The result was speedy delete under criteria G4 (recreation of a deleted page). This is "substantially identical" to the article as originally discussed and deleted, and is not only not an improved version, but is actually worse in terms of formatting and completeness. Moreover, the consensus to delete at the first nomination was not because the original article was in poor condition, but because it was not the proper title, because it duplicated other articles, because the time period was arbititary, and so forth. Because of this the recreation of the article may be speedied under G4. Neutrality talk 22:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Neutrality talk 22:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC) reply
This article was deleted earlier today and was recently recreated by a new user. The reasoning for deleting this remains unchanged (see previous deletion discussion). Cyclonebiskit ( talk) 22:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC) reply
No coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Fails WP:NOTE. While the individual character names are a likely search term for the character list, combined like this, they are not. — Farix ( t | c) 20:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Kurdistan Workers' Party. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC) reply
It's a list and WP:NPOV. Could also be merged to Kurdistan Workers' Party. Nipsonanomhmata (Talk) 20:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was KEEP. postdlf ( talk) 02:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC) reply
An inherited title does not make someone notable. No own achievements. Night of the Big Wind ( talk) 20:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC) reply
I do understand the significance of aristocracy. But I don't think that a single aristocrat is automatically significant and notable. He/she should have achieved something significant on his/het own merits 01:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
-- PL.-Snr ( talk) 01:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was KEEP. postdlf ( talk) 02:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Inheriting a title does not make someone notable. No own achievements. Night of the Big Wind ( talk) 20:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. -- Cirt ( talk) 03:45, 20 June 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}} . |
Non-notable website. Has 6 references. 2 are to the website itself (not independent). 4 make no reference of the website (they're articles used by the website and used as references to show that the website uses them) (not significant coverage). A Google News search] produces no results and a Google News Archive search either produces non- reliable sources or articles about RPG some sort of .NET launch of whole or partial migration of RPG applications (I have no idea what that means other than it doesn't have to do with the subject of the article). OlYeller Talktome 19:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC) reply
— 98.110.177.20 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Seeing as the article is a hodgepodge of fan-generated content coupled with owner-generated "kudos" and claims, I'd say delete it. The fact that their page-view reference (which was allegedly used to garner advertising dollars) turned out to be a locked, non-supporting reference (which was challenged and afer much back-and-forth finally removed), speaks volumes.. There are no solid references to it anywhere on the web, so basically all content is user-genrated opinion.-- Agoodbadhabit ( talk) 01:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC) reply
No individual notability for this person. Just another celeb family member. Sourced only to imdb. Hairhorn ( talk) 19:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 03:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Fan film with no evidence of notability, prod declined without explanation Jac16888 Talk 11:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. -- Cirt ( talk) 18:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Appears to fail WP:BIO. Searches yielded no substantial coverage in reliable sources for this subject. Only non-reliable sources or trivial coverage was uncovered. Also long-term unreferenced BLP. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 17:27, 28 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. -- Cirt ( talk) 18:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Does not meet Wp:Academic. The one concept he has been linked with was found to be not notable at a recent AFD (see Burnt-out diabetes mellitus) Article has single author who seems to be a single issue editor and removed Prod without further elucidation Porturology ( talk) 05:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Seems to fail notability (sports) as they play in the second tier of a provincial league and, other than inevitable match reports, have no significant independent coverage. GNG probably is not met because the remaining sources relate to ephemeral non-notable news stories about a bar, a fire and possibly losing their ground. Sitush ( talk) 11:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was DELETE. postdlf ( talk) 02:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC) reply
This article was PRODded, but deletion was contested on the talk page. The PROD rationale by Schumeru ( talk) was: "The article is most likely a hoax: 1. Hama and Aleppo are two distant Syrian cities; 2. "Aleppo" is spelled incorrect; 3. http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Syria/Missile/facilities.html does not list any site linked to missile production or testing in this region. In fact, Google Earth shows that there doesn't exist any structure at the given location at all; 4. It seems to be impossible to find any other source other than astronautix.com and that one bases its information on an obscure blog article."
The German article has been deleted as a hoax. The IP defending this article on the talk page says that it is not a hoax, because Syria has rockets and does test launches, but admits that "The article could be wrong (and likely is wrong) with the coordinate and the name." But the whole content of the article is the assertion that there is a launch site at the named and specified location, and as there is no reliable source for that statement, the article fails WP:V. JohnCD ( talk) 17:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Since the German article had ben deleted at my request, I am glad to give the reasons here again.
Best regards, Altkatholik62 ( talk) 19:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Delete No evidence means no article. Nothing else matters. -- Schumeru ( talk) 13:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. joe decker talk to me 16:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC) reply
This page contains no sources. A google search yields few relevant hits, and those are from mirror sites. Ryan Vesey ( talk) 15:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was SPEEDY DELETED by Boing! said Zebedee ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). postdlf ( talk) 16:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Can't make out what this is, but it looks like a hoax. I have a feeling it's the same guy back trying to write about some amateur YouTube stuff again (sorry I can't remember the old ID). 2 Doctor (deleted, admins only, sorry) is linked from here and said "The 2 Doctor is the 2nd and current incarnation of the protagonist of Science fiction on youtube science-fiction series Doctor Who Adventures.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Boing! said Zebedee ( talk • contribs)
The result was delete. joe decker talk to me 16:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC) reply
I can find no third-party reliable sources supporting the notability of this neologism. The PROD was removed by the author who indicated that more references would be provided. A number of days have passed since that was said, and nothing has been done to the article. Singularity42 ( talk) 15:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was DELETE. postdlf ( talk) 02:05, 18 June 2011 (UTC) reply
I've been unable to find any reliable sources that would establish meeting WP:BIO for this author. January ( talk) 15:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 03:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he has played at the highest level of domestic football in Poland. This is factually incorrect. He was under contract with Jagiellonia Białystok, but never actually played for them. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 14:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following article for the same reason. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 14:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to The Fly (1986 film) or appropriate target. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC) reply
A group of IPs and users (who are probably the same person, but that's neither here nor there) has been slowly edit-warring with me for months over these articles; some other editors and I have occasionally redirected them because they are articles about a characters that only appear in one film, contain nothing more than detailed plot summary, and have nothing encyclopedic or out-of-universe in them. The edit warring IPs always just undo the redirects without discussion. Bringing to AfD now to get an explicit consensus on these articles (so that that consensus can later be enforced if the IPs choose to continue edit warring).
The articles/redirects in question:
rʨanaɢ ( talk) 14:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- DQ (t) (e) 22:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Like Tagg, another WP:NOTINHERITED case and a bit of WP:BLP1E. This son did get slightly more press for his role in Mitt's campaign, plus the "will he or won't he?" speculation that invariably pops up with people hint they may run for office. As with Tagg, absent the famous family, this person would be just another thought-about-it-but didn't office contender, and an campaign aide, nothing more. Tarc ( talk) 14:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- DQ (t) (e) 22:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Simple case of "notability is not inherited". Held several ordinary jobs before working for his father's presidential campaign, making a small handful of talking head-type news appearances on his behalf. One WaPo story on the brothers' blogging doesn't cut it for notability for Tagg. Not even really worth a redirect, IMO, he just hasn't done anything worth searching for. Tarc ( talk) 14:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was DELETE. postdlf ( talk) 02:05, 18 June 2011 (UTC) reply
WP:PROD concern: The subject of the article does not appear to meet the appropriate notability requirements. Meph talk 13:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Abbie Hoffman. v/r - T P 02:33, 19 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Unnotable person. Redirect to Abbie Hoffman#Personal life or perhaps to Steal This Movie.
The lede says it all. Article leads give a concise description of who the person is and why he is notable. The lede for this article is "America Hoffman is the son of Abbie and Anita Hoffman". And that's the sole claim of notability for this person. He neither accomplished anything of note nor was he in the news in any meaningful way.
But we don't have articles on people just because their parents were notable. The article is entirely about some obscure lawsuit in which Hoffman was the plaintiff. This material is repeated in the article Steal This Movie which is where it belongs. Herostratus ( talk) 12:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Herostratus ( talk) 12:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was Nomination withdrawn. R'n'B ( call me Russ) 10:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC) reply
This article has never been more than a stub. We already have the large Flora of Belize and now we have the stub Fauna of Belize. There's no need to keep this article ... except maybe as a disambiguation page? Rennell435 ( talk) 11:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Nominator has been blocked as a sock puppet and there are no other arguments for deletion. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Fails
our notability guideline for victims of crime. The crime may be notable, but
the victim does not inherit notability from it.
Anthem 10:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC) revert AfD nomination of sockpuppet, see
WP:Banning policy.
Unscintillating (
talk)
05:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 03:43, 20 June 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}} . |
Article fails to establish notability; some of the external links are either blogs, commercial announcements, or only incidentally mention the company. - Mike Rosoft ( talk) 09:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Delete: company resorts to self generated publicity for SEO benefit through
send2press-release and
PRwire-press release most references are various versions of these releases — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Transpacific23 (
talk •
contribs)
02:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
reply
The result was DELETE. postdlf ( talk) 02:05, 18 June 2011 (UTC) reply
I've just finished removing a lot of uncited claims in this article about such and such being the best player ever to live. Now I think it's time this article faced up to AFD. I can't establish any notability myself and it seems to fail WP:ORG with no reliable sources asserting notability. Jay Σεβαστός discuss 09:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to List of Star Trek races#Sphere Builders. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Plot only coverage of a fictional topic. There is a lack of reliable third party sources for this alien race.
Anthem 09:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Revert AfD nomination of sockpuppet, see
WP:Banning policy.
Unscintillating (
talk)
05:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
reply
The result was no consensus to delete. T. Canens ( talk) 05:34, 24 June 2011 (UTC) reply
This list of cultural references is inappropriate because
it is necessarily going to be a list of trivia and thus conflicts with
the policy that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Almost none of the "cultural references" have any notability, and the cultural impact of A Clockwork Orange can be covered elsewhere without this unsourced
list cruft.
Anthem 07:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Revert AfD nomination of sockpuppet, see
WP:Banning policy.
Unscintillating (
talk)
06:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
reply
There are plenty of wikipedia pages that include a subsection called "references in popular culture". This page serves the purpose of this sub-section but in a separate page. If this page is to be deleted on the basis that it is a "list of trivia", then all those subsections on other pages should also be deleted. -- Bigbadman ( talk) 15:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy close. Nominator blocked as a sock and there are no other arguments for deletion. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:53, 18 June 2011 (UTC) reply
This artist management company seems to fail
our notability guideline for organizations as well as the
general notability guideline. Although there is some coverage in reliable sources, it mostly amounts to trivial mentions of Kates' status in the company or that a particular group has been managed by the company, which cannot be used to substantiate notability. The only real significant coverage is in the Boston Phoenix, which deals with now defunct record label side of the business. Previous AFD in 2006 closed as no consensus.
Anthem
07:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
reply
The result was keep. After discounting the blocked sock nominator there is an (albeit narrow) consensus that the sourcing is sufficient for a standalone article. Even if one would discount some "keep" opinions as not addressing the sourcing issue, it's at least a no consensus default to keep. Sandstein 20:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC) reply
This fictional monster fails
the general notability guideline, due to the lack of significant independent coverage in reliable sources. While there are multiple citations to reliable sources, none of them are third party, all being associated with the official Dungeons and Dragons brand/game. A search engine test provides no signs of independent coverage.
Anthem 07:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Revert AfD nomination of sockpuppet, see
WP:Banning policy.
Unscintillating (
talk)
06:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
reply
Delete per Reyk. "Trivial name drops", as he put it, do not confer notability; the topic has to actually be discussed in some detail in third party sources. TallNapoleon ( talk) 23:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Moving on to Jclemen's sources:
Anthem this seems like a lot of reliable sources have been provided. The majority clearly supports keeping this article. 107.3.67.184 ( talk) 15:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
I did read them. I believe most of these are reliable sources and so do most of the other posters. 107.3.67.184 ( talk) 17:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Anthem you don't get to make the final decision here. But to your point, I think the fact that it is listed in those sources makes it a significant monster in RPGs. 107.3.67.184 ( talk) 18:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted (G11) by Jimfbleak. Non-admin closure. Deor ( talk) 03:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
This is a dance-style subject. There are some obviously promotional areas on some of this page, but the main problem is, I cannot find any news sources to establish notability. Minima © ( talk) 05:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Favonian ( talk) 12:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Porn performer. Fails WP:PORNBIO. One-time councilperson, so may meet WP:GNG if someone can find sources. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 03:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Favonian ( talk) 12:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Delete. Fails WP:PROF. -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 02:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was DELETE. postdlf ( talk) 02:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Generally, we do not categorize people by their nation of origin. In addition, WP:LIST says that lists should include only people for whom it is a defining feature. None of these people are notable for being from outside of Vietnam, they are notable for being football players. In addition it is typical to make lists on the basis of what people are, rather than what they are not. If this was a category I'd say it was overcategorization, and that same argument applies to the list. HominidMachinae ( talk) 02:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 18:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The subject of this article is a non-notable boot loader. The article is unreferenced; and searching for "Penguin Booter" -wiki -wikipedia -blog -forum on Google Web returns 134 results that Google considers to be unique. The majority of these are mirrors of the Wikipedia article; and the remaining are either primary sources or sources that do not satisfy WP:RS and therefore cannot be used as evidence of notability. Google News and Books returns a questionable source and a book republishing Wikipedia content, respectively. Rilak ( talk) 00:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 18:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC) reply
This article appears to be comprised solely of original research. The only external link on this page is to a blog entry. Furthermore, a Google search of the article title yields no related information. This article appears to fit into the following categories:
The result was delete. As pointed out, none of the secondary sources currently meet our notability guidelines. If some should be unearthed, please contact me or any other admin to have the article userfied for possible reinstatement. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC) reply
I put a proposed deletion on the article because I do not feel its subject is notable enough and there are no independent references for the article. All of the references have been created by the subject himself, and I was unable to find any independent references myself. This proposed deletion was removed by an anonymous user who did not give any edit summary or provide any sources. Concerns about a lack of references have been raised in the article's talk page. Rogerthat94 ( talk) 06:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC) reply
I have been following Crowder's career as a political pundit and entertainer for several years. He has a tremendous following in conservative circles, and is a frequent guest on nationally syndicated radio (e.g., Dennis Miller, Hannity) and TV programs (Red Eye, Fox & Friends). I believe he merits a wiki page for his prominence in popular media and the widespread recognition of his talents. Just because Rogerthat94 isn't familiar with Crowder—or possibly dislikes his politics—is no reason to delete the page. Trackerseal ( talk) 04:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Keep. Playboy playmates have wiki pages.. Crowder is more notable than any of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.67.236.143 ( talk) 02:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Keep - I'm chiming in on this to add my vote to keep the Article. I just saw one of Crowder's videos (a good one) on YouTube. Since he's a right winger, he is definitely not someone I would follow regularly. That said, I saw your notice and have read through the discussion and done just a bit of research. Just from what I can see based on a cursory search, I'd you're being pretty unfair. He is all over the right wing media - a Lexis search turned up 183 hits in the last two years, almost all of which were the Steven Crowder at issue here. He is verifiably a frequent contributor at PJTV, a contributor on Biggovernment.com, and a frequent guest on Hannity. Plus there is that IMDB entry, listing 14 show/films in which he has appeared over more than a decade. I'd say that he meets the notability criteria for entertainers in that he clearly has a significant fan base, and he has had a significant presence in both film and TV. And we are, after all, talking about keeping or deleting his Wikipedia entry. Given that Wikipedia has room for a lengthy entry on Milhouse Van Houten, and a somewhat less lengthy article on the likes of Siuan Sanche, I'd think they could retain a similar length article on someone who actually exists and is of some note.
The argument for deletion seems to be that he doesn't meet the notability criteria, and this argument is grounded in the claim that most of the references to him are "secondary" sources as opposed to "primary" sources. Are not the verifiable appearances he has made on TV and the internet and in live venues over the years sufficient "primary" sources? What would Rogerthat94 consider to be a sufficient "primary" source? -- Lloyd S. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.102.231.183 ( talk) 22:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC) reply
First - I do not, at this time, believe that the proposal for deletion has been done in bad faith, i.e. it does not appear to be politically motivated. If we are honest with ourselves, a lot of articles do get inappropriately edited or deleted, or inappropriately defended by those with political agendas. While I can't peer into Rogerthat94's brain, based on his contributions to Wikipedia, he doesn't appear to be pursuing an agenda. He may be - I may be wrong, but the appearance is not there, IMO. I commend him for attempting to keep politics out of this discussion.
Second - these types of proposals are common. Often, someone feels that some person isn't notable enough for whatever reason to have a page on Wikipedia. Rogerthat's earlier propsed afd was successful because he found a person (Jenna Rose) who DID miss the notability guidelines because they were famous for making a couple of videos on Youtube. One day, Ms. Rose may be popular enough, but as it stands, her attachment to the ARK bunch and her "Jeans" video on YouTube just weren't enough to meet those guidelines.
Therefore, what I'd like to suggest is something I mentioned earlier. While Mr. Crowder does have some popularity, enough, I believe, to meet those notability guidelines, but certainly enough to call this AfD into question, I'd like to propose that the AfD be changed out for a and a![]() | This section of a
biography of a living person needs additional
citations for
verification. Please help by adding
reliable sources.
Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or
poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially
libelous. Find sources: "2011 June 12" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR ( Learn how and when to remove this message) |
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 03:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Fourth Tier Irish cricket club, clearly fails both WP:GNG and WP:CLUB, no claim to significance made in the article. Mtking ( talk) 07:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Mooretwin ( talk) 08:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- DQ (t) (e) 01:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Fourth Tier Irish cricket club, clearly fails both WP:GNG and WP:CLUB, no claim to significance made in the article. Mtking ( talk) 07:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The dissenting keep votes say that the team is playing at the "highest possible club levels", but this has been shown not to be the case; the team is three tiers below that level. Moretwin asked a reasonable question: "Why would you want a situation where a club gets relegated, its article is deleted, then it gets promoted and the article has to be re-created?". Generally, this is not the situation, once a team has been at the top tier ("Premier League" for this sport), the team will be subject to much more extensive coverage and the notability is also greatly enhanced. Even if the team is later relegated, the history remains notable per WP:NTEMP. However, no evidence has been given that Dungannon has ever been in the Premier League, so that argument does not apply in this case. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Fourth Tier Irish cricket club, clearly fails both WP:GNG and WP:CLUB, no claim to significance made in the article. Mtking ( talk) 07:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Shahjalal_University_of_Science_and_Technology. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Fork from the article Shahjalal University of Science and Technology. The department is not exceptionally notable to merit its own article. The article itself is written like a brochure, complete with "Philosophy" and "Faculty list". The department fails WP:N ... it is not independently notable in Bangladesh or elsewhere. There is no reason why the actual info (after you take out the faculty roster and "philosophy") cannot be handled in the university page. I had redirected the article to the university page, but the creator insists on reverting that. So, I'm proposing deletion per WP:N. Ragib ( talk) 07:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 18:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Doesn't appear to be the subject of any coverage independent of the topic. Only google hits are to music sales and Napster. As such it fails WP:N and WP:V HominidMachinae ( talk) 07:48, 5 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 03:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC) reply
I'm bringing this to AFD rather than using a PROD as I usually would because there are a few google news hits for Escdaily. However all of them mention it only in passing, none are ABOUT Escdaily, but rather they use Escdaily as a primary source while reporting about Junior Eurovision.
In short, there are no sources here, so the article fails WP:V and WP:RS. HominidMachinae ( talk) 08:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 18:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Mixtape, per
WP:NSONGS generally not notable enough for a stand-alone article. Redirect to artist was contested twice, and one source covering the mixtape was added (
MTV 1). The one other mention of the mixtape I found per Google news only mentions the name of the mixtape (
MTV 2).
The community asks for coverage in multiple reliable sources; as far as I can tell this topic does not show enough encyclopedic notability to warrant a stand-alone article.
I read an unsourced statement that this mixtape is serving as an introduction to the album
Thr33 Ringz (the title suggests it as well), if true it may be best to merge/redirect it there.
Amalthea
10:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 18:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Article does not appear to meet WP:BAND. Djc wi ( talk) 10:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 18:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:WEB and WP:V: non-notable browser game with no references based on reliable, third-party published sources. I've searched for reliable sources based on the WikiProject Video games guide to sources as well as the WPVG custom Google search and found nothing. Current references in the article are all self-published/primary. All others I could find are press releases, blogs, and forum posts, nothing that we can use to write an article. Wyatt Riot ( talk) 12:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Here's a press release [49], but that is considered primary. Other than that I don't see reliable secondary sources. — HELLKNOWZ ▎ TALK 07:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was DELETE. postdlf ( talk) 17:36, 18 June 2011 (UTC) reply
In spite of the title, the article in fact contains very little information about religion and sex integration, instead throwing in various scattered topics including the gender of deities, women's rights with or without reference to religion, and other stuff that's even less related to the ostensible topic. In theory, "women's rights in religious movements" is an encyclopedic topic (there's a category, but I don't think it has a main article); so is Religion and sex segregation, which already exists (this article, even if written in a coherent fashion, would thus still probably be redundant). But this particular article contains far too much extraneous content and original research. Even assuming there is a non-redundant topic here, which is questionable, there is not enough salvageable content here that it wouldn't be better to blow it up and start again from scratch with a clearly defined aim and structure, an appropriate scope, and a commitment to NOR. Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 01:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 18:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Article on an apparently non-notable media player, authored primarily by the developer. No sourcing at all, despite a cleanup tag since 2009. Can't find any third-party reliable sources establishing notability. Psychonaut ( talk) 13:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 18:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. No releases on a major label. Google web search brings up only primary sources, news search brings up no relavant hits. RadioFan ( talk) 14:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Bitcoin. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC) reply
No notability demonstrated as per WP:N. No major press coverage, most links are to bitcoin forums etc. Hell they don't even know if he's a real person or not. This article should be merged with Bitcoin. Simon-in-sagamihara ( talk) 01:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Favonian ( talk) 12:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:PORNBIO and WP:ENT, no indication the subject can satisfy the GNG or any other SNG. The "Urban X" award, by repeated consensus in AFD and DRV discussions, does not demonstrate notability. Most GNews/GBooks hits are clearly spurious, a small number refer to the unrelated musician known as Sara(h) Jay, associated with Massive Attack, and an even smaller number are PR/press releases/presskit pieces for the article subject. All citations in the article are promotional, mostly from the subject's own website, except the award announcement -- which, curiously enough, doesn't mention the article subject. Article has already been PROD-deleted once, AFD-deleted once, speedied three times, and protected against recreation -- but it's back, even though the logs say the protection was never lifted. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 16:20, 5 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. WP:CRYSTAL is applicable. This is purely a speculative proposal with no independent reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. TerriersFan ( talk) 17:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC) reply
There are no third-party reliable sources that support this project's notability. Singularity42 ( talk) 16:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 18:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Pretty much orphaned, unsourced BLP that has been here since 2006 without any sourcing. His supposed 'controversial' status does not appear to have resulted in any significant coverage. I did find coverage of another Canadian DJ called Major Tom, but nothing of substance about this one. Michig ( talk) 17:15, 5 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete and redirect. The consensus was to delete and this judgement was backed up by a lack of reliable independent sources in the article. A myriad of GHits counts for nought; it is the quality of the hits that count. Finally, I am not convinced that a redirect would be confusing. 'Adult Swim Video' is the brand name for the video on demand service and a targeted redirect there would assist searchers. TerriersFan ( talk) 16:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Clearly, this article has no sources. JJ98 ( Talk) 19:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 18:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC) reply
No notability -- fails WP:GNG, in particular WP:WEB. I cannot find additional significant secondary reliable coverage beyond directory entries, rankings, visitor stats. Only review I found is borderline-reliable TopTenReviews. Other hits are either blog entries and unreliable or seem promotional in nature and give no info on history/impact/reception/awards, which is what WP:WEB is about. — HELLKNOWZ ▎ TALK 19:23, 5 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Clear consensus for deletion and, also, the article lacks the sources to meet WP:BIO. TerriersFan ( talk) 16:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-notable glamour model/not-quite-hardcore porn performer, failing WP:ENT, WP:PORNBIO, and the GNG; caught up in the recent Playmate bulk AFD despite not being a Playmate, kept for procedural reasons despite a preponderance of !delete votes. No significant coverage; all GBooks hits are spurious or trivial, as are all the GNews hits except a hometown newspaper profile with very little information about her but a great deal of kvetching about how poorly Playboy pays. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 21:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Art Clokey. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC) reply
An animation studio. Admittedly long-established. But the author seems to think that he is somehow exempt from providing evidence of notability. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 21:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 18:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC) reply
BLP that has been unsourced since it was created two years ago. I was unable to find any coverage of the subject. May have contributed to some noteworthy recordings but none of the awards listed appear to be directly awarded to him. Michig ( talk) 17:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 18:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC) reply
This seems to be a page which would generate little interest and seems to be unnecessary on Wikipedia Bailo26 17:23, 5 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 18:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Unremarkable open source software. Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Searches on proper title (EnKoDeur-Mixer) produce primary sources. Searches the acronym (e.g. EKD video) bring up the expected list of file download sites. Not clear how this might meet WP:GNG RadioFan ( talk) 22:59, 5 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Sorry, but i don't understand why this article is proposed to be deleted. Yesterday's evening, i've completed it to help people use free software for audio/video editing... What's wrong, the title ? To download the software, you have to go to the official website. Erasing this article should be a large error. Laurent Bellegarde 09:36 6 june 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurentb64 ( talk • contribs)
Hi all,
Ok, I understand yours arguments,and as I'm teacher and using wikipedia with my students I understand that wikipedia is not a place to make any kind of advertissement. Still there is a question, why other software, as cinelerra or openshot video editor are in the encyclopedia ? Theses softwares aren't covered by any books, only press magasines as my articles in linux-pratique, or in my book "free audio/video edtion" published in eyrolles edition in french language. In This book, i've written a complete chapter on encoding and main information is based on EKD. I'm not the one who create the stub, i've just beleive that it was possible to complete and improve information to a large public to know that editing video freely was possible on any plateform with EKD. 06:46, 7 june 2011,UTC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurentb64 ( talk • contribs)
Hi all,
Is one theses links could help to give this article more credibility ?
Also, there a mention to ekd in the french wikipedia here :
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Video_Codec_High_Definition
I have a talk with the main author of EKD, he doesn't understand why, in the french wikipedia it is possible to add info about this software and not in the english one. I'm agree that there is a lot of clumsiness in this stub, but if there is a chance to edit/modified it in the good policy of wikipedia, I could do my best to avoid deletion.
About my book, as i'm not the author of EKD, i contribute only in functionnality and testing, I could not understand what you call an self-published book, I am an author independant of any software, published by one of the most famous book editor in France, eyrolles, here is the link to the book :
http://www.eyrolles.com/Audiovisuel/Livre/montage-video-et-audio-libre-9782212121483
it is now a reference about free audio-video editing software, and of course, if the chapter dedicated to ekd in it could not help to give more creditibility to ekd's wikipedia article, I think there is no solution to avoid deletion.
Hope it helps.
Laurent Bellegarde — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurentb64 ( talk • contribs) 08:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G4 - already twice deleted at AfD JohnCD ( talk) 20:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Reason Kombouaré ( talk) 11:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC) Greg Akcelrod is a somebody who has a long history of creating fake article on his alledgedly professional football career. Just type his name and the word fake on google and you'll find out. If he really wants a wikipedia article, he should be refered as a professional swindler rather than a professional footballer. He also says he's an actor and a member of a charity, but it's also fake. reply
The result was delete. v/r - T P 00:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Unreferenced, fails to summarise the plot, instead the article is a full synopsis of the episode. — James ( Talk • Contribs) • 9:57am • 23:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. v/r - T P 02:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC) reply
no such airport. not found in google search. article for the town is now corrected to say that there is no airport, only a tarmac road. so no sign of ongoing airport construction. may be trivially recreated if construction ever starts. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 01:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Delete per nomination. No location, no coordinates, nothing to indicate an actual facility exists. It may be nothing more than a road used by humanitarian relief planes. Mariepr ( talk) 02:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was KEEP. postdlf ( talk) 02:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC) reply
self promotion Nerupm ( talk) 16:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 03:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Pogba still hasn't made a first-team appearance for a fully professional club. He's been on the bench for Man Utd, but according to WP:FOOTY's notability criteria, that's not enough. Any other coverage of this individual is merely speculative regarding his future playing prospects. Many, many footballers have been lauded in their youth without making a professional appearance, and Pogba may be no different. To assume that he will have a notable professional career is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. – Pee Jay 00:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC) reply