The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 03:02, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been needing a rewrite since 2007, and, in its current state, does not appear encyclopedic. Although there is inherent notability, the article would be better deleted and started anew than in its current state. Uberaccount (talk) 23:54, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Not seeing one side having a stronger argument than the other and I can't imagine relisting will change that. J04n(talk page) 23:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable event that failed prior AFD in 2005. Lots of Google hits (many of which are copies of this long-standing Wikipedia article), no sources cited in the article. May qualify for speedy deletion under ((db-event)) but due to the article's long history with many contributors since 2005, I thought it best to open discussion here. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:26, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The topic must have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject., and that can include images and video news, which convey information too.
The result was Redirect to List of residence halls at the University of Notre Dame. The article history is still available, so merge material from there as needed. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable. Other, similar, articles about halls at the University have recently been deleted and redirected to List of residence halls at the University of Notre Dame. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to The Ultimate Fighter: The Smashes. J04n(talk page) 00:30, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fails to pass WP:NMMA NodachiFury (talk) 21:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 10:45, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can find no significant reference in independent media Wkharrisjr (talk) 20:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. A good argument was made but without the sources to support it. J04n(talk page) 00:35, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't my usual field, so perhaps I do not understand, but it appears to me that the subject has not yet had a professional career, and the references do not appear to meet the gng as more than routine notices. It was accepted from AfC, perhaps unwisely. There are quite a number of other articles on people with similarly non-notable careers, also accepted from AfC. DGG ( talk ) 20:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. — CactusWriter (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't pass WP:MUSICBIO or GNG czar · · 15:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. The article has been userfied to User:Lesion/Dimethylsulfidemia for the purpose of merging any relevant content to the halitosis article as the author suggested below. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:49, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Contains OR. Rest of content would be better presented on the halitosis page Lesion (talk) 18:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 14:26, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was that the article failed WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. player doesnot play in fully professional league, see WP:FPL for list details. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 14:26, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was rename. Will move to Death of Betty Van Patter. J04n(talk page) 14:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unable to establish independent WP:N in WP:RS, including google, google news, and other google books. All references seem to lead back to Horowitz' allegation. Horowitz also is the publisher of FrontPage Mag. Kate Coleman's work on Salon has been the subject of multiple WP:RSN disputes, which all seem to suggest that her writings are non-RS.
If not deleted, this should be redirected to Horowitz' page, as the only notability of the subject that I can find is based on his unproven allegations. [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 16:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 14:32, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable politician. Running in a race, but not indications he won that race, or that he was ever mentioned except briefly in passing in connection to him running against someone more notable. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Snooker. (non-admin closure) czar · · 01:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Never-popular game variant. Negligible sources (one glossary entry, one newspaper snippet from 1959). Very little to document. LukeSurl t c 16:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 14:33, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable model, fails WP:GNG as the subject has not had significant coverage in reliable sources. Would be a WP:CSD candidate but for the addition of dubious claim to have been one of several UAE men deported from Saudi Arabia.
Previously deleted at Mohammed Al Maiman by AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Maiman Mohammed on 22 November 2012; by WP:CSD on 21 September 2010, 11 October 2010, 28 October 2010, 16 February 2011.
Deleted at Mohammed al Maiman under CSD on 1 October 2012.
Deleted at Mohammed al maiman under CSD on 17 October 2010, 28 October 2010, 16 February 2011, 26 March 2011, 23 November 2012. Hack (talk) 16:00, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 14:36, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced content fork of the three individual movies. The page makes zero statements about the series, only about individual films. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:44, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily deleted by User:RHaworth under criterion G3 (blatant hoax). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable musical release. No evidence of full-length professional-level reviews, charting or awards. No independent references. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. Now OK. Unfortunately, using IAR to bring articles here is sometimes the only effective way to force improvements in something that will be unacceptable unless improved. I'd be glad if anyone could suggest a practical alternative that wouldn't be even more trouble. (Redirecting to an absurdly over-general article on a broad related topic that doesn't mention the subject & couldn't reasonably do so rarely gets attention. , DGG ( talk ) 04:30, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This may be notable, but the article doesn't show it. I am reluctant to bring an article here that may only need expansion and updating, but after rewriting extensively a number of similarly weak article written or approved from AfC by this editor, I've lost patience. I'll withdraw the AfD if anyone is willing to work on it. DGG ( talk ) 00:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) czar · · 01:40, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article seems to be, for all intents and purposes, original research, and thus is contrary to Wikipedia policy. The sources cited do not support either (1) the article's assertion that "Christian colleges" is a defined category of educational institution or (2) the descriptions of the specific characteristics attributed to this type of institution. Please note that the problem with this article is not a lack of notability (I recognize the existence of "Christian colleges" and I think the topic of Christian approaches to higher education is notable), but rather that the article content does not appear to be based on previously published content -- it looks like unpublished analysis by the contributors. Orlady (talk) 05:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 03:01, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's an advertisement, full of unsourced spammy claims. Many industry firsts... hundreds of awards... and much more Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. LFaraone 21:16, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article was created by User:Ferisulianta, evidently as a self-promotional article. Originally it was clearly a machine translation, though it has now been substantially cleaned up. A note on the article's talk page says that it was basically a copy of contents from his own web site. I have tried to find evidence that Feri Sulianta satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines, but unfortunately failed.
As far as the references cited in the article are concerned, all but two are no more than listings which contain Feri Sulianta's name, lists of his books, etc. One of the other two is www.ferisulianta.com, clearly not an independent source. The other one is at indonesiawriters.com, which invites anyone at all to submit a page about themselves, as long as they feel they are a screenwriter or the author of articles. It says that it is conceived as a complete directory of Indonesian writers, but at present it has a total of five writers listed.
The first hits on a Google search are articles on English and Indonesian Wikipedias, Feri Sulianta's own web site, Twitter, two YouTube videos, FaceBook, www.goodreads.com, which is a promotional site (It says " Are you an author or a publisher? Gain access to a massive audience of more than 15 million book lovers. Goodreads is a great place to promote your books.") So it goes on - nothing I found was coverage in an independent reliable source. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. LFaraone 21:17, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article was created by the same user who created Clout Communications, which is Greg Day's company, and which was recently deleted at AfD [4]. The purpose of both articles has been the promotion of Greg Day and his endeavors. This article on Day was declined at Articles for Creation [5] and then disruptively moved into the main space anyway. Day fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG and WP:RS. Qworty (talk) 20:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I must really argue against the use of google news (google in general is not suitable for any academic searches *or anything other than broad pop-culture searches for that matter* as is constantly drummed into university students). It really is no use in establishing notability as it anything but complete and has no proper archive. For example I used google news last week to follow a large local news story. There were countless stories online about it but google news only found 1. And then after two days google news stopped finding that one. The URL to the story on the bbc website had not changed but google news came back with no results; as if it had never happened.
If we are going to use "hits" on news websites as proof of notability (which we really shouldn't be) we need to go to ones which actually have a proper and complete archive of news stories. The Times Digital Archive holds a complete and fully searchable collection of all The Times newspapers from 1785-2007. UK Press Online similarly holds a complete archive of the Daily Mirror (1903-present), Daily Express (1900-present) and Sunday Express (2000-present). Both of these sites require a paid subscription, but I, like many others on Wikipedia, have institutional access to them through university.
-These are the types of sites we should be using to search for references; not the half-arsed answer of google.
As for notability of where the plays are performed - that isn't really a relevant argument; an individual does not gain notability (or lose it) based on where they have or have not performed. If someone performs once at a big venue like the O2 arena, does that make them notable? No. And Shakespeare performed mainly in some very non-notable places, does that loose him notability? No.
And it's hard to call places like BBC Radio 4, non-notable. (if they're not, I look forward to seeing their pages being nominated for deletion).
As for the second sentence "His 'nihilistic jocularity' led to his second play, The Arrangement, being described as "the most disturbing bedsitcom since Polanski's The Tenant", I don't see that as promotional; the first part could be lost as it doesn't add anything for anyone who doesn't have a pretty broad vocabulary (nihilistic jocularity means to basically have a comically skeptical view on life), but the "The Arrangement, was described as "the most disturbing bedsitcom since Polanski's The Tenant" is a simply a statement of fact, not of promotion - and actually is rather an argument for notability.
I was actually the one that nominated the Clout Communications for deletion. (I have no connection to the subject or the author or any interest in theatre or anything) the reason I nominated it for deletion was that it was impossible to improve it to a standard that would bring it in line with the policies. This one is different. I would say it meets the notability policy; others disagree but those arguments are not strong. Anything minor can be fixed and better to air on the side of caution and not delete, whilst improvements can still be made, and whilst notability is still in discussion. The policy says we should seek to improve and delete only which cannot be improved; something Jimmy Wales has also talked about. This article seems the obvious candidate for improvement. Unfortunately there are certain reviews and editors who do not follow these policies and just pick and choose what they want from them. The above comment is prime example: Complaining that the article sounds a little promotional (which isn't grounds for deletion anyway), but then making no contribution to improving the article.
"Because editors can't be arsed to make improvements" is no grounds for deletion. -Come on guys- follow policy -lets improve the articles and make wikipedia the great place we all hope it can be.
Rushton2010 (talk) 10:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As for COI, as a journalist I happen to know lots of famous people, especially in teh arts and media. Shopuld I therefore be excluded from editing, say, Sean Bean's wikiopedia page, or the articles on Uri Geller, Steve Harley or Sir Richard Attenborough, for I know all these people well, along with many others. One might equally argue that as a native of Burton on Trent I should be banned from contributing to the Wikipedia page since I am bound to be biased one way or another about the town. I love teh Rolling Stones so certainly should not edit their page lest I give an unbalanced view. I respect Wikipedia;s rules - but they are NOT APPLIED CONSISTENTLY and we all know that laws applied at random do not constitute justice. Likewise here. Picknick99 (talk) 17:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:10, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike Europop (album) and Contact!, this album is not notable enough to have it's own article. I have no critical reviews on this album and, despite only charting in Italy, its... its just not notable enough to be here.
P.S: I like how the editors of the article put a "?" in the producer section of the infobox. EditorE (talk) 20:49, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure). Cloudyjbg27512 (talk) 03:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article is written like an advertisement, and most of the references are from a single site. Cloudyjbg27512 (talk) 15:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The biggest "self-policing" mechanism on wiki is for those who take strong steps to disparage/criticize content, MUST be prepared to justify. Otherwise there is a distinct and real risk that such person is acting little better than an internet troll - and even worse, an unprincipled one at that. And I'm sorry, but a one-line justification to place an article into the Deletion category, does not count when (i) on TWO occasions you made no effort at all to discuss matters first, (ii) nor have you justified since either substantively or in terms of your posture (iii) self-deleted my reasonable request for your justification from your own user page.
I note your first edit was registered on 26 April 2013, so maybe you are inexperienced in such matters of etiquette and courtesy, and maybe you have a non-academic background and are therefore unaware of "academic courtesies" either.
Jono2013 (talk) 11:17, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jono2013 (talk) 02:47, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reluctant to do too much of the detailed rewriting unless the article is kept, but I'm doing at least some of what will reduce the impression of promotion of the product, for the article would probably not be kept otherwise. DGG ( talk ) 16:05, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can we please keep this focused. This is inappropriate content for discussing whether to keep or not. Most of your comments are better dealt with to the page's talk page, AFTER deciding whether to keep or not. This said, you have taken it upon yourself, as non expert, to cause major changes to page without any discussion first. Let's deal with just a few of them:
1. The pozzolanic photo was specific to the entry being made. And is the photo used in the published academic paper. You have decided, without reference anyone that you are going to sequestrate it.
2. The other removals have not even been discussed first. I have sent you a message asking you to justify. You have stated "The diagram of activating the cement doesn't really show anything about the process, it's just a diagram of material passing through a mill, applicable to any material and any mill. I've left it for the moment." Really?
And so it goes on: The Bache diagram you have removed, shows lack of understanding. First, it sets out the method used to establish the results which are set out in what was the accompanying section. Second, the data in that diagram was for that process. Not every Bache method is the same. You have removed a specific diagram of specific reference. That shows what I would consider to be an "unjustifiable presumption".
3. Tertiary material re environment and sustainability: 2 publications are cited already, if you care to follow them. One is from Lawrence Berkeley, the other (from recollection) Illinois. Further, the CO2 emission and energy usage of the Portland Cement industry are well understood and extensively set out in many journals. The energy requirements of EMC Activation "is what it is"
4. The EUREKA award citation contains a link to the actual certificate itself. What more proof is needed? Are you saying that if EUREKA chooses not to publish recipients via its website, or has only recently started to do so, that a prior recipient cannot state that fact, even it is verifiable by the certificate itself? The whole purpose of making the certificate available was to verify the assertion.
5 You say "we are a general encyclopedia not a technical publication". Have you seen the entry for (for example) Pyruvate dehydrogenase complex?
6. USFWHA reference. See here: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/110118.cfm . To kill two birds with one stone, note the reference to patents. The company website also confirms it controls patents for the EMC Activation process (among others). There is no doubt the process is patented. In the same way Viagra is also patented, but the closest to a reference to its patent are various news articles (see, for ex., Viagra, n.59-61). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jono2013 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What i fear is "blind" deference to the "everybody owns wiki" principle over expertise. Very very worrying. Note the spelling of "pozzolan" (two "zz"s, not two "xx"s)
I'll look for items you edit, but would prefer you discuss it first on the article's talk page, so that your perception can be modified/moderated before you rush to what might otherwise be rash judgments as a non-expert.
Jono2013 (talk) 16:48, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
INCLUSION IN 2 WIKIPROJECTS
The energetically modified cement entry has had added to its talk page, two important wikiprojects: Civil Engineering and Chemistry, with assocated portals by Northamerica1000. I hasten to add this is without any lobbying or contact from me, although since learning of this, as a matter of courtesy, I have offered my thanks on his/her respective talk page.
Jono2013 (talk) 14:45, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your withdrawal of the nomination has been copied to your entry at the top of this page, per the instructions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AFD#Withdrawing_a_nomination
Can this now be closed ASAP?
The following is stated as a matter of record:
Once again, thank you to everyone who supported the keep. And to Cloudyjbg27512, if you have no COI, then thank you for "seeing common sense" (a cornerstone wiki policy) and I hope you learn from this - I trust you had a very pleasant weekend, because you surely turned mine "upside down".
Jono2013 (talk) 14:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. And nothing of value was lost. Shii (tock) 06:54, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This page cites not a single source whatsoever and doesn't even assert notability. It obviously satisfies the A7 speedy criterion. For most of its history it was a redirect to Wikimedia Foundation; Red Slash turned it into a full article, but was unwilling or unable to present third-party coverage. I doubt significant third-party coverage exists. But a seven-year-old AfD discussion where notability was asserted without evidence is now used to keep this alive and an article in direct violation of WP:N, WP:WEB and WP:V. Apparently it will take a new AfD to acknowledge that unsourced content without an assertion of notability has no place on Wikipedia. So be it. Huon (talk) 15:00, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 19:02, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it is not notable per the Wikipedia policy WP:BIO. This article appears to have been created due to the assertion that the person is a notable computer games developer. He does appear to be a games developer, it just I can't find any sources to show he is a notable one to include in Wikipedia. Seaweed (talk) 12:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - reads more like a feel-good article from the local newspaper than a encyclopedia article. --72.28.136.205 (talk) 17:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Based on the hesitation of many of the "keep" !voters. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:49, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet notability criteria. WP:CREATIVE. No third party sources. Long list of irrelevant references were removed as they stated nothing soever about the person. Mootros (talk) 02:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to A1 Grand Prix#Future. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:50, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Briefly proposed motorsport series that does not meet the notability criteria. The article relies on one speculative source, no more news or information would ever appear, and the series website has shut down. QueenCake (talk) 23:44, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect all with some fancy footwork (non-admin closure). czar · · 14:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No indication of notability, no references. Andre666 (talk) 21:04, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 21:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, considered speedy but this is a new subject doesn't really look to be notable, refs go to an instruction website, and the first is to the epa. O.R. is a concern here for me too Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:59, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. SK#1: no argument advanced for deletion (non-admin closure) czar · · 01:27, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Possible Foregion Film. Bobherry talk 13:33, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Survey sez reliable sources don't know enough about this group. Shii (tock) 06:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable organization, article used as self-promotion based almost entirely on its own website. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Ultimately, it comes down to significant coverage in reliable sources. There certainly is plenty of stuff in the papers about it, but no agreement on whether it is merely routine coverage or something substantial. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:09, 13 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)) . |
I think too much is being read into a light-hearted reference in the Sunderland Echo; maybe that paper wouldn't have introduced the concept of "World Championship" had their local team lost? This was one of several friendly matches that Sunderland played in Scotland during that season: the StatCat page referred to by the nominator lists them on the left of the page, and describes this match as "a match between the newly crowned champions of England and Scotland." As also mentioned in the nomination, The Scotsman's report describes it just as a match featuring the English and Scottish champions.
The English papers in general listed it in their fixtures and results sections under "Ordinary matches" or "Club matches", a heading that included friendlies, county senior cups, benefit matches and similar. The longest English report I can find (in a selection of papers available via the British Library 19th century newspaper collection; not possible to supply generally accessible URLs), is in the Sheffield Independent which over 5 sentences described it as a match between "the rival league champions" which "lost some of its importance from the fact that both teams were without several of their regular players" but was "a capital game".
So it's a friendly for which neither club fielded a full-strength team, which didn't have an unusual level of coverage at the time, and has had approaching none since. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:37, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was incubate to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Murder of Scott Guy. There is consensus that the event is notable, but the person is not. Letting the article remain in mainspace under a different title would likely run afoul of WP:BLP, so incubating until it is properly rewritten to be an article about the event. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable murderer, there's nothing here that rises above a normal murder case -- fails WP:PERP. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It clearly meets WP:PERP which says an article is notable when "The execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event." This was one of the most widely covered investigations and trials in New Zealand history and Macdonald's offending was very unusual; it included midnight "revenge missions" which involved killing calves with a hammer and deliberately wasting $18,000 worth of milk. The case led to calls for a change in the right to silence - the law which enabled the judge to keep information about his previous offending from the jury. It was also notable because it raised the profile of Greg King making him New Zealand's most successful defence lawyer - and may have contributed to King's suicide two months later.
It is also notable because even though Macdonald was found not guilty, the police refused to look for anyone else indicating they believe the jury got it wrong. Offender9000 (talk) 09:09, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He shot himself but I have removed the comment.Offender9000 (talk) 09:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: he was found not guilty of the murder but guilty of six other offences and sent to prison for five years - so BLP1E does not apply. Offender9000 (talk) 18:57, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus, but would it be that horrible to merge with List of Violations of the Ceasefire of 21 November, 2012? Shii (tock) 06:59, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article is entirely based on unreliable sources. For example, Al-Qassam Brigades (Hamas), several unknown pro-Palestinian sites and PressTV (Iranian regime's propaganda), among others. There is not a single source from a relevant newspaper. IranitGreenberg (talk) 06:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Questions Can this be referenced to more reliable sources? Also, do the sources say that these were actually violations of the ceasefire? Nick-D (talk) 07:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. Nom withdrawn (SK#1) (non-admin closure) czar · · 06:54, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I believe that this actor fails notability specifically found in WP:NACTOR Only shows one movie a Deep Purple. No awards won and when looking for sources [[27]] it's coming up blank. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC) Odd I guess the difference is quotation marks [[28]]. Interesting my apologies, withdrawn. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar · · 07:45, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod that I placed on the article. Even though this basketball player evidently plays for the Indonesian national team, which is not enough for inherent notability, a Google search reveals he doesn't pass GNG. The only websites that turn up (aside from this one, which only lists at-a-glance facts about him) are facebook, twitter, flickr and other mirror sites of the sort. There is no third party coverage, let alone substantial coverage that would be make him pass GNG. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question Not my field, but why is playing for the national team not enough for notability ? DGG ( talk ) 17:29, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The topic has no coverage in reliable sources and the provided references are mostly from primary sources alone. smtchahal(talk) 07:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was soft delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:47, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Short lived magazine that doesn't meet WP:GNG, as the only sources available concern libel cases. It also has significant verifiability and promotional problems, as it appears to be written by its former editor as a puff piece. QueenCake (talk) 18:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:22, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Soccerway confirms he's played for NK Zvijezda Gradačac of the Premier League of Bosnia and Herzegovina but per WP:FPL that's not fully professional; all other clubs he's played for compete at very low tiers. Sideways713 (talk) 14:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 29 matches in a fully pro league makes him pass WP:NFOOTY. Discussions on whether the Slovenian top league is a fully pro league should be taken on WT:FPL. That this topic does not pass GNG is hard to measure without local-language sources, but with 29 matches in a fully pro league we presume that the player in question has received enough coverage in reliable sources to pass the general notability guideline. Mentoz86 (talk) 12:30, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Whereas nobody supported deletion, the rest is not clear: Whether the article should be moved, merged, incubated, or just kept.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is more an essay than an encyclopedia article BigPimpinBrah (talk) 00:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The consensus is that these articles do not pass WP:GNG and thus in the present form can not exist in the English Wikipedia. The keep votes, unfortunately, are not based on the policies. No projudice against redirect creation.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:01, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:GNG. recent AfDs indicate embassies are not inherently notable. Those wanting to keep must show coverage. Also nominating:
You've provided zero reason for why these articles are notable. And zero sources. LibStar (talk) 09:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 21:47, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no independent or scholarly research that shows the authenticity or existence of this text. Mike697 (talk) 01:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Already deleted by RHaworth (talk · contribs) as G12 (blatant copyright infringement). ~ mazca talk 17:03, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No WP:RS to establish notability for a businessman and/or per WP:GNG. Appears to be a WP:PROMO. Qworty (talk) 01:53, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Michig (talk) 07:49, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Proposing article for deletion. No verifiable sources; little content. Confusing to Wikipedia readers. N2e (talk) 01:49, 3 May 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 keep. Stifle (talk) 21:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced article about a non-notable film. I am unable to find any reliable sources. - MrX 02:09, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Michig (talk) 07:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NMMA, possibly WP:GNG. LlamaAl (talk) 01:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
unsourced WP:CRUFT - the fact that this has lasted 5 years since its PROD without a source added kind of speaks for itself. Ansh666 01:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Mediæval Bæbes. (non-admin closure) czar · · 08:13, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This subject is not the actual topic of substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources (WP:GNG). She does receive passing mention by third party sources actually covering Mediæval Bæbes. She also falls very far short of WP:MUSICBIO — her writing and other band memberships are decidedly insignificant. She receives more coverage (still not substantial though) when less reliable sources are considered. I'll note being the subject of a painting is not, itself, coverage; and family relations don't help her WP:INHERIT notability. Also, much coverage is actually regarding upcoming band performances and events; this coverage ahead of time isn't even good to state the event occurred. Perhaps a redirect to Mediæval Bæbes might be in order, but most members of that ensemble (there have been many) are not redirects. JFHJr (㊟) 01:00, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how self-publishing a novel adds to notability either, or why this is even mentioned in the article. Singing backing vocals on DragonForce does not seem much of an achievement either! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.7.94.218 (talk) 16:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to List of Regular Show characters. Consensus that we shouldn't have a standalone article, some support for a redirect, and since these are cheap... Michig (talk) 07:40, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Completely unencyclopedic page, comprised 100% fancruft page with no citations. Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 00:56, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Michig (talk) 07:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced article about a non-notable web site. I am unable to find any reliable sources. - MrX 00:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]