![]() |
The result was no consensus. LFaraone 02:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a directory. Fails WP:GNG Faizan -Let's talk! 12:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 03:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a person who has served in some extremely minor political roles such as staff member to a state senator and state governor, as well as a temporary member (not leader or chair, just a member) of the Texas Railroad Commission for a half-year. He was also one of 3 heads of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, the state's environmental agency for several years. None of these are elected positions, and to my knowledge appointees to state commissions are not inherently noble, this this is a failure of WP:POLITICIAN. What little sourcing there is is routine and local, the simple reporting of a "so-and-so was appointed to such-and-such" variety, thus a failure of the WP:GNG. Tarc (talk) 23:45, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.—Kww(talk) 02:33, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable foundation, with wording leaning towards promotional. Only sources referenced are primary. Couldn't find any third party sources. Vacation9 23:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:03, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable journal, fails GNG; whether or not it belongs on the list of "predatory" OA publishers, it doesn't meet our standards of notability. Note also that the PROD a few months ago was removed by a sockpuppet of Scholarscentral. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. I'm satisfied that deletion is not appropriate here. (In fact, I've already used it as an example of how 1 admin can make a mistake in areas where they are unfamiliar) DGG ( talk ) 06:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely small and non-notable bicycle manufacturer. Even the ref from "Mountain Bike Hall of Fame" gives him only two sentences. Unwisely accepted from AfC DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 03:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
non notable rapper, lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. sourcing is a mix of pr non reliable sources and claims of notability by association. maybe a redirect may work here but TNT is best to get rid of spam. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily deleted by User:INeverCry under criterion G12 (copyright infringement). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Possible advertising or NPOV/COI. I do not think that without a complete rewrite with new citations, that anything of encyclopedic value can be retained. Rarkenin (talk) 22:24, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Francesco Rulli.—Kww(talk) 02:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With reference to User talk:GB fan, added this page for deletion discussion based on WP:CSD#A7 WP:CSD#G11.
Page was initially listed for speedy, based on A7 and G11, but denied; as to stop a speedy deletion all it takes is a claim of significance. Claim of significance made by User:WestEndKat remains questionable - if sock or not, TBD by wiki security, refer to log: (Film Annex: Revision history) - appears to be inactive user now.
Be that as it may, the point here is that the article in question, is in essence, promotional, and as such a violation of guidelines, rules and policy. The Initial Claim is unsubstantiated, it is promotional and self-promotional by proxy (using notability circumvention)
Here is why:
Quote: "page should not be speedily deleted because... the Women's Annex Channel is very important..."
1) the Women's Annex Channel IS NOT Film Annex. Thus, question remains, why Film Annex should remain as article entry?
2) Notability (or the lack thereof) is verifiable. Looking at the references (1. through 19.) none of them are actual news coverage from economist, bloomberg, or any other independent, or verifiable source. References 20 through 22 are blatantly self-promotional.
3) Section "Notable Channels" refers to an individual, Roya Mahboob, who has a channel on Filmannex, as do others have channels on Youtube, Vimeo, or anywhere else. Section "Philantropy" is not referenced, and thus NOT verified by any other outside independent source. This is questionable practice, at the very least.
4) Fact is: Here is a private entity, i.e. filmannex.com, allowed having an article on WP, which violates basic WP guidelines, rules and WP credibility.
Based on 1)-4) the question arises: is this attempting to circumvent WP:N Notability? If so, the article should be deleted. Wikipatrolwatch (talk) 13:59, 8 May 2013 (UTC) Wikipatrolwatch (talk) 21:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Film_Annex - The page is now consistent with Vimeo's Wiki page. Messin33 (talk) 17:58, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn (non-admin closure) czar · · 01:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The articles Capture of USS Argus and USS Argus (1803) are both small enough to be merged into one article. The main contents of Capture of USS Argus has already been moved to the USS Argus (1803) article and further needed edits and tweaking have been made. Now that this has been done there seems to be no reason to keep the Capture of USS Argus article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete housekeeping non-admin closure: 22:01, 8 May 2013 Amatulic (talk | contribs) deleted page Lullabies for Macy Rose (album) (A9: Music recording by redlinked artist and no indication of importance or significance) czar · · 22:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. The appropriate guidelines are WP:NALBUMS, and the general guideline Wikipedia:Notability. The article was created by the single-purpose account Slb-v1 in August 2008, so it has been around for a while. I added the the ((Notability)) tag on April 10, 2013. With the best will in the world, this album is not notable. HairyWombat 19:40, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete per WP:SNOW and WP:NOTINHERITED. There is zero evidence of her being notable, which is not inherited. There is also a high risk this will become an attack page on a private person; the focus of the page is on her giving birth at a young age. While I assume that is not the creator's intent, I don't want to feed the trolls, class of 2015. Bearian (talk) 22:03, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Being a notable person's mother doesn't mean she is notable. See WP:NOTINHERITED. Her info can be included in LeBron James —Chris!c/t 19:36, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. LFaraone 02:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BCG Attorney Search appears to fail WP:CORPDEPTH in that the multiple cited sources do not offer any significant or substantial coverage of the company. Instead, the coverage is trivial, such that BCG is included in a list of similar organizations, or a webpage/article written by BCG is quoted or linked elsewhere. There is no support for the statements about how and when the firm was founded. There is no description of the company's business focus in the cited sources. Binksternet (talk) 19:34, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Researched and added reference (number 2) to how and when firm was founded, as well as focus of the business. Aostler (talk) 19:59, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. LFaraone 03:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR. There is no reason for us to keep this: it is redundant to Postal codes in the Netherlands, where I just added the link to www.postcode.nl, the search engine that generates them immediately. Drmies (talk) 19:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. LFaraone 03:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable band - only albums do not meet notability requirements. Sole "award" is not significant enough for notability. This was speedied once, and rightfully so. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 19:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article is about a US Army officer without he coverage needed to establish notability. Sourcing in the article consists of the Annual Report published by United States Military Academy, Association of Graduates which would not be an independent source. The other is a link Arlington Cemetery. Whpq (talk) 18:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 19:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable portion of a game. This article consists of only in-universe description of a fictional portion of a game universe with a single reference to a primary source --Craw-daddy | T | 20:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD: my original concern was that Sorribes Tormo does not pass the tennis notability guidelines. She has not been ranked in the top-200, she is not a top-3 junior player, she has no senior Grand Slam or Fed Cup appearances, and she has only played in the qualifying draw of the 2013 Mutua Madrid Open, i.e. no main draw WTA tour appearances either. In addition to this, Sorribes Tormo has never won a $50,000 ITF tournament or better. If requested, I wouldn't have a problem with the article being userfied and later being moved back into article space at such a time if/when the player in question does become notable. Jared Preston (talk) 18:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Television episode with no notability. Binksternet (talk) 18:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Final episode of season four of a TV series that has 73 out of its 84 episodes with their own articles. - RandomEcho (talk) 18:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It definitely needs improving, but quality of current content shouldn't be an issue in deciding deletion.IrishStephen (talk) 02:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG to me, firm might be notable but I don't think the founder is. Sasquatch t|c 17:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : nothing significant about the person.--Robustdsouza (talk) 18:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. LFaraone 03:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No real indications of notability here. A somewhat highly placed executive at CNN, who wrote a personal reflection on the effects of Hurricane Sandy. That's about all. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was as follows:
The result here is in line with Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars comments. There were no wishes for outright deletion except from the nominator, and the consensus was to keep two of the albums. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:24, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NALBUMS, WP:GNG, and all related notability guidelines. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 02:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because they are the same thing just different albums/songs:[reply]
The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 17:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No real sources for this (Sookhdeo is a polemicist, not a scholar), article created by blocked sock of SPA account. Topic appears non-notable, absent sources that discuss it (WP:GNG/WP:NOR), but at best, even if it is actually notable, it would benefit from a ground-up creation by someone who knows how to edit WP (WP:TNT). A less formal way of saying all of this would be that this is laughable POV rubbish the inclusion of which makes Wikipedia look foolish. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 17:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Poorly sourced BLP, fails WP:GNG with no dedicated coverage by any sources larger than local papers. Binksternet (talk) 16:24, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 17:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PROD removed by 77.225.45.232 (talk · contribs) with no explanation given. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL as the subject has not "appeared... in a fully professional league" and WP:GNG as the article shows no evidence of the subject receiving "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Mattythewhite (talk) 16:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Mkdwtalk 18:33, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This page in completely unmanageable. The prices of elements and compounds can vary considerably in very short time spans making the information contained here completely unreliable unless it is updated very often such as weekly. Most of the article content is currently way out of date and therefore highly inaccurate. Prices also vary considerably depending on source, purity, quantity and many other market factors. How could we possibly list all possible and/or relevant product price variations? By including chemical compounds, this list is also almost unlimited in scope - each element can have literally hundreds of different compounds. There is simply no practical way to present this kind of fluid, variable, time-sensitive information as an encyclopedia article. This page is also a magnet for advertisers - for example, it includes dozens of links to metal-pages.com which has been spammed across multiple Wikipedia articles. If there is a need for the inclusion in Wikipedia of the price of specific element or chemical compounds, it would be best handled at the corresponding element/compound article instead. ChemNerd (talk) 16:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 17:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not enough coverage in reliable sources to merit an article. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Binksternet (talk) 16:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 19:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:GNG. The characters featured in a board game is not a notable topic. These are not developed characters with backgrounds or involved in plot lines as you would see in a book. Any characters in spin-off/variations are discussed within those specific articles (e.g., Cluedo Master Detective, Clue Jr.: Case of the Missing Pet). AldezD (talk) 15:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 17:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was willing to improve the article and I did add an infobox to it. I removed three links provided as citations, which were by no means reliable sources. They were just links to websites that allow one to create one's own ebooks. Then, I googled the novel's the author's name to see if I could find any reliable sources at all, but I couldn't. Everything I could find was from the same website. No coverage in news publications or anything at all. Clearly a non-notable novel. It may be worth noting that the author does not have a Wikipedia article on him either. The ISBN code doesn't seem a valid one either. smtchahal(talk) 14:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Filmmaking. (non-admin closure) smtchahal(talk) 14:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Essay about making a movie without references. Ghorpaapi (talk) 14:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. LFaraone 03:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Part of a walled garden built by a mostly WP:SPA around Ojai Studio Artists. Promotional piece lacking notability. Lacks coverage In independent reliable sources. Lacks multiple significant roles in notable productions. Closest it comes is Ojai Bums (Short Film) and The Adventures of Galgameth which are part of the walled garden. Sourced only by Ojai Studio Artists. I found anothing better. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:30, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete per G12. Jimfbleak (talk · contribs) deleted the page on 14:33, May 14, 2013 (UTC) but did not close this deletion discussion. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:10, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Part of a walled garden built by a mostly WP:SPA around Ojai Studio Artists. Promotional piece lacking notability. Lacks coverage In independent reliable sources. Sourced only by itself. I found a bunch of very local passing mentions, nothing good enough for WP:N duffbeerforme (talk) 12:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 17:50, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lacks notability. His book is not notable for WP:AUTHOR. His fellowships are not acedemic for WP:PROF. Lacks coverage about Hwang instead of by Hwang. Closest is the Forbes article by Frederick E. Allen (ref 7) but Hwang is a Forbes contributor so this lacks independence. Prod removed because CEOs and co-founders are magicly notable. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:16, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. LFaraone 03:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lacks notability. Promotional piece sourced by a bunch of primary sources, blogs and press releases. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:08, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Deadbeef 06:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:CORPDEPTH. Appears to have been written solely to promote the company.--File Éireann 09:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep [[12]]. Article clearly meets all seven criteria stated; article also has been edited repeatedly to conform to WP standards and practices -- under the guidance of several notable WP editors (article history will show efforts made to comply with and address all objections in good faith, to ultimate satisfaction of objectors). Completely willing and able to make any changes necessary here, too -- but this is a noteworthy, well-cited, multi-million dollar, previously publicly traded company. It exceeds the notewothiness threshold. It is written in a neutral manner, with considerable third-party citations. Please reconsider - thank you to all in this thread for their time, effort and consideration. Johnsaavn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.1.151.208 (talk) 17:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. LFaraone 04:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem to meet WP:NAUTHOR. I declined an A7 CSD on this due to the BSFA award, but really, fan awards such as this aren't much of an indicator of notability.Haven't found any sources beyond his own website, sales sites and passing mentions here and there; nothing sufficient for a pass of WP:GNG. Yunshui 雲水 10:45, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The criterion says "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor"--nothing about who gives that award or honor. The BSFA Award is well-known and significant in the U.S. and U.K. speculative fiction publishing and fan communities. rosefox (talk) 04:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Copy paste from the website, flashy language, no external references.
The result was delete. LFaraone 04:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Person "notable" only as an unelected candidate for political office, thus failing WP:POLITICIAN. Also a high prospect of WP:COI (see creator's username). He'll most likely qualify for an article if he wins, given Atlanta's status as a major city whose city council would count as sufficiently notable, but merely being a candidate for office is not enough to qualify someone for an article on here. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 07:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Kyiv Polytechnic Institute. If this discussion hadn't already been relisted twice, I would probably be relisting this instead of closing it. Having said that, there seems to be a general agreement that the subject isn't notable per Wikipedia standards, but a reluctance to delete outright. Given this, I think a merge is the best option here. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 13:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Promotional article about a summer school with little evidence of notability. It was unwisely accepted from AfC , because it is primarily a string of quotations from non-independent sources praising the work of the school. I've notified the ed. who accepted it. DGG ( talk ) 04:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 17:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Essay-like investigative journalistic piece. Clear violation of WP:NOT -LM2000 (talk) 03:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article should be merged as a section in the main WWE article in a much condensed form.--Robustdsouza (talk) 18:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Yes I agree the article in too big and it is tough to cut it down. So i cast my vote in favour of deletion.--Robustdsouza (talk) 07:55, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to 2012–13 Chicago Bulls season. Courcelles 03:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unencyclopedic summary of primary sources. Command and Conquer Expert! speak to me...review me... 02:36, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 17:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this is a case of WP:ONEVENT. take away the event and he is not notable. LibStar (talk) 02:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Michig (talk) 07:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Despair nomination. This is such an un-encyclopedic collection of facts that I can't believe it can't be speedied, but it's not a test page, nor an obvious copyvio (it's not a terribly good translation of the Spanish references, but not copyvio). I suppose it might qualify for A10 (duplication of Heart), but that doesn't seem to fit either. Ignatzmice•talk 02:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Zad68
03:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Zad68
03:50, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]The result was redirect to Student life at the University of Pennsylvania#Hey Day. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 16:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Even the only WP:RS cited states that it is an event that holds no interest beyond the school community. Just plain not notable. Gtwfan52 (talk) 02:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Consensus is that the content is from an unreliable blog source. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:17, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In previous years, the Romanian Top 100 was a valid chart, so there's nothing wrong with the earlier articles. This year, however, the Romanian Top 100 is no longer published, and all material in this article is sourced to a blogspot chart. —Kww(talk) 01:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is clearly a good article, and it IS official and valid, why? It compiles the data from Media Forest, the official national monitoring system in Romania (as well as in Israel, etc.) The number-one and the top-ten positions are clearly matching the data from mediaforest, and it was stated by UPFR (the Romanian Record Association) that mediaforest are the current valid collaborators, not Airplay 100. This page must stay! PS I worked hard for days on this page and I consider doing a good job.Innano1 (talk) 18:57, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ironholds (talk) 04:16, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:Promo, Wikipedia:Notability, and WP:RS. Sources are self published or college club web pages. Article is by editors whose only contribution is this article. It has been deleted before and has been reposted in almost exactly the same form. Lexlex (白痴美國) (talk) 01:48, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hope this helps some in regards to your future articles. It looks like the subject isn't notable enough yet. SarahStierch (talk) 15:47, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
These reasons should be enough to conclude that while the article may benefit from additional development, like all articles on Wikipedia. But a significant amount of reliable information is here that would be of interest to a potential reader who is interested in genre movies or any of the cult movies listed here. it should not be kept. Verireal (talk) 07:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. LFaraone 04:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable film. — Bdb484 (talk) 01:47, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Cassandra (metaphor). LFaraone 04:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you google "Cassandra paradox", you'll see that the term means different things to different people. As described in this article, it bears a strong resemblance to a self-fulfilling prophecy, but in the article's single source, it seems to be another name for the Hawthorne effect. This source defines it as something akin to a self-defeating prophecy, and this one invokes it while discussing the problem of evil. And so forth. The bottom line is that this particular definition of the term isn't notable, and nor are any of the others. Given that there's such disagreement over what the Cassandra paradox actually is, I think outright deletion would be more appropriate than a merge or redirect to another article. DoctorKubla (talk) 17:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. LFaraone 04:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I argue that this is a completely pointless article. Lachlan Foley 10:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's an important box set by an important band. Perhaps it just needs some delineation, particularly in regards to the two discs of previously unreleased material on it? Greg Fasolino (talk) 12:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. LFaraone 04:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Advertising, Does not meet WP:NOTE or WP:NOTADVERTISING FlatOut 14:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 18:31, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BLP does not have enough secondary sourcing to establish notability. I looked through books, newspaper articles and website but I did not find any secondary sources which discuss Dan Chan's life and career in detail. Binksternet (talk) 03:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how to attribute. Please see this video for news sources and clippings. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpM6KzKjAqU Dan is one of the few magicians who perform internationally for celebrity clients and billionaires. 3 times in Washington DC and 4 times in Japan, Las Vegas multiple times, Arizona, Portland. Dan has also been featured on Groupon six times, Living Social, Amazon Local and Google Offers. Please do a google search for Dan Chan Groupon. (talk) 12,23, 30 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielgchan (talk • contribs) 05:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mkdwtalk 18:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fails every point of WP:NMUSIC and fails WP:GNG. A not notable producer that has only produced a few songs, the majority by artists without Wikipedia articles and has not been covered by various independent reliable sources. Also a Google News search turns up nothing. STATic message me! 03:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. LFaraone 04:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Subject fails WP:BAND. No evidence of any independent coverage, thus notability. I would CSD, but the article has been around for a few years and has been edited by many editors, so I'd rather run it through the community. Deadbeef 05:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Michig (talk) 07:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced and possibly partially fabricated. I saw the creator of the article's only major contribution was this article itself, so I checked to see if there was any copyvio stuff going on. As it turns out, everything after the lead is directly copied (or, it was before I fixed the grammar) from the Cartoon Network Wikia article on Uncle Grandpa from June 2012. Further, it's just too soon to have an article on this series. The IMDB doesn't even have it listed yet that I can find. Paper Luigi T • C 05:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : Lot of sources speak about this upcoming cartoon serial as found after goggling. --Robustdsouza (talk) 19:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: If most of this article's content was just copied from the Cartoon Network Wiki, then it ought to be re-written, but as long as there aren't any copyright problems, I don't see why it would need to be deleted. In addition to the press release linked to by czar and the article from Animation Magazine included in the article, a brief google search revealed the following - Cartoon Brew, tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com, deadline.com, Hollywood Reporter. --Jpcase (talk) 00:40, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Michig (talk) 07:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced, no indication of notability, little context Revolution1221 (talk · email · contributions) 00:50, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Michig (talk) 07:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. PROD contested without providing a reason. – Michael (talk) 00:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Certainly no consensus to delete. Any rewriting, cleanup, or merging can be discussed and carried out outside of AfD. Michig (talk) 07:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable film studio, already speedied several times. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ORG, and specifically states that it operates "micro-budget films", which reduce the chances of notability. The article is quite promotional. Suggest SALTing the title as well, as it's been recreated quite a lot. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]