![]() |
The result was Boldly redirected, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Subject appears to lack notability WP:MUSIC and has no sources listed. Ad Orientem (talk) 23:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was withdrawn by nominator. Notability has been demonstrated and the article is to be re-written. — sparklism hey! 07:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Subject fails WP:BAND. No WP:RS sources. Ad Orientem (talk) 22:57, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 05:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of notability. Article was deleted by PROD and then restored due to an e-mail request. But it still suffers from the same lack of notability and unreliable sourcing. I am unable to locate significant reliable source coverage to establish notability. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 22:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 05:24, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cannot find any sources. Article was deleted after an expired PROD, but immediately re-created several days ago, but no sources are forthcoming. Does not meet WP:BIO or WP:POLITICIAN. Randykitty (talk) 21:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC) Looking for online sources, but many are not archived.Did find some references that reflect Mr. WalkerAlmightyMac (talk) 06:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have added articles that I have dig up at the Nova Scotia archive and post the PDFs online. http://www.paramedicsociety.com/?page_id=115 I had only gone through a couple of years and it will take time to profile his life. AlmightyMac (talk) 11:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Assassin's Creed#Future. All agree that this doesn't merit an article (yet), the dispute is about whether to merge/redirect anything to Assassin's Creed#Future. There is no consensus about this, but because the title is mentioned in reliable sources such as [10], I can't find that core policy such as WP:V mandates deletion, and consequently I'm closing this as redirect as a variant of the "no consensus, default to keep" outcome. Editorial consensus must determine what if anything to merge from the history. Sandstein 07:14, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Violates Crystal Ball especially 5. "Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content." This is all that's in the article. Just rumors. Ubisoft's E3 press conference has come and gone with no announcement. This is just a rumor that doesn't even deserve to be merged. Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 21:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Original result was delete, and it failed to be deleted. So speedy. SarahStierch (talk) 05:25, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. The three appearances for Kapfenberger SV in the infobox are not supported by reliable sources. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Zad68
19:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 05:25, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this meets any of the criteria of WP:NASTRO. Although Google Scholar hits do turn up, they are purely incidental and only mention the star in passing. StringTheory11 (t • c) 20:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Zad68
20:03, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]The result was keep. SarahStierch (talk) 05:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is only one relevant entry in this disambiguation page. Epicgenius(talk to me • see my contributions) 19:42, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. LFaraone 03:47, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not seeing how this meets WP:GNG. There are plenty of GHITS for "Conference on Artificial General Intelligence", but of those that I have found, they're either unrelated to this conference, are primary sources, or are unreliable ones. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:44, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 05:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
non notable mall that was planned but never built. Karl 334 Talk--Contribs 19:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was withdrawn. LFaraone 03:48, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be an indiscriminate list which violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE; even as a category, this would be suspect. The fact that it also quotes from numerous primary source material appears to be a violation of WP:NPOV; the intent seems to be to push a certain opinion regarding Nikah mut'ah. One of the many creations of User:Striver, whose similar random articles on hadith have previously been deleted for similar reasons. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments (non-admin closure) czar · · 20:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really not sure why a consensus wasn't achieved on the last AfD; I read it, but it just boggles the mind. Firstly, it's a violation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE as even as a category, what's the purpose for including articles on individual hadith? Secondly, this list fails WP:GNG, as the topic specifically of hadith in regard to nikah fails WP:SIGCOV. I'm not talking about nikah itself; I'm talking about the topic of hadith in regard to nikah. Thirdly, there are only two sources, both of which are primary sources and the first one doesn't even specify page numbers! On top of that, hadith articles created by Striver have a history of being deleted en masse.
Striver was a good editor overall, but the general outcomes for AfDs regarding his hadith articles was usually to delete. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hadith of the demise of Muhammad, in which a large number of them were all deleted at one time, is a good indicator. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hadith in praise of Umar, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Striver/Umar's raid against Ahl al-Bayt, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The land of Fadak and the Prophets inheritance and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali opposed Abu Bakrs Kalifat. A great many more were simply redirected to other articles without formal deletion. I don't see why this article is any different. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:24, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was withdrawn. LFaraone 03:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of the sixteen (technically seventeen) sources cited, three of them lead to highly partisan websites pushing a sectarian POV - two to al-islam and one to answering-ansar. Both fail WP:RS without a shadow of a doubt. The rest all lead to primary sources, many of which are cited improperly and at least one of which (I own a copy) appears to be a blatant forgery. The hadith itself does not possess enough coverage outside of Sunni-Shi'ite debate sites to pass WP:GNG, and the creation of this article itself seems to be a violation of WP:NPOV due to intent. This is, unfortunately, a recurring problem with articles on hadith created by User:Striver.
Striver was a good editor overall, but the general outcomes for AfDs regarding his hadith articles was usually to delete. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hadith of the demise of Muhammad, in which a large number of them were all deleted at one time, is a good indicator. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hadith in praise of Umar, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Striver/Umar's raid against Ahl al-Bayt, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The land of Fadak and the Prophets inheritance and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali opposed Abu Bakrs Kalifat. A great many more were simply redirected to other articles without formal deletion. I don't see why this article is any different. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Will userfy upon request. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to fail WP:GNG SarahStierch (talk) 19:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. We get a variety of opinions, and two references were added during the nomination time, however, the opinions range from very weak keep to delete, with delete getting the last votes (i.e. voters who have seen the changes in the articles and were familiar with the previous arguments), and nobody argued the notability has beed demonstrated. The argument by DGG for me sums the whole discussion.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Created in 2010 but has no references, does not meet WP:NOTE or WP:VERIFY. Flat Out Let's discuss it 13:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 05:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a POV content fork of Thomas the Apostle, which has been fully protected from editing due to content disputes and edit warring going back several years. (See Talk:Thomas the Apostle, User talk:Vena Varcas and this diff for more info.) After the article was protected, User:Jijithnr proceeded to create Historical St Thomas, which was speedy deleted by User:INeverCry. Article creator represents hamsa.org and tries again by creating Historicity of St Thomas, which is another POV content fork, same content forked, but declined A10 (which I find slightly amusing and puzzling at the same time). I'm not interested in the religious dogma, but would rather focus on the issues pertaining to Wikipedia, i.e., policies and guidelines. Best regards, Cindy(talk) 18:58, 11 June 2013 (UTC) Cindy(talk) 18:58, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please look at the POV of Thomas_the_Apostle page. It violates all historical information available about St.Thomas and is written in a way to facilitate religious conversion of Hindus into Christianity. A large number of scholars, Christians and non-Christians had written about the false propaganda that St. Thomas visited India, especially a place called Mylapore near Chennai in South India. Hindus are forced to bear the blame that St. Thomas was killed by a Hindu Brahmin where as the Acts of Thomas make it clear to anybody that St. Thomas was executed by a Zoroastrian king describes as Mazdai (a worshiper of Ahura Mazda). The place names and names of people mentioned in the acts is clearly Iranian and Indo-Parthian, with no resemblance to south India or Tamil or Sanskrit. Despite my attempts to bring a balance in the article, the admins of this page is adamant with thier biased writing. This situation demands that a new article about St Thomas, which is historically more accurate needs to be created. Invest some time in assessing the historicity of St Thomas before deleting the article on Historicity of St Thomas. There is a growing perception that Wikipedia is a pro-Christian, anti-Pagan, anti-Hindu encyclopedia. The actions of many of its editors who abuse various rules, exceptions and excuses of Wikipedia to protect pro-Christian pages and to delete any page that shows a non Christian pont of view, only strengthens this perception. I am an editor in Wikipedia for more than 7 years. It saddens me to see that the value of Wikipedia is eroding fast. Especially the pages dealing with history and religion are heavily biased. 06:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC).
The content of the page is sufficiently distinct to be considered as a page of its own and cannot be considered as a POVFORK. All the information in the article is sourced and substantiated by references. Any one can look at the content of the page and delete any information not supported by references, rather than deleting the page altogather. I also request those who are in favor of deleting the article to take responsibility to preserve the following points which I strangely find Wikipedia is refusing to admit in any articles it has hosted. I do not blame any individual editor for this strange phenomenon but it raise suspicion to the over all neutrality of its collective Wikipedian editor community. The points are:-
In the event of deleting this article (Historicity of St Thomas), these above mention points should be presented in some other article or these information should be added to the Thomas the Apostle to make it neutral. This responsibility rest with the editor/editors who are in favor of deleting this article (Historicity of St Thomas). Doing this, will show to everybody that Wikipedia is a neutral entity and not biased in favor of the dominant Christian view and that it can do justice to Hindu, Muslim or Pagan points of views. Jijithnr (talk) 05:37, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Commentary about a related AFD.
|
---|
|
The result was keep. SarahStierch (talk) 05:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of this article has requested it be deleted via OTRS (ticket:2012060210001783). As a courtesy, I am filing this request on their behalf.Tiptoety talk 18:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Wikipedia team
Thank you for your email response.
I would like to delete the following Wikipedia page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazel_Keech
The page was originally created in 2007 when I had just started my first film. At the time I was young (18) and was given little time to complete the page after the production company set it up. Since I was only just starting out it was necessary to put in some "filler" information that now, being a full-fledged actress with professional credits, isn't up to standards and needs to be updated to be more professional.
The problem is that a third party (5 Albert Square) has somehow been made 'moderator' of my page and thus, appears to have complete control over what information can and cannot be listed on the page.
I have tried numerous times to edit the page only to have 5-Albert-Square delete my edits and, ultimately, reword my page in a way that paints me in a negative light. For instance, regarding my involvement in the Harry Potter films (I was an extra in films 2, 3, and 4, hired through the casting agency Redroofs) 5-Albert-Square wrote, "She claims she was a part of the Harry Potter film series, as the friend of protagonist Harry Potter in the second, third, and forth installments.[6][citation needed] However, she is not seen in the movie nor is there any proof of her being in the films."
The issue here is that many people, in India especially, look to Wikipedia as a first source when searching for information regarding an individual. These people could be reporters, publicists, people I work with, people I aspire to work with, or fans. Regardless of who it is the majority of them are unaware that what they are reading is subject to the views of an individual who has nothing whatsoever to do with the person being written about. Wikipedia promotes itself as the "online encyclopedia that anyone can edit" yet, in reality, it appears to be run by a relatively small number of people referred to as 'moderators' who, for some reason, have the ability to overrule all others who may want to contribute.
My point is if someone like this moderator finds information about me, which they believe to be untrue, then why don't they just delete that section instead of writing in such a negative fashion? Now when people go to my Wikipedia page, rather than reading an unbiased account it appears as though I am being called out as a liar. Does this seem right to you?
TO CLARIFY: I was, in fact, an extra in 3 of the Harry Potter films. I was cast and hired through Redroofs Casting in London, England.
It is this negative, distasteful tone on my Wikipedia page that is damaging to my image and why I urge, and have been urging, Wikipedia to step in and do the right thing, which is either to delete this current page or allow me, personally, to be the moderator so that I can clean up the page. I think this is the only way to insure that other moderators, like 5-Albert-Square, don't tarnish someone else's name and work.
If you require proof of identify from me I will happily send that across. I just don't appreciate being permanently blocked from correcting a page that's about me.
Please assist further
Hazel Keech
The result was Speedy close, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Author requests deletion Matty.007 18:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. LFaraone 03:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:GNG SarahStierch (talk) 16:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. LFaraone 03:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And also this one fails WP:GNG. The director's own article was recently deleted, btw. SarahStierch (talk) 16:46, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. LFaraone 03:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to fail WP:GNG. SarahStierch (talk) 16:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 05:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lacks notability and appears to be an advertisement or resume. References include promotional websites. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:32, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 05:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unable to find reliable, secondary sources to evidence notability under WP:GNG. Additional sources welcomed, as always. j⚛e deckertalk 15:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to List of Scottish Junior Football Association clubs. SarahStierch (talk) 05:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Amatuer team - fails WP:NFOOTBALL surely? Gbawden (talk) 13:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 05:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unremarkable band, believe it fails WP:BAND Gbawden (talk) 12:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was article speedily deleted by User:RHaworth under criterion A7. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 19:48, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unable to find RS on this except site and facebook. Tyros1972 Talk 12:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ad - no assertion of notability. Only has one primary source failing WP:GNG . Widefox; talk 12:04, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep incredible amount of coverage , in essentialy every news source world wide by now. Utterly absurd nomination. DGG ( talk ) 17:41, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 05:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 05:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unable to find any RS except fan sites on this. Tyros1972 Talk 12:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. SarahStierch (talk) 05:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Self-promtional biography of an Archbishop who has founded his own non-notable church. A string of degrees from various diploma mills (including a Doctorate in Metaphysics from Templar University, a university that, on its home page, guarantees to "present anyone a free Bachelors, Masters or Ph.D. if they answer one simple question: 'What are the most important things you've learned in your life?' There are, of course, no wrong answers." Article is supported almost exclusively by primary sources, links to organizations run by Kramer or of which he is a member. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus--Ymblanter (talk) 07:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reads like an advert for teak furniture. Most of the text is a set of instructions for the care of furniture - which is non-encylopaedic. Rest of text is a list of types of outdoor furniture - this is hardly particular to teak! I don't believe this article can be salvaged. There is a mention of teak furniture in the teak page - this is all that is required. MightyWarrior (talk) 10:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Michig (talk) 09:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I view this list as WP:OP. The lead claims the "mass media" has "drawn up" these lists before. I see no such reliable sources to indicate such a list and the bulk of the sources in the references list only link to FIFA articles (i.e. first party source) to prove what competitions are considered official and which ones aren't. I see no third party list to verify this list. MicroX (talk) 09:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Let's AGF and give this one a bit of time to expand and improve. SarahStierch (talk) 05:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of broader notability Against the current (talk) 07:10, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. LFaraone 03:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No particular evidence of notability either in the article, or a Google search. All sources that I spotted are either unreliable, or primary (are linked to ISPs or similar companies). As such, this fails WP:GNG. The fact the article is a long-term orphan is another hint at a lack of notability. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:04, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Nomination withdrawn. LibStar (talk) 10:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:ORG. could find very little coverage [25]. also Danish WP article is also unreferenced. LibStar (talk) 06:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Herzeleid. (non-admin closure) czar · · 15:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There appears to be no basis for notability of this song other than it is mentioned in a German article (cited in this article) regarding the columbine killers. I am One of Many (talk) 06:41, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep per SNOW. BencherliteTalk 16:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This list does not seem to have any real encyclopedic purpose. Most of the items in the list do not have articles unto themselves and if they do have articles it's just because the notable hospital listed has a specialized burn ward. As the past few hours have shown, people seem to only use this page within social media to make a point. —Ryulong (琉竜) 04:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. LFaraone 03:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Page is biased/lacking notability. Written either by subject, or someone familiar with the subject, as shown from the author being the photographer of the subject's photo. This is against Wikipedia policy Magedseven (talk) 03:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus -- Y not? 15:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like an advertisement of the company. Lot of COI and POV Amit (talk) 04:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. LFaraone 03:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Highly promotional page, not having any luck finding significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. This search yielded the most results but none are significant IMO. J04n(talk page) 14:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to List of Indian submissions for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film. LFaraone 03:54, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We have an article on List of Indian submissions for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film. Till date only three films were nominated and I don't think a separate list is needed for those three films. —Vensatry (Ping me) 03:58, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was withdrawn - nominated in error and now at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Josina Machel (FRELIMO). (Procedural non-admin close. Stalwart111 03:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting change of title to Josina Machel as no other celebrity has that name. I would've moved it myself but the suggested title redirects to the current one so the system won't let me. Thebirdlover (talk) 03:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 05:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find much in the form of secondary sources and notability per WP:GNG seems lacking. The article has no references. A quick check revealed that the author's articles are frequent guests on AfD. Maybe I'm missing something. If so let me know. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Michig (talk) 07:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Individual faculty member's lab in a single department of a single university. Very unwisely accepted from AfC.
Diamandis himself is notable, and an article should be written. But it shouldnt start from here. DGG ( talk ) 03:03, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as a ((db-hoax)). Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the sources provided do not show that we had an American tiger, they show Siberian Tigers were present in America at some point. The second source is a youtube video. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 05:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No reliable third party source can be found. No scope for improvement. Benedictdilton (talk) 17:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Kollam. Remember that AfD is for deletion only, and noms that propose non-deletion actions (e.g., merge) are eligible for SK#1. In the future, you can propose what may be a controversial move at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. (non-admin closure) czar · · 05:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article should be merged in Kollam or removed don't find any reference which indiates this place is notable to be included in an encyclopedia. Benedictdilton (talk) 18:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 06:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No reliable third party source can be found. No scope for improvement. Benedictdilton (talk) 18:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Some more intensive research is needed, but, he's been featured in journals, some more interesting music websites and the Guardian. SarahStierch (talk) 17:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Advert for "acrostic poet". Orange Mike | Talk 18:10, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 05:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of notability. The entire article (which is very long given the obscurity of the topic) is based on one source, and much of it is written as original research. Delete. DogsHeadFalls (talk) 06:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
After a quick search, I was able to find a few references to Hardline that at the very least mention it and its notability within the scene:
Perhaps Hardline doesn't warrant its own article, but I believe that it is notable as a part of straight edge history. I believe that the article should be trimmed down to more basic content with appropriate citations. At the very least, the info should be merged into a section of Straight Edge (perhaps a section discussing the militant sub-movements of the 90s like Hardline), as well as an article on Vegan Reich, which needs to be created. The citations I listed would be a great start for all of the above tasks. Wall Screamer (talk) 19:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. LFaraone 03:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable surgeon. Previously PRODded; PROD removed by IP editor without comment. Still no indication of notability. TJRC (talk) 21:15, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article subject is a European Football (soccer) season that doesn't even begin until August. See WP:TOOSOON Ad Orientem (talk) 01:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 05:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This page should be deleted because Fairmont Park, like other neighborhoods, is not notable. There are no citation establishing that either. Citrusbowler (talk) 23:44, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Nomination withdrawn. LibStar (talk) 01:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:BIO and WP:DIPLOMAT. recent discussion on WP:BIO talk page shows that ambassadors are not inherently notable. also nominating:
The result was delete. LFaraone 03:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot judge this topic; the references here seem mere mentions, or press releases; there are a number of similar items in google. DGG ( talk ) 03:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WP:DICDEF - a redirect may be appropriate, but the strongest arguments appeart towards deletion (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dicdef, sources don't support the term or any other content. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]