The result was delete (closing as SNOW). Neutrality talk 18:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC) reply
this is just an article promoting an ebook by the author of that ebook PTJoshua ( talk) 23:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 03:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC) reply
A commercial product that is not notable. -- The Σ talk contribs 22:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 03:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Most sources are wikipedia mirrors or websites like wikipedia that are free to edit. This also was subject to afd and was deleted and this person still isn't notable. I can't find any real third party sources which tells me this person fails WP:BLP Everyone Dies In the End ( talk) 21:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. causa sui ( talk) 21:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Not a single source given on a sensitive term eventually involving territorial claims. Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 20:50, 13 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete a7, no indication of notability. NawlinWiki ( talk) 22:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Website Bobherry ( talk) 20:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 03:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Composer and guitarist of little note. Quite a few mentions online and even in the book in the references section; but these are mere mentions. The mentions themselves are written about some other noteworthy song or artist with mere credit given to subject for role as guitarist or composer. v/r - T P 20:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 17:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Not notable in herself, only for the murder case. Should be turned into a redirect. Egg Centric 20:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Anyone think I should withdraw this as nominator to save effort for everyone else? My mind isn't changed, incidentally - but at the same time it's clear where consensus is. Egg Centric 18:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 03:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC) reply
It fails WP:NFOOTBALL since he has not played in a professional league or a senior tournament GoPurple 'n Gold24 20:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Glossary of poker terms#S. ( non-admin closure) Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 17:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Horribly unreferenced. All I could find in Google News were press releases, which are not reliable sources. I do not know of any independent reliable source that discusses subscription-based poker in general. Thus, this article has little chance of being referenced. (However, due to Black Friday, it might be possible that these sites get good third-party coverage, in which case this article can be recreated). RJaguar3 | u | t 20:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Redirect per solution proposed by 2005. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 16:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 17:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC) reply
already an existing article Twobells ( talk) 19:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Extensive coverage in RS, article has been rewritten to address COI and style issues and now better presents the notability of the article, which can be further improved using reliable sources. ( non-admin closure) Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 00:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Majority of article is from a single editor who is displaying a notable WP:COI. Disputed prod, so listing here for wider discussion as requested by prod-decliner and per regular deletion nominations. The Rambling Man ( talk) 19:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was Withdrawn by nominator. CycloneGU ( talk) 22:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Dicdef, nanostub. Article's been around 6 years and hasn't gained an iota of information. Delete or transwiki to wiktionary. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Otters want attention) 19:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. causa sui ( talk) 21:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Scott Wilson is a player who has not attained notability standards of WP:NHOCKEY or WP:GNG. Wilson has some coverage, but it is routine hockey coverage at blogs and university paper. ʘ alaney2k ʘ ( talk) 19:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Closing early per WP:SNOW; there is no chance that we will keep this original research essay. Sandstein 09:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Incoherent article which appears to be about a fringe theory but doesn't even clearly state what the theory is. The term is indeed used sometimes by reputable physicists but that's not what this article is about. It seems to require a rethink of General Relativity and a "re-formulating" of the strong and weak forces. In other words rewriting some slightly important parts of the universe. None of the references mention the theory. Fails WP:FRINGE, WP:OR, WP:RS. andy ( talk) 19:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Refutation
Why the article is not fringe physics, a gentleman's science
Watching Neil Turok on Horizon or reading Stephen Hawking, for instance in The Nature of Space and Time, i'm reminded: these are refined gentlemen with balanced, deep, and intricate perspectives. If we could emulate them, i believe there'd be less strife and struggle - and - more stimulating insightful discussions. Not that they agree on everything, or even that i agree with them, but simply the gentlemanly respect they show others combined with open-mindedness - these are unequivocally admirable qualities. i've written to both of them and i guarantee you: they're willing to think about the following concepts..
Wikipedia is about to delete 'quantum realism' - my second attempt over several years to encourage humanity to ask fundamental questions about spacetime and energy. It doesn't distress me; i expected it as convention's attempt to perserve: job security, investment in research, and most importantly - public perception of their adequacy. For instance, if it was proven they've been pursing a 'dead end' / blind alley with the Standard Model, if the prime assumptions of the Standard Model are actually incorrect, there'd be a considerable amount of embarrassment on their side. They'd realize that for about 100 years, they were getting paid to confirm a theory that was essentially incorrect.
Wikipedia's label of my article was 'fringe', but the label is inappropriate at best. i'm actually extremely conservative in my veiwpoints as we shall see .. i propose some 'radically conservative' veiwpoints: 1. spacetime/time is infinitely elastic - nothing special happens behind an event-horizon
2. spacetime/time has finite elasticity
3. gravitational waves seem impossible in our universe
4. spacetime is explicitly 3D+1
5. what we think of as 'curved spacetime' is actually only curved time
6. spacetime is continuous
7. energy/photons propagate in only one way:
8. the notion of balanced curvature requires conservation
9. the concept of the impedance of space/time is absolutely required in this framework
Many of these concepts have been around in excess of 100 years. Allow me to repeat that.
Many of these concepts have been around in excess of 100 years.
Not just been around - but put to practical use for that much time..
Does that make me fringe? Or conservative?
Conservative is not fringe; conservative is conservative.
.. Convention is the speculative party:
The list seems endless on convention's part - to explain reality without the Prime Cause.
Who's fringe? Convention or me? &Delta ( talk) 12:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Please forgive the brief presentation of 'the theory' if it was incomprehensible/confusing/unclear/unintelligible; i will make my best attempt to correct this. Also please understand that sometimes - an idea is labeled 'unintelligible' because the readers don't have the background to understand. i ask that any further 'delete vote' please also state their qualifications to judge theoretical physics ideas - otherwise, it makes them questionable on validity. &Delta ( talk) 12:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC) reply
the theory has received outside attention:
Howard Georgi at Harvard University
his email is: [suppressed for privacy]
please feel free to contact him at your earliest convenience, sam &Delta ( talk) 13:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC) reply
i sincerely appreciate the (likely unintended) complement implied by your most recent objection - original synthesis/research
however, at least a partial synthesis 'has been around' as a kind of 'undercurrent' in modern physics ever since Einstein objected to Bohr's primary thesis: (paraphrased) God plays dice
in Stephen Hawking's The Nature of Space and Time, Mr. Hawking comes to a point in his discussion: "not only that God does play dice, but that He sometimes confuses us by throwing them where they can’t be seen" (p19)
so Mr. Hawking would seem to agree with Mr. Bohr
however, i've been attempting to contact Mr. Hawking about this very article's proposed deletion..
i'm NOT asking him to endorse the theory..
i simply asked him to take a public stand: "it's possible" or "it's impossible" - one or the other
considering his historical position in physics, i'd encourage Wikipedia editors to refrain from further deletion attempts - if Mr. Hawking decides to 'weigh in' on this discussion
of course, if Mr. Hawking decides "it's impossible" and publicly declares such, please feel free to delete the article in question
please allow him reasonable time to do so (his assistant, Sam Blackburn, may comment in Mr. Hawking's stead)
.. one final remark about the purpose of any encyclopedia: just as important as 'comprehensive knowledge' is 'stimulating inquiry' ("asking questions")
science does not make progress unless we ask questions .. sometimes, 'the right' questions must be asked in order to make any progress..
what this means is .. sometimes in the history of science, there were some who dared to asked the right questions at the right time
.. with non-detection of Higgs and gravitational waves 'looming in the near future', we are literally forced to reconsider things previously dismissed
this is the 'unfortunate' (and very exciting) reality of our situation.. &Delta ( talk) 16:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC) reply
in all honesty, i don't wish to violate Wikipedia standards
but the question of scientific integrity and general human curiosity - demand me to rebut
if you examine all the editor objections of my article - makes one immediately ask the question - who's threatened by this?
how much server space is actually required for such an article?
not very much.
.. the incessant attacks on me and the article makes one wonder - what's the motivation for such attacks?
Wikipedia standards?
.. or perhaps it's something else..
i suggest an autonomous arbiter - neutral party - and hence my suggestion for Mr. Hawking
your objection is sound - and i respect it. period.
but there's also the issue of scientific fairness / even-handedness
.. this section here - is not about defending any particular position - it's about the unbiased nature of scientific inquiry
if we truly admire an unbiased perspective, this framework must be allowed fair 'airplay' for general/professional consumption
that's the bottom line. &Delta ( talk) 02:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 14:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Declined Prod by author. Prod reason was "Per WP:FOOTYN non notable team in sub-national league. Unreferenced article." Prod Decline did not come with an improvement to the article. Hasteur ( talk) 19:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Jim Archibald. Clear consensus that we should not have an article on him now. The relist option came in toward the end, but I doubt many of those opting for deletion would have a problem with a redirect for now, particularly as it is true that there is current information on Josh Archibald over at Jim Archibald. Obviously if the son becomes notable we can recreate this. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Subject of article has not attained notability standards of WP:NHOCKEY or WP:GNG. Archibald is a junior-level player without major award wins or other notability status. ʘ alaney2k ʘ ( talk) 19:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. causa sui ( talk) 21:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Uher has not met notability standards of WP:NHOCKEY (hockey project) or WP:GNG (general notability). ʘ alaney2k ʘ ( talk) 19:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. causa sui ( talk) 21:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC) reply
WP:N concerns, I wasn't able to find RS coverage on this musician save for a single article (published twice, but it's the same article) via a Google News Search [14]. Additional sources welcomed, as always. joe decker talk to me 14:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 03:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-notable neologism Ryan Vesey ( talk) 17:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 03:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-notable neologism that was created by one person. See here. Ryan Vesey ( talk) 17:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 03:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Unable to find reliable, secondary sources which provide in-depth coverage of this pulp fiction author. Certainly exists, but the books I checked out lacked reliable review coverage. He did get at least one blog interview on the subject of being published. Doesn't appear to meet notability under WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR, but additional sources, as always, welcomed. joe decker talk to me 17:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. No rationale for deletion based on guideline or policy provided. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Taobao as a company no longer exists. I has been split into two parts - Taobao Mall and Taobao Marketplace Vze2656h ( talk) 16:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC) reply
—Avé 10:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
The result was delete. — Cirt ( talk) 16:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Lower standard than notability. WBRi interviews/reviews are the only independent reliable sources for this article. Other sources are produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator. The Director may not be a notable one Wikiglobaleditor ( talk) 15:47, 13 July 2011 (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}} . |
The result was delete. Aaron Brenneman ( talk) 14:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC) reply
(1) Not often used in the literature (even the references given refer to various "Dark side of ..." concepts.) (2) Used for different concepts in the references given. This means the article should be a disambiguation page, even if a notable concept. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:50, 13 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy close. TN X Man 15:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-notable asteroid cruft. The article even calls it "minor". Do we really need an article on all the trillions of asteroids in the universe? Would Britannica cover every asteroid under the sun? Number One Nominator ( talk) 14:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Last AFD closed as keep due to sources, but a closer examination shows them to be 2 sources promoting concerts, 1 directory listing from Radio Disney and a PR piece from an agency. I fail to see how any of this meets WP:GNG or WP:BAND. Google News turns up only false positives. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Otters want attention) 00:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Atomic_Kitten_discography#Box_sets per WP:NSUPER. Consider this a no consensus close. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC) reply
None-notable article per WP:NALBUMS. The article simply lists a track listing and does not even attempt to provide well-rounded coverage. It has not charted nor recieved extensive independent coverage from reliable third party sources. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 01:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD. Non-notable film with no current independent references. Current refs include IMDB and cast listings elsewhere. Does not meet WP:NFILMS I, Jethrobot drop me a line 21:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Little more than a thinly sourced bio posing as an entry about a band; neither the band nor the person meet notability requirements. Sources are concert reviews, record reviews, a blog and some first party refs; no reliable third party coverage found. Not notable, prod declined without comment. Hairhorn ( talk) 19:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Asserts notability with music on a Discovery Channel program, but sources are all related to concerts or otherwise trivial. Band's album was just deleted. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Otters want attention) 18:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Company does not appear to be notable per WP:CORP. The references provided are corporate/financial profiles or extremely trivial coverage in PR-style material, and reliable sources about the company do not appear to exist. Kinu t/ c 16:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Cirt ( talk) 16:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:PORNBIO, WP:ENT, WP:CREATIVE, and the GNG; no indication the subject can pass any other specialized guideline. Only GNews hit is a passing mention, only GBooks hit is a collection of Wikipedia articles, GHits appear to be promotional or trivial. Virtually no reliable sourcing for BLP details. Main claim to notability seems to be single-year nominations for something called the "Bondage Award", which seems to be somebody's individual project with outlandishly long lists of "nominees". [25] Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 16:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. ( non-admin closure) Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 17:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Borderline promotional, not so much in tone as in content: the product is entirely not notable, as far as I can see. Related to it is Tianjin Zhongke Blue Whale Information Technologies Co., Ltd., speedied once already as promotional and again nominated (A7). Drmies ( talk) 14:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC) reply
No evidence of notability. The only references are to the business's own site and a press release. Searches have produced very little coverage, and none at all in reliable third party sources. This appears to be a promotional article. JamesBWatson ( talk) 11:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC) reply
I would question this assertion, as even comparing it to a similar publication PC Gamer there are only a couple of third party references and the rest are the magazine's own links and those of the publishing company. Surely similar deletions would need be made for almost every similar informational article regarding a publication. Colonel finn ( talk) 13:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. No quorum, so there's leave to speedy renominate. ( non-admin closure) Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 17:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Single does not meet the notability criteria under WP:NALBUMS. It is not covered by third-party sources, and has not charted. 07:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I am also nominating the following albums for similar reasons. They are not well-covered by independent sources and have not charted:
Although Speck in the Universe is the artist's first album, the coverage on the article seems to be focused about the artist herself, not about the album. I, Jethrobot drop me a line
Speck in the Universe I added some new sources and changed a few things. I hope you reconsider the nomination for "Speck in the Universe".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexabordenfan ( talk • contribs)
The result was delete. — Cirt ( talk) 16:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD. Ephemeral project. No independent sources. Does not meet WP:GNG. Crusio ( talk) 07:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Tiny airline, with a "fleet" of only two small planes. Perhaps it will become notable in the future, but at this point there is only 1 independent source in a very minor publication. Does not meet WP:CORP or WP:GNG. Crusio ( talk) 00:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Cirt ( talk) 16:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Does not meet criteria of WP:ATHLETE as he has not yet played a first-team fully professional match. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 13:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Cirt ( talk) 16:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-notable product by company without a wiki page Nik the stoned 12:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was nomination withdrawn. It seems she is notable, but the author of the article didn't do a very good job of showing the fact. JamesBWatson ( talk) 15:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)=== Julia Montes=== reply
No evidence of notability. The only source cited gives her only a brief passing mention. (Note: PROD was removed by a single purpose account without explanation, and without sources being added.) JamesBWatson ( talk) 12:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was Consensus to delete determined by Drmies. GB fan please review my editing 17:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC) reply
notability is not established, article contains no reliable secondary sources/references. Warfieldian ( talk) 11:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Cirt ( talk) 16:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-notable book. The only references to this book to be found in a Google search are to the publisher's website and to various blog posts trying to promote this book. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 11:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Cirt ( talk) 16:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Not remotely notable as a so-called person. No significant coverage in reliable sources. PROD-tag removed with no explanation by a disruptive IP as per usual practice. ╟─ Treasury Tag► cabinet─╢ 09:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Cirt ( talk) 16:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Look like advertisement and copyright. —AssassiN's Creed (talk) 09:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. The nominator has stated that "a denial of petition is not notable" but has provided no solid reasoning for this, however there are plenty of comments that refute this and demonstrate the notability of the article. The subject has been covered in reliable sources, including those separate from the Supreme Court itself. Perhaps a merge to Humberto Leal Garcia, Jr. is something that can be discussed, but there's no consensus here to mandate that decision by AFD, so I'm closing as keep, with a merge possible through discussion. ( non-admin closure) Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 00:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Humberto Leal Garcia, Jr. is notable. The trial of Leal Garcia at the state level is notable. The U.S. Supreme Court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus is not notable, so this Leal Garcia v. Texas article should be deleted or merged into Leal Garcia's article. The U.S. Supreme Court's denial of the petition is not an actual U.S. Supreme Court case. Granting the petition would have granted permission for a U.S. Supreme Court case, so the Court's denial of the petition was the Court's refusal to hear the case. OCNative ( talk) 08:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC) reply
It's simply not accurate to dismiss this opinion as nothing but a petition denial, however. First, the Supreme Court included it in its list of opinions for the term, [29], not in its tables of mere orders. [30] Second, it's clearly more substantive than a mere order, which would have contained nothing more than the last paragraph of the Court's opinion here blandly describing what action was taken without explanation ("The applications for stay of execution...are denied...", etc.). The Court issued a four-page opinion discussing the substantive legal issues underlying its decision. We do presume, and rightly so, that Court opinions are notable, because with few exceptions, they will get significant coverage in both mainstream media and specialist law sources.
The "few exceptions" are per curiam opinions, which tend to be shorter like this one, or often look like one-line orders. So the standard procedure is to describe them in mass lists, and Leal Garcia has a section awaiting expansion at 2010 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States (I forgot to create a redirect when I added it there). So given that there is that venue for discussing this Supreme Court opinion, and Humberto Leal Garcia, Jr. basically functions as a main article for all of the legal proceedings, a standalone article is not necessary for the Supreme Court opinion, which as properly noted above was just one stage in a lengthy prosecution and post-conviction litigation. But whether the Supreme Court's per curiam opinion only merits discussion in those articles I mentioned above, or also a standalone article, is an editing decision that didn't need to be taken to AFD. In its current state, I think it could easily be merged into the per curiam list, but I don't have an opinion on its expansion potential. postdlf ( talk) 15:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Courcelles 03:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-notable defeated candidate who fails the criteria in WP:POLITICIAN. The only news coverage of the guy are news stories that cover all the candidates or news stories in his local press. OCNative ( talk) 05:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete (fails WP:NSPORT). If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 09:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC) reply
An American football quarterback. Plays for a team in the Ultimate Indoor Football League. He is a quarterback coach for the University of Pikeville. I believe he fails WP:NSPORT. Bgwhite ( talk) 04:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. The sources presented indicate that the subject of the article meets the required criteria for the general notability guideline, significant coverage in reliable sources. ( non-admin closure) Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 00:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC) reply
WP:REFUND resorted article, but does not meet WP:GNG (or WP:NHOCKEY) Mtking ( talk) 03:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC) reply
to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article per WP:GNG. Dolovis ( talk) 05:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Cirt ( talk) 16:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-notable local swimming pool. There was a PROD that was removed but there is still nothing by way of any significant coverage. The only sources remain a few pieces in the local newspaper. Dismas| (talk) 03:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Cirt ( talk) 16:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC) reply
fails WP:NALBUMS. nothing in gnews. all google shows [34] is directory listings, nothing in depth to qualify as reliable sources. LibStar ( talk) 02:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Thanks for your honesty. Too often I see article creators display WP:OWN in AfDs. LibStar ( talk) 12:47, 14 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 00:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC) reply
List that is better off as a category, or a spliting similar to List of Major League Baseball players (A), as every player will retire eventually Delete Secret account 00:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. causa sui ( talk) 21:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Article that basically says he is an accountant. Sources are to a book he readwrote. An article about the book was deleted before this article was created. I can find nothing on google other than book reviews.
noq (
talk) 20:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
reply
The result was keep. WP:NOTDIR does not have anything in it that this article would be in violation of it. Although, just because a list is useful, does not mean it's meant for WP. -- DQ (t) (e) 00:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Listcruft. Violates WP:NOTTVGUIDE. JJ98 ( Talk / Contributions) 00:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Strong Keep Useful list and ive seen many like it. Goldblooded ( talk) 21:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 00:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Page serves only as an advertisement for a non-notable gaming clan. The olny notable thing about them is covered under the Cyber Nations constroversy section. PapaDocFerrum ( talk) 02:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Chulalongkorn_University#Faculties. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC) reply
university faculties are not inherently notable. they need to pass WP:ORG to be standalone. I also oppose merge because there is no meaningful content to merge. also nominating Faculty of Education, Chulalongkorn University as all it contains is a directory of programs offered as per WP:NOTDIR. LibStar ( talk) 03:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. I agree with the other comments, & note she is actress in a single film, in what the article on the film says is a supporting role DGG ( talk ) 03:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC) reply
fails WP:ENT. at best one acting role. LibStar ( talk) 04:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC) reply
I restored the AfD template from the page; it had been removed. No comment on notability overall but an assistant director credit wouldn't generally establish it - AD is a noncreative position. Kevin ( talk) 05:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 00:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC) reply
also nominating K-1 ColliZion 2009 Romania Qualification Round. clearly fails WP:GNG. having notable participants does not make this event notable or strong keep. NO evidence of indepth third party coverage. 1 gnews hit [35] google just shows fighting sources (non third party) and event listings. LibStar ( talk) 06:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. causa sui ( talk) 21:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Long term unreferenced BLP with no significant coverage able to be found in independent reliable sources. PROD was removed by a first time editor with no explanation or effort to improve the article. The-Pope ( talk) 13:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Can this article be turned into a stub? Although there are no online biographical sources,he gave a rare interview to Radio Nacional Exterior in 2001 which detailed his life which I heard back then when I was in Spain. Also his discography is backed by reliable sources such as AMG and ASCAP which back up his notability as he has sold several million records. i am a first time editor and as such inexperieced so apologies for removing the PROD without explanation. -- Aloiiyii ( talk) 16:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Cirt ( talk) 16:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Minor actor who is not notable. Philafrenzy ( talk) 23:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC) reply
ICONic Boyz is not a group notable enough to warrant their own article. Plenty of articles about America's Best Dance Crew contestants, like this one, have been deleted in the past on the same grounds. All this group has done is appear on one television show (and did not win), and did not do anything very notable either before or after their appearance on ABDC. The America's Best Dance Crew (season 6) article already covers a majority of the information on the page already (weekly challenges and song titles).
I suggest deleting this article, and then possibly writing an article about the ICON Dance Complex instead. That way, we can expand the article past the ICONic Boyz, and add information about the ICONic Girlz, ABDC Season 1 crew ICONic, founder Geo Hubela, and more. WaninokoZ ♪♫♪ 20:06, 4 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 00:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-notable minor league baseball pitcher currently in independent baseball. Statistically, he didn't really do anything of note that would merit an article. References are sparse. Alex ( talk) 20:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Consensus appears to be that with the modifications, the article meets WP:GNG Shirik ( Questions or Comments?) 06:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC) reply
not notable, previous copy was un-sourced advertorial. probably a vanity page. Former freelancer and TV host on a small Canadian network whose show was cancelled after less than two months. Spoonkymonkey ( talk) 21:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Theo Caldwell is significant enough to remain although the content obviously needs improvement pidd ( talk) 19:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC) reply
All the "coverage" of this "notable" person is one very vague 7-paragraph wire service story that was posted on several web pages. Spoonkymonkey ( talk) 11:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC) reply
He may not be notable to you, of course, everyone has different views on what is an acceptable threshold of notability. And everyone has different views on what is trivial and inconsequential additions. I for one do not agree that being a National Post columnist is trivial, that being honoured by the Canadian Institute for Jewish Research is trivial, and that hosting a television show with average ratings of 30-33,000 viewers (I don't have a reliable source for that, so I didn't include the ratings in the article, but Caldwell held his own versus other Sun TV day shows) is trivial. I also do not share your view that Sun News Network is a network watched by almost no one (as you stated well above in the discussion), since Ezra Levant and Brian Lilley sometimes have twice as many viewers as CTV News Network for half the households reached. Not bad for a startup. Hosting a show on this network, to me, indeed makes you a notable person, but that's my opinion, which is irrelevant to the guidelines.
So let's see what the guidelines say :
Now I am aware that these are just guidelines and their interpretation subject to, well, subjectivity. I also believe that the sources I provided above and in the article show without a doubt that Caldwell meets the Wikipedia notability guidelines.
Ultimately it is up to the closing administrator to determine if there is consensus on deletion, therefore I believe we may agree to disagree. :) Cheers - CharlieEchoTango ( talk) 22:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC) reply
An honest observer would see that you have put everything but the kitchen sink into saving this entry, while I have simply pointed out facts, including the fact that high schools do not have academic "chairs", that hos broadcast career was very short, that hos book did not sell well, win awards or do anything else to make it noteworthy. The sole "award" he received seems to be a one-off affair -- no one received it before or since, so it's not particularly noteworthy. I will assume good faith on your part, a courtesy that you have not offered me. Spoonkymonkey ( talk) 18:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 00:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Unable to find any coverage in reliable sources to verify the contents of this unsourced BLP. J04n( talk page) 22:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC) reply