![]() |
The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 01:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is an honorary consul a notable position; is there really much else to claim notability here? I think he fails GNG. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 01:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Request by article subject. VRTS ticket # 2013051210004547. LFaraone 23:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 01:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Player has only played for youth teams so far. He lacks notability. Jaellee (talk) 22:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are over 483.000 results when you google Vada's name and you carry on asserting he hasn't received "significant coverage". So I am asking, what does "significant coverage" means exactly? To what extend "significant coverage" would reach an acceptable level in your opinion? Let's take another example. Nicolas Maurice-Belay, a player from Bordeaux has half the google results (287.000) as Valentin Vada. But he plays on a professional level in the first team, and has received less media coverage than Vada. And Nicolas M-Belay gets an english Wikipedia page.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedropunky (talk • contribs) 08:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pedropunky Pedropunky (talk) 10:04, 18 May 2013 (UTC)He might not be listed on the Girondins de Bordeaux Wikipedia page, but he sure is listed on their official website... There also has been a large coverage in the french medias on the player (google.fr), due to the administrative case between the player and the FIFA, who considered the player too young (under 18) to play in Europe, despite him holding an Italian passport. THe matter has been resolved, but before his signature, the likes of Real Madrid and Barcelona or Man Utd claimed through agents to be able to sign the player in 2 days. See http://keirradnedge.com/2011/10/29/bordeaux-take-on-fifa-at-cas-over-starlet-vada/ Plus there is a huge difference between the french media coverage on this issue and the english speaking media coverage.. No wonder you want to delete this page... I am gonna make a french wikipedia page instead which will surely get me less problems.Pedropunky (talk) 10:04, 18 May 2013 (UTC) Pedropunky[reply]
The result was delete. LFaraone 23:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Was PROD but contributor removed the tag, API calls are not of themselves notable, and the article does not provide any indication this call is exceptional. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:58, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Soft delete. LFaraone 23:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable school club/group. Completely bereft of third party reliable sources, so it fails WP:GNG standard of notability GrapedApe (talk) 22:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Soft delete. LFaraone 23:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable school club/group. Completely bereft of third party sources, so it fails WP:GNG standard of notability. GrapedApe (talk) 22:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. LFaraone 23:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since we cannot even find secondary sources to establish whether it is a private or public lake, I think it is just difficult to maintain an article where we cannot verify information about it. CorporateM (Talk) 19:43, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. LFaraone 23:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article doesn't make a clear assertion of notability ("currently mostly used as a demo or in small scale projects"); no secondary sources in the article; no obvious secondary sources when I searched for them. On the other hand this is not a topic that I know much about; does the fact that it is an open source search engine written in Java and can perform both vector and Boolean search render it notable? This does not seem likely to me. TheGrappler (talk) 21:26, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. LFaraone 23:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unremarkable cancelled game. Nothing establishing why this game's short-lived production was in any way notable, or why it being cancelled was in any way notable. All that we have for this game is a logo and a vague description of how the characters would look. — Richard BB 22:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. This decision does not mean that a merge discussion can not be continued. J04n(talk page) 01:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable, over-detailed, unsourced, puffery. Redirect declined for no reason. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:02, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From: Leonard Schakel Date: Sun, May 5, 2013 at 10:06 AM Subject: Re: Article about ICCF US To: Yoav Dothan
Hi Yoav, I could update it, or have someone do that, if deletion is being considered because it is not current. I would appreciate your opinion and suggestions. The only source that could easily be provided is iccfus.com. The criticism that it sounds like an editorial/opinion does not sound right. It’s just history and facts, correct as of 2007. I’d be glad to update it, but would not want to put in the effort if it will be deleted anyway. Best wishse! Cork
HE added:
Hi Yoav, OK. I have not figured out how to add comments, but will go after it today. It sounds like an account is needed to edit, and will target to get it done in the next week. Cork
--Yoavd (talk) 09:37, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. LFaraone 23:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
((Please delete this article. I m not the subject. I worked with Victor Darley-Usmar and I created the article. Dr. Darley-Usmar recently contacted me and asked that the article about him be deleted. Please comply with this request and delete the article. Thanks.))
The subject of this article, Victor Darley-Usmar, requested that the article about him be deleted. Can you please remove the article from Wikipedia? Thanks.
I personally find WP:PROF to be a very silly, but mostly harmless, policy. All that is needed is WP:N in my view: a subject can be the focus of a neutral article on Wikipedia if and only if it or he has so been elsewhere. When WP:PROF is wrongheadedly taken to trump WP:N, CV-like disasters like this article are the results. Wrongheaded, but mostly harmless, I said. But when the subject himself requests deletion and he does not pass the gold standard of WP:N, the request should be honored. 2604:2000:FFC0:61:21FD:BEA1:28E:AE4C (talk) 18:45, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. LFaraone 23:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen a tremendous amount of coverage and this seems like a solid case of WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. Mkdwtalk 20:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. LFaraone 23:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another minor kickboxing organization with no claims of notability or significant independent coverage. It doesn't even have champions for the great majority of its divisions.Mdtemp (talk) 20:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. LFaraone 23:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kickboxing organization with no claims of notability and no significant independent coverage.Mdtemp (talk) 20:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Soft delete. LFaraone 23:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable sculpture. DoctorKubla (talk) 20:30, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This clearly fails WP:GNG. The artists do not have articles and if they are not notable, then their work most likely is not notable on its own. This is obviously a case of WP:TOOSOON. It looks like an interesting work of art but Wikipedia is not the place to establish notability. freshacconci talktalk 15:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. LFaraone 23:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no significant independent coverage of this organization and nothing to show notability. The article's only source is to a report on a fight that said that a WFCA title was on the line and that's just a passing mention.Mdtemp (talk) 20:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Sensation. LFaraone 23:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See page history Revolution1221 (talk · email · contributions) 20:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Sonauli, Bihar. J04n(talk page) 01:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be a fork of Sonauli, Bihar which in turn was split off due to naming conflict from Sonauli. I considered redirecting this article to Sonaului, Bihar but "Sonouli" does not appear to be a transliteration that is in use for this town so I am submitting for deletion instead. Whpq (talk) 20:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. LFaraone 23:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See WP talk:WikiProject Japan#Ryūkyū province and domain in which some argue that the article about the province should not exist. In other words, some argue in effect that Ryūkyū Province should not be in Template:Japan Old Province and Category:Provinces of Japan despite cited sources in the article here Maybe this venue can generate a wider discussion which leads to consensus? --Ansei (talk) 16:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In a conventional AfD discussion, it would not be off-topic to cite US Department of State. (1906). A digest of international law as embodied in diplomatic discussions, treaties and other international agreements (John Bassett Moore, ed.), Vol. 5, p. 759. --Ansei (talk) 16:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If I am mistaken in this, I hope this AfD thread will help me understand. Unless this AfD thread shows me how to reason through this problem differently, I can't know why or how this cite-based reasoning process is flawed. --Ansei (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is this not graphic and documentary support for the existence of an article about Ryūkyū-no kuni (琉球国) (Ryūkyū Province)? --Ansei (talk) 02:52, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, according to The Oxford Handbook of the History of International Law, "[t]he status of Ryukyu is ambiguous when looked at from the perspective of modern European international law, although there appears to have been no serious issues concerning the status of Ryukyu at that time." Please notice that the word "ambiguous" plus cite support has been added in the opening sentence here. Also please notice that the cited excerpt from Ernest Satow in the Geography section highlights the ambiguity by naming specific islands and also explaining that "[t]he ordinary maps of Japan do not include any of the islands south of Yaku no Shima".
Yes, because of its fuzzy logic, this subject and this article are difficult to parse using a pigeonholing process . --Ansei (talk) 14:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The understandable attention given to the term "de facto" is not wrong. This distracting word has been removed from the article here.
It is helpful to me that you continue to focus on what the cited sources support. It may be constructive to highlight the sentence which follows the excerpt you cite from the Oxford handbook above,
The intensity of preference expressed by some suggests that there is no real question of notability.
Taken together, verifiability and notability are good reasons for this article to exist. No one disputes that the content of the article may be edited in ways that reflect the opinions expressed by participants in this discussion; however, this AfD is only about whether our article about Ryūkyū Province will continue to exist, isn't it? --Ansei (talk) 14:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The kingdom's royal governmental structures remained intact, along with its royal lineage. The Ryukyus remained nominally independent, a "foreign country" (異国, ikoku)[1] to the Japanese, and efforts were made to obscure Satsuma's domination of Ryukyu from the Chinese Court, in order to ensure the continuation of trade and diplomacy, since China refused to conduct formal relations or trade with Japan at the time. However, though the king retained considerable powers, he was only permitted to operate within a framework of strict guidelines set down by Satsuma, and was required to pay considerable amounts in tribute to Satsuma on a regular basis.
If I am mistaken in this, I hope this AfD thread will help me understand. --Ansei (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
The result was KEEP per WP:SNOWBALL. The rationales for keep are resounding and spot-on per policy and guideline. The nominator's deletion rationale acts to ignore WP:NF and WP:SIGCOV. While appreciating his intentions, the nominator should understand that it is only when WP:NF and WP:GNG are failed that we then look to see if a film might meet still other inclusion criteria in their absence. The nominator is encouraged to discuss with project film, any inclusion criteria with which he may disagree. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kill List is low budget horror flick that fails to meet the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (films). most of the sources are reviews by websites. Kill List was not widely distributed and grossed less than 200k, is not historically notable, not preserved in the national archive, not taught in university classes, and is not a unique accomplishment in cinema. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. SpinningSpark 07:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Notability not established QVVERTYVS (hm?) 18:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - Reads like blatant advertising. For instance, "Its founder, Gui Schvartsman, is a guru of monetization and was able to make several million dollars out of these two games. " Powerpiper (talk) 20:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. LFaraone 23:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to take this into AfD, but article has already been prodded and declined. Clearly this is a real drink and can be found on a number of mixed drink sites. But no sign that it has notability apart from simply existing. The article itself consists of merely the recipe for the drink. I would lean to delete at the moment. Safiel (talk) 17:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because wikipedia is a place where you should be able to find info on anything including drinks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hammer87 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 00:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem to be a significant organization. Wikipedia isn't a dumping ground for every organization that has a small conference every couple of years or takes out an ad in a French paper. Article appears to be a permastub, and probably should be merged with another Esperanto article. A7 CSD was declined. pbp 16:30, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. LFaraone 23:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why does this article exist? Evidence why it shouldn't: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Iurie_Boreico http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Peter_Scholze http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Darij_Grinberg
The same arguments as in the discussions linked to above apply here. Even much more strongly here, since the subjects above are tremendously more notable in terms of their research output (in particular Peter Scholze) and have still been excluded. Brainiac1729 (talk) 14:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I call into question the subjects notability and the categorization as a mathematician. According to WP:ACAMEDIC winning high school competitions is not a valid criterion for notability. To the second point there is no evidence cited as to the contributions to mathematics of the subject and if they bear sufficient significance for inclusion in wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brainiac1729 (talk • contribs) 17 May 2013
The result was delete. LFaraone 23:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Has not played a fully-pro game yet, and junior caps are not enough for notability Postoronniy-13 (talk) 14:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. LFaraone 23:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced, single line stub that fails to credibly assert notability of the subject. Has been tagged as needing references for 3 years. Previously prodded the article but it was contested without making any attempt to demonstrate notability. AussieLegend (✉) 14:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted as WP:CSD#G4 and salted for 6 months. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very little information about pageant. MU 2013 is still ambiguous right now. Article is mostly composed of links with very little information. GrayFullbuster (talk) 13:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Author request, nomination was by the only other contributor. LFaraone 23:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable poetry club. They have announced their poetry contest on their twitter feed (https://twitter.com/RLPoetryIndia), but that's hardly a reliable source. The article author informs me that they intend to enlist Ranjit Hoskote and Arundhathi Subramaniam as jurists for their contest, which might make the organization notable, but only a) if they can pull it off; and b) any independent source takes notice. However, until then, I don't see this poetry club as meeting our criteria for inclusion. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
GO AHEAD DELETE IT ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuclear23 (talk • contribs) 11:33, 18 May 2013 (UTC) [reply]
The result was no consensus. There are strong arguments here that the page meets WP:GNG and should be kept but also is WP:NOTINHERITED, specifically that he has not done anything independantly of his father, and should be deleted. I think each argument was sufficiently well supported and am unable to say that one was stronger than the other. Ultimately, RightCowLeftCoast's suggestion may be the best compromise but it didn't receive sufficient support in this discussion. J04n(talk page) 12:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No hint of even an assertion of notability exists in the article; it almost begs for a CSD tag. He's the son of a famous politician; nothing more. Reasonably well written, well sourced, and...thoroughly non-notable by Wikipedia standards. Hasn't published anything, isn't well-known in any field, hasn't generated any controversy. Notability is not inherited. Frank | talk 12:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete as copyright violation, promotional content, repeated recreation of previously deleted content, use of Wikipedia as a web host etc etc etc. Nick (talk) 10:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the edit summary. I, a recent changes patroller, saw the article and this is what the Creator wrote 'I have Created this page for the purpose of College students use only, so if any thing is worng just Inform me.' I've imformed him and this seems to be an advertising thing.
Zince34' 09:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Point.4 of the Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Zince34' 09:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. LFaraone 23:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable local band. Fails WP:BAND on all counts. No references given in the article meet criterion 1, most are SPS. All external links are either SPS, dead, or non-notable. Google search yields no independent references in the first two pages, then two lone non-notable ones on the third page. Neither the band nor their recordings are reviewed on allmusic. Additionally, article was created and primarily edited by a lone anonymous IP account. Editorial: I hate to do this, since I had a monster crush on their (probably notable) founder Zach Bennett when I was 10 and he was on Avonlea, but his band just isn't encyclopedic. Drasil (talk) 08:34, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. LFaraone 23:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:GNG, et al. Can't quite G11 it, but close. Author removed PROD. Deadbeef 07:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 12:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Description is rubbish, no reliable sources, lacks in suitable links and references Md31sabbir (talk) 03:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. The validity of the sources provided and added to the page have not been refuted. J04n(talk page) 12:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The topic of this article does not appear to meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline and has been tagged as such since March 2012. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Family, being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person. Stephane34 (talk) 03:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This nominating user has suspicious behavior. This user has never contributed to a single article, and has nominated five different pages for AfD (all yoga teachers) Geeta Iyengar, Tim Miller (yoga teacher), Rod Stryker, and Norman Sjoman. It is possible this is a single purpose account, and the purpose is to delete articles in the Yoga industry. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:34, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete under G4 by User:Legoktm. (non-admin closure) Funny Pika! 11:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BIO. Entire article looks like advertising. Sources are all first person, personal site, linked in etc. Many sources listed don't even have the subjects name anywhere on the page. Suggested deletion. Article and creator have already had other items (for the same account) Speedy deleted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gabriele_Corno_(author)
The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 12:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Ángel Custodio Quintana. J04n(talk page) 12:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hopelessly promotional and borderline notable at best . Would need total rewriting & there isn't enough fundamentally there to be worth it. DGG ( talk ) 03:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. If someone wants to try and improve and work on meeting inclusion requirements for the page I would be happy to userfy it to them or send it to the incubator. J04n(talk page) 12:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
weak description, no reliable sources, links and references are not enough to be an encyclopedic article Md31sabbir (talk) 04:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. LFaraone 23:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable independent record label, very little third-party coverage -- BigPimpinBrah (talk) 22:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
* Comment Notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Record Labels of this discussion. J04n(talk page) 21:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A run-of-the-mill IT consultancy. Claims to fame include being fast-growing (if a small company grows rapidly to a not-so-small company, is that really noteworthy?), and having achieved Microsoft certifications (is there an IT company that hasn't achieved these certifications?). All citations are either company-published press releases or advertorials. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable psychometric test. Not reviewed or cited by any PubMed indexed source Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:52, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. LFaraone 23:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I earlier deleted an AfC of this as copyvio of his web site and promotional. This is less so, but I think the key question is whether the 2007 award is sufficient for notability DGG ( talk ) 23:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. LFaraone 23:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This looks unsalvageably promotional, as well as non-notable. I have cleaned it up to the best of my ability, but I still do not think it is notable, and there are still neutrality issues that can only be fixed by stubification. Tazerdadog (talk) 03:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was soft delete. J04n(talk page) 13:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article, about an actor from the Philippines, is sourced only to IMDb, and internet searches turn up very little in reliable sources. I moved this to AfD from proposed deletion because the article was previously prodded and deprodded back in 2006, and also because the long list of credits at IMDb, extending from 1951 to 1989, as well as the desire to reduce cultural bias, weigh in favor of giving this the more extensive attention of a formal AfD. Arxiloxos (talk) 01:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Soft delete. LFaraone 23:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unlikely search term, two different laws Revolution1221 (talk · email · contributions) 01:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Adding the sources found by Tucoxn to the external links section. J04n(talk page) 13:35, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article on an international NGO is very unorganized and has no references, I also persume that there is another article with the same name. PBASH607 (The One Day Apocalypse) (talk) 00:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)z[reply]
The result was delete. Technically, we have an unsourced BLP. The website indeed says he is a candidate, and Ohrid is indeed a cool place (not sure for three months though). Can only be recreated if reliable sources are found.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:POLITICIAN and probably WP:GNG. The only source is his own website, which, based on a machine translation, says he's a candidate for mayor, not even the mayor. I haven't done a search on coverage in reliable sources because I won't be able to evaluate the sources, assuming there are any, because of the local nature of the subject, my unfamiliarity with Macedonia (and sources), and my inability to read it. Bbb23 (talk) 00:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. LFaraone 00:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No indications that this single passes WP:NSONG and since an editor keeps reverting my redirect I'll being it up for discussion. Eeekster (talk) 03:49, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Jatt & Juliet#Sequel. J04n(talk page) 13:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PROD tag removed. Unreleased future film. Fails WP:CRYSTAL. Fails WP:MOVIE. Assertions like "all time blockbuster". Might be in the future. As yet unreleased per the article itself. Alexf(talk) 00:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. LFaraone 00:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
nonnotable category of games and not discussed in literature. WP:COATRACK for a misguided idea that resistance to alcohol intoxication is a factor of winning games, when it is a unrelated concept of physiology thus conflating unrelated concepts. Curb Chain (talk) 04:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was soft delete. J04n(talk page) 11:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Zero secondary sources, just a Yelp page that confirms its address in California. No source for the bold claim that Uinvest was the "first online company to become a crowd funding platform". McGeddon (talk) 08:49, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ten webcasts from Nov 11 - Nov 12; already covered in The Verge#On The Verge apart from the episode list; not notable enough per WP:GNG or WP:WEB for a separate article; created by WP:SPA that has only ever written about Vox Media; promotional tone; barely referenced by WP:Primary sources; no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Captain Conundrum (talk) 10:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. LFaraone 00:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lacks notability. Promotional piece sourced by a bunch of primary sources, blogs and passing mentions. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:27, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's a biography of a well-known extreme travel writer. I seem to be in a Catch-22 here. If I list all the things that make him notable, I'm accused of writing a promotional piece...if I don't include enough things, he's dismissed as not being notable. Do a search on Graham on the web and you find that he's been active and has a reputation for over ten years. Surely that is notable. The Librarian at Terminus (talk) 13:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Both Graham and his website were referenced in Yahoo Finance's recent article on 6 Cheap Places to Retire Abroad. Here's the link: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/6-cheap-places-to-retire-abroad-160709561.html The Librarian at Terminus (talk) 21:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. LFaraone 00:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Porly sourced BLP about a actor/musician that seems to lack notability. Has a lot of acting roles but maybe only one appears it might be substantial The Perfect Game, falling short of WP:NACTOR. The highpoint of his music career appears to be being a member of a redlinked band, falling short of WP:MUSIC. A search for sources found nothing satisfying WP:GNG. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. J04n(talk page) 13:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot see why a minor department of the government of diocese of Portugal is notable. I do not know Portugese, but most search results seem to be dictionary listings.
(This article was created by an editor who created and edited only one other article, that of the Department's head, a José António Falcão. I am uncertain about the latter's notability, though he may be notable as an academic.)
הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 23:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. LFaraone 00:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan/Historical people. A quick search of Google books shows no support. The stub article does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject. Ansei (talk) 17:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.—Kww(talk) 02:26, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
no assertion of notability - no indi 2ndary source fails WP:GNG and quick check didn't find any. SPAM / COI / SPA editor(s) Widefox; talk 13:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to add some further references and external links to illustrate the use of OVPsim away from OVP/Imperas contributors. Please provide feedback on further changes that should be made to allow this contribution to remain. Thanks Duncgrah (talk) 15:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 13:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see anything her that indicates notability for him as an individual DGG ( talk ) 19:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. LFaraone 00:03, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:((subst:spa|username)) ; suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)) ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)) . |
Non-notable fanfiction. Google search brings up lots of blogs and Deviant Art but no significant discussion in multiple reliable sources. Proposed deletion tag removed. ... discospinster talk 00:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
--Avenflight (talk) 14:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Vote canvassing
|
---|
|