![]() |
The result was delete. Secret account 16:49, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this article should be deleted because it has very little information and I don't even think that this is a moderately significant rivalry. This article has no contents on why it is a rivalry. But if you want to convince me that this is a rivalry go ahead. User:clecol99
REF THIS BLP
00:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]The result was merge to Lotus (Christina Aguilera album). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly the author has done his best at writing this article. But if this is all that can be said about "Best of Me" (minus the Background section, which does not have direct relevance to the song), we probably do not need this article. The information -- of which there isn't a substantial amount -- is all based on sources that focus on the album as a whole, so a merge is probably the best solution. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 23:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fan-made, counterfeit computer game which by the article's own admission never attracted any press reviews. No notability. Psychonaut (talk) 22:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Does not appear to be a notable product Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to 2nd Weather Group. Will perform merge. (non-admin closure) Vacation9 00:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This squadron is not notable enough given the guidelines at WP:MILUNIT and precedents such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/609th Air Communications Squadron, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/43d Aircraft Maintenance Squadron, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/24th Transportation Battalion (United States). There's virtually no independent references to anything referencing with the unit besides USAF articles. I think the information in the article could be merged into the parent unit, the 2nd Weather Group, as a section explaining the squadron. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Yunshui 雲水 14:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is just riddiculous. This "airline" was around for only one week. I doubt that this was an airline at all, rather a tour operator which leased one single aircraft from Icelandair. Anyway, there is no significant coverage of this company itself, so the article should be deleted per WP:CORP. --FoxyOrange (talk) 20:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. After three relistings and a couple of maybe maybe not comments, this debate isn't going anywhere. No prejudice to renomination. Secret account 05:17, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable businessman and philanthropist. Neither being chairman of a non-notable company Colonial Group, nor the, admittedly generous, donation are enough to create inherent notability. No third party sources, as required by WP:N GrapedApe (talk) 13:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. While there is some doubt on how the sourcing is used on this context, there wasn't much further commenting on it, thus the result. Secret account 05:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not provide the sources to establish the notability of "economic terrorism." I searched around with Google and most of the sources that use the expression seem to be conspiracy type websites and books. I am sure there could be instances of actions which could be called "economic terrorism", but there does not seem to be a consistent definition of what exactly that is in the mainstream. Borock (talk) 05:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Merger discussion can be provided elsewhere. (non-admin closure) TBrandley (what's up) 03:10, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Textbook case of WP:BLP1E. See also WP:BLPCRIME. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 17:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What's the difference between him and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Eagan_Holmes both have not been found guilty and both are only known for shootings.--Ron John (talk) 18:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--it's valuable information not covered in news features very often. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.209.139.114 (talk) 18:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
the abuse he suffered while growing up, and apparently no excuse for his firing. There are a lot of things to think about in his story, and lessons for everyone to learn. Please keep this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.86.21.249 (talk) 19:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Secret account 01:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet notability guidelines for albums and has no independent coverage apart from a few retail postings at Amazon.com and CD Universe (WP:NALBUMS). Appears to be a bootlegged release of no importance (Googled) Article title is also spelled wrong. Dan56 (talk) 23:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Passes notability guidelines. Airline did fly. (non-admin closure) Vacation9 00:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely short-lived airline (September 2004 to January 2005), which obviously did not have any noteworthy impact on the aviation industry. This company has not been the subject of any significant coverage in reliable, independent media either, so it fails WP:CORP. --FoxyOrange (talk) 17:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An airline not yet operational, therefore inherently unencyclopedic (per WP:BALL) and not notable. Of course, the article is also to be deleted per WP:CORP, as Hellas Airlines has not been the subject of any significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. --FoxyOrange (talk) 17:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC) FoxyOrange (talk) 17:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Based on the policy-derived arguments, this seems to be a fairly clear consensus. No in-depth coverage found, no independent reviews, etc. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:26, 24 February 2013 (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)) . |
Self-published book by Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar aka Shrii Shrii Anandamurti. Cited in a single footnote in the peer-reviewed literature, no reviews or discussion of the book in the popular or scholarly press. Not listed in the bibliography of Inayatullah's _Understanding Sarkar_. No notability and little likelihood of establishing notability going forward. Recommend delete. GaramondLethe 03:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep: my opinion is that the article has sufficient sources.--Anta An (talk) 23:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)— Anta An (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 23:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NBOOK Criteria Satisfied by A Guide to Human Conduct | ||
---|---|---|
Criterion | Compliance | References |
3. The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a significant motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement. | A Guide to Human Conduct was first published in 1957 by Ananda Marga Pracaraka Samgha (then barely two years old). As of September 2004, the book was in its seventh reprinting. Ananda Marga encourages everyone to meditate (perform sadhana, spiritual practice). However, in the view of Sarkar (and hence Ananda Marga), the peformance of sadhana is impossible without Yama-Niyama, the yogic code of ethics that is explained in this book. That statement appears at the beginning of each book written by Sarkar. It is found in what is called "The Supreme Command". Similarly, in Sarkar's Introduction to this very book, A Guide to Human Conduct, Sarkar states: "It must, therefore, be emphasized that even before beginning Sádhaná, one must follow moral principles strictly. Those who do not follow these principles should not follow the path of Sádhaná; otherwise they will bring about their own harm and that of others." Hence, in Ananda Marga, instruction in meditation is not dependent on financial contribution but rather upon commitment to the moral code set out authoritatively in this very book (and in no other book by Sarkar). | The importance of Yama-Niyama (yogic morality) for spiritual aspirants is stressed not only in this book but also in Ananda Marga Caryacarya Part 1 and Part 2 (2 out of 3 parts of the Ananda Marga social code). However, as stated, this may be verified by simply opening the front cover of any of the many books by Sarkar published by Ananda Marga in many languages and reading "The Supreme Command". For further evidence, examine the source code of Template:Yama-Niyama, which is used in the Ananda Marga article. The source code begins with the following comment: "This infobox template is based on the 10 principles of yogic morality (yama-niyama) as explained by Shrii Shrii Anandamurti in A Guide to Human Conduct. |
4. The book is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country. | As evidenced in the preceding discussion, this book is indeed the subject of instruction at multiple schools. It is a fundamental part of the Neohumanist Education system adhered to by all of the many hundreds of Ananda Marga schools around the world. | Signed statements by the in-charges of two prestigious schools, one in Laos and the other in London, as well as links to various websites connected with Neohumanist Education [2] [3] [4]. Additional evidence may be provided, but this already meets the criterion for "multiple" schools, and there does not appear to be any dispute on the number of Ananda Marga schools that maintain such a course of study. |
5. The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is him/herself notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study. | This argument was recently advanced by a Wikipedia administrator, J04n in the failed AfD nomination on Discourses on Tantra (Volumes 1 and 2). Though the book was different, clearly this argument has equal impact in respect to other books. When J04n's assertion was questioned by the AfD nominator on that book as well as this book, I seconded the position of J04n with the following remarks: "I can understand Garamond's doubt as to the historical importance of Sarkar, based purely on what he can find in Western academic circles. However, the life of Sarkar was extraordinary - for example, he underwent seven years in jail on trumped up charges, with more than five years and four months fasting in protest of being poisoned in jail - and during that same time, his organization spread like wildfire around the world. Furthermore, Sarkar's contributions reflect progressive novelty in more areas of individual and collective life than any other historical figure that I am aware of. Philosophy, socioeconomic theory, spiritual practices, music, dance, cosmology, ontology, science, history, ethics, and much, much more - Sarkar covered them all. One need not agree with everything that Sarkar said to appreciate such an achievement. One simply needs to understand that these achievements were not mere dabbling. At the very same time as Sarkar was giving his 5,018 songs of Prabhat Samgiita, he also gave 26 original volumes of books on philology (Shabdha Cayanika) and spent many hours in organizational meetings regarding service work around the world - meetings that took place four times each day (seven days a week). So, yes, I think that Sarkar's works meet criterion 5 of WP:BKCRIT, and I am amazed that anyone would concern themselves so much to seek the deletion of such articles. After all, this is a virtual encyclopedia. We are not killing trees or eating up a great amount of any other precious resource by providing accurate and neutral articles on a subject that may be of interest to readers of Wikipedia. Okay, these articles might not accumulate the greatest number of hits on Wikipedia. But so what? Wikipedia still provides a service to the public by making this information available, especially when any of these books are not yet cited in Garamond's "peer-reviewed literature". Criterion 5 of WP:BKCRIT and WP:IAR are tailor-made for a case like this." I stand firmly by those remarks. In the words of J04n, "The historical significance of Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar renders all of his works notable." | Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Discourses_on_Tantra_(Volumes_1_and_2) |
The result was delete. Based on the policy-derived arguments, this seems to be a fairly clear consensus. No in-depth coverage found, no independent reviews, etc. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:26, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Self-published collection by Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar aka Shrii Shrii Anandamurti. Eleven citations to each volume per google scholar but no scholarly or independent discussion of the book. Volumes are listed in Inayatullah's _Understanding Sarkar_ but not discussed. Article states that the chapters that make up this work were reprinted in "Prout in a Nutshell", the article of which was recently redirected to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar. Requesting redirection or deletion due to lack of notability and the low likelihood that notability could be established going forward. GaramondLethe 03:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
the article is named after a region/street in beirut yet the body flaunts the doubtful history of an obscure family. the entire "article" is not referenced Eli+ 12:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
University sports cub that fails WP:NCOLLATH. No robust references at all. Refs provided are dead-links, own web site or trivial mentions. No notability and no assertion of any notability other than its existence. Velella Velella Talk 19:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable company without any indication of deeper importance. Obviously, it has not been the subject of any significant coverage in reliable, independent media, so it clearly fails WP:CORP. --FoxyOrange (talk) 11:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Please use the list's talk page for any further discussion about renaming or converting to a list of lists. postdlf (talk) 16:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Has no criteria. If it is ever complete it would be too big. BaldBoris 09:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Secret account 16:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be perhaps a forthcoming YouTube video or an already filmed movie with no independent coverage whatsoever. Either way, fails a whole suite of Wikipedia:Notability criteria. Shirt58 (talk) 08:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Secret account 16:46, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Subject has one top-tier fight; does not meet WP:NMMA. No WP:SIGCOV to suggest GNG. Mkdwtalk 08:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:17, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No top tier fights (does mention he fought a Strikeforce opponent and lost). Does not meet WP:NMMA. No WP:SIGCOV to suggest GNG. Mkdwtalk 07:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:17, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No top-tier fights and does not meet WP:NMMA. No WP:SIGCOV to establish notability in GNG. Mkdwtalk 07:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Deleted per agreement of article creator - and as the article creator has been confirmed as a sockpuppet. The Bushranger One ping only 14:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Subject has 2 UFC fights but does not meet WP:NMMA. Due to successive losses it's likely he will not receive a third top-tier fight. Mkdwtalk 07:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ironholds (talk) 22:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect both to June 2006 abduction of U.S. soldiers in Iraq. According to our usual practices, we would not make a separate article here. I personally might disagree with that, but the consensus for our practice is clear & my personal view irrelevant. DGG ( talk ) 05:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Individual whose death is tragic and sacrifice in the service to his country is commendable, probably does not meet our guidelines for inclusion per WP:BIO1E and WP:NOTMEMORIAL, same goes for Thomas Lowell Tucker. These two soldiers are notable for the event: June 2006 abduction of U.S. soldiers in Iraq. EricSerge (talk) 05:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Poorl sourced Piku 15:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
DeleteShe is a non-notable reporter. Strongly recommend for deletion Jussychoulex (talk) 18:51, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. The Bushranger One ping only 18:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable, the only references I found are already listed here, nothing else. I don't nominate articles very often so if I am doing this wrong, please correct me to the right way. Antonio Sugar Head Martin here 21:32, 31 January, 2013 (UTC)
The result was DELETE. Sources do not prove notability, especially after two precious AfDs generated a consensus of delete. SouthernNights (talk) 15:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I declined G4 as I consider this article to be different enough from the last deleted version. I'm not convinced about the notability, however, and am bringing this for consensus in discussion. Peridon (talk) 19:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Thank you, first I'll copy my explanation from the talk page here: "I have no idea what this page looked like before, but I do know that when I reviewed the deletion debates from before many of the references I used here were not used, especially as they didn't exist yet. This person has been featured in major newspapers, and written about in major published books as an expert in the field. The author has been written about extensively in the press, far more so that a normal author. Sources 1-3, 6 and 12 exhibit clear depth of coverage, and sources 7 and 8 clearly show that his work is discussed by other major books. Minor amounts of detail have been taken from personal bios, which can be removed if necessary. I do not see at all how this article is one of someone that is "clearly not notable" enough to have a Wikipedia page." None of the sources mention Fertel in passing (save the smaller mentions in the books), and each discuss him as an expert. Sources also come from a range of places--relationship books, popular magazines, newspapers, etc. Jeremy112233 (talk) 19:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same reason as the previous 2 articles that were deleted via AfD... no reliable references that go into any detail. Jeremy112233 says refs 1-3, 7 and 8 "exhibit clear depth of coverage". Can't see one ref as it is behind a paywall, but the others are book reviews or quotes by Fetel. None go into any depth of coverage about him. The books in refs 5 and 6 are self-published as West Bow publishing offers only self-publishing services. For Mangoe's book, Alliance Publishing Group specialized in "Chamber of Commerce and other lifestyle publications. Our resume includes numerous Chamber titles in Alabama as well as PORTICO Birmingham and other specialty publications, brochures, maps and directories." They will also help you self-publish your book. So, we have a person that has self-published a book, is mentioned in other self-published books, is quoted in some publications. Clearly fails WP:AUTHOR and GNG. Bgwhite (talk) 08:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've added four news sources to the page to try to help alleviate concerns about Fertel's notability. Among them are an articles that focus entirely on Fertel in the Baltimore Sun, which states that the Mayor of Baltimore announced the last week of October 2004 as "Marriage Fitness Week" due to Fertel's work, and quotes from Fertel in the Toronto Sun, Chicago Tribune, and the Rocky Mountain News. That now makes 8 different major newspapers that have covered Fertel, which I believe is more than enough to pass WP:GNG. Jeremy112233 (talk) 17:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Pearson Peacekeeping Centre. Arguments to keep have been adequately refuted, there were no objections to merging which is preferable to deletion. J04n(talk page) 12:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
insufficient notability according to WikiProject_Military_history/Notability_guide#People Johndowning (talk) 02:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:24, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another self-published book by Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar (here writing as Shrii Shrii Anandamurti) that has failed to gain notability outside of Sarkar's Ananda Marga organization. The two citations to reliable sources are a brief quotation and an unannotated listing in a bibliography. No independent discussion of the book exists in the popular or scholarly press and there's no indication that any such discussion will be forthcoming. Recommend deletion.
Instead of several non-notable articles, the editors might want to create a Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar (bibliography) page where each of these books would be listed. GaramondLethe 04:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He did make an appearance for the Portland Timbers in a U.S. Open Cup match in 2008, but his appearance was against an amateur club. That means he still fails WP:NFOOTBALL. More importantly, he fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. – Michael (talk) 02:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Secret account 05:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can't really see anything to indicate in-depth notability on a quick search and sources check. Article is excessively promotional and unsourced, and may be copyvio from somewhere. It was certainly created by someone whose ID suggests a clear conflict of interest. Mabalu (talk) 02:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Secret account 05:22, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article is unreferenced and I find no reliable sources to indicate that this is notable by our standards. Drmies (talk) 01:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:27, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fails the basic requirements listed in WP:BIO. This page was nominated for deletion together with a company related to Mr. Tate, and was subsequently deleted, in 2006. afd The page was recreated out of process in 2007 and after a brief revert war (making it a redirect to Zoomr, reinstating the article), the article seems to have stuck. In the meanwhile, Mr. Tate can only be said to have become more obscure - his two companies, his claim to fame (and notability), have become defunct, and it seems likely that a user with a COI has been editing the page, including links to Mr. Tate's linkedIn account, and 2 videos posted on his YouTube feed, showing him being interviewed by Japanese TV. Brooooood (talk) 01:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Secret account 05:24, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced BLP and I can't find anything reliable at all online about him, under his abbreviated name or full name Daniel Joseph MacRandall. The RSUA is a small, barely notable organisation and I don't believe Presidents of it should be automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article. if he is still alive he has clearly been active for over 40 years so if someone can find offline sources I'll withdraw this nomination. But its of little use unsourced! Sionk (talk) 01:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. While redirects are cheap, we don't redirect one random book series to a huge company that publishes thousands of books, and consensus is clear this don't meet GNG. Secret account 05:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. promotional, no sources provided appears to fail notability guidelines[[10]] no google hits or awards won. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. consensus is clear enough after 2 relistings DGG ( talk ) 05:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable performing group, fails WP:GNG and notability. Requires more significant coverage in reliable sources than a puff piece on thestranger.com to meet GNG. Previously deleted in 2009 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quiet Monkey Fight. -- Wikipedical (talk) 07:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. consensus is clear enough. No need for further relistings DGG ( talk ) 05:18, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced list of toys that doesn't seem at all notable. Sort of reads like an ad. Paper Luigi T • C 08:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. No prejudice against recreation if notability is shown better at a later date. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable producer/writer/session musician. Worked with several notable artist but appears to fail the GNG on his own. Can find little to no coverage of the subject in Independent reliable sources. Article was created by an editor who admits to creating promotional articles in exchange for "tips". Ridernyc (talk) 16:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. No consensus following three relistings. However also no prejudice against a renomination, on account of that same lack of discussion. The Bushranger One ping only 18:54, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's a conspicuous lack of independent coverage in reliable secondary sources. We have three links to what are more or less primary sources (1, 2, 3), a pair of press releases (4, 5) and an advertising campaign (6). - Biruitorul Talk 16:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sources: links 1, 2, and 3 are there simply to establish the existence and work of the Foundation in the Buffalo area. I am inclined to think that the Western New York Grantmakers Association is an independent body with no stake in "promoting" the Foundation, they simply mentioned it in their research. Two other links are from Universities, Yeshiva and Buffalo, where academics have received their awards, and I do not think those are press releases that could be expected to say much more than they did. I have seen numerous other University citations that have been allowed as independent sources that establish facts. I also think that sources from the collections of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (http://collections.ushmm.org/search/catalog/vha20423) to establish the identity of Samuel Friedman are reliable.
I am not sure what other types of sources you would require, but if you can suggest some I will try and find them, or expand the article further. Ybidzian (talk) 22:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Further sources added. Please KEEP, this Award is an important one to it's recipients, and unique in nature. Ybidzian (talk) 12:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. It is sometimes a toss-up whether the article should be on the company, or the CEO, but it seems clear in this case that the company is better known. DGG ( talk ) 05:16, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Notability issue; though the company was mentioned in some news items, that does not make the CEO too notable GDibyendu (talk) 15:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not sufficiently notable.--Staberinde (talk) 17:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 15:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NN seems to have little to no notability, can't find any real references on google. I highly recommend deletion, but there might be enough data to not change this to a CSD. Jab843 (talk) 19:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless significant secondary sources can be provided to establish notability. Nightscream (talk) 22:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per basic criteria on WP:BIO. Sources have been added, subject is notably connected to multiple events. -- Netoholic @ 11:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The added sources have made it far closer to WP:NOTE. Nightscream (talk) 15:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability well established by multiple sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.55.119 (talk) 04:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC) — 71.72.55.119 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
No point in keeping. Just delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.205.68.26 (talk) 16:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. -- she seems to have several connections to notable events, both online and off. References are cited, and context is provided. Skotte (talk) 12:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of notability. 89.75.58.109 (talk) 14:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is documented notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.23.27.98 (talk) 15:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sourcing is not clear enough to justify an article on this topic; theses are, at best, iffy as sourcing. Having said that, I'll note that 'no google news or GHits' does not an argument make; I'd really appreciate it if nominators could put the effort into elucidating an actual reason why there is a problem and do more than ~2 minutes of research before hitting the AfD button. Ironholds (talk) 22:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable, no GNews, GHits appear not to be RS. GregJackP Boomer! 15:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Theclear consensus was delete. If it becomes possible to write an article on "Church in the 21st century" the website could be mentioned in a sentence or so, but that's hardly a merge, nor would a redirect be appropriate. DGG ( talk ) 05:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable special project by Boston College. No evidence of any WP:Notability. The main article, Church in the 21st Century, was deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church in the 21st Century--GrapedApe (talk) 13:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Secret account 03:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Organization fails to meet notability guidelines as established in WP:ORG which states that at least one regional, national, or international news source is necessary to establish an organization's notability-— this article, after more than three years, still has no citations and has received no coverage at the required levels. It appears that the article is largely a list of productions and casts, none of which are themselves notable (therefore are merely routine and trivial coverage) which makes the article appear to be self-promotional. Lastly, though the troupe competed for a regional award, it did not win that award and therefore fails to meet that notability criterion as well. Perhaps parts of the article should be placed under the article for Clinton, South Carolina. KDS4444Talk 20:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 18:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable book lacking Ghits and GNEWS of substance. Article created by publisher's marketing group. Fails WP:NOTBOOK. reddogsix (talk) 23:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]