod was: "Short BLP of person known only for having one job at one club, basically inexpandable, can find very little other than press release naming him in job. No assertion of automatic notability as per criteria on WP:ATHLETE" Rotten regard Softnow 03:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weakest possible keep Neil Brown shows he played in the first division in 2000-01 as far as I understand it. None of the references in WP:FPL go anywhere near that far back and so do not establish that the league could be considered a fully professional league then. Would be notable now if he was playing but it is questionable whether he is now. Would be more comfortable to see more extensive player history. Fenix down (talk) 17:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Weitzenhoffer Family College of Fine Arts. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme 02:18, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article fails to demonstrate the importance or notability of what is essentially a division of the keyboard area within the music department at this university. Waldhorn (talk) 05:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser TSU 01:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I dont understand how this is appropriate here. its really just a list of physics concepts, without any context or definition. the basic ones will always be covered in any physic class. the title doesnt fit right, as there is no way some of these ideas are covered at the primary school level. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. There are marginally more recommending delete than keep, but several of the keep recommendations are either not policy based or have misunderstood policy. Some of the delete recommendations are not policy based either, but duly weighting all the contributions against policy there is a strong result for delete. Possibly a future article could be constructed by an independent editor. The crackpot fringe can have articles about them on Wikipedia, but they must be (a) notable, and (b) clearly explain that they are fringe ideas. Notability has not been established in this article, as has been pointed out by several contributors, on the basis of the subjects own publications. Scholar returns an h-index of about four which is not enough to meet WP:PROF#1 and that is about the only way that one's own publications by themselves could be judged to meet notability. Reliable sources independent of the subject are required. SpinningSpark 19:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Promotional BLP created by two IPs and an SPA. It's largely primary-sourced and gives little confidence of notability. Mangoe (talk) 02:16, 12 November 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)) . |
The result was delete. SpinningSpark 18:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize - I can't seem to get the template correct.
Robb Wolf - It's clear that this individual does not meet the Notability Guidelines and uses this page as a marketing technique or tool. Every single word on this page was written by the subject himself, with no outside sourcing.
There are no respected outside verifiable sources other than the subject's own book which is not published by any mainstream outlets. The sole source of fame for this individual is that he put out a few podcasts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diadelsuerte (talk • contribs)
The result was delete. Consensus is that enough third-party coverage to warrant an article does not exist. --Kinu t/c 00:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The username of the page creator suggests the article is an autobiography. The article is poorly sourced, with the only source listed being the personal website of the subject. The article reads as advertisement, with the included images making it look like the artist's portfolio. -- Patchy1 01:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
((cite news))
: |section=
ignored (help)
((cite news))
: |section=
ignored (help)
From Ian Marsden:
Yes the name Ian Marsden is incredibly common especially in Britain. No the article at the bottom has nothing to do with me. I have never lived in Britain and I have also never molested anybody or ever been arrested.
Yes it is correct that I was nominated for the 2003 National Cartoonist Society Reuben Award in the category "New Media"
Yes it is also correct that I designed and illustrated Smoony the official mascot for the Ski World Championship. It was designed by me not by Tatjana Keller. Mrs. Keller worked for the organization and hired me to design the mascot. It was roughly based on a child's drawing that won a contest in St. Moritz in as fas as the drawing featured a half moon and half sun face. The final design was entirely original and bore no actual resemblance to the child's sketch.
Wacom is not connected to me. They contacted me and asked me if they may feature me as a featured artist on their homepage. It is correct that Wacom is now using some of my artwork in an ad campaign for Wacom and I created a series of videos in which I explain how I work on my Wacom Cintiq display but I am not an employee of Wacom. The same goes for Jatail - I worked for them for several years but i am not at all connected with them anymore in any way. Once in a while I create artwork for them as an independent contractor. I only added that link to show that they indeed featured me on their site and that I DID work for them.
I will see if I can find some more interviews like the PSD Magazine article. Best regards. Ian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian Marsden (talk • contribs) 19:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Mitt_Romney_presidential_campaign,_2012#Campaign_staff_and_policy_team. There would probably be little to merge so a redirect would be better. I found several news results mentioning her here, here (this second result is a detailed article about her, noting that she previously worked for Beth Myers, senior advisor and chief of staff for Mitt Romney) and here. There are probably more but chances are those would be trivial mentions. (non-admin closure) SwisterTwister talk 22:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Notability has not been established -- Patchy1 11:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. There have been 1 delete, 2 merge and 4 keep votes while one of the merge votes were by an editor who made their second edit across the wiki here. There were no chances of relisting after 3 already and deletion is never going to be an outcome with this AfD since there exists no other deletion vote other than the nom. There had been no support for deletion other then the nomination and the last 4 votes suggest keeping the article. If anyone still feels that this should be merged, than a discussion on the talk page is all that is needed. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser TSU 01:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I look forward to a discussion on whether this article relating to the iOS native Notes app is notable. As I believe, in itself, it is not as it is fairly standard. If this article is deemed notable, this would suggest other native apps such as the clock, calendar and calculator must also be notable, and I don't believe that is the case. -- Patchy1 03:40, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Paid editing for someone who is at best a marginally notable figure. The two "references" are PR placements--pseudointerviews. where he says what he pleases not subject to any apparent editorial control, and therefore not RSs. DGG ( talk ) 00:48, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Clear consensus that the subject meets the relevant guidelines. TerriersFan (talk) 03:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not convinced this passed WP:NMUSIC, there's no significant coverage. While a music video was released it doesn't appear to have got a massive amount of coverage. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 17:41, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Kinu t/c 06:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One of an interconnected series of promotional articles on this firm and its brands, all created by the apparently single-purpose promotional editors User:Talunz and other editors including User:Maz204 and User:Julieb-pma Most have been previously deleted as A7, G11, or both. All the references appear to be entirely PR-based, and therefore not usable as reliable sources for notability. Rather than speedy again, I'm bringing them here so re-additions of the material can be unequivocally speedy deleted at reconstructions of deleted content. I'm listing them separately, because it is possible that one or more of the brands might be notable and someone might be prepared to completely rewrite the articles. I've sometimes done such extensive rewriting in the past, but I will no longer do my volunteer unpaid writing to replace the unacceptable work of people who have been paid to do it. (For those brands where it required only some deletions , and where the articles had references clearly showing notability, I did make the edits & have not nominated them here. I'm still willing to do that because fixing the promotionalism is the only way we have to deal with such low-quality but still acceptable articles.) DGG ( talk ) 21:47, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Kinu t/c 00:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One of an interconnected series of promotional articles on this firm and its brands, all created by the apparently single-purpose promotional editors User:Talunz and other editors including User:Maz204 and User:Julieb-pma Most have been previously deleted as A7, G11, or both. All the references appear to be entirely PR-based, and therefore not usable as reliable sources for notability. Rather than speedy again, I'm bringing them here so re-additions of the material can be unequivocally speedy deleted at reconstructions of deleted content. I'm listing them separately, because it is possible that one or more of the brands might be notable and someone might be prepared to rewrite the articles from scratch. I've sometimes done such extensive rewriting in the past, but I will no longer do my volunteer unpaid writing to replace the unacceptable work of people who have been paid to do it. (For those brands where it required only some deletions, and where the articles had references clearly showing notability, I did make the edits & have not nominated them here. I'm still willing to do that because fixing the promotionalism is the only way we have to deal with such low-quality but still acceptable articles. DGG ( talk ) 21:47, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Kinu t/c 06:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One of an interconnected series of promotional articles on this firm and its brands, all created by the apparently single-purpose promotional editors User:Talunz, User:Maz204, & User:Julieb-pma Most have been previously deleted as A7, G11, or both. The references appear to be entirely PR-based, and therefore not usable as reliable sources for notability. Rather than speedy again, I'm bringing them here so re-additions of the material can be unequivocally speedy deleted as reconstructions of deleted content.
I'm listing them separately, because it is possible that one or more of the brands might be notable and someone might be prepared to do the necessary extensive rewriting. I've sometimes done this in the past, but I will no longer do my volunteer unpaid work to replace the unacceptable work of people who have been paid to do it. (For those brands where it required only some deletions , and where the articles had references clearly showing notability, I did make the edits & have not nominated them here. I'm still willing to do that, because fixing the promotionalism is the only way we have to deal with such low-quality but still acceptable articles.) DGG ( talk ) 21:46, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 00:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability that I can see. I would speedy, but it's clear a lot of work has gone into this, so it should get a full dicussion. Gigs (talk) 06:20, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 21:25, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly unsourced string of trivia, bordering on WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, and WP:CRUFT. Particularly noteworthy achievements can (and are!) mentioned with citations in individual articles, but incidents like "Biggest ever jump within the British albums chart (94 positions jumped by Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band from no. 97 to no. 3 in 1987) (record surpassed in 2008 by Leona Lewis's Spirit album.)" and "Most 2-sided charted singles in the Billboard Hot 100 charts (26 singles, including two double-sided #1 hits, although "For You Blue" (B-side of "The Long And Winding Road") accompanied its A-side and did not chart on its own)" are really reaching. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:48, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:PROF notability guidelines. (PROD removed without explanation.) czar · · 21:47, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 00:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BLP fails WP:ACADEMIC notability guidelines czar · · 22:00, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 06:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A DJ. No independent, reliable references about him. There are social networking links, but no good refs. Prod was contested with "Hello! DJ Wil is a renowned DJ from London and have performed with several notable artists such as Daddy Saj, Emmerson etc. . He is widely known in the UK. I'll keep gathering a good source and update it." Bgwhite (talk) 00:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]