The result was Speedy delete, author request ( G7). Hut 8.5 19:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC) reply
non notable training organization. only source is a blog. Claims to be newly registered. Declined db-a7. noq ( talk) 23:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 17:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC) reply
This is an expansion of the section in Talking animal. It was listed for speedy both as non notable, and a duplicate adding no content. It clearly does add content, but whether or not it is notable as a separate article is unclear to me. DGG ( talk ) 23:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 01:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable compilation album; I could find nothing about this on Google except for a Wikipedia mirror and a number of references to the Looney Tunes DVDs. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 22:58, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. no arguments for deletion MINUS the nom JForget 01:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable institution that has no third-party references or citations (all the links are to the school's websites, etc.) -- φ OnePt618 Talk φ 21:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was Moot. This is redundant to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Batman 3 (2012). Fences& Windows 13:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 01:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC) reply
No evidence of coverage from reliable sources. Most of the article (including all sources cited) only refers to the Masai Mara and not to the hotel/lodge. snigbrook ( talk) 20:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was withdrawn by nominator. — Soap — 20:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
In my opinion, the article should be redirected to Big Time Rush or List of Big Rush episodes, because the article doesn't shows notability of the TV show episode. Diego Grez let's talk 20:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to List of BattleTech locations. Redirected since this was unsourced but you can mewrge anything worthwhile Spartaz Humbug! 06:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The article was listed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Periphery (BattleTech), closed as delete and instead a 2nd procedural relisting was started (admins can verify the deleted edit here) but never done. Even ignoring all that, since the last deletion discussion, the article has only expanded in its lack of out-of-universe information and real-world notability. Note that all the other articles listed at that AFD were redirects here. Ricky81682 ( talk) 19:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC) reply
I cannot see how this is encyclopedic content. There are no reliable sources, and it doesn't seem to meet the basic criteria in WP:NF. Maashatra11 ( talk) 19:26, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Keep - this is a legitimate redirect. Please see WP:REDIRECT. This is not the appropriate venue to discuss deleting the redirect. If there is an issue with the redirect, take this to WP:Redirects for discussion. ( non-admin closure) Claritas § 20:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
This is an empty page used only for redirecting to Judge Marsha S. Berzon. Note that if page is deleted, there are links in other articles that need to be corrected so they point to Marsha S. Berzon. There may be a better way to accomplish all this, but, if so, I don't know what it is. Bbb23 ( talk) 19:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 01:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC) reply
This article has gaping holes everywhere. Even the name of the person in question is incomplete. Every piece of information in the article has question marks, literally, in place of the pertinent pieces of information. I tried searching for this name in google and I can't find any information about this supposed person that would allow for correction of these problems, so I don't know how this article can be fixed. — Torchiest talk/ contribs 18:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 01:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Non notable record company - fails WP:CORP. Only G and Gnews hits do not contain significant coverage of the company, only mentions. ONLY claim to notability is one of inheritance through bands that have released songs via them. Codf1977 ( talk) 18:26, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 01:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC) reply
non-notable party, weblink points nowhere Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) ( talk) 18:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The Nazi movement came to America early in the development of German National Socialism, operating originally as the teutonia Club, organized in 1925, and then under the bolder name of the National Socialist Labor Party of Germany in America.), the National Socialist Labor Party (fl. ca 1916 - Smull, John Augustus; Herman P. Miller, W. Harry Baker (1917). Smull's legislative hand book and manual of the State of Pennsylvania. The State. p. 605. Retrieved 2010-07-06.
The Industrialist Party did not adopt a State Platform, but endorsed the Platform of the National Socialist Labor Party of 1916.), the National Socialist German Labor Party (1920-1945), the Socialist Labor Party of America (1877- ), etc. We could merge with (say) Neo-Nazism, but that might obscure any disambiguation. -- Pedant17 ( talk) 02:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Irish Army Armoured Fighting Vehicles#Dodge Armoured Car and delete, Consensus is there are not the extensive sources needed to keep this and the keep arguments are generally not policy grounded so this is delete but sensible search term so redirected as well Spartaz Humbug! 06:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Unsourced and no content other than an infobox. Google search does not show much coverage other than to confirm something called a dodge armoured car existed. Disputed prod. noq ( talk) 17:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 01:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. Doubtful claim to notability; hacking Facebook isn't notable in itself unless it was written about in reliable sources, and I can't find that it was. (The sources provided on the site don't meet WP:RS.) The other content of the article reads like a bit of a vanity piece. bonadea contributions talk 17:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. The first of the nominator's concerns (obituary) has been fixed through the normal editing process. As for the second, (notability) there is a consensus that the subject meets WP:POLITICIAN. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Obituary rather than an article. No evidence of notability. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 17:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep. Judging by the nominator's recent edits, I'm not sure s/he quite understands what warrants an AfD, so I'll leave a message on his/her talk page. Non-admin closure. Erpert (let's talk about it) 04:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Unreferenced BLP, claims, but no evidence of notability, prod removed by User:Calliopejen1 –– Jezhotwells ( talk) 16:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Keep Unwarranted deletion. Clearly notable. Stop wasting everybody's time and do something yourself to help the BLPs. Dr. Blofeld White cat 17:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep per my reasoning here. Non-admin closure. Erpert (let's talk about it) 04:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Unreferenced BLP, no evidence of notability, prod removed by User:Calliopejen1 –– Jezhotwells ( talk) 16:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep per my reasoning here. Non-admin closure. Erpert (let's talk about it) 04:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Unreferenced BLP, no evidence of notability, prod removed by User:Calliopejen1 –– Jezhotwells ( talk) 16:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep per my reasoning here (boy, Jezhotwells is really working me overtime). Non-admin closure. Erpert (let's talk about it) 04:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Unreferenced BLP, claims, but no evidence of notability, prod removed by User:Calliopejen1 –– Jezhotwells ( talk) 16:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
* Nomination for the Nordic Councils Literature Prize, 1975. * The Reykjavík Educational Councils Prize for children books, 1983. * Honorary award from the Writer's Fund of Iceland, 1992. * The DV Theatreprize for the best Play, 1993. * The Icelandic National Broadcasting Service Writer's Prize, 1993. * Nomination for the Nordic Playwright's Prize, 1994. * The Les Boréales du Normandie Literature Prize for the Best Nordic Crime Novel, 1997
Notability not asserted. What?? Dr. Blofeld White cat 16:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 01:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Unreferenced BLP, claims, but no evidence of notability, prod removed by User:Calliopejen1 –– Jezhotwells ( talk) 16:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 01:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Unreferenced BLP, no evidence of notability, prod removed by User:Calliopejen1 –– Jezhotwells ( talk) 16:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom -No hits in google books. Dr. Blofeld White cat 21:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was withdrawn by nominator. — Soap — 20:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Unreferenced BLP, no evidence of notability, prod removed by
User:Calliopejen1 ––
Jezhotwells (
talk) 16:42, 4 July 2010 (UTC) Withdrawn, sources found. ––
Jezhotwells (
talk)
18:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
reply
The result was nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. Erpert (let's talk about it) 04:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Unreferenced BLP, no evidence of notability, prod removed by
User:Calliopejen1 ––
Jezhotwells (
talk) 16:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC) Withdraw, one source found and added. ––
Jezhotwells (
talk)
18:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 01:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Unreferenced BLP, no evidence of notability, prod removed by User:Calliopejen1 –– Jezhotwells ( talk) 16:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy keep, nomination withdrawn and no other user supports deletion. Hut 8.5 10:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Pro removed by
User:Calliopejen1, article is unsourced, authobographical and appears to not meet notability guidelines ––
Jezhotwells (
talk) 16:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC) Withdraw, all i found on a first search was the NYT artcile which is about flat hunting. ––
Jezhotwells (
talk)
18:15, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 01:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Very junior officer (Lieutenant Junior Grade) with no particular reason given as to notability. Once being the most senior female USCG officer serving in the Iraqi theatre is not really enough. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 16:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. has clearly improved but is still borderline but consensus is to keep Spartaz Humbug! 06:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete. This article relies entirely upon a single source, an interview which appeared in Dragon Magazine back in 1999. Interviews aren't generally great examples of "third party coverage" in my book, and I'm not seeing any serious notability here either. JBsupreme ( talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 21:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC) reply
*Delete - per nom. Fails
WP:GNG as the topic has not "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Sources is plural in WP:GNG and its subsection defines sources as "for notability purposes, should be
secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected." I emphasized "mulitiple sources" as for an article that was created in 2006, most editors would expect more reliably sourced citations to establish or assert
notability. There is no assertion of notability; no citations to establish it, and, I looked and could find no sources. This article previously had a notability tag on it and did not receive its one source until March 9, 2010. ----
moreno oso (
talk)
03:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 01:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable electric bike. A grand total of 35 Yahoo hits, virtually no non-trivial coverage. Blueboy 96 15:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. JForget 01:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Note: God Among Slaves, an album from the band was also deleted as a result of this AFD per A9. JForget 01:08, 11 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable band, unable to find any significant coverage in reliable sources, only press releases and social media sites. TN X Man 15:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. JForget 00:59, 11 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD. Advert. No reliable sources; even if some can be found, it would need to be entirely rewritten. Chzz ► 13:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 01:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Self-promotional article by self-published (Publish America) author. No independent evidence of notability apart from their own promotional pronouncements elsewhere on the Web. Article previously speedy deleted with BLP problems under several aliases. The editor is on their third account, all blocked. Acroterion (talk) 13:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. JForget 00:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Advert; article would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become neutral; the references used are press-release etc; lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources per WP:GNG. Contested proposed deletion. Chzz ► 13:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Geeveston, Tasmania. JForget 00:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC) reply
A Primary school, so without inherent notability; meets no other notability criteria. Shirt58 ( talk) 12:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Bellerive, Tasmania. merge anything you want to the main article JForget 00:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC) reply
A Primary school, so without inherent notability; meets no other notability criteria. Shirt58 ( talk) 12:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. JForget 00:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Non notable record company - fails WP:CORP ONLY claim to any form of notability is one of inheritance through founding bands. Codf1977 ( talk) 12:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. The clearly policy based argument is to delete due to issues with GNG & OR but I'm going to go with an apparant improvement and give this some space for further work Spartaz Humbug! 06:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Per WP:BKD and WP:MOSFICT, there should not be articles about fictional elements unless they meet the general notability guideline ( WP:GNG). I can't find significant coverage of this fictional town in reliable independent sources, despite the notability of the comics it has appeared in. Claritas § 12:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. JForget 00:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Although the article is long and detailed, the subject appears to be non-notable. Having a trawl for mentions on Google, I get little beyond sites related to the team and its rivals. Doing a google news archives search returns equally little. I managed to find odd match reports carried in the local newspapers of rival teams (although nothing sustained or regular). Besides that I managed to find 3 references in two local papers to a couple of events last summer. The first was an event and match (with non student side Tamworth Phoenix) against the Australian American Football team carried in the Loughborough Echo (circ 18,000, owner Trinity Mirror) and Leicester Mercury (circ 70,000, owner DMGT). The different owners are perhaps significant, because the two articles are strikingly similar. There is a distinct whiff of recycled press release. The second in the Loughborough Echo is a match against Tamworth Phoenix [18].
The lack of notability isn't really surprising as University sports teams in the UK are not usually notable in ANY sport. In the majority of cases teams endeavours and even existence is unknown of even on their institutions campus, never mind in the wider world. American Football itself is of niche interest in the UK. Perhaps the lack of seriousness applied to British University sport can be illustrated from the following passage in the article "Although the Aces had a depleted squad due to certain members of the team choosing a holiday over the chance to play for the National Championship"
The other problem is that the article is unreferenced. The paucity of reliable and independent sources means that it is unlikely the vast majority of the article could ever be referenced. Although, it probably is accurate, large sections could have been made up.
Whilst probably not issues for deletion on there own it is worth note that at least "A Brief History of the Aces" appears to be a copy and paste of the teams website. Furthermore, although the article is long, I would not describe it as exceptionally well written. The article's main body basically takes the form of a year by year chronological list, with a number of notable gaps. There also seems to be a fair bit of unencyclopaedic language such as "winningest", "staggering" and "bested". ) Pit-yacker ( talk) 11:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. JForget 00:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, all references are first-party. Does not justify inclusion nor satisfy WP:GNG – Schmloof ( talk · contribs) 10:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 01:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC) reply
No indication of notability. Does not meet criteria of WP:MILPEOPLE. NtheP ( talk) 09:36, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. JForget 00:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Does not appear to meet WP:N, as all sources are primary sources, either associated with the subject, or press releases. PROD was disputed. Fbifriday ( talk) 06:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. JForget 00:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Neologism that doesn't exist outside this article. See for example Google: [19] OpenFuture ( talk) 06:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Recent movie with no evidence of notability. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 06:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. After actually taking a second look, I realized this was a G5 page creation and has now been trashed. Shirik ( Questions or Comments?) 05:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Facebook is NOT a reliable, third-party source suitable for a BLP article. Contested PROD. — Jeff G. ツ 05:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 07:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason:
The sister and younger brother of Buster Keaton do not have any major acting credits. Clarityfiend ( talk) 05:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep. Nominator has now changed his/her !vote to "merge", but since more people are leaning toward "keep", we'll go with that and then decide if we need to merge any of the info to Lower Saxony at a later time. Non-admin closure. Erpert (let's talk about it) 17:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Virtually no information on the office, duplication of article on Politics in Lower Saxony. Only purpose to establish use of Prime Minister in this context Dodo19 ( talk) 05:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy merge to Radio-frequency identification. For the record, you don't have to start an AfD in order to merge an article. Non-admin closure. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Expression does not seem to exist. Consider moving content to RFID. Schuhpuppe ( talk) 22:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Listed for 21 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough participation to determine consensus. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC) reply
It is no longer notable. It heavily relies on Rap-Up as the main source and has no confirmed release date. Though it has singles only 1 charted. Additionally all of the singles were merged into the album as they also lacked notability. It is a breach of WP:CRYSTAL as it still has no confirmed track listing or cover art. It should be deleted and relevant information can be salvaged and placed at Teairra Marí. Lil-unique1 ( talk) 23:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. No objection to redirecting to an appropriate target. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
This individual's claim to notability is that he partially backed the record company that discovered Loretta Lynn, no independent sources are listed. It isn't a good sign when the first result from a google search for Norm Burley is about a rugby player, the results that are actually related are trivial mentions. Coverage issues aside, this seems to run afoul of WP:BLP1E. 2 says you, says two 15:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. One strong keep rationale + 3 "per nom" deletes = no consensus with leave to renominate in a few weeks to produce better discussion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
No indication of notability. No independent sources. Google searches find more results for a holiday cottage in Scotland. Restricting the search to the Philippines just shows directory listings and nothing to establish WP:notability noq ( talk) 14:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was No Consensus It certainly appears that this article meets the Set Index Criteria. That it duplicates to some extent a DAB page should not concern us. A strengthened lead would improve this list signficantly. Mike Cline ( talk) 12:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC) reply
I've been having a lengthy discussion with another editor about this article, who says it is a "Set Index Article" ( WP:SIA). I have argued that it should be deleted because:
The other editor has argued that this is indeed a Set Index Article, and should, in fact, replace the current disambiguation page at Temple Israel. I'm happy to work on improving this article (and future similar ones), but not if AfD determines that they don't belong on Wikipedia to begin with. Jayjg (talk) 04:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. JForget 00:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC) reply
He played in four minor league games and worked a few odd jobs in baseball afterwards. This is not a notable individual by Wikipedia definitions. Muboshgu ( talk) 04:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to National Collegiate Athletic Association. give it a redirect to what User:Jujutacular suggested JForget 00:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Not sure what the value of this article is. The history of the NCAA can be adequately covered at National Collegiate Athletic Association. The history of college football can be covered at College football and History of American football. Most of the college football history listed here is from before the creation of the NCAA anyway. Jweiss11 ( talk) 03:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC) reply
estate article, with little or no assertion of notability Wuh Wuz Dat 02:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Spartaz Humbug! 07:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC) reply
No indication of notability per WP:ORG. elektrik SHOOS 02:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. JForget 00:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Unencyclopaedic, especially the last column, and per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, see also WP:Articles for deletion/List of controversial books. Kayau Voting IS evil 02:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. JForget 00:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Fails the general notability guidelines, as there is no evidence of non-trivial coverage in multiple, reliable, third-party sources. There is also very little (if any) claim to notability: essentially he is someone who has lived to a great age and served as a solider around the time of (but not in) an important conflict. I admit that, being that this is such a common name, I could have easily missed sources, so I will gladly withdraw my nomination if sources demonstrating notability are uncovered. Canadian Paul 01:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 07:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC) reply
There's not much of a franchise at the moment for there to be an article. There's the original film, a relatively obscure video game, and two planned sequels that are far too early in development for us to even know if they'll ever exist: one that has yet to shoot (Mean Girls 2) and another that is only in talks (Mean Moms). – Chase ( talk) 07:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 00:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC) reply
This seems to be in violation of WP:NOT#ESSAY, because it is structured like an academic paper and seems to contain original research. The article was created by "Prof. Dr. L. Horst Grimme", and thus is probably an attempt to attract attention to his work on the subject. Claritas § 10:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
And much of this article, it should be noted, doesn't even address the subject, but rather provides information on other subjects that we already have articles on — as a lengthy prelude to explaining why the new concept, with the new name that the world at large outside of its coiners has yet to acknowledge, is a good idea. The sections in this article on nutrition, nutrification, and food production overlap our existing fairly lengthy and more detailed articles on those subjects. However, the great shame of this article is that the section explanining trophobiosis would have made a welcome addition to trophobiosis, which is a stub that could do with exactly that sort of expansion.
That last is the problem, as far as I'm concerned. It aside, this article is a synthesis of superficial discussions of other subjects, that we already have articles on, brought together to support a new concept being promoted here by one of its coiners, that hasn't been independently acknowledged by the world at large. This is not what Wikipedia is about. Uncle G ( talk) 14:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Jayjg (talk) 05:59, 11 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Promotional article about an apparently non-notable subject, who has notable relatives. May be part of a walled garden, see also buzzine. References are not reliable sources. Nuujinn ( talk) 14:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 01:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. This article is one large WP:TRIVIA section, and fails our notability requirements because it is sourced only to the show itself. It is also overflowing with WP:OR. Reyk YO! 01:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 01:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC) reply
I apologize if this seems like a cleanup-AfD, but I'm not an expert on the topic at all. At least my google-search gave me a barrage of sources that I cannot evaluate for WP:RS. Bottom-line is, this thing has been tagged as unreferenced (BLP) since 2008 and no-one seems to have cared. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 09:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Keep, I'm on the way to bed, but a quick search found lots of sources. It appears this article just needs some major cleanup, wikification, and work. Bhockey10 ( talk) 10:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 00:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Unclear notability, unsourced with a quick google not revealing any useful ones immediately Falcon8765 ( talk) 04:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC) reply
IMDB is not a reliable source. Need more evidence of notability. -- φ OnePt618 Talk φ 04:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD - Non notable record company, fails WP:CORP. Codf1977 ( talk) 07:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 17:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Article appears to be written by someone who is basing their information on the video game Gran Turismo. A car sponsored by Pennzoil did compete in a racing series, and this car in this paint scheme did appear in video games, but there is nothing in particular that makes this race car different or unique compared to other identical cars which competed in this series. None of the information in the article is correct and it appears to not actually discuss anything about the real car, rather introducing statistics from mentioned video game. The359 ( Talk) 08:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. JForget 01:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC) reply
I don't think this should be a separate article from Technology evangelist. I propose redirecting it, or making it into a disambiguation page between Technology evangelist and Platform evangelism. - EdoDodo talk 08:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
If I were *done* with the article Technology evangelism, I would agree entirely. However, it is essentially a stub, having been started just before I began a separate project. I expect to get back to it in min-July 2010.
In brief, the distinction between Technology Evangelism and Platform Evangelism stems from the difference between one-sided platforms (such as a text editor) and a two-sided platform (such as a text-editor that supports specialized plug-ins produced by third-party software vendors). Both kinds of platforms can create network effects; on both platforms, these effects can be both direct (among users) and indirect (among users and vendors of complementary goods such as test-editor-specific training materials). However, the differences in pricing structures and platform access are quite different. Consider, for example, Apple's recent ban on the use, in iOS apps sold through its AppStore, of any non-Apple-approved APIs. This makes perfect sense for a two-sided platform (like the iOS), but would make no sense at all for a one-sided platform.
You'll note that my article on Platform Evangelism refers frequently to the pre-existing article on two-sided platforms. I realized, after starting to write the Technology evangelism article, that it needed to refer to a similar article on one-sided platforms, which did not yet exist. I need to write this supporting article, and one on multi-sided markets, and a article to connect them all, to make sense of the whole thing.
Also, I expect to add a section to the Technology evangelism article that references historical examples, such as the War of the Currents, the battle over rail gauges, color television, etc. Many industries start with such an evangelism battle, then settle down. Computing never settles down, due to Moore's Law. There are lots of references for these data points; it just needs to be summarized and cited.
Then, most of the content of the Technology evangelist article can be shifted over to the Technology evangelism article, with Technology evangelist being a very short stub saying that "Technology Evangelist (sometimes "Technical Evangelist") is a job title for someone who practices technology evangelism."
So, gimme a month, and I'll flesh it out. ;-) - Jim Plamondon (somewhat later on 27 June) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JimPlamondon ( talk • contribs) 21:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Novel which does not meet WP:NB or WP:GNG - it's a book in a series with no notability inherited from that series. Carolyn Keene is not an author but a pseudonym used by 10 or more authors, and the author of this novel is not considered notable enough to have an article for him/herself. Therefore, criterion 5 does not apply, and I don't see how it can meet any of the other criteria - there's very little significant coverage in reliable sources. Claritas § 10:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 00:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Very poorly sourced WP:BLP issues, created by possible sock of User:Saqib. Bringing here for discussion on whether to delete the page. Thank you. -- Cirt ( talk) 13:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 01:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC) reply
This article does not appear to meet the general notability guidelines for corporations. There are no references of any kind on the article, and the only mentioning that I could find of this organization in the news was this article that listed it as a charity that received a grant. A web search shows no real coverage outside of its own website. Tjc 6 14:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Puff piece for a non-notable person. A BLP PROD was removed but no substantial, reliable sources were added. There's a minor award from the U of Central Michigan, and that's it; board members of such a university are not automatically notable. Drmies ( talk) 13:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. no arguments for deletion aside from the nom JForget 00:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable band that fails WP:BAND. Aspects ( talk) 16:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 07:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable band that fails WP:BAND. Aspects ( talk) 16:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply