![]() |
The result was redirect to Branded to Kill#Cast. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme (talk) 15:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This actress has only appeared in one film, Branded to Kill from 1967, and thus completely fails WP:NACTOR. There does not appear to be any third-party coverage of the individual herself which is not related to the film. JoshuSasori (talk) 23:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of the article seems to be known only for the one event and thus fails our notability requirements per WP:BLP1E. There's no evidence of coverage in multiple reliable sources, and there's no way to hunt for more sources, as we are not even provided with his full name. Dianna (talk) 23:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedily deleted per A7. "Fails Google test" is not a great rationale on its own for an AfD, but in this case, it doesn't matter. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 07:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fails the Google Test (267 results) Kinkreet~♥moshi moshi♥~ 23:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. Unfortunately, given that this is a unique situation without it's own criteria for notability, multiple rules must be amalgamated and interpreted in spirit, rather than by the letter. As some users have pointed out, this article does not technically meet the criteria for WP:ONEEVENT, as we are not dealing with an event as such, but more a series of events (this woman's life) leading to a single fact which they argue denotes notability. However it appears quite clear that this single fact is not notable enough to stand on its own as a criteria for notability. The closest existing rule to this assertion can be found here (A being in this case the subject and well-known person B being the President or age-group respectively)
The second consideration for deletion is notability. Though the subject obviously meets WP:GNG they similarly obviously fail the general criteria for biographies, specifically criteria two as there is no evidence that an enduring record (significant enough for notability as seen in criteria one) will be made of this woman simply because of her age.
Given the difficulty of interpreting these rules in unique cases such as this it may be pertinent to create a subsection of WP:Notability to deal with the wider issues at play here. However, working within the existing framework, this appears to be the logical conclusion of this AfD. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 15:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This person had zero notability during her lifetime. Simply being the oldest person of a particular nation at the point of death does not confer notability. Fails WP:GNG. PROD was declined without explanation. Safiel (talk) 17:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"One event" was intended that, if someone were the witness to an event or a participant in one event, then they are not notable just because they did an interview for TV In the case of someone notable for age, the person is notable due to their age, not just an "event". Being recognized as Ireland's oldest person at 107 and dying at 108 are two events, anyway. Old Yeller21 is profoundly misstating and misusing WP: ONE EVENT. Basically, what he is saying is that someone can NEVER be notable for age, and only notable if they were famous before old age. But the Jeanne Calment article proves that is not true. So, use Jeanne Calment as an example that, firstly, someone CAN be noted for age only, and secondly, since Calment's age coverage lasted far more than one event, ONE EVENT doesn't apply. Longevitydude (talk) 23:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
" If people read the WP: One Event guidelines, someone who is notable only due to their link in one event (for example, a witness gives an interview to a fire; the man who filmed the Rodney King beating, etc) is not usually notable, unless the person was involved in planning the event beforehand. For example, assassins such as Garilov Princip may be notable because they planned out the event beforehand." When it comes to "old age," old age is NOT an event. Celebrating a 114th birthday is an event. Becoming the WOP is an event. Being 114 is NOT an event. There is a difference. Longevitydude (talk) 18:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any evidence of the existence of this program. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 19:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was WP:WITHDRAWN. (non-admin closure) Mkdwtalk 08:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. A claim of notability has been made, so WP:CSD#A7 is no longer appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Fan S. Noli#Poems. MBisanz talk 23:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Although it is wrote in a different language, if translated to English, it is simply a poem and essay, which is what Wikipedia is not, so I propose this be deleted. TBrandley (what's up) 20:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
List has four players, which is about 1,000 short of its final target. Doesn't look likely to be completed any time soon, and if in the future someone wishes to recreate the article with a more complete list then as it stands this article will be of little use to them. EchetusXe 19:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme (talk) 15:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
List has ten players, which is about 1,000 short of its final target. Doesn't look likely to be completed any time soon, and if in the future someone wishes to recreate the article with a more complete list then as it stands this article will be of little use to them. EchetusXe 19:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep, incomplete does not amount to a reason to delete. As for improving the list, "We need a 12th man here. Where are you? Where are you? Let's be 'avin' you! Come on!" BencherliteTalk 17:34, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
List has six players, which is about 1,000 short of its final target. Doesn't look likely to be completed any time soon, and if in the future someone wishes to recreate the article with a more complete list then as it stands this article will be of little use to them. EchetusXe 19:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is speculation and crystal-balling. IMDB has very few details of this film - its status is "announced", and it has "been removed from the release calendar". The actors mentioned seem to be a hoax. StAnselm (talk) 19:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme (talk) 15:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
List has five players, which is about 1,000 short of its final target. Doesn't look likely to be completed any time soon, and if in the future someone wishes to recreate the article with a more complete list then as it stands this article will be of little use to them. EchetusXe 19:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was WP:WITHDRAWN. (non-admin closure) Mkdwtalk 04:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
List has four players, which is about 1,000 short of its final target. Doesn't look likely to be completed any time soon, and if in the future someone wishes to recreate the article with a more complete list then as it stands this article will be of little use to them. EchetusXe 19:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I withdraw the nomination now that the article is vastly improved.--EchetusXe 17:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to List of Asilidae species. MBisanz talk 23:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This page was created as an apparantly abandoned attempt to split its parent article. The strategy being used was somewhat inappropriate and a different strategy has been used to split the parent article. This page is now not referenced apart from talk pages. Op47 (talk) 19:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to H class battleship proposals. MBisanz talk 23:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The H-45 design never existed, it was created in an internet forum (see here - you must log into the site to see it) and was copied by Porter, who obviously did not do nearly a good enough job on his research. The article creator attempted to insert this material into the H class battleship proposals article, and when that was rejected, s/he created this one. It needs to go. Parsecboy (talk) 19:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of sources describing such empire when a Google search was performed. Not sure whether if this empire existed or not. Wylve (talk) 17:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obvious hoax. Just look at the rulers ("Gingerella?" Seriously?) and the Toasting section. Ridiculous. Howicus (talk) 18:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. There seems to be a rough consensus here that the available sourcing indicates that this is more notable than a routine crime. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The deaths of these two Israelis, while tragic, was the topic of newspaper coverage at the moment, but has not resulted in any lasting effects of historic significance. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Wouldn't it be administratively more efficient and time-saving just to post an exception notice that says:'All articles created to deal with Israeli deaths at the hands of Palestinians need not be challenged because they are invariably passed by an automatic majority, and are all newsworthy, so neither WP:EVENT nor Wikipedia is not a newspaper applies to them? Nishidani (talk) 16:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe of use as a footnote in game design but I don't think this will have much continuing coverage considering there isn't much substance to it. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 16:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Deleted under Criterion G11 (Unambiguous advertising or promotion). ★ Bald Zebra ★ talk 16:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like an advertisement. Scientific Alan 2 (talk) 16:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. WP:BEFORE reveals stories well into 2005 and one into 2011. The arguments of those in favour of keep and WP:N/CA remain supported while the arguments against have not changed, if not weakened, since the last AfD. (non-admin closure) Mkdwtalk 03:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BLP of a person convicted for murder which appears to be a classic case of only being notable for one event. Not a significant case in terms of law. Limited press coverage. No long-term press interest.
I stubbed this article back because it was written from an obviously slanted point of view and lacked references for almost all of the claims made. It may be worthwhile to look through the history before deciding to keep or delete this article. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. No prejudice towards discussions about merging or changing scope. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Only one entry in list, and that is unsourced. Mdann52 (talk) 13:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This topic is currently sourced only to primary sources. Even the SPLC source only quotes Pierce's essay on the subject. Whilst there are plenty of discussions of Pierce's ideas in reliable sources, this particular one doesn't seem to have been taken up by anyone. I would suggest a merge to Pierce's article, but there's really nothing here to merge. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like all the notable characters already have their own articles. There are virtually no reliable WP:SOURCES. I understand Seinfeld is notable, but is every minor character who appeared notable as well? WP:NOTINHERITED PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 12:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable musician. Has several search hits, the most reliable of which appear to be a few linked videos in NME, but otherwise I can't find anything online that establishes notability. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedily deleted per A7. Bbb23 (talk) 18:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability per WP:WEB; no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Speedy-deleted half an hour ago on notability grounds, re-created by same editor so taking it to AFD. Altered Walter (talk) 12:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Screeming Custard!. MBisanz talk 17:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Many searches have failed to yield any coverage for this person, whose birth name is Paul Flynn (per the article). It appears that the subject doesn't meet WP:BASIC for a Wikipedia article. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy deleted A7. Peridon (talk) 12:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTABILITY, the only notable case found in a Google search was how it was a "redirection virus." It's a Fox! (Talk to me?) 11:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability per WP:CORP; can't find anything about it online in WP:Reliable sources. Proposed deletion contested by anonymous IP editor, which appears to be the IP of the article's creator. Altered Walter (talk) 11:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 23:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable product. Article mainly consists of specifications. Contested PROD by DGG who suggests a merge. Another editor had endorsed the PROD. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to The Actual (band). MBisanz talk 17:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced stub article on defunct band's first album and tagged for three years, no edits for years, dubious notability, orphaned article also tagged for three years, information can be merged with band article or mentioned briefly - no need for a separate page for an unreferenced track listing Jusdafax 06:46, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Jan Nisar Akhtar. MBisanz talk 23:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod with the following justification offered by myself: No verifiable references, search of Google, Google Books, and Google Scholar turns up nothing. IronGargoyle (talk) 07:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The current consensus here is fairly clear, that this article in particular does not pass the notability guidelines. Keep !votes have not been founded in policy and thus bear little weight in the discussion. Considering a similar article exists and is currently under consideration at AFD, if somebody would like to merge the two I'll provide the text — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As substantially similar to an article deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Power Rangers villains MBisanz talk 22:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's big and will be a Pan American Games venue, but still, it's just a bowling alley with no real media coverage. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. While there was some discussion of a merge here, that discussion should probably be continued on the talk page as there is insufficient agreement here to mandate a merge. ‑Scottywong| spout _ 18:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. This is yet another of the many many Avaya product pages. These all seem to be PR pages. Wikipedia is not a platform to showcase every little Avaya product ever produced. Non-notatable, trivial, (Not to mention spammy) and adds nothing to Wikipedia. Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Proprietary rechargeable camera battery; a temporary product that has no inherent notability. Entirely unreferenced, vendor-specific material likely to only have a single reliable source. Proposed deletion contested by new account created today, whose sole edits so far have been to revert nine proposed deletions. Altered Walter (talk) 09:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This band appears to not qualify for a Wikipedia article per WP:N. Several source searches, including customized ones such as [61], [62], [63], [64], have not provided any coverage in reliable sources. The band also likely fails WP:BAND. They released an album under the Final Holocaust label, but I'm not finding much information about the company to ascertain whether it qualifies as an "important indie label" per criteria 5 of WP:BAND. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No indication of notability per WP:NSONG. No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Proposed deletion contested by new account created today, whose sole edits so far have been to revert nine proposed deletions. Altered Walter (talk) 08:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. ‑Scottywong| soliloquize _ 18:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not establish the notability of "religious terrorism." Articles already exist on the main topics covered: Islamic terrorism and Aum Shinrikyo. Secondary sources do not tend to link the two, or include the other groups briefly mentioned by the article. BigJim707 (talk) 07:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Welcome to the Punch. MBisanz talk 17:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An actor with 3 bit-parts in film and four TV episodes. Fails WP:NACTOR. No independent, reliable references that are about her. Her brother's article is also up for an AfD. Prod was contested for unknown reasons. Bgwhite (talk) 05:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My only reason for updating this existing wikipage with more detail about Ellie was that it existed purely as a redirect link to her role on the List of Harry Potter cast members#Order of the Phoenix members. With a page already existing I thought I would add additional information regarding her acting career and background. If it is appropriate for a wikipage to exist purely as a redirect then I will be willing to undo the additions. Davesewell (talk) 00:20, 8 January 2013 (GMT)
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An actor with one TV episode and one acting job in a 14-minute film. Fails WP:NACTOR. No independent, reliable references that are about him. His sister's article is also up for AfD. Prod was removed by sock/vandal claiming "15-minute of fame rule". Bgwhite (talk) 05:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for misunderstanding Wikipedia. Joseph and his sister are rising stars and I thought a page here might be appropriate. Unfortunately I cannot (it appears) delete this page myself so it must therefore go through this 'discussion' process for all to comment - sorry. Davesewell (talk) 00:12, 8 January 2013 (GMT)
The result was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:18, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
article doesnt give evidence of notability, the reference given is to allmusic, which doesnt have any of this info aside from a track listing for their one album. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:55, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. The article was speedy deleted by User:Danger under CSD G3 as a blatant hoax. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000(talk) 08:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
HOAX GenQuest "Talk to Me" 05:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Without prejudice to the creation of categories. MBisanz talk 22:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Previous AFD kept due entirely to WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:HARMLESS arguments. I fail to see how this is a valid list, given that there is already at least one category navigating all these articles, and this does not serve any purpose the category does not. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:08, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Sewing a Friendship. (non-admin closure) Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Self-published author; only claim to fame is appearing on a news segment of a local news show. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Her first book was both self published and hard copy published by a publisher. It also won 7 recognized awards for children's literature. That wasn't long ago. I would argue this article could become irrelevant if subsequent books don't do well - or don't win awards. A childrens book which wins a 7 awards on debut, written by a 12 year old. Meanie (talk) 02:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Effectively unsourced BLP. No awards or award nominations for him alone, always as part of a team. Not too many Google hits (about 18k including social media and Wikipedia-clones). Doubtful if he makes WP:GNG The Banner talk 21:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The most glaring thing to me on the page is Reference #8 at the very beginning of the Awards & Nominations section. It's IMDb, which means the whole section was probably copy-pasted anyway. They sourced that section but the Emmy source should violate something since the man is Governor of the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences. — WylieCoyote 11:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Governor positions on the Board of Governors for the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences are positions voted on by your peers who are members of the Academy. In order to become a member of the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences you must prove significant credits in the industry and go through a long review and approval process. To become a Governor, members in your peer group must nominate you to run to represent them on the board and these individual's usually have significant credits and many times are Emmy winning individuals. The Emmy nomination and award process is totally separate and unrelated. The Emmy source is an independent source and is not impacted by being on the Board of Governors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pro999 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. More work has been done to this article. It could use more prose rather than lists, but it's better than some articles like this. — WylieCoyote 13:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 22:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about an online store that doesn't meet our general notability guideline or WP:WEB as it hasn't received significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. The article seems rather spammy, as well. ThemFromSpace 22:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep as the site appears to meet WP:WEBCRIT. They are covered in Crain's business and and DowJones. If POV is the only problem a re-write would fix that. Blue Riband► 03:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 00:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I propose that this article fails to meet the notability requirements. All of the sources appear to be either from the subjects own blog, or from very un-reputable sources.Djobouti_phat (talk) 23:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)D[reply]
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 17:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable company. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 17:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be a non-notable organization with the same name as several other catholic schools in the US. It doesn't look like there are many sources online that can help establish notability; most hits I get appear to be various business directories, a few blogs and what looks like personal websites, plus some sites from various catholic organizations.
Before nominating this article it was listed for a month over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Homeschooling in order to get more feedback, but as the wikiproject appears to be completely dead no feedback was received. Bjelleklang - talk 21:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here's my 2 cents:
I am not knowledgeable enough about "Divine Grace School" to have an opinion about deletion. However, I respectfully request that "Stoa USA" not be considered for deletion. Stoa USA and "Divine Grace School" are completely unrelated and are entirely different in purpose, size, and scope. Stoa USA is much bigger (there are over 2,000 people in the organization) and it operates on a national scale. Stoa USA is also NOT a school (as mentioned in the article). It is actually one of the largest national speech and debate leagues in the country. If we are going to consider Stoa USA for deletion, it would be prudent to also seriously consider deleting articles on NCFCA, National Forensic League, and the National Catholic Forensic League because those organizations are similar in purpose, size and scope. Furthermore, the nature of Stoa USA is such that, when examining the structure and policies of the organization, the most reliable sources are from the organization itself. In light of this, perhaps a more appropriate course of action would be to recommend that more reliable 3rd party sources are used in the references, rather than consider it for deletion. Thanks. EricThompson39 (talk) 03:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 17:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The previous deletion discussion found that this group satisfied WP:BAND since they had released two albums on Cleopatra Records. However, it looks like they actually were included on two Cleopatra compilations. That's not enough for WP:BAND. I've also been unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources per WP:GNG. Pburka (talk) 03:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I AfD'ed this over two years ago (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bilingualism (Brain)) and, there was no consensus to keep, but no consensus to delete either. Since then no substantive improvements have been made (even though the only argument to keep was 'maybe it can be fixed'), and it still has all the same problems. While WP has no deadline, it is also clear that this article is not going to get improved unless someone who knows WP's guidelines rewrites it from scratch. Since this article is still an essay, like it was last time, I again suggest that it be deleted. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Completed on behalf of User:Christian1985. הסרפד (call me “Hasirpad”) (formerly R——bo) 03:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn.(non-admin closure) FrankDev (talk) 04:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not enough reliable sources. FrankDev (talk) 02:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Discussion on how the article might be improved may take place on the article talk page. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be an indiscriminate list of programmes broadcast by the BBC, one of the most well-known media organisations. The BBC has broadcast hundreds of thousands of programmes. There is no real objective basis for inclusion that I can discern, so the encyclopaedic worth of this must be put into question. Ohconfucius ping / poke 02:06, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to CakePHP. MBisanz talk 17:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Biography of a non-notable person. Previously declined for A7 CSD. No Google news results and only a few trivial Google book mentions. Article depends entirely on primary sources. - MrX 13:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 22:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the PROD for this after finding some sources, but I'm not entirely certain that the coverage is enough to show that it passes WP:NFF at this specific point in time. I was going to just redirect it, but the coverage is just enough to where someone might make the argument that there's enough to show that it passes notability guidelines in that filming has commenced, a trailer has been released, and a release date has been given. I'm fairly neutral, although I'll say that if the consensus is to delete, a copy of this should definitely be incubated or the history left for the redirect. I wanted to bring this here to get more of a consensus. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 14:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Road deleted, Gulches are no consensus.. MBisanz talk 22:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a short, stubby article about a non-notable area. It fails WP:V (as there are few sources) and WP:N because it is an insignificant geographical feature. United States Man (talk) 01:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 22:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
no WP:GEOSCOPE, no WP:INDEPTH, generally does not meet WP:EVENT or WP:GNG Gtwfan52 (talk) 01:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Student unionism in the United Kingdom. MBisanz talk 17:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced and entirely unnecessary as a standalone educational article. Could easily be covered within medical school. Bob Re-born (talk) 15:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 17:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This organization is not notable, AFAICT.
Mr. Khan may be regarded as quite successful locally, but I don't believe it rises to the level of notability for en Wikipedia, certainly not as cited. The related articles seem to be similar. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 01:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 17:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article violates WP:OR, WP:NOTHOWTO, and the only reference is from a blog - not a reliable source. Proposed deletion was contested by the article's author. PKT(alk) 13:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 22:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Film has no notable coverage and current article is just WP:Promotion. The two "reviews" are simply user generated content with no editorial oversight whatsoever on marginal blogs of no note. Could not find any other reviews of note. Fails WP:GNG on all accounts. AbstractIllusions (talk) 05:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 17:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cannot even find a press release of its existence. « Ryūkotsusei » 00:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Motocross . MBisanz talk 22:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable company lacking ghits and Gnews of substance. Appears to fail WP:ORG. reddogsix (talk) 00:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How it can be non notable is slightly beyond me.. Relating to the wiki article on motocross which was first evolved in Britain, I feel it right that wilcomoto be notable under the "Manufacturers that have ceased production" on that page... Just because something lacks ghits does not make it non notable, the bike has been disgusted many times on forums and other areas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Money97 (talk • contribs) 00:43, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind removing the deletion notice from the artical and allowing me some time to improve it ? --Money97 (talk) 03:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod, not notable. PatGallacher (talk) 01:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This person's claim to notability is very weak. Titles like "queen" and "her royal highness" are self-proclaimed and not recognised by any government. The Kingdom of Hanover was a short-lived kingdom which was overthrown and annexed by Prussia in 1866. Pretenders to the throne may be just about notable, but not necessarily their spouses, notability is not inherited, see WP:NOTINHERITED. Describing her as titular Duchess of Cumberland is even more tenuous, this title was forfeited in 1917, I know theoretically the descendants of the last duke could petition for it to be reinstated, but they haven't, she does not appear to have claimed this title even in pretence. There are also no details about the Swiss chocolate fortune, and I question if even being the heir would make her notable. PatGallacher (talk) 01:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to American Translators Association. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:ORG. Gnews reveals only passing mentions like event listings. LibStar (talk) 08:11, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. No prejudice towards merging discussion or editorial discussions about scope. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about the term crotch, not about crotches per se. Per WP:NOTDIC, Wikipedia articles are not normally about terms, particularly when one term covers multiple topics. That is the job of Wiktionary, which already has an entry for crotch. There is also little chance that this article can be expanded into something encyclopedic. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 18:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) -- Cheers, Riley 00:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a term, and a seemingly non-notable one at that; per WP:NOT and WP:NOTDIC, Wikipedia articles shouldn't normally be about terms, which is what Wiktionary is for. There is already an entry for tai-pan at Wiktionary. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 20:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]