![]() |
The result was delete. Secret account 02:10, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This autobiographical article was created in good faith, but the author has since realized he doesn't satisfy WP:ACADEMIC or WP:GNG. The original author indicated on my talk page that he agrees it should be deleted. PROD removed by IP user. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 23:00, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete without prejudice to recreation if it meets GNG in the future. Secret account 02:09, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable website. Note that it is a wiki that is found here and not the one found here. A speedy deletion by Velella was declined. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Secret account 02:07, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:GNG and has POV issues because what does establish a rivalry. The article makes no assertion, just lists the games the two teams have played against one another.
Keep This is a historical rivalry and the two teams played in THREE nfl Championships in the 1950's if this shouldn't have an article that why should Bucs-Dolphins? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.63.104 (talk) 01:20, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The policy based opinions, WP:OR/WP:SYNTH and not meeting WP:GNG, are decidedly not for keeping. A merge was considered but as AdventurousSquirrel pointed out it would only be appropriate if reliable sources could be found. The only sources found were by Muboshgu and fell short of defining this as a rivalry. J04n(talk page) 12:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:GNG. Two teams in a sports league. Is there a rivalry or just a history of playing one another annually. Whether two teams are rivals are a POV.
I'll agree with you on your comment on the lakefront cities which is a moot point in this rivalry but they have 10 1/2 finishes which makes for a competitive rivalry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.63.104 (talk) 22:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
did you even read the article?.And define your definition of history, what do you mean? by what happenend in the games between the two teams? or 1/2 finishes.Im lost— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.63.104 (talk) 20:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Recommend deletion due to lack of notability established through significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. A search for sources to support and establish notability came up empty. There are a few Chinese websites that mention the subject, but none met the threshold for independence and reliability. Cindy(talk to me) 16:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ote: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Vetrimaaran#Career. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Removed PROD prt WP:PROD - previous AFD exists. Reason given in PROD was: Film has still not commenced principal photography, cast and crew working on other projects, fails WP:NFF. Illia Connell (talk) 18:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Secret account 21:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No independent refs . Only refs are own University profile, own LinkedIn page and personal home page. No notability asserted and none obvious from article. Unclear why this has survived for so long. Just a personal puff piece. Velella Velella Talk 23:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Deleted by WilliamH as a hoax. (non-admin closure) — ΛΧΣ21 23:57, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of notability. Appears to be a hoax. IP removed ((db-g3)). —Theopolisme (talk) 21:04, 16 February 2013 (UTC) character.[reply]
The result was delete. Secret account 02:43, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PROD was removed with no reason. I don't see significant coverage of the gym itself. The fact that notable fighters have trained there is WP:NOTINHERITED. The other sources are the fact that it burned down and another saying it was rebuilt--neither of which indicates notability.Mdtemp (talk) 19:02, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily deleted by User:RHaworth under criterion G11. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be very few independent reliable sources about the necklaces (or its concept), and those few I could find are little more than mentions that they exist. I think this hovers just below the notability standards; it might make a good article in a couple of years if they catch on, but not yet. — Coren (talk) 18:24, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Secret account 03:56, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that Radwanska qualifies for her own yearly article yet. Check with members of the project. GAtechnical (talk) 17:51, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete a1, insufficient context to understand what this is about. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:09, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia designed for an essay. It serves as unsourced trivia. TBrandley (what's up) 16:23, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 12:57, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he has played in La Liga. This is not quite true. He has been called to the squad for at least one La Liga match, but he has never featured on the pitch. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:52, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was already merged by User:Awewe. Secret account 04:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An article based on a spin-off from a cheap shot from a blog. Soman (talk) 10:02, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 13:01, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about an erotic massage technique that does not meet WP:N. A 4 January 2013 prod delete request was removed by an IP.[1] A much bigger problem is that editors also are intermingling information in the Nuru (massage) article about Nuru brand massage gel, which has nothing to do with the erotic massage technique. This has upset the company that manufactures the Nuru brand massage gel as noted in this help desk post. The Nuru brand massage gel does not meet WP:N either, and I think the best way to address the problem is to delete the Nuru (massage) article as not meeting WP:N. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete g11, part of advertising for selfpublished book. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fictional political party in self-published book by non-notable (Wikipedia definition) author. Book was published in Kindle edition only, so far as I can see, in December 2012. Peridon (talk) 13:45, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Consensus to keep, and per source provided in the discussion. The purpose of AFD is not to force editors to add sources. Notability does not depend on the inclusion of sources, only on the existence of such sources. (non-admin closure) Vacation9 00:01, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The only two sources for this article are in regard to information about the town the person is from, not the person himself. There is a lot of original research regarding family trees and photographs of the person's gravesite. I'm not convinced, after a few years of the citation tag being there, that anyone will take the efforts to prove the subject's notability. MezzoMezzo (talk) 13:25, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 13:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The only "citations" are sources which don't appear to be in English and GoogleBooks documents whose nature seems questionable. After a few years of the citation tag being there, I'm not convinced that anyone will take the initiative to prove the subject's notability. MezzoMezzo (talk) 13:26, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. SK #1: nominator does not advance an argument for deletion, instead proposing a merger. Merging is discussed on talk pages, not at AfD. The Bushranger One ping only 06:09, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think this article should be merged with Ryan Gosling. The content should be added to Gosling's article, there is no need for an article only for his awards and nominations. teammathi (talk) 13:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Secret account 02:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No topic here, just a quotefarm and odd mentions of Watergate in context of modern phone hacking, tied together using a synthesis of historical Watergate studies and modern phone hacking analysis. Binksternet (talk) 12:59, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Secret account 02:12, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A search finds only more press releases such as the ones used as sources and a load of links to the organisation. I came across this as its awards are being used in articles - inappropriately I believe. Dougweller (talk) 12:41, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Breton-Norman War. WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) TBrandley (what's up) 20:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Battle of Dinan does not appear to meet the notability threshold for a separate article. Searches on Google Books, Google Scholar and JSTOR have not produced any potential sources. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:34, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 13:06, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article has remained unsourced for two years. Nobody cares for it, and the individuals notability and even existence are questionable. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. At a first glance, it looked like an obvious keep closure. But in determining consensus, the debate was nearly impossible to read, because of some mess that doesn't involve this specific individual, which made many of the comments here invalid, and that David in DC took care off. Now discussing this individual, the main debate is whether he meet GNG or not. The main source discussed in this debate doesn't give any indication why he meets GNG, as it's a clear cut one sentence passing mention of film review. In regards to policy, it is considered an invalid source to determine notability as it doesn't describe the subject "directly in detail". Based on this debate, I can't decide if the rest of the sourcing mentioned by the keeps commentators is valid nor the delete commentators doesn't go into extensive detail with the sourcing they found, and considering the mess that put this article on AFD in the first place, it is impossible to determine consensus here and relisting the debate for further commenting is practically useless. No prejudice for quick renomination. Secret account 03:33, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Notability (first raised at Talk:Aaron Swartz. He's an actor and he's listed at IMDB. Is that sufficient? Is there any of the necessary reliable independent coverage in adequate depth around to sustain a BLP? We need critics, not just IMDB. Andy Dingley (talk) 07:50, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Partizani Tirana. (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 00:05, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No indication this topic meets notability guidelines. Cannot imagine this in an encyclopaedia. C679 07:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Secret account 02:14, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced and highly unlikely that any can be found. My search turned up nothing notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:31, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: somehow, this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VF_uOgyBK1c came to mind. --Soman (talk) 15:08, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. The Bushranger One ping only 08:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not have citations to establish the notability of the subject. atnair (talk) 07:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Secret account 02:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do not have references to establish subjects notability. atnair (talk) 02:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Secret account 02:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy contested. Advertising of a non-notable software utility. Wtshymanski (talk) 19:53, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Not a hoax, but one evaluation of the sourcing was rebutted, BlueRoll18 keep doesn't go into more detail with the sourcing, and commentators agree though this might meet WP:MUSIC, it fails GNG. Secret account 02:21, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article full of Original Research created by a brand-new user whose only previous edits were adding a false category to many well-known bands' pages. Seems clearly promotional and not notable. JesseRafe (talk) 16:12, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Supergrub might be an elaborate prank or hoax. There is no mention of the band on Chuck Treece's page. And there is a mention on the Ben Kenney page, but I haven't tracked how long it's been there, only recently been linked. On BK's page it says he formed the band with CT, as does it on the Supergrub page. However, CT's involvement on BK's page is uncited. And on the Supergrub page there is one source - MTV, which is copy-and-pasted or mirrored from... wikipedia (MTV "source"). This is also of note in that this page was created as a first edit by a brand "new" editor, who also went on to add nonexistent categories with Kenney's name prominent in them to well-known bands' pages. Sounds pretty clear that someone is toying with Wikipedia, likely to benefit Ben Kenney unduly. As there are NOT two notable members of the band (that are verifiable), it no longer passes WP:Band. strong delete JesseRafe (talk) 03:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by creator of page Hello, this seems to be one big misunderstanding. Let me make it clear that I'm purely a Ben Kenney fan, no way associated with him at all. This is no hoax or anything remotely like that. I'm just a new user trying to learn and get used to wikipedia. I just found it frustrating that it's incredibly hard to find information about the band, so I gathered what data I could to try and clear things up.
Also, Ben tweeted his about.me page here: tweet to about.me and on it, it has a short description saying he was in Supergrub. So then it becomes a matter if you want to call Ben a lair claiming Treece was in the group on the old Supergrub site. Sorry if I went about editing the page the wrong way, I'm just trying to learn the ropes around here. I have more sources I've read in the past giving more information about the band, but I can't seem to find them atm. I'll add them when I do.Redonkulousemu (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Secret account 05:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod on an article for a physician assistant/adjunct professor/clinical researcher who does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines. The subject is a distinguished fellow of the American Academy of Physician Assistants [8] and has received an award from the HIV/AIDS group, The Body; [9] however, neither appears to be sufficient to meet WP:PROF. I have not been able to find national media coverage nor any scholarly publications. Article is CV-like and was created by a new editor who is acquainted with the subject. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:45, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. While the keeps are on the weaker side of policy based comments, Colonel Warden rewrote the article soon after it was relisted, and more than enough time passed to look at the rewritten version, and none of the editors advocating for deletion commented on it, thus the result. Secret account 02:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In-universe fancruft, no criteria for inclusion. No notability out of universe. Unsourced since forever. I forgot I prodded this and somehow ended up prodding it twice, but the prod template didn't trigger. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Secret account 02:32, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable residence without clear location, based on a passing mention in a 1863-book. No relevant Google hits found. The Banner talk 15:42, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 03:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Only 2 names in disambig. ((for)) is enough Redtigerxyz Talk 14:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. The article is notable, as discussed in the AFD. Has received multiple notable reviews. (non-admin closure) Vacation9 00:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I came across this via PROD and after some searching, I found multiple reviews in trades and the like. It's enough to where I think it would probably pass, but to be fair I'm giving it an AfD debate just in case. I know that trade reviews are often debated as to whether or not they're considered trivial or not. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 07:41, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Reliable sources do exist, and the article passes WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) Vacation9 00:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Never played a game at the NFL level, doesn't seem to pass notability. Wizardman 05:53, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
lists of artists represented in museum collections are not appropriate for a WP list, as they amount to a directory, which is identical to the museum's website listing. a list of important works, or special exhibits, would be appropriate here. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The policy based opinions are not in favor of keeping. J04n(talk page) 13:24, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Directory / how-to page. There are already relevant pages such as Carte Jaune and Yellow fever vaccine; if someone wanted to write Yellow fever in India that might be worth keeping, but this isn't it. Hairhorn (talk) 15:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. without prejudice for a quick renomination, been relisted three times and "no added value" is not a policy based comment. Secret account 02:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Utterly WP:NN commercial property. Toddst1 (talk) 17:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 00:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. I love this place. I probably went to a few hundred shows there and performed on it's stage a dozen or so times myself. To me, it is and was an important and unique place. I mean really, a bar featuring live music pretty much every night, where there is no cover if you bring a bag of laundry... that's just awesome. And many bands that went on to greater fame graced it's stage. But is the venue itself notable in the broader sense? It is no problem to find hundreds of raw google hits for it, but most of them are directory type listings or mentions of shows that took place there. There is very little on the establichment itself. The one reference currenty included appears to be a sort of "guide to everything" so being included in it is probably not an indication of notability. I found one or two mentions of their closure a few years ago, but nothing substantial. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Secret account 02:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is pure speculation and product announcements, unworthy for an encyclopedia per WP:CRYSTAL. GetJet was an airline which never became operational; all there is known comes from self-published press releases. It has not been the subject of any significant coverage in reliable, independent media and thus also fails WP:CORP --FoxyOrange (talk) 00:34, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Secret account 02:41, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OR, unreferenced, possibly merge with geocatching Hownibuk (talk) 00:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Steven Sashen does not meet the notoriety requirement to have a page on Wikipedia.68.33.153.127 (talk) 02:59, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fails the notability guidelines for people, and there are no reliable sources on the page to back up anything said there. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Discussions as to what to call this page can take place on its talkpage. J04n(talk page) 13:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Violates Wikipedia:FUTURE guidelines. No references to substantiate that the general election will be called at that time, or even which political parties will be participating.--Lionratz (talk) 02:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages because it also concerns an election that has not even been announced:
Remove: Because this page is blank talk as it is hypothetical and we will never know whether the next general election is in 2016. Talking about an election that does not even exist will cause confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.156.106.5 (talk) 15:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 13:32, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable journal. Recently restored after having been deleted at AfD about a year ago. Article claims that the journal is included in PubMed, Web of Knowledge, an EBSCO database, and CINAHL. PubMed indexation is automatic for any open access journal included in PubMed Central and therefore not selective. According to the coverage lists for the Web of Science and CINAHL, the journal is not included in those databases. EBSCO databases are not very selective and "EBSCO Health Policy Reference Center" is only a minor one. Therefore, this still does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG: no independent sources, not indexed in any selective database. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 11:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. WP:IAR isn't a reason for keeping or deleting unless there is special circumstances, which this article doesn't meet. Other than that, no consensus though a merge might sound reasonable. Secret account 03:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article is a list of non-notable software Ronz (talk) 17:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article is actually a complete list of software used in risk analysis, a very important area of business and science. It is the ONLY complete list I have come across, it is accurate, well-referenced, unbiased and current. It's very hard to understand how its removal could improve Wikipedia or benefit mankind. I don't understand the objection at all unless it is driven by someone with a vested interest in seeing it disappear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.183.200.251 (talk) 20:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How does this comparison differ from others on Wikipedia that are not flagged for possible deletion? For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_raster_to_vector_conversion_software http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_reference_management_software http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_accounting_software http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_project-management_software http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_remote_desktop_software http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_video_editing_software http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_audio_player_software http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_defragmentation_software — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.23.229.120 (talk) 14:58, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am new to editing Wikipedia, but I would propose that this software list is largely notable. My understanding of the notability requirement is that references must exist, but the article doesn't necessarily have to include them to be considered notable. This is a specialized area which I am currently learning about, and many of these tools are industry standard tools in finance, project management, enterprise risk management, and technical fields. I'm confident the references to support notability are out there. The theory behind their function is described here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Carlo_method This list is also referenced by this page on probabilistic risk assessment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probabilistic_risk_assessment I believe this content is both valuable and notable and the page should be included in Wikipedia for further development and editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CBorgfeld (talk • contribs) 15:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 03:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. No independent GNews hits, 2 passing mentions in GBooks, no RS found in GNews. GregJackP Boomer! 15:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Secret account 20:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This biography of a living person does not cite any sources other than those of the person's own radio show. My prod was removed by the creator, but no independent sources were added, and I wasn't able to find any with my own search, so I'll send this to discussion to see if anyone else can find independent, reliable sources. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:01, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to ARMA 2. Any content to be merged can be salvaged from this history. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 17:35, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Canwin87 (talk) 00:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Without prejudice for renominating or a merge. Secret account 20:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Person was real, but name is fictional. Insufficient notability both historically and fictionally. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 17:51, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sources have been successfully rebutted that she doesn't meet GNG yet. Potential is not a policy based reasoning to determine consensus. No prejudice to recreation if she meets GNG in the future. Secret account 05:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lacks the coverage in reliable sources necessary to pass WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Most sources available are grossly unreliable (including those which are primary), others are WP:ROUTINE announcements (probably including paid listings) or trivial quotes in passing that don't satisfy the significant coverage requirement for notability. One or two more in-depth pieces from the subject's hometown area show WP:LOCALFAME at best, just as if Everett were a local restaurant or a high school play that got a review.
No coverage in reliable sources = not notable per WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Mentions in reliable (as opposed to unreliable) sources are WP:ROUTINE announcements (sometimes paid listings) and/or trivial quotations in passing. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:39, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Consensus to delete following relisting. The Bushranger One ping only 04:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a small non-scheduled airline, which in my opinion fails the WP:CORP notability guideline. There is no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. All there can be found are the most basic pieces of information like contact details and self-published press releases. Also, I do not think that the topic itself (kind of a taxi business) is important enough for inclusion in the English Wikipedia. FoxyOrange (talk) 10:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Secret account 03:54, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A Hindu religious figure with a hagiography, not an encyclopedia article. I get no book hits, and while I found a fair number of other hits they all appear to be forums, blogs, and photo sites. Mangoe (talk) 13:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Secret account 02:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced article about an non-notable townland, without special features or relevant links on Google (as far as I could see). The Banner talk 15:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Secret account 02:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As there is no special notability guide for airlines, the WP:CORP criteria must be met. With Luxaviation, this is not the case: There has been no significant coverage about the company in reliable, independent secondary sources. FoxyOrange (talk) 15:39, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Oświęcim Synagogue. J04n(talk page) 13:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing anything that indicates this Holocaust victim did anything significant other than survive. Fails WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Clarityfiend (talk) 17:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Evidence that the subject meets WP:GNG or WP:NJournals not provided. J04n(talk page) 13:51, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I PRODded the article, but some editors voiced their opposition on the article's talk page, so I thought it better to take this here. PROD reason was: "Non-notable journal. No independent sources, not listed in any selective databases. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals." This still stands, hence Delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:17, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
“A new magazine that began in an era dominated by electronic messages now clearly is both an act of intellectual courage and fervent hope for the future. Especially in countries that are developing into modern industrial sense, such as Albania, a magazine like this could mark a turning point than the political theories still purely intuitive or dogmatically metaphors of the past.” We, the Academicus Journal Team, feel nothing else but e deep surprise the request to delete the article. The obligation of all us academicians is to open up a window in human reasoning. People than have the right to choose what’s best for them — Preceding unsigned comment added by Academicus Journal (talk • contribs) 21:02, 2 February 2013 (UTC) — Academicus Journal (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
According to WP:NJournals, Notes and examples point 1.: "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the journal is included in the major indexing services in its field. Examples of such services are Science Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index, and Scopus." Previously it was mentioned that Academicus is indexed by Scopus: http://www.hub.sciverse.com/action/search/results?st=academicus+2079-3715 So if I understood well, this means that Criterion 1 is fulfilled by Academicus to be considered notable by Wikipedia. Shall this information be included on the article's page as well? Vasmatics (talk) 07:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC) — Vasmatics (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep: This journal seems notable to me. - ʈucoxn\talk 12:04, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Writing “to be or not to be” is not productive, since existence is not simply a matter of perception. Being part of any data base is simply an editorial board issue. It is a particular data base which selects based on the application of certain criteria, definitively it is not up to an encyclopedia. Being listed in a database doesn’t means that you are a qualitative entity or at list famous. It is similar like telling to a certain university that cannot be included in an encyclopedia since it has not been listed in the best 500 referring to the Shanghai list, even if 10.000 students are actually enrolled in this university. I do not want to believe that this is being applied for small country such as Albania or for a journal originating from this country because it questions the basic principles of Wikipedia. We are afraid we are being discriminated. You cannot ask to a gifted child to grow up and become famous and then we will talk about you. More than 100 authors from all the world cannot be a simple coincidence inside a scientific reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabor Vasmatisc (talk • contribs) 15:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. The Bushranger One ping only 08:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Page passes WP:NFOOTY but he fails WP:GNG and usually what happens is that GNG is dropped if the player is young as his page will be expanded upon over time but this player is older (29) and is in the end of his career and currently we know nothing about him. No stats, no biographic information. Nothing that really adds something to the encyclopedia. ArsenalFan700 (talk) 22:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the follow pages for the same reason:
Soccor Velho is hardly a player with 1 or 2 appearances about whom we know nothing. Click the Google news link at the top of this page and we find six pages of results, in reputable newspapers, going back to 2005. OK, they're match reports: what do you expect for a sportsperson? But there's plenty to start making a half-decent article on the subject if anyone wanted to, and a player with an 8+ year career at the top level in India can't have avoided personal coverage if one knew where to look.
Creson Antao was playing for Dempo when they reached the semifinals of the AFC Cup in 2008 and was still playing for them as they won the I-League in 2012. Here is a lengthy article from just last year, which starts off "Defender Creson Antao has emerged as ‘Mr Dependable’ for the newly-crowned I-League champs Dempo Sports Club..." and is devoted to that player.
I'm a little concerned at the absence of WP:BEFORE about this nomination. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 03:45, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable musician, uncited page and no relevant sources could be discovered. felt_friend 01:10, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]