< 7 February | 9 February > |
---|
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 00:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Notability issue Tatwort (talk) 22:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 11:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
None of the information in this article is verifiable, except perhaps its address. There is nothing on Google News.Thus it cannot be readily determined if this is a bona fide educational institution and thus meets the notability criteria for schools/colleges. Nominated with some reluctance, mainly to see if this article can somehow be salvaged after the many years of its existence as a quasi-advertisement. Coretheapple (talk) 22:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Snow Keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Notability (music) Dfnj123 (talk) 21:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 11:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be an irredeemable conflation of several topics. One is the fact that ordinary atoms of elements such as gold can be arranged in very narrow structures (chains or wires); this is interesting but does not imply the existence of "monoatomic gold". Another is that in some contexts single atoms of gold may be encountered, especially as ions. The last is the idea that there is a magic form of gold produced by alchemy that has unlikely properties. This article does have many references, but they either refer to the first two meanings (sometimes simply in bibliographies) that do not merit an article, or are not reliable.
This article has been deleted in the past, but as a stub. A proposed deletion was declined. It also seems like a backdoor way to rescue the recently deleted article on the alchemist in question. Bovlb (talk) 20:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep This form of gold is very important for the development of extremely advanced computer architecture and and energy containment fields. Goldfringer (talk) 02:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 11:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No indication of notability through the inclusion of reliable sources. No reliable sources are apparent after a search. dci | TALK 20:34, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Biographical article of a non-notable professor. The subject fails WP:PROF. No coverage in any reliable sources, just profile pages. Name has been mentioned in a newspaper article but the topic of discussion is different. — Bill william comptonTalk 13:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability, doesn't meet WP:GNG. Mentions I can find are all by the author(s) of the language. Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 08:32, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy deleted under WP:CSD#G12 by INeverCry (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure of deleted article. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if this should be incorporated into an article on film development or should be removed from this project and placed in wiki dictionary. Jab843 (talk) 19:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are no secondary sources to establish notability. The only two that appear to be are both dead links and the only remaining citations are those generated by Wieber and his colleague, Michael Scott. Nightscream (talk) 17:07, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Emmy links have been updated, but google should have been sufficient enough to support the article. -Miki
Search engines like Google are not reliable sources, as they are not publishers of material, but merely indicate frequency of search terms on websites. And if you mean that using Google would've turned out reliable sources, I tried using it before nominating the article, and couldn't find sources that I could discern as reliable, secondary ones. As for the Emmys, while I appreciate the fixing of those links, there are lots of winners of Creative Arts Emmys for special effects who presumably do not merit their own Wikipedia articles. Not everyone is Stan Winston. Nightscream (talk) 14:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The statement that there were no secondary sources referred to sources in the article, so it was not "false". It was true, as there were indeed none in the article when I listed the article for AfD.
There are now a number of reliable secondary sources in the article, and I'm satisfied that the criteria for WP:NOTE have been met.
Also, feature-length films are italicized, but short ones are not, they're quoted. This is true for full-length and short-form works in other media as well (Books and chapters, TV series and episodes, Books of poetry and individual poems, etc.).
Keep per above. Nightscream (talk) 17:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is not a single secondary source in the article to establish notability. Nightscream (talk) 17:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:05, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did a search at Google and someone named Jeff Schaffer seems to be somewhat notable; but that's not her. I found nothing to prove that she was notable, and hence I end up here. — ṘΛΧΣ21 20:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 11:49, 15 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 his two appearances for Canoas were in a fully pro league. Soccerway confirms that this is not the case. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Snow Keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Subject fails WP:NOTABILITY. Google shows nothing. Lacks "significant coverage in independent reliable sources", fails WP:GNG Hu12 (talk) 17:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The band released two albums on minor labels and two members went on to perform in Sixpence None the Richer, but there is no notability here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 11:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An article covering a non-notable website, failing WP:WEBCRIT. The USA Today reference doesn't cover the company, just the app, and doesn't support the "invests heavily on emerging technologies" claim. — Bill william comptonTalk 16:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Deleted by Orangemike (talk · contribs). (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 00:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Completely non-notable website. No claim to significance, importance or notability. No independent sources whatsoever. Speedy deletion contested. Interestingly, the db tag was very quickly removed by the same editor who very quickly removed the db tag from another article about a nn website created by the same user who created this one. I still think this article is very much a speedy deletion candidate, but no harm in letting it go through AfD I suppose. bonadea contributions talk 15:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Chicago Cubs#Radio. MBisanz talk 01:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I had suggested this article be merged to Chicago Cubs Radio Network in June 2012, and nothing's happened. Now, I'm thinking there may not be enough content worth merging. The radio pregame show for the Chicago Cubs is not notable. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 11:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable website. Speedy deletion contested, but there is in fact no real claim to notability/significance in the article, and there are no independent sources. bonadea contributions talk 15:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily deleted by User:INeverCry under criterion G2. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 22:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a how-to manual. Dawynn (talk) 12:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With only one acting role, no evidence of having a major fan base or making any contributions to the entertainment industry, subject completely fails every criteria of WP:NACTOR. Winning an award makes no difference because WP:NACTOR states nothing about awards and nominations, so even if an actor wins a million awards for one role, if that one role is all they did, they still fail the notability guidelines. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 01:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Glossary of professional wrestling terms. (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 00:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not cite any sources. Cut out a lot of original research, but doesn't seem to make the article any more notable or relevant. Suggest either deleting or merging into Glossary of professional wrestling terms – Richard BB 10:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to FreePBX Distro. MBisanz talk 01:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fails wp:gng and fails wp:corp. Previous G11 tag denied and no non-PR refs forthcoming. UnbelievableError (talk) 07:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into FreePBX Distro . I think that's the only thing the company actually does, and the distro is probably notable. One article is justified for the two of them, and we have no firm policy about which one it should be. I suspect the name of the distro is the more recognizable, in which case that's the title of the final article. If I'm wrong, the merge should be the other way round. DGG ( talk ) 04:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 00:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article PRODded with reason "Moribund journal/magazine. No indication of notability, no independent sources (apart from library catalogs)." Was de-PRODded referring to a discussion on the article's talk page. However, that discussion does not provide any valid argument establishing notability for this publication. Does not meet WP:GNG or any other potentially applicable guideline. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 11:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to List of schools in the Auckland Region. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Primary school. Zero refs. Appears to be non-notable per wikipedia standards, though there is slight standard non-notable, run-of-the-mill coverage and it certainly does exist. Delete of stand-alone article (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 05:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As with WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL and WP:V Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 11:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very incomplete, lacking sources, and non-notable. Paper Luigi T • C 11:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was rename to Anti-Concorde Project and remove the biographical information. I will tag the article for cleanup to encourage editors to restructure the article accordingly. Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Although many of the article's claims are referenced to sources, these are claims about Concorde and super-sonic air transport generally. The only references to Wiggs and his activism in the cited literature appear to be in his own book, thus I cannot see how the putative subject of the article has received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" as mandated by WP:N. Rather than a piece about Wiggs, the article appears as a WP:ESSAY and a WP:COATRACK on which to hang anti-supersonic arguments. In short: no evidence of notability of Wiggs as an individual. FrFintonStack (talk) 03:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article was proded for over a month but never deleted. Tag taken down without explanation. This article started as a vanity page and has been edited down. It's currently a unreferenced WP:BLP as the one reference is dead. Person fails WP:GNG.
...William 02:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of this article is not notable. Of the four references and one external link listed at the bottom of this article, only one actually mentions "Bedford Hill" as the name of a neighborhood, and I couldn't find any other sources that mention this neighborhood. --Julian (talk) 00:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 11:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article is an unreferenced BLP (one historical link appears to be nonfunctional) tagged for nearly 3 years as such. What appears to be the article's subject very recently has deleted most of the article including the multiple tags, leaving an unreferenced stub of one sentence. Attempts to Google information about the subject revealed no reliable sources. This seemed not to be a candidate for a speedy. Jusdafax 08:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 11:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Bio about an american actor who "has starred in a number of films, such as Machete, Bandits, and The Cell". The only source given is a sparse IMDb profile which fails to back up the claims. No notability apparent under WP:GNG or WP:ACTOR. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 04:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:04, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing is very weak here. Does not demonstrate the level of independent, notable coverage required from multiple reliable sources to just a Wikipedia article per WP:GNG rules. DreamGuy (talk) 02:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's some kind of weird OWN stuff happening on that page. No changes are accepted at all. Thus, there's an "info box" that contains just a name and a link to his personal website. There's stuff about a boat voyage, and a link to his free book about it. And the sentence about moving to Oregon and living in isolation. The only notable thing in the article is the authorship of Apple Writer, and some of the awards. Only 4 people on WP are shown to have the Vollum. WP doesn't show anyone else for scientist of the year. (Editors protecting the Lutus Page from any edit should really be contributing to the wider project by sourcing and writing articles about those awards. The Vollum seems like it might be notable.) Nothing else is notable at all. This is just a heavily padded vanity article. Removing padding leaves a tiny stump. Sourcing is weak. Notability is tenuous at best. Editors exhibit problematic OWN and other behaviours. 31.126.206.226 (talk) 10:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily deletion. Kubigula (talk) 04:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article is about a random topic that does not belong. Cmckain14 (talk) 02:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 20:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Subject fails WP:NOTABILITY. Google shows nothing. Lacks "significant coverage in independent reliable sources" WP:GNG Hu12 (talk) 02:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 00:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary article. Multiple issues including orphanage, and needs more links. Not to criticize, but I believe a table cloth could do a better job. Kevin12xd (contribs) 02:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete for what has been said above. Inline citations needed from third-party sources.--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 03:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete. Article deleted under A7 by User:Bbb23. (Non-admin closure)Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 02:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bobherry talk 01:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:14, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No references, no evidence that this was ever notable. A search for sources brings only Wikipedia mirrors and noise. Keφr 00:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:39, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable software package, released in September 2012. A recent fork of Nautilus (file manager) which already has an article.
in my WP:BEFORE the only thing I found was http://www.zdnet.com/linux-mint-developers-work-on-gnome-file-manager-fork-7000002232/ Gaijin42 (talk) 00:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I think it is notable and should be kept. -Brendan Kehoe Brendankehoe (talk) 12:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to The Warrell Corporation. J04n(talk page) 23:49, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. This candy company fails WP:CORP. It is not subject to non-trivial secondary coverage from reliable sources, and there is no evidence of notability. Another editor agreed, and the article was deleted, only to be contested a few hours later. — ξxplicit 00:04, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for notability for 5 years; I couldn't establish notability. Boleyn (talk) 20:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unref blp; tagged for notability for 5 years Boleyn (talk) 19:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Newa people. Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A search on Google Books/news/etc for Newa games/Newar games brings up no sources. The page creator admits on the Talk page that there are no sources, and although they (using a new account) have tried to add references, one is to another WP page and another is to a dictionary definition. Mabalu (talk) 13:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 18:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
not remarkable enough Ushau97 talk contribs 11:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]