![]() |
The result was keep. LFaraone 00:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Idiom dictionary" is a redundant concept and needs no explanation. While Cambridge for instance publishes a dictionary of idioms, there is little reason to devote an article to stating that an idiom dictionary is a dictionary containing idioms. Note that most of the article concerns itself with explaining what idiom is. Actually, note that most of the article consists of 'See also' links. Drmies (talk) 23:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:02, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DePRODed to bring here. This came up at ANI after a CSD was rejected, but there seems to be some dispute over whether it is actually a dialect, thus notable enough for an inclusion. Much of the content is dubious, according to those much smarter than I am, but I feel that taking a week to discuss and review is best, and if the topic is not notable as I suspect, then deletion would be the right course of action. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 23:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
t there seems to be some dispute over whether it is actually a dialectReally? Where is this dispute? Me, Taivo and FutPerf have all said it's not noteworthy. Nobody else expressed an opinion. — Lfdder (talk) 01:15, 16 Ma 2013 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. AfD withdrawn by nominator; only delete !vote came from a sockpuppet account that has been blocked. The Bushranger One ping only 17:24, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:MOVIE. I cannot find any sources on this movie. If anyone can find some good sources, I'll gladly withdraw the nomination. Transcendence (talk) 23:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by nominator since notability has been established per below. I would close this, but there has been a delete vote. Transcendence (talk) 08:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. LFaraone 00:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A group that has apparently not gotten their first CD released yet. No references. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. LFaraone 00:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not only can't I find any third-party sources to confirm notability, but even IMDb isn't showing anything for him. Wizardman 22:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. LFaraone 00:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some context has been added since CSD nomination, and that was declined, but no notability is asserted nor verified. Nor is the sport clear. Fiddle Faddle 21:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. LFaraone 00:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently not notable. I have been unable to find any reliable sources for this notability outside of the one (gossip-ish) Daily Mail article. Author is otherwise unpublished (possibly a pseudonym). Publisher is the non-notable "CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform" (apparently vanity press). SummerPhD (talk) 21:22, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. LFaraone 00:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable business, only reference is in a non WP:RS blog. Wikipedia is not a place to make a reputation it is a place that records reputations already made. Notability is not inherited from a list of artists. CSD was declined, hence AfD now. Fiddle Faddle 21:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. LFaraone 00:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. LFaraone 02:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:N and NOTNEWS. News event without enduring coverage. MASEM (t) 20:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. LFaraone 00:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fails NOTNEWS and WP:N. News event without enduring coverage. MASEM (t) 20:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Numerically speaking this discussion is about as even as possible but the keep arguments based on the sources provided in this discussion are convincing that this subject is more than standard news coverage. J04n(talk page) 14:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
News event with no enduring coverage, failing WP:N and NOTNEWS MASEM (t) 19:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I hate to sound like an asshole, but I really don't get how this is notable. Some guy went into an IHOP, shot some people, shot himself, they all died, the end. So what? What makes that so special in comparison to the hundreds of shootings that happen every day? --69.84.112.132 (talk) 22:08, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. LFaraone 00:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Won't allow me to move the article to Lauren Alaina so delete per WP:NSONG as unlikely ever to grow beyond stub and should be merged to articles about an artist or album. Mo ainm~Talk 19:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Consensus here is to delete but as noted there is some verifiable notable information on the page. Sean.hoyland's suggestion to move to a new title and merge with other pages to form a more complete and neutral article could be a solution. If someone wants to begin such a neutral page I would userfy this page to them. J04n(talk page) 11:16, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The essence of the article is to promote the claim that certain actions violated a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas. This claim is usually not made even in the dubious sources cited. Thus the article is a classic violation of WP:NOT#OR and WP:NOTSOAPBOX. One also finds additional serious problems of the kind that would be expected in an article such as this: bad sourcing (consisting almost entirely of newspaper articles from dictatorial countries lacking freedom of the press), POV-ish selection of information and wording, and a very low quality of writing (e.g., what ceasefire in which part of the world does the title refer to?) Jalapenos do exist (talk) 19:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My views are the same as for Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Israeli_Violations_of_the_Ceasefire_of_21_November,_2013. If people want to properly document actions carried out by either belligerent in the same article so that Wikipedia content is balanced and complies with all policies, they can. If they only want to document actions carried out by one of the belligerents, they clearly don't belong here. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I concur with the above editors. There is a consistent failure by editors to observe WP:NPOV. Active in writing about Palestinian violence, they scour the pages to eliminate any similar pages documenting Israeli violence. That this comes so quickly after the failure to cancel the other page looks distinctly odd. Never give up? Keep pushing? Never take note of the problem? Hand-the-delete-baton-to-the-next-guy if the first fumbles?Nishidani (talk) 20:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Response: Obviously, violent actions both against Israel and by Israel (and any other country) should be catalogued on Wikipedia, but this should be done in accordance with Wikipedia policies and common sense. An example of a good article cataloguing violent actions by Israel is Israeli targeted killings. An example of a good article cataloguing violent actions against Israel is List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2012. The article we are now discussing happens to be extremely bad, and the previous comments are all parade examples of WP:OTHERSTUFF, appeal to motive, and projection. Pretty depressing. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 20:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Nestlé Waters. (non-admin closure) TBrandley (T • C • B) 00:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:GNG Darkness Shines (talk) 19:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. LFaraone 00:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Properly completing malformed nomination; rationale is as follows:
For my part I am neutral. —KuyaBriBriTalk 19:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing the article, I thought it was their second nomination and not the third.Bluidsports (talk) 19:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. LFaraone 00:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fringe theory / original research. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
+to RHaworth: "Fringe theory" - 1. but so far nobody has offered the best, although the phenomenon is obvious even to a child : ) 2. like all the theories it has to be examine, so, an expedition doing it, among others
+ to Bazonka:
let's count together:
It's not enough?! It's nearly all the main aquatoriums! and ("what a coincedence") - and all these places are swarm with dolphins (and, sometimes, - whales) Sorry, I didn't find dolphins in China or Jordan, but it's impossible, as you perfectly understand.
--Soderjanie Pustoti (talk) 20:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Soderjanie Pustoti (talk) 21:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Soderjanie Pustoti (talk) 22:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Soderjanie Pustoti (talk) 23:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Soderjanie Pustoti (talk) 00:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Soderjanie Pustoti (talk) 08:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Soderjanie Pustoti (talk) 14:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
to Bazonka
Soderjanie Pustoti (talk) 22:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems, that only I see this belt on the world map. So, finally, anyone, Delete this long-suffering page, please. Soderjanie Pustoti (talk) 17:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
to History2007 (talk)
Soderjanie Pustoti (talk) 22:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Soderjanie Pustoti (talk) 09:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. LFaraone 00:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
After removing the overwhelmingly primary-source (including publications by associates) and self-publication laden portions of this BLP, I've concluded the subject is not the actual subject of substantial coverage by unrelated reliable sources. Note, she's a HuffPo blogger, so HuffPo pieces about this living person should be considered associated and/or primary. She does get mention, but it's mostly her acting as a spokesperson within coverage of her group, coverage of a WP:1E (cf. WP:BLP1E), or coverage of sexual harassment and assaults on school campuses. She's in coverage, but it's just not coverage of Annie. JFHJr (㊟) 18:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't ever tell if you are a woman-hater or not. Of course this woman is covered mostly in relation to the other people she is involved with -- she's a joint filer of a precedent-setting civil rights complaint. That doesn't mean she's an less notable than individuals who were, for example, involved in joint efforts to coordinate the Freedom Rides. And just because she was eventually hired by the Huffington Post as a blogger (because she is a talented writer) doesn't mean coverage prior to her hiring, penned by one of the news agency's editors, is dismissible. I don't think Wikipedia expected it would end up being censored into uselessness by people who follow guidelines as strictly as you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MissTempeste (talk • contribs) 20:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. LFaraone 00:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:GNG Darkness Shines (talk) 18:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. LFaraone 00:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable young player, fails WP:GNG (no significant coverage) and WP:NFOOTBALL (no appearances in a fully-professional league. GiantSnowman 18:50, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. LFaraone 00:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Poor english, unconstructive and short. Fails WP:GNG as well.Knight of Gloucestershire (talk) 18:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just some Internet drama regarding an unnotable individual. Niemti (talk) 18:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Btw (citing this article, and Sagal's claims): "Some years later, she showed signs of metal poisoning from shrapnel which had been left in her body after surgery, and she was informed that if left untreated it could become fatal within months." Metal poisoning ("from shrapnel" or not) has no Wikipedia article, because such medical condition doesn't exist (and obviously one can't "show signs" of it too). And yes, it was scam (which is why it was pulled down by Indiegogo and all money returned). --Niemti (talk) 18:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also note I posted a lot of tags and indicated how most of everything there is Sagal's own claims. --Niemti (talk) 19:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to List of Nestlé brands. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Waste of space basically. Fails WP:GNG as well. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. LFaraone 00:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do Wikipedia editors think that a particular season played by the youth team of a 4th tier side, is encyclopedic, or not? WP:SALT. Please. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC) Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The team your on about is Wycombe Wanderers F.C are playing in League Two were as Wycombe Boys AFC play in the youth premier league and have down since the 2007-8 after winning at Wemberly against Bristol City Girls in the play-offs.Weareunited878 (talk) 18:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(talk) 18:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can I make a very good point that the football pyramid expands where beyond the semi-Pro leagues and the youth premier league/division is the top league in the league I play in... I know Wycombe Boys arent as big as Manchester United or Chelsea but considing Nigel has kept them in the league since the 2007/08 season and got them into europe the following season.Weareunited878 (talk) 21:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wycombe Boys AFC arent just any team since the calapse of Wycombe Town in 2001 and formation of the wycombe boys they have climbed up the league before gaining promotion the 2006/07 seasonWeareunited878 (talk) 10:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Save - The youth premier league isn't covered by any newspaper or sports channels like skysports or santanna sports but it is an offical league that has been running since 1800 In regards to the sockpuppet I AM NOT A FREAKIN SockpuppetWeareunited878 (talk) 19:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
'Valid Point- True note all football leagues are notable but remember not all leagues are telvised.... non-league and lower aren't and that includes local leagues including the youth/Athletic leagues I play in and we some do get mentions in local newspapers.Weareunited878 (talk) 23:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why should this be deleted and forgotten about....as for the match against United it wasnt against the champions it was against their youth team that allows players from 15 upto 28Weareunited878 (talk) 12:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fine bleedy delete it...... I will just recreate in more better23:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
The result was delete. LFaraone 00:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Found zilch on the internet for this article, most definitely fails WP:MUS. It seems likely that the man himself created the article back in 2006. No one has made any significant edits hitherto. There is only one citation which is an unreliable band website. Bluidsports (talk) 17:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WP:HOAX, WP:SNOW. The Bushranger One ping only 17:49, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While not a blatant hoax, not a single fact in this article can be verified by any search I have been able to perform. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep; nomination has been withdrawn and there are no outstanding delete !votes. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk 19:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation page with only red links a red link; isn't that against policy? QVVERTYVS (hm?) 17:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete g3, blatant hoax. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced; may be a hoax, certainly lacks WP:N for a full article QVVERTYVS (hm?) 17:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Don McBrearty. LFaraone 00:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article should be deleted because it reads like a movie theatre poster and fails to meet WP:MOVIE. I nominated it for CSD, that was contested and the tag removed. I nominated it for PROD with "Reads like a movie theatre poster and fails to meet WP:MOVIE." as the rationale and the person that removed the CSD tag added ((Prod2)). The article creator then removed the PROD and PROD2 tags. That is the history, the article is still exactly the same as when I marked it for CSD, it still reads as a theatre poster advertisement and it still does not pass notability requirements. Technical 13 (talk) 16:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. LFaraone 00:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article about a band fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for music (WP:MUSIC) as well as general notability guidelines (WP:N) due to a lack of sources. dissolvetalk 16:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. LFaraone 00:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet WP:EVENT; specifically WP:LASTING, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:INDEPTH. Mkdwtalk 16:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Soft delete. LFaraone 00:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No indication of notability per WP:PRODUCT or WP:GNG. Two references are from local newspapers (one of which is a freesheet), third ref is a one-line mention on a long list from a government education department, with the disclaimer "The inclusion of a link does not mean that Ofsted is endorsing a particular resource or product or even confirming that a resource will work; some have been included on the recommendation of users visited, some by simple web research – use at your own risk." No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Proposed deletion contested by anonymous editor. Captain Conundrum (talk) 15:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to BlackBerry OS. LFaraone 00:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Violation of WP:NOTCHANGELOG. Plus, there is not enough of a version history here to even justify its own page. ViperSnake151 Talk 14:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, it would do better to be merged with BlackBerry OS MThinkCpp (talk) 17:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. LFaraone 00:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As of date of nom, there are 9 references. Two are YouTubes. One is a self-published source--her own website. One is the CBS website, promoting its own show. One is an interview in a newspaper (Sun-Sentinel) about her fitness routine. One is an interview in TV Guide. Two are interviews in an online blog, zap2it. The ninth is an article in Entertainment Weekly, where she is mentioned only briefly. I don't think any of these establish notability as in-depth independent reliable sources per WP:BASIC. There is also a claim that she won a beauty pageant--what pageant? Did that receive any media coverage? There is also a claim that she was a cheerleader--did her performance as a cheerleader receive any media coverage? This is a clear fail of WP:BASIC and it also fails WP:ENTERTAINER. With that said, maybe someone can find better sources—I looked and could not. Logical Cowboy (talk) 14:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Soft delete. LFaraone 00:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable The organization appears to be commercial, rather than the international association it purports to be. There are no citations provided to anything outside of the company website. A Google scholar search of the name yields a single minor reference in a book chapter. hgilbert (talk) 14:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. LFaraone 00:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see anything in this article that makes him notable. I can't find enough achievements to meet WP:ENTERTAINER Gbawden (talk) 12:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No assertion of notability. — Richard BB 07:40, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. LFaraone 00:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:AUTHOR. According to the source provided in the article, he was nominated for a prize called "Book of the Season" which is a non-notable award. After a search in Persian, I couldn't find RS to establish notability. Farhikht (talk) 12:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. LFaraone 00:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No indication of how this meets notability guidelines, relies entirely on primary sources - unable to find sufficient secondary coverage Freikorp (talk) 12:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Soft delete. LFaraone 00:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF. A mere 4 gnews hits which includes brazilian coverage. No article in Portuguese LibStar (talk) 09:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Extensive unsourced list of largely non-notable publications. Whilst I have no objection to including a list of Prof. Zairi's notable works in the article on him, this stand-alone list is unsuitable per WP:Source list. Yunshui 雲水 09:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Userfy. Sent to User:Nudero66/Amour V (2012 short film) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unremarkable film. Does not meet notability guidelines and fails WP:GNG. No assertion of notability, no third-party citations. Appears to merely be a student's college project. — Richard BB 07:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Obverse_Books#Faction_Paradox. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability is not apparent. Does not appear to have won awards, or received significant coverage in Reliable Sources. There are a few discussions right now over Obverse books. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. I don't think there's any consensus to delete anything here, if the articles are to be merged or redirected as per to of the comments then that is an editorial decision. Black Kite (talk) 00:14, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. embassies are not inherently notable as shown in recent AfDs. those wanting to keep must show evidence of coverage. these are merely directory listings. also nominating:
LibStar (talk) 06:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. LFaraone 00:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a WP:Advert. FusionLord (talk) 07:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted by Keegan under WP:CSD#A7. (Non-admin closure) BryanG (talk) 04:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
12 year old rugby player. No indication of notability, no references. Egghead06 (talk) 03:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Soft delete. LFaraone 00:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable music synthesizer; Virtually no reliable sources available. Ctempire (talk) 03:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deletion under CSD G3, A1 - Vianello (Talk) 14:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP: GNG. No hits on Google. Possible hoax article. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 03:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. LFaraone 00:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The bottom line is that we have little to no trustworthy information about this character. We only have information about what he "claims" to have done prior to his "born again" phase, and as with Alberto Rivera, Mike Warnke, and John Todd his life story is almost certainly a forgery. Pure speculation and unverifiable autobiographical claims like these are an awfully thin reed upon which to hang any article, especially a BLP. He may be "popular" among certain fundamentalist circles, but that doesn't equal notability, especially because mainstream (i. e., non-fundy) media haven't written much about him from an objective standpoint. So, I say delete. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 16:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. LFaraone 00:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could possibly fail WP:NOTABILITY Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 09:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Soft delete. LFaraone 00:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:BIO and WP:DIPLOMAT. a long time unreferenced stub. LibStar (talk) 03:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ZwTerminateProcess and other nominations in this series: lack of individual notability. Also per what Wikipedia is not: specifically, it is not a Windows API manual nor a comprehensive list of system calls. Keφr 13:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also nominating (for the same reasons):
Before anyone has voiced their opinion, I will also add:
Keφr 17:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We already have an article Luxo that mentions the notability of the Luxo lamp in Luxo Jr.. I am One of Many (talk) 02:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Note the nominator's withdrawal. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At first glance this article appears to be well written and seems legit, however a Google search of this band does not find many results, mainly Myspace, Facebook, Twitter etc. There is not much media coverage of this band, not even a section at Allmusic.com. The editors of the article have not made much attempt to cite information. There is merely one citation which is from independent Edinburgh magazine The List. The band have been together since 2000 yet have very little discography to their name, certainly nothing that has charted anyway. I have therefore nominated it for deletion. It is best to get opinions from other users just to be safe. Maybe I've missed something.Bluidsports (talk) 02:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When I say media coverage, I am generally referring to mainstream exposure of the band. Which is why I pointed out the absence of an entry at Allmusic.com. Of course there are articles on smaller media organisations i.e The Skinny, The List and The Scotsman's sister blog site Radar; there is nothing to be found in 'first order' media, The Guardian, The Times, NME etc. Although one can forgive them in today's music industry for not having any charted songs, they have also strikingly never had an album chart anywhere. Ironically, the editors of the article have unwittingly shot themselves in the foot for including a discography table with vacant and likely non-existent chart stats; just n/a across the board.Bluidsports (talk) 15:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. LFaraone 00:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't sure at first if this article was a hoax. At any rate, it seems that substantial coverage of this individual is absent. JFHJr (㊟) 02:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete under the A9 criteria. Michael Greiner 05:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is an album by a non-notable band, Pythia. It does not have significant coverage by any reliable source. It also fails WP:NALBUM. JFHJr (㊟) 01:59, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. LFaraone 00:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fails notability criteria for WP:CREATIVE, WP:BIO and WP:GNG. 2 movies roles as an extra and then work as a make-up artist. A search found no mentions in any independent reliable sources, let alone any significant coverage. — CactusWriter (talk) 01:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. LFaraone 00:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This subject fails WP:GNG/WP:BASIC and lacks citations, achievements, or positions that would indicate notability as a WP:PROFESSOR. JFHJr (㊟) 01:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Soft delete. LFaraone 00:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not sufficiently assert the notability of the subject. Most of the sources provided are either dead links, only mention Funk in passing and therefore do not qualify as significant coverage, or are affiliated with the subject and not independent, so it appears that this person fails WP:GNG. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 19:36, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. Pretty clear consensus to delete, but I agree with Whpq that this might be a notable subject and am willing to userfy it. There is also the matter of the AfC article raised by Kelapstick. The AfC article is significantly better sourced but could get declined since the prior existence of an article in mainspace is reason for speedy decline at AfC. On the other hand, this article has no referencing at all so it would be better to delete this article and leave the matter for AfC to deal with. SpinningSpark 16:07, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 22:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was KEEP (non-admin closure). Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 13:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NOTE FlatOut 13:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by nominator - I accept the argument by Cullen328 that the most notorious are notable. FlatOut 03:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Salisbury, Maryland#Mayors_of_Salisbury. There's not a huge amount of consensus here, but given that the amount of coverage may result in the name being searched, a redirect to the city is unexceptional. Black Kite (talk) 00:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Doesn't really meet notability standards. He is a local politician. Citations are nearly all local. City is small. It should keep us busy if we are going to allow bios on every mayor that ever has been elected, anywhere in the world. The situation will be worse than with athletes or musicians. Student7 (talk) 14:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
However, there is WP:POLOUTCOMES which states:Municipal politicians are not inherently notable just for being in politics, but neither are they inherently non-notable just because they are in local politics. Each case is evaluated on its own individual merits. Mayors of cities of at least regional prominence have usually survived AFD, although the article should say more than just "Jane Doe is the mayor of Cityville". Mayors of smaller towns, however, are generally deemed not notable just for being mayors, although they may be notable for other reasons in addition to their mayoralty (e.g. having previously held a more notable office).
Therefore, per POLOUTCOMES I cannot support deletion due to the historic first. That being said the subject may only be locally notable, and thus WP:LOCAL should be considered, and as such an alternative to having a standalone article, as the first quote of POLOUTCOMES advises against, which is contradicted by the second quote, is to redirect the the article to Salisbury, Maryland#Government. The verified information of the locally notable first can be added to this section, and if the subject received in-depth coverage the article can be recreated.Politicians who (a) represent a historic first, such as the first woman, first person of colour or first LGBT person elected to a municipal government, ...
The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 21:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable musician. Koala15 (talk) 14:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.—Kww(talk) 02:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No references and or citations Ghorpaapi (talk) 15:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not delete this account as this is an account of very famous Indian Classical vocalist of Dilli Gharana, India. for reference check his website www.dilligharana.com— Preceding unsigned comment added by Imran4lov (talk • contribs) 7 May 2013
The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No supportable evidence of notability. Searches only return pages created by her husband (Charles Alexander). Searches for her TV ministry also return only primary sources. | Uncle Milty | talk | 19:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Incubate. . As stated, it is difficult to determine notability from online sources. It may be better, therefore, to take the article out of articlespace for a while for offline sources to be uncovered. Black Kite (talk) 00:30, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article lacks independent sources and my search didn't find any significant independent coverage. After several weeks at WT:WPMA no one has posted any support for the article so I thought I'd bring it to AfD. I have no knowledge of either this book or Japanese, so I'm hoping someone can show why this book is notable. Mdtemp (talk) 20:58, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. consensus is clear after the relisting DGG ( talk ) 06:25, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A small and newly founded consultancy with sub-2 million euros in revenue seems unlikely to be notable. There do not seem to be strong secondary sources available. TheGrappler (talk) 22:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware that there was a financial criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. There are many many other examples of entries which appear to meet the requirements but which are also fairly new micro-businesses. Please ensure that, if there is in fact a financial criteria element, that this is made more clear in the guidance. The secondary sources include mainstream media as well as matters of note relating to the cutting edge nature of the firm. I was not aware that mainstream media was not a sufficient secondary source. There are many many examples of entries which have fewer, less mainstream sources for entries. Please ensure that, if there is in fact a requirement for a specific number of sources and that those sources have to contain a specific density of graded media, that this is made more clear in the guidance. I don't personally see this as being an issue. The entry meets the guidance criteria for objectivity, the entry relates to a business which has achieved notoriety in the UK as referenced, so it seems to me that the issue is less of guidance and more of subjective interpretation and taste. I was under the impression Wikipedia was open to everyone, not restricted to a specified class of pre-approved entries, as appears to be the logical conclusion given the reasons cited for deletion. Please ensure that, if there is in fact a pre-requisite discriminatory criteria element, that this is made more clear in the guidance. Alternatively, if adding additional sources would be welcomed, please confirm and I will do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martincallan (talk • contribs)
The result was delete. LFaraone 00:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted this by speedy G4, but the contributor urges me that there is more content than previously. I don't think there's nearly enough for notability, but since it is slightly better referenced, l'm sending it for another community decision. For the discussion, see their talk p. here, and the request they made on my talk p. DGG ( talk ) 00:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC) � DGG ( talk ) 00:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Paul Magrs. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 10:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this article should be deleted, or at the very most merged with the parents article. The only source that is provided is one that says it will make a great Christmas gift. No awards have been won and does not appear to have significant coverage in secondary sources. Shortly after I became involved an Anon Ip came in which has only been involved in this series or one book publisher [[22]]. I strongly suspect sockpuppetry at worst or meat puppetry at best. I do not think that the encyclopedia losses anything with deletion in this case, however I know merge has been presented as an option previously by TrPoD, but they disagree. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For the avoidance of doubt, I fully understand your issue with the book and always have (hence the fact I have not continued to revert or edit any of Obverse others books, once it became clear that the consensus - rather than one destructive editor - was that they were definitely not notable enough)- I simply disagree with you in this case (for instance, if the British Fantasy Society and their publications are not RS then I don't know what is), which for some reason you find very difficult to accept. In passing, I also disagree with you that 'that [canvassing, unfair accusations of sock-puppetery etc are] not important at this point' - the fate of this book on Wikipedia is actually of less general importance than highlighting the way in which some editors throw their weight about from behind their keyboards and discourage people from contributing at all. There are several editors on this very page who would serve as an excellent example of how to conduct yourself on this site, imo. In any case, there's no further gain to be made by either of us in discussing this topic, so I'll leave it, with thanks to Rankersbo,Bondegezou and Bonkers The Clown for their courtesy and advice. StuartDouglas (talk) 15:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. LFaraone 00:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:CRYSTAL, 2013-14 season hasn't even been started Revolution1221 (talk · email · contributions) 00:00, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]