![]() |
The result was keep; nomination withdrawn with no opposition (NAC). Ishdarian 23:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As the article itself states, Nobel laureate Gerard t'Hooft pointed out that "activities in the subject 'have remained limited to personal web pages and are absent from the standard electronic archives, while no reference to ECE theory can be spotted in any of the peer reviewed scientific journals.'" So it's still in Wikipedia why? -Jordgette [talk] 23:05, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Theopolisme (talk) 00:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The individual this page is about has been very insulting on other pages and has gotten a lot of negative comments from those who have saw this. He has also made a blatant attempt to raise funds based on his insults toward others in the same field of work. Many have suggested that some one ask that he be removed from Wiki. Cross Weather (talk) 22:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 14:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article recreated after speedy deletion. Binksternet (talk) 21:33, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Only !delete vote sock of nominator. If a policy-based rationaile can be given for deletion no prejudice against renomination. The Bushranger One ping only 17:26, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Users highberry and Bob Andrews UTOW are both the subject of this article. Seems page was a vanity autobio and doesn't seem to be particularly notable. Jamminjimmy (talk) 21:00, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 16:23, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Film hasn't started shooting yet. Sources that I can find basically say that there's going to be a film by this name, and that it will start shooting in September. WP:TOOSOON applies. ... discospinster talk 21:05, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. only deleve !vote sock of nominator. Best to start over; no prejudice against renomination if a policy-based rationaile can be articulated. The Bushranger One ping only 17:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User Bob Andrews UTOW (ie undertow records) and highberry are same person and appear to be sole interested editors of this page and are the subject of the article. Request deletion for vanity page and non-notoriety. Jamminjimmy (talk) 20:52, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Deadbeef 09:48, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Party only existed for a few years, never achieved over 1% of the vote in any riding, and references consist mostly of links to the party's website or financial reports from Elections BC. The party was mentioned in a few articles for local papers, but fails to meet notability threshold by and large. Thoughts? --4idaho (talk) 18:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 16:24, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Future film without any reliable sources. The source is about Dabangg 2 which is not related here. This film is not yet confirmed by producers and directors. The article clearly fails WP:NFF. Tolly4bolly 17:35, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 16:24, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Although there are individual samurai named Amakasu, a quick search of Google books shows no support for an article about a kin group in Japanese history. Sekai hyakka daijiten shows no support -- see 甘糟氏 at kotobank.jp. In popular culture, the "Akamasu clan" appears in strategy video games and in role-playing games, but not in reliable sources. Ansei (talk) 17:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Courcelles 16:24, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No useful content, blocked user, small importance, unless someone wants to spend some time cleaning it up. Rarkenin (talk) 17:11, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 16:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:PROF. Unsurprisingly, since this appears to be a puff article about a fringe scientist who may have created one particular fractal pattern or two. Prod contested by article creator. RayTalk 17:04, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 16:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An example where categorization (see Category:2000s record charts) is the better venue over a list, in particular a list of lists. Otherwise, there should be lists like this for every year and every decade. The only similar lists are the even more generic Lists of number-one songs and Lists of number-one albums which, for the most part, just take you to more "lists of lists of number ones" for a specific country or chart. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Soldotna, Alaska. Merge and redirect, purely a merge to tag talk pages accordingly for attribution Courcelles 16:30, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a slow news day story and fails WP:GNG with no lasting notability outside of catching the fish and his reported death. Some guy caught a big salmon. Does this need an article of its own? No. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 16:30, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mkdwtalk 19:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No third-party reliable source coverage of this person; only claim to fame is founding of LawCrossing, where he is already mentioned. (BCG Attorney Search, created by the same WP:SPA, is also in AfD). OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:58, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is this link a good enough third-party source? Job search CEO acquires Malibu 5BD for $7.75M This says that he was a law professor at Whittier and that he founded The Employment Research Institute, which is the parent company of LawCrossing. Could this be used in the article anywhere as a source? Aostler (talk) 22:08, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. This does not rule out the continuation of a merge discussion. J04n(talk page) 19:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
a 17- or 18-year-old who recently made her modelling debut which would make her one one of many hundreds of thousands. The notability of her parents is not hereditary. per WP:NOTABILITY Crusoe8181 (talk) 10:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Problem solved! Shii (tock) 05:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Before anyone gets confused: kapusta is not the same as kapusta kiszona (=sauerkraut); the claim being made is that it is some Polish sauerkraut-based dish. However, kKapusta is simply the Polish word for your regular cabbage. Pl wiki has no page on dish known as "kapusta" (pl:kapusta is simply about cabbage), nor (for what it is worth) have I (a Pole) ever heard of it. There's no "kapusta" dish in the pl wiki category for cabbage dishes (no equivalent at en wiki yet): pl:Kategoria:Potrawy z kapusty). There's a soup (kapusniak), but it has a separate article. From what I see in the article and quick search on the net, "kapusta" seems to be a Polish-American invention, and so far references don't support notability. Wikipedia is not a cookbook. PS. I am not sure what the previous snowballed delete from 2006 concerned, but based on comments I see it doesn't seem to have much relevance to this AfD. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Courcelles 16:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 16:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No independent sources. Speedy declined due to credible claim, so to AfD we go to see if we can get enough sourcing as OP (with same last name of band member - most possibly a COI), has not provided. Alexf(talk) 12:58, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 16:44, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails to credibly assert notability of the subject. The only references in the article only verify its existence, but are sourced to internet discussion forums AussieLegend (✉) 12:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Northwestern University#Media. No prejudice against merging any of it to Medill School of Journalism as well. J04n(talk page) 19:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable student television program, only seen on campus closed circuit TV and twice weekly on public access channel GrapedApe (talk) 11:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A consortium called News Network of the Future is at work informally, using regional and local reporters to share expertise. The Northwestern News Network similarly has established a production bureau, using resources from four states including Colorado. Collaborations with Rocky Mountain PBS are also underway.Not only is the name mentioned only in passing, but the Denver Post article is about a news reporting consortium of public broadcasters (including Colorado Public Radio) in northwestern U.S. states. The Wikipedia article and this AfD is about a student-run service at Northwestern University in Illinois. --Closeapple (talk) 06:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. LFaraone 22:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:POVFORK of Spiritual warfare (Christianity). The term has the exact same meaning here as there. In the absence of evidence of it being a different topic from Spiritual warfare (Christianity) it should be deleted as an unnecessary fork, and the other article moved here in its place. The previous AfD is about Spiritual warfare (Christianity).
This article is constructed through original research by synthesising different sources together to make a point. Two sources seemingly not related to Spiritual warfare (Christianity) are given, I don't have access to one (you can demonstrate its not a synthesis with a quote perhaps), but the other, Shamanism doesn't mention spiritual warfare according to google books, so it looks like WP:OR as well, so it need not be merged. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:20, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Courcelles 16:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fails even basic test of notability. No references - could have been a speedy but it has been around for a while. Velella Velella Talk 08:48, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure). Dricherby (talk) 09:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wholly non-notable album. No significant references to support it except for one that confirms the album existed. Fails WP:NALBUMS Velella Velella Talk 08:37, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. LFaraone 22:14, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can't see any indication that this company is even borderline notable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Michig (talk) 07:09, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The only 'Christopher Pasquin' on Google is a non-notable baseball player who exists only on social networking sites (Twitter, Facebook), excluding Wikipedia. Hoax? Seonookim (What I've done so far) (I'm busy here) (Tell me your requests) 07:09, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. author request -- article withdrawn DGG ( talk ) 16:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Poorly sourced tabloidery, several BLP nightmares. Wrestling lore, not encyclopedic. LM2000 (talk) 06:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to List of series run in Weekly Shōnen Jump#2010s. Mkdwtalk 19:25, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This manga just recently started serialization late last year, and has not yet established any notability as outlined at WP:BK. Specifically, it hasn't been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the manga itself. A cursory Google search turns up fan translations, fan sites, or blogs that mention the series. 十八 01:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete per WP:BIODEL: this is a biography of a non-public figure, the subject has repeatedly asked for the deletion of the article and there is no consensus to keep it. Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:50, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
MfDs for this article:
Subject does not meet WP:GNG, wrote an non-notable books, only 3rd party coverage is from one incident where she got kicked out of a country for trying to dig up "the remains of Jesus" to prove he's her ancestor. Only covered in local media Regional media, and not widely covered. — raekyt 04:42, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject wrote and self published an unimportant book on an obtuse topic in a far away place that few have heard of or visited. Minimal notoriety in local press.Questionable and obscure sources, mostly original research. Has no value and nothing to contribute to Wikipedia. Let her go in peace. Sooner the better. I vote for speedy deletion.SuzanneOlsson (talk) 05:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 05:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When writing about a person noteworthy only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of anther's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization. I have been objecting to the Times of India article on my Bio page because it was/is taken out of context- and contradicts what the author (myself) clarified in a book and through research. The person who submitted the article did so with malicious intent. The same person also appears in films and documentaries making false claims about other people. It's really a sticky situation. I will try to pull together an explanation on my web site. Need a day or two more to complete it. Thanks and Best wishes, Sue. SuzanneOlsson (talk) 22:14, 13 May 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 22:14, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 17:32, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article is essentially about a single event - faux hearing on UFO and extraterrestrials involving several former congressmen (the alleged UFO interference with nuclear facilities was apparently only mentioned in passing). The hearing itself has a fair amount of notability, but it is already mentioned in Disclosure (ufology). Proposed deletion removed by creator. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 03:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is considerable government documentation of intrusions of UFOs in nuclear ICBM and storage facilities, including shutdown of the missiles. This dates back to at least 1948 at Fort Hood, Texas and over Kirtland AFB, Albuquerque and Los Alamos (Green fireballs). Much of the documentation was discussed clear back in 1984 in the book "Clear Intent" by Lawrence Fawcett and Barry Greenwood. So the article could be about much more than just the recent press event with military witnesses to these intrusions at Malstrom and Minot AFB's in the 1960s and 1970s.Dr Fil (talk) 05:35, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The history of UFO involvement in nuclear weapons development/test/deployment is extensively backed by solid documentation and in many cases corroborated by multiple sources. The first event that I am aware of occurred within days of the Oak Ridge facility beginning operations in 1944. The activity quickly spread to the Hanford nuclear facility as its completion neared. Every aspect of nuclear weapons manufacture has included activity right down to the uranium mines. Although that history is not published yet the evidence exists and can be verified. There is no conspiracy here - just a history that Mr. Hastings has made a well researched and solidly backed contribution to. Articles like this only serve to obfuscate and delay that history from becoming known. Robert Duvall, NICAP - Nuclear Connection Project — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.47.12.132 (talk) 19:30, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Michig (talk) 06:56, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This organization has an extensive website, lists many notable persons as its contributors, but has itself not much coverage (which is required according to the notability guideline for organizations). For coverage older than 2 years old, see the previous nomination; it includes a blog from New York times, and other blogs, but no references in reliable sources. I wasn't able to find any improvement. L.tak (talk) 10:21, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Stop Draggin' My Heart Around. Merge is better than delete, just due to any potiental GFDL issues Courcelles 16:51, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable musical release. No evidence of full-length professional reviews, charting or awards. PROD removed by creator. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. LFaraone 22:14, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Bisley is not a firearm model, but the name for a grip variant, which is found in various other ruger models like the blackhawk and vaquero. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldenbirdman (talk • contribs) 00:56, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was procedural close. To propose a merge see Wikipedia:Merging. J04n(talk page) 10:35, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable enough on its own, merge to Opie and Anthony ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 16:51, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced article about a musical recording. No evidence of notability per WP:NALBUMS. - MrX 01:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. J04n(talk page) 19:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article has very little notoriety. Looking at the history, the subject himself was actively involved in the creation and maintenance of this page. Page is full of puffery, such as describing his playing in a bunch of non-notable bar bands as "seminal". He's a small town mayor who has had little exposure and the people who maintain the page are personally known and involved with the subject. Jamminjimmy (talk) 02:42, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. No valid arguments for deletion have been made, but a ton for cleanup Courcelles 16:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Being a student of the school itself, I find it a terrible mess this article is. It is full of errors that can only be fixed be WP:ATD-I or WP:TNT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apple46 (talk • contribs) 02:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn (pure housekeeping) (non-admin closure) czar · · 06:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The film has been delayed indefinitely. So i think this article should be merged back to where ever it came from since the film never entered production. Koala15 (talk) 00:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Pearson Language Tests. Courcelles 16:56, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Pearson Language Tests; probably does not meet notability on its own. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:39, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. A good discussion was had here about the quality of the newspaper sources provided. The sources we are citing say things like "Microsoft is soon expected to publish the English version of his biography, apart from filming a documentary on his life." Common sense says that we should not repeat these claims, and therefore the reliability of any of the statements in sources is doubtful. Shii (tock) 14:45, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
this article seems to be a recreation of a deleted page Palam Kalyanasundaram and has been declined at AFC due to verifiability issues Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/'Palam'_Kalyanasundaram. There are a number of claims made in respected of the subject of the article which are repeated in the news stories without any evidence of fact checking.
:*And perhaps the canvassing is working! Even though the nominator was of the opinion that people seeing the report at BLPN would not !vote here. Oh, well. - Sitush (talk) 19:27, 10 May 2013 (UTC) Strike because my logic is screwed: could have come here first and then gone to BLPN. We'll never know, will we? - Sitush (talk) 19:30, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]