![]() |
The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 04:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of this article appears to fail WP:BIO. The nearly blank IMDB page, a mention in a Forbes article, and a bit on Attack of the show seem to be the best sources available. In my opinion these do not meet the "significant coverage" portion of the guideline, and the remaining sources are not reliable and/or independent of the subject. I did not see anything better than what is already referenced in the article available online. VQuakr (talk) 04:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Cthulhu Mythos deities. There is a consensus that these don't belong in article space as stand-alone articles, but that doesn't mean they don't belong somewhere. For the time being I have closed this as merge to the article that links most to each article (I note that the two bibliographies only have 9 and 2 incoming article links, so that's not going to cause a problem). Whether, as DGG suggests, these should be in projectspace is an editorial decision. Black Kite (talk) 18:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
These aren't articles; instead, they are simply lists of references (mostly primary sources) linked to from a handful of articles of which all but one are 100% in-universe fancruft. There's no practical way to turn these into articles or otherwise make use of their contents, and it is unnecessary to hive off the few sources presented therein from the parent articles. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Warden (talk) 12:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 17:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
She appears to fail WP:PORNBIO as she was never nominated for an individual award. She fails WP:GNG with no reliable sourcing about her (in my searches, just a bunch of false positives). Deprodded with some improvements but, as far as I can see, still no sign of notability. Cavarrone (talk) 19:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 18:29, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sourced almost entirely to primary sources, self-published sources. No indication of substantial coverage independent of the subject, outside discussions on various forums and genealogy sites. LFaraone 22:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mkdwtalk 05:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article contains almost exclusively promotion and self-citation. Were I to trim the unacceptable elements, I would cut the entire article, which is what I suggest we do. CorporateM (Talk) 22:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mkdwtalk 05:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article contains very little in the way of well-sourced prose as required by WP:SPORTSEVENT. There appears to be little coverage of the event(s) outside of WP:ROUTINE fight announcements, results, and fight videos. TreyGeek (talk) 21:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:[reply]
The result was keep. LFaraone 01:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article strikes me as kind of a backward way of just having a category. This should be deleted and whatever notable people remain can be put into a category. UnrepentantTaco (talk) 21:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC) [Edit reverted as per WP:BE and [4]. Unscintillating (talk) 03:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC)][reply]
The result was delete. LFaraone 01:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of independent, third-party reliable sources establishing notability. Gamaliel (talk) 21:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 18:29, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not seeing notability here and I suspect the primary author of this page is the subject himself as user contributions only seem to be pages on subjects Dave Nalle is affiliated with. Nonetheless, he ran for office and lost once in 2002. Has a non-notable business and lots of odd pieces of information that do not add up to a sum total of notability. Looks more like a long-winded autobiography than an encyclopedic entry. UnrepentantTaco (talk) 21:00, 29 May 2013 (UTC) [Edit reverted as per WP:BE and [5]. Unscintillating (talk) 03:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)][reply]
The result was keep. Mkdwtalk 05:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article does not provide any sources, and I cannot find any sources that would provide more that a basic dictionary-like definition. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC) Fixing page creation and listing Dricherby (talk) 20:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn (non-admin closure) czar · · 22:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This device is already discussed in greater depth on both the bruxism article and the temporomandibular joint dysfunction article. Furthermore, this stub is referenced and inaccurate in its representation of both the risks and the evidence of this kind of treatment. I also had to remove a commercial external link to a page where the product could be purchased. Lesion (talk) 19:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Zad68
01:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]Zad68
00:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]The result was Delete, unsourced article without indications of notability as established in the discussion.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:57, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Basically a neologism naming a show put on by two entertainers. No indication this has become common parlance, or that the show itself is particularly notable. Fails WP:GNG. Michitaro (talk) 19:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) czar · · 22:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced article that looks more like an advertisement. Such a minor venue does not need such an excessive long list of bands. The Banner talk 19:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 18:37, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not comply with WP:BLP. No real coverage in media or Google. Notably, User:Highberry is Bob Andrews and the subject of this article so we are looking at an autobiography problem. Subject currently uses User:Bob Andrews UTOW and admitted that Highberry was his account in a sockpuppet investigation. Last AfD was closed procedurally with no votes except nominator and Bob Andrews voting on his own AfD. Relisting to build consensus. UnrepentantTaco (talk) 18:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC) [Edit reverted as per WP:BE and [6]. Unscintillating (talk) 05:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)][reply]
The result was procedural close, nominator does not actually want the article deleted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly Merge with Sachin Tendulkar Benedictdilton (talk) 18:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mkdwtalk 05:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Subject appears to fail WP:NHOCKEY. No NHL games. Just debuted in the AHL and 100 appearances are required to satisfy notability requirements in that league. Was taken 119th in the draft, obviously nowhere near the first round. Nothing from his amateur or junior career that indicates notability. PROD declined without explanation by article creator. Safiel (talk) 18:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 16:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Barely-sourced BLP with the only "source" relating to allegedly passing off someone else's music as his own on a Web site. A quick Google found no independent reliable sources that discussed this person in any significant context. Unencyclopedic. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. LFaraone 01:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Previously deleted at AFD but a subsequent G4 was challenged at DRV. The outcome was to list this for discussion at AFD. So here we are. As the DRV closer I have no opinion. Spartaz Humbug! 17:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When you take ALL of those things into account, it's very difficult to assert the subject is not notable. Is he the most notable person in the history of Wikipedia? No, of course not. But there is enough fan interest and media interest in him for it to make sense that Wikipedia would provide some information on him. When this discussion began, his page did not do a great job of providing information on him, but now the page does a good job of explaining who he is and what is notable about him. I think this process has improved the article immensely and notability, while not overwhelming, is definitely established.Larsonrick25 (talk) 01:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 23:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This stamp issue is not notable in itself. One of hundreds of special issues by the British Post Office. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. LFaraone 01:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This stamp issue is not notable in itself. One of hundreds of special issues by the British Post Office. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. LFaraone 01:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This stamp issue is not notable in itself. One of hundreds of special issues by the British Post Office. Article has not been expanded since creation. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Issue of lack of independent sourcing per Whpq has not been rebutted by the keep side. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:27, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A detailed, well referenced article, but unfortunately the postage stamps are simply not notable, even if the subject matter is. Some of the content could be moved to the articles dealing with the subject.Philafrenzy (talk) 16:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. LFaraone 01:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This would seem to fall under WP:CHARTS#Single-vendor/single-network charts, similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/YouTube Top 100. Nothing particularly significant about being number one on this chart that we need a list, maybe merge the intro into Spotify. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. LFaraone 01:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This postage stamp is not notable in itself, even if the subject matter is. Philafrenzy (talk) 16:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. LFaraone 01:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This postage stamp is not notable in itself, however, notable the subject matter is. Delete or incorporate into the article on the Acadian Deportation. Philafrenzy (talk) 16:50, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Deep_Impact_(spacecraft)#Media_coverage. Black Kite (talk) 18:37, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Does not pass WP:GNG, only briefly mentioned in the only reference. Ymblanter (talk) 16:40, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Nomination withdrawn. Thank you Mark viking, for providing first rate sources that establish notability beyond all doubt. What a pity that someone didn't do so in the two years when there was a tag asking for such sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no evidence of satisfying the notability guidelines. Virtually all of the references are to asterisk's own web site, wikis, blogs, or press releases. (Tagged for primary sources for almost two years.) A PROD was removed, with "this software is used widely" as the reason, but that does not relate to Wikipedia's notability criteria. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:43, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. LFaraone 01:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
no sources to prove content, author removed prod Karl 334 Talk--Contribs 15:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. LFaraone 01:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The plaza is a shopping mall that leases space to businesses which makes it a business itself. Treating it as such, it fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORG. There is also nothing to indicate it meets WP:GNG as the only source I found was this]. Nothing to establish notability and therefore needs deleted. FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 15:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Mkdwtalk 05:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
List of almost all non-notable schools with phone numbers. Fails WP:NOTDIR. No encyclopaedic value. Wholly unreferenced. No notability as a list or as individual entries Velella Velella Talk 13:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily deleted per A10: duplicate of Edward Wright (mathematician). Article now exists at el:Έντουαρντ Ράιτ. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk 17:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This page is in Greek, with the exception of the odd word and the sidebar Matty.007 (talk) 13:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. None of the two keep votes take into account that only the club website (primary and non-independent) has been used to source the material. Merging has been considered, but several paragraphs on the history of an element of the jersey design does seem to overburden that article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:23, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Following consensus in previous AFDs here and here, it has been determined that these kind of articles are not needed, any relevant content can be included in the parent article. GiantSnowman 13:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seemingly pointless list of redlinks. Appears to run contrary to WP:NOTDIR. Most of the entities listed on it are small, fairly innocuous municipal agencies with no real individual notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
non notable civil servant.no references Uncletomwood (talk) 10:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He does not exist. KzKrann (talk) 09:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 18:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could be merged with the Near East University Matty.007 (talk) 09:14, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. However I have userfied this to my own userspace - it's one of those articles that you think just has to be salveagable. Its at User:Black Kite/List of Renaissance men if anyone wants to edit it. Black Kite (talk) 18:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria for inclusion on this list according to a hidden comment is "people whose names are accompanied by a citation, from a source meeting Wikipedia's reliable source guidelines, which uses the word "polymath" to describe them." As has been amply discussed during the deletion debate for List of people who have been called a polymath, there are no reliable sources for subjective opinions as to whether someone is a polymath or not. This article is even less defendable than List of people who have been called a polymath as it does not require entries to be described as a "Renaissance men" (or "Renaissance women" -- there is a single female entry), but merely as the approximate synonym "polymath". BabelStone (talk) 08:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The entries in this list are far better documented than the matching entries in "Muslim doctors", so if this is to go, at least the Hakim, the Islamic physicians, should be merged with that list to improve it substantially; very likely other properly cited descriptions could be merged with other existing lists. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following was placed on the article's talk page by an IP editor, and is copied here:
The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 19:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. Actor lacking multiple significant roles in notable productions. Just lots of minor parts. Closest is a recurring role on Party of Five but that not that significant and is one role. Article puffs up his roles to make him look more notable, eg saying he starred in Never Been Kissed when he just appeared as Stoner #1. Todhunter lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Just a littble bit about how someone married him. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to List of Harry Potter cast members#Epilogue characters. The subject does not appear to meet notability criteria at this time per WP:TOOSOON. Because of the low participation in this discussion, I am closing without prejudice against recreation. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
15-year old actor who played Harry Potter's son Albus at the end of Deathly Hallows. He already has a very optimistic fansite, but besides a fairly in-depth article by the Oxford Mail, coverage of Bowen in the media amounts to little more than a few passing mentions. WP:TOOSOON, maybe? DoctorKubla (talk) 19:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 17:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Small article, station non existent any more, and shows no signs of getting better. Almost no references, or info, and no more can really be got because the station has ceased broadcasting. One Of Seven Billion (talk) 08:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
![]() | Welcome to the deletion discussion for the selected article. All input is welcome, though valid arguments citing relevant guidelines will be given more weight than unsupported statements; discussion guidelines are available. Be aware that using multiple accounts to reinforce a viewpoint is considered a serious breach of community trust, and that commenting on other users rather than the article is also considered disruptive. |
The result was delete. clear consensus for deletion after the relisting DGG ( talk ) 02:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Original research magnet for the encyclopedic topic advertising. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 02:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NMUSIC. Was signed to a major label but never released anything. Collaborations with others don't make you notable in your own right. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 04:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Obscure losing politician; fails WP:POLITICIAN. Orange Mike | Talk 06:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Freikörperkultur. (non-admin closure) czar · · 06:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Opposed prod however no citations or any references at all have been provided. Tim! (talk) 05:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) czar · · 05:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a promotion for the company and written as an "advertisement". It does not belong in Wikipedia. see: WP:NOTADVERTISING#ADVERTISING Tyros1972 Talk 05:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) czar · · 05:18, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This individual is not even notable as a pseudo scientist (gluing dead insets to a board for anti-gravity!). This article has been here since 2006 and no one has been able to expand it to notability, or even add one WP:RS, at least for this English wiki. Aldebaran66 (talk) 04:48, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. LFaraone 01:30, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Video platform with no clear evidence of notability. The original prod rationale also mentioned a lack of sources. Although some were added, all but one of them make no mention of this platform, and the one that does only makes a passing mention. - Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 23:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Karel van Wolferen. Black Kite (talk) 18:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a Dutch non-fiction book. There are problems with the article's notability and sources for years. The impact of the book is unclear. The only sources are an interview with one of the authors on the website of the Dutch Socialist Party, a political party (thus not neutral) and a page on another wiki-project. And finally, the last source is the back cover. It also suffers POV-problems, since there is only a "support"-section, although this last problem is no reason for deletion on itself.Jeff5102 (talk) 21:12, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 06:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Subject fails WP:GNG with minor coverage in one blog link and coverage in a now-defunct blog (still available in Internet Archive) which does not look like a WP:RS. Project now appears defunct as web site has been deleted, so is unlikely to get any more coverage. For background the subject is a lightly-customised version of Android (operating system). Dcxf (talk) 00:34, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mkdwtalk 05:06, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can't find any reliable sources to establish notability per WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Google just gives me Wikipedia mirrors and other clutter. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. clear consensus for keep after the relisting DGG ( talk ) 02:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Completing nomination for IP editor 174.118.142.187, whose rationale was posted at the article's talk page and is reproduced verbatim below. On the merits, I make no recommendation.... but, to be honest, it's hard to argue for keeping this article without sources, and I can find none in my admittedly brief search. YMMV. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously a self-promotion article this article contains no references, links to other articles or has non-notable significance. It should not exist. I doubt we are going to start listing every employee that works in a university. Even the article text is hyped from the reference material supplied. The person is an Assistant Prof. What's next, janitorial staff? Somebody please delete this article. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 10:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]