The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn by nominator with no delete !votes present. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000(talk) 06:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced, no clear notion of notability, no assertion of importance. Razorflame 23:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 22:57, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No indication of importance, no references, severe lack of context and content GregJackP Boomer! 22:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A list that is potentially unmanageable and far too long to be a useful addition. Fancruft. The Banner talk 22:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 19:46, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Last AFD relisted twice with no voting whatsoever, closed as "no consensus" with no prejudice against a speedy renom. So let's try this again. Nothing but a list of stations that call themselves "Kiss". Any sign of notability, such as the lawsuits, is completely unsourced. Article has been tagged for improvement since 2007 and nothing's happened. A search on Google Books found only directory listings and copies of the Wikipedia article. To clarify the argument a little, what little coverage I've found is about individual stations, not the brand as a whole. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 19:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How is it that in the six years that this article has been in existence no-one has considered it notable enough to add independent references? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy close per withdrawal, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could not easily find WP:RSes to confirm notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Monty845 15:48, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
non notable in several different careers; promotional wordings; PR references DGG ( talk ) 19:28, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just delete this promotionalism. Notable or not, there's hardly a single line of text in the article that's neutral. Not a shred of the article is worthy of preservation. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Vampire Plagues series. Since the edit history still exists, anyone is free merge however much they'd like to at any point, so long as they indicate as much in their edit summary. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the series as a whole is not definitely notable, I doubt a single book of it is. Jamesx12345 16:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Geneva Business School. Since the edit history still exists, anyone is free merge however much they'd like to at any point, so long as they indicate as much in their edit summary. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:54, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This university closed in 2010 - http://www.ubfs.ch/ - and is pretty obscure and non-notable. Andrewpmk | Talk 16:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:39, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reason Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article appears to be by his brother Davey Morgan aka user:sycondavey, per WP:COI. The subject doesn't appear to meet [WP:MUSICIAN]]. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC). Article is an orphan (excepting Matthew Morgan disambiguation page) Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:40, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:41, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:41, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 23:02, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article was PRODed, the PROD was endorsed, and then the PROD was removed by the article creator without addressing the concern. The software still appears to be non-remarkable and I am unable to find any significant independent reliable source coverage to establish notability. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 17:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. There seems to be a consensus here that he fails the WP:PROF guideline. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can we check whether this meets WP:PROF? It's not obvious that it might. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC) Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to LaTeX#Compatibility. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I found no notability for this software. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 06:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BLP without sourcing independent of the subject. Seems to be a session musician, may be notable but no indication. (COI editor has repeatedly removed maintenance templates keeping this article without proper BLP sourcing) Widefox; talk 13:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, all.
I'd like to clear up a few things, the first being the "close connection" issue. Regardless if I am related to the person in question, I try to maintain and keep the article current. I feel this is a needless concern and should be dismissed. The information in this article is without personal bias, or COI in this case, as all the information in the article is comprised of information previously provided from various sources, largely off the internet. Having that been said, it's highly unlikely that those secondary sources are available to be referenced on Wikipedia. I do understand the need for varying sources, though my hands are pretty much tied (at least for now).
I'd also like to point out that this article has been active for five years without issue (or need of deletion). People have viewed the article and even made edits such as updating links and making corrections. It has also proven useful for the person in question. In addition to that, I don't understand how the article features "intricate detail". The amount of information isn't a lot compared to many other articles. The information also helps in the notability department of which you're concerned, so any elaboration on what's excessive would be helpful.
I'd like to ask the probability of the article getting removed any time soon so I may document the information therein. I'd rather this article not be deleted abruptly, so let's try to reach a fair assessment beforehand. MegaMacX (talk) 20:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. GedUK 15:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maxlite is a stub article that is written almost entirely as an advertisement with very little sources and one source written by Maxlite. It has seen no edits (until today) since 2011 and is an orphan. The only edit that was not a revert since 2011 was by a person who claimed to "represent MaxLite" and redid the entire article like an advertisement. MaxLite, as currently written, shows 4 sources, two of which are dead links (one being a link to a non-functioning MaxLite-run site). By not having significant coverage by reliable sources, Maxlite fails to meed the standard set by the notability guideline. 155blue (talk) 14:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NOMINATOR COMMENT As of 17:42:21 (GMT) on 30 July 2013, the article had two sources, both coming from a website of MaxLite. See here for the revision referred to. 155blue (talk) 17:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Monty845 15:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No sources just links to casting pages and IMBD. Google news search brings us to the article and Google books isnt turning up anything. Article created by SPA. Murry1975 (talk) 14:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Bearian (talk) 21:58, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not a widely used term, nor a real art movement. Based on WP:SYNTHESIS. As an example, a more credible article, based on Google hits, would be Reluctant Impressionism [11]. In other words, not good scholarship. JNW (talk) 09:24, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. since that spi will apparently keep going indefinitely as more socks are discovered, I'm deleting via obvious G5, and salting it and an earlier deleted similar title. DGG ( talk ) 07:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am unable to find any substantial neutral coverage in reliable sources sufficient to show the notability of this company. The included sources all appear to be either non-reliable sources, or very limited references in trade media, This was proposed for deletion, then deprodded with the stated rationale that the article meets WP:CORPDEPTH, but no additional sources were offered. Arxiloxos (talk) 16:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N, WP:V Geoff Capp (talk) 04:16, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This Lama was in Switzerland and gave a initiation on Guhyagarbha Tantra November 8-10 2013 in Rigdzin Community, see http://www.namkha.org/.92.104.37.140 (talk) 20:10, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of original research and reads like a advert or promotional brochure most of the time. Gbawden (talk) 09:00, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:36, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Puff-piece promoting a male model. Article was in PROD and creator removed PROD tag adding some non-RS sources like Facebook and a "Vote for Model of the Week"poll in fan-sites like Vampirefreaks.com Alexf(talk) 14:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedied as spam and salted. Peridon (talk) 17:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. No reliable sources. No GHits/GNews/GBooks hits, other than social media. Promotional. CSD tags repeatedly removed by IP. GregJackP Boomer! 14:31, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy deleted as attack page. Peridon (talk) 17:21, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable person and article does not contain any reliable resources.DaryllM (talk) 14:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. No prejudice towards redirection Mark Arsten (talk) 02:42, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Page does not meet notability standards. Only one source in the article refers to the actual term "time-challenged" and appears to be a dictionary definition. If important, topics in this article could be merged with articles on time, Stonehenge, or others. Article cites opinions on time management that appear books that seem to be advice-type things for general readers, which is not encyclopedic. Corvus coronoides talk 12:10, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:33, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a district attorney. Is this group of persons, in general, considered notable? WP:POLITICIAN says international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide). Sources are only from local news. A section named Scandals in the article could give the impression that someone is using Wikipedia for local politics. A CSD was declined. Ben Ben (talk) 10:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Per WP:SNOW. Suggestions for merging content have been made, and those proposals can happen at the appropriate venue. Remember that it is impossible to both delete and merge contents, as the source article's contribution history must be retained to provide attribution for the merged contents. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 17:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly every source in this article is from a small period of time, a 5 day period at the end of may, failing WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. More importantly, the lack of adequate coverage and because it fails WP:INDEPTH it means that several editors are contending that the scientific consensus about GMOs can not be stated in this article without it being OR [12]. As such this article inherently fails WP:NPOV/WP:FRINGE. It can never be neutral, no matter how much editing we do. It will always contain fringe claims without contextualising them or stating the scientific mainstream. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Uncontentious G7 Shirt58 (talk) 09:58, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect left over from pagemove, check the history. AshFR (talk) 08:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 23:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Losing finalist of a modeling contest has no notability and no lack of sources. ApprenticeFan work 08:41, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was withdrawn; this was a bad decision based on a misreading. I will go with an RFC instead.—Ryulong (琉竜) 13:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Six years ago, the page located at this title was about the animated series currently located at Neon Genesis Evangelion (anime). At some point, there was a discussion (I've not seen proof) that resulted in the anime getting a disambiguated page title and Neon Genesis Evangelion becoming a "franchise" page to cover all media relating to the anime.
A few days ago I proposed on WT:ANIME that the project coordinates a massive restructuring of the pages such that the current "franchise page" is merged into Neon Genesis Evangelion (anime) and that article is made into the primary topic (as well as some work on Neon Genesis Evangelion (manga)) as seen here. While some of the editors of the WikiProject agreed and thought it would be a good idea, a group of editors (including one who personally does not see eye to eye with me over a similar dispute on another article) have vociferously opposed as they feel the page has its necessity as the anime apparently does not qualify as primary topic anymore. Page view data shows that over the last 90 days this article had 368697 hits compared to the 318727 the "(anime)" page received in the same time period, suggesting that so many people just type in "Neon Genesis Evangelion" and then hop on over to the anime page in the dab link.
In addition, none of the sources in the article reference that the franchise is something that even exists. Yes, there are multiple media adaptations, but they are all derivations of the original television series and should be discussed within the context of that rather than having everything discussed separately. Franchise pages have their place when there are so many different things to discuss. This is barely the case with Evangelion, where the anime spawned everything that came after and everything that has been released is a derivation of the original TV series with slight changes to character interpretation or some events (the manga which has been published on and off for the past 25 years and technically before the anime and the recent film quadrilogy examples of such).
As this is such a high profile topic, I must emphasize that I acknowledge that "Neon Genesis Evangelion" is notable. That is not the reason for this AFD. This has to do with properly restructuring several articles when a WikiProject described by those who have opposed as "moribund" and "stagnant and decaying" will apparently not be able to coordinate proper work, despite the fact that several other editors agree with my proposal. The insular nature of this group simply means that nothing will properly get done, so the wider audience of articles for deletion is needed to gauge what should be done.
To summarize, the franchise/top level/topic level/whatever format currently used at Neon Genesis Evangelion does not work. Neon Genesis Evangelion (anime) should be at this title instead, and a bulk of the current article should be incorporated into the "(anime)" page instead of having a glorified disambiguation page. —Ryulong (琉竜) 06:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was withdrawn by nominator. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted by User:Jimfbleak per CSD G11, "Unambiguous advertising or promotion." (Non-administrator discussion closure.) Northamerica1000(talk) 12:40, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bulb America fails WP:CORPDEPTH as far as I can tell (and appears to have been created by a morning277 sock, who also removed the prod tag.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. I'm going for another deletion discussion here.
As I've said before, I knew about Kim Lukas because, after seeing the video for an Eiffel 65 song, I was seeing what other music videos Blisscomedia did. "All I Really Want" by Kim Lukas happened to be one of them. I was willing enough to expand this article with coverage from reliable sources, but when trying to look for real independent coverage, I came up empty, and felt doing a deletion discussion was necessary.
Now before you say "Keep per WP:MUSICBIO cause she's had two hits in Europe and Canada" or some other bullshit like that, I still stand by on what I said the last time I nominated this. Just because a musical artist had only one big hit (or any amount of hits, actually) does not really affect much of the notability of the subject for Wikipedia. I say this because all the Keep arguments on the last nomination basically said that it met WP:MUSICBIO, without making any mention about WP:GNG. Please note that an article on Wikipedia should not be on an artist whose songs have done well on charts (which we can verify from reliable sources), but we also need secondary sources that go in-depth about Kim Lukas to establish notability (also meeting ALL of the criteria for GNG), and surely the biography sources and interviews cited here, although still reliable, are certainly not secondary or independent.
So I hope you get what I just said. I'll be happy if you find any newspaper or magazine articles about this women, but as of now, GNG wins out. EditorEat ma talk page up, scotty! 02:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTNEWS. No evidence of long-standing coverage. Beerest355 Talk 02:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Nomination withdrawn. LibStar (talk) 00:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:GNG. this article uses WP:SYNTH like "are relatively co-operative and friendly, although Bhutan shares exceptionally close ties with the Republic of India, with whom Pakistan has historically had difficult relations" and somehow is a trilateral relations article by mentioning "all three nations". level of trade is very low at 0.5USD million and there is no evidence of regular contact between the countries as claimed in the article. LibStar (talk) 01:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added quite a few sources, including a few detailed ones. One of the detailed ones is actually about India's reaction to Bhutan-Pakistan relations. I've also cleaned up the SYNTH in the lead. --99of9 (talk) 07:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This would seem to be an impossible-to-complete list; all places in Shenyang? While I appreciate that the original author has only included prominent locations, the current scope of the article fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE Ironholds (talk) 00:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Re-closing as Keep as there was a clear consensus, and the previous closure did not put the oldafdfull tag on the talk page. The Bushranger One ping only 04:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was closed. It is clear the article will not be deleted. Beerest355 Talk 16:23, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Unsourced trivia like this is inappropriate. Beerest355 Talk 00:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Freestyle football is not a official sport. WFSLeague is a non-notable tournament. It's a movement tournament only. This article is VERY unnecessary. Banhtrung1 (talk) 01:10, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]