The result was delete. Yunshui 雲 水 10:48, 22 November 2012 (UTC) reply
This subject fails WP:BASIC guidelines for notability. He also fails WP:WRITER, WP:ACADEMIC, and WP:ANYBIO. Note, this article is apparently an WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY, which explains why the article consists mostly of WP:PEACOCK and WP:COAT. I would normally edit the article to comply with BLP guidelines, but in this case, the article would be about one line. The subject's reporting as a journalist and work as a producer are not significantly covered by any reliable sources, and his work is not demonstrably influential (it has not had a significant impact on his field) according to reliable sources. Of course, his reporting, which forms the basis of the article, is about other subjects entirely; it doesn't say anything about the notability of the journalist, nor does it impart much about the journalist biographically. Journalists are supposed to report on notable things. Similarly, his collaborative research is not adequately cited or discussed by others to qualify as a notable academic. The content of this living person's biography is based principally on his own works, however citing to the subject offers no indication as to the actual significance of any particular achievement or publication. This article is a WP:RESUME of non-notable work. JFHJr ( ㊟) 23:31, 15 November 2012 (UTC) reply
i am gianluca d'agostino, the person cited in this article, i totally agree with you about rhe fact i am not a notable person because i never cared about the press coverage of my work but if my work is not relevant for wikipedia, why did you published it? Last year i donated to wikipedia the copyright to reproduce the central pages of my book high concept because my book was written to re-define the meaning of the term high concept given the great confusion created around the term high concept. Wikipedia accepted my donation and published it on the italian version of the article high concept movie to make it clear about the different theories on the subject and the confusion created by Justin Wyatt. Now after i donated you the copyright to reproduce my book and you published it you want to delete the author? other than being unfair, the main theory that helps the readers to understand the high concept movie would be orphan. i am not saying you have to report my entire biography because i don't meet Wikipedia third party standards enough but if you published my book central pages which are the hard-core of my theory on high concept I think my name should at least be mentioned because I am the author of the work you published and i donated you my copyright which is something not every author is keen on doing it.
Gdagostino (
talk) 11:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Gdagostino (
talk)
11:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
here's the copyright reference of the text i donated to Wikipedia:
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussione:High_concept_movie
reply
Gdagostino ( talk) 11:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Withdrawn by nominator plus snow keep. ( non-admin closure) First Light ( talk) 06:17, 16 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Withdrawn I see no eidence of notability of this person.
Staszek Lem (
talk)
22:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
reply
The result was speedy delete. Both wholly promotional and no indication of notable. Should have been speedied earlier. DGG ( talk ) 21:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:N Mason Doering ( talk) 21:15, 15 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:55, 23 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD. Fails WP:NSONG since the only assertion to notability I can find is this. If it's a standalone single it doesn't appear to have charted or garnered significant coverage or reviews. The album's article lacks any supporting references as to its notability as well. § FreeRangeFrog 20:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) — Theo polisme 02:26, 22 November 2012 (UTC) reply
This article describes exactly the same geographical region as Ivano-Frankivsk Oblast. There is no reason to have two articles, one for the "geographical" (Prykarpattia) and one for the "administrative" (Ivano-Frankivsk Oblast) area. They are exactly the same place. Keizers ( talk) 21:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Yunshui 雲 水 10:49, 22 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Player fails WP:ATHLETE as he has never played in a fully-pro league. This remains valid. His appearances for Monaco and Evian were for the reserves, meaning he has never played in Ligue 1 or 2. His three appearances for the Monegasque national team are not confirmed by reliable sources, nor do they confer notability, since Monaco is not a member of FIFA or UEFA. More importantly, he has note received significant coverage for any of this, meaning the article fails WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 16:25, 15 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Please spend the time that you would have spent opining delete here on one of the many currently open AFD discussions that is sorely in need of more than two opinions. ☺
Uncle G ( talk) 19:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Appears to be an instruction manual for a piece of software. Even if it weren't in Spanish, I think it would be a clear strong delete. No sources, no notability, and hardly any context. — Francophonie&Androphilie ( Je vous invite à me parler) 16:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was Nomination withdrawn. JamesBWatson ( talk) 09:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC) reply
No evidence that the subject satisfies the notability guidelines. Of the five "references", two don't mention the association, two make only brief mentions of it, and the other is http://www.mensshed.org, which is not an independent source. JamesBWatson ( talk) 15:44, 15 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was ( non-admin closure) Speedy deleted by Jimfbleak per WP:G11. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 15:48, 15 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Notability asserted "one of Kolkata's largest manufacturer, exporter and retailer" of children's clothing, but no sources are available to verify this. All references provided are primary sources: ads for the company's products, press releases, and advertorials. No indications can be found of any significant coverage of this brand in independent media. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 13:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G3 blatant hoax. JohnCD ( talk) 19:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC) reply
This individual does not appear to meet notability criteria for biographies. The "references" are unclear and difficult to verify. A web search does not turn up anything to support article content. Many of the claims in this article are dubious (at best). He is claimed to be the head of Dept of Anesthesiology at UCSF Medical Center, but there does not appear to be any mention of him at any ucsf.edu webpage. The whole thing may be a hoax. This may also be a part of an organized effort to promote members of this family - see Errold John Dizon which is currently marked for speedy deletion (edit:just recently speedily deleted as a blatant hoax). Peacock ( talk) 13:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. ( non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser TSU 01:13, 22 November 2012 (UTC) reply
There is no real indication this individual passes WP:BAND. No claims are made for criteria 2-12, and as for criterion 1, I think the level of sourcing — the subject's facebook page (!), along with three blog posts — speaks for itself. - Biruitorul Talk 21:50, 1 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:55, 23 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Page makes no assertion of notability, has no third party references, and consists of 3 sentences. According to WP:ORG: "No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is."
Beyond that, the original creator and primary early contributor has only ever created or worked on this article (which should rise WP:NPOV and WP:COI red flags).
The list of issues with this page is longer than the page itself. ReformedArsenal ( talk) 12:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 00:55, 23 November 2012 (UTC) reply
'International reactions' articles are usually pretty trivial, and this one is no exception. The vast majority of it is simply world leaders congratulating Obama on his re-election and saying they look forward to continuing to work with him. The same happens with every major world election; there's nothing particularly interesting there. The 'financial markets', 'media' and 'others' sections are slightly more interesting, but could easily be incorporated into the main article. Robofish ( talk) 12:15, 8 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Comment Why are we relodging keeps(/deletes)? L.tak ( talk) 19:25, 21 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Tarc and The Devil's Advocate have made good cases for their opposing positions, but apart from a weak delete and a merge opinion, all other contributions appear rather shallow in terms of policy-based reasoning. So we have no consensus. I recommend reconsidering the issue of this person's lasting notability after some time has passed. Sandstein 18:10, 23 November 2012 (UTC) reply
This should be a textbook WP:BLP1E; a previously anonymous, private citizen suddenly thrust into the spotlight because he was "outed" for doing controversial things on a web page. Please note that "but I read it in many reliable sources!" is not an effective counter-argument to a person only notable for one event; we accept the "notable" part of the argument, that's not in dispute. BLP1E revolves around 1) "is the subject for only known for one thing?", 2) "absent this one thing would this person be unknown?", and 3) "going forward, is the subject likely to remain low-profile?" IMO 1 and 2 are slam-dunk, while 3 is quite probable. Yes, people caught up in one-event cases will give interviews in the immediate aftermath, but that's really not enough to address this criteria. You would need to see a sustained campaign of spotlight-chasing that keeps the person in the headlines. An example of that would be Sandra Fluke, who has now passed the threshold of notability beyond the initial one-event Rush Limbaugh dust-up. This guy isn't that, and since his livelihood has essentially been destroyed by publicity, I'd say he is unlikely to chase it anytime soon, if ever. This case is more like the girl who was spanked by her father; a news frenzy, then gone. Tarc ( talk) 14:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Yunshui 雲 水 10:53, 22 November 2012 (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 the Slovak Super Liga is fully pro. In spite of is said in the lede of the article, Mr. Dargaj has not played in this league meaning its pro status has no bearing on his notability. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 12:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Vermont elections, 2012. ( non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser TSU 01:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Does every minor office's election get an article? Ratzd'mishukribo ( talk) 02:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Yunshui 雲 水 10:53, 22 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Lower brass section of the Marching Illini. A remarkable mixture of Original Research and Sousaphone-cruft, and plain puffery. No coverage at all in third party sources, ala WP:GNG. GrapedApe ( talk) 12:22, 15 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 00:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Ordinary employee of the Polish Football Association, fails WP:GNG Oleola ( talk) 12:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 01:28, 22 November 2012 (UTC) reply
All articles were published in small circulation periodicals or non-refereed journals. Notability not established, fails WP:AUTHOR. WWGB ( talk) 11:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser TSU 01:14, 22 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The notability of this book is highly questionably. The three citations show nothing apart that it has been referenced by someone else. Two out of the three references are by the author of this book. Possible a self-promotion. There is nothing that indicates great importance within academia, never mind outside academia. Mootros ( talk) 10:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) — Theo polisme 02:30, 22 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The notability of this book is highly questionably. The two links show nothing apart that it has been review in journals. There is nothing that indicates great importance within academia, never mind outside academia. Mootros ( talk) 10:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Yunshui 雲 水 10:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC) reply
publisher of nonnotable product lines. publishers are notable by the titles, and this title is not a significant work on wine. article only shows they exist, and if this is their most important features, they dont qualify for an article. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 09:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Two clashes between the Indian Army and militants, resulting in nine deaths, but otherwise of little consequence. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Clarityfiend ( talk) 07:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Yunshui 雲 水 10:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Delete This article might or might not be a hoax. I found no sources for it or for the educator Friedrick Lutz or Friedrich Lutz after whom the rubric is supposedly named. The source listed in the article was not found in German bibliographic sources nor in WordlCat, variations were tried. So, if not a hoax, (1) notability is lacking as there is no significant coverage, the term is not used; (2) nothing in this article is verifiable; and (3) there are no reliable sources. Any one of which should be grounds for deletion. The author removed the prod placed on the article by Ben Ben on 3 November. I have not recommended speedy deletion since I am only 85%–90% certain that it is a hoax. I have been wrong before. I have just completed researching on a real Friedrich Lutz, the Bavarian politician, and found a likely notable economist with that name, but nothing on this. Even if not a hoax, this doesn't belong in the Wikipedia for lack of notability. -- Bejnar ( talk) 06:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jenks24 ( talk) 05:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Prod contested. AFD reason is the same as the PROD reason: "Notability appears marginal (at best). An IP says that the subject does not want this information to be here. In such cases of marginal notability, I generally think its best to give the subject what they want." TexasAndroid ( talk) 04:05, 15 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jenks24 ( talk) 05:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Article has previously been deleted via prod. This is a self-published book, no evidence that it meets the notability guidelines. Rotten regard Softnow 03:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jenks24 ( talk) 05:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Not encyclopedic. PatGallacher ( talk) 02:50, 15 November 2012 (UTC) reply
I suggest that this is not an encyclopedic article for several reasons. The line of succession to the monarchy of a mini-state which was incorporated into Italy over 150 years ago is a very obscure topic. I also question whether there can be said to be a definitive line of succession, as opposed to some people's opinion of what it is. The source given seems rather obscure and we don't know how good it is, and crucially it was written 10 years ago, it could have been overtaken by births or deaths, this was a crucial reason why the Line of succession to the British throne article was drastically pruned. This article may have BLP issues, some of the people here may not wish to be regarded as having any claim to the Tuscan throne, since it could create legal problems with the Italian government. PatGallacher ( talk) 03:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was : The "Music Career and Salt Mine" section is an obvious joke; with it removed, all that's left is a dime-a-dozen article about a non-notable musician. Speedily deleted. - Mike Rosoft ( talk) 10:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC) reply
I have done some brief research on the subject and it appears to be somewhat of a hoax. All I could find were a couple of things on YouTube videos that refer to, among other things, music by a Daniel Williams, not Dan WIlliams, which are not listed on the article. The article also states that between the ages of 2 and 4 he toured with The Rolling Stones playing the kazoo, going on to say he was a key member who lead the band to wide spread success. Being a toddler, and even today the age of 18, I find it hard to believe such a key member of such an iconic band isn't referenced elsewhere, which leads me to believe it is a hoax. There is no mention of this person on the 'Boy Better Know' website, and the personal website listed on the article, not only doesn't work - it doesn't exist (as per a domain name check). Also couldn't find any mention of the listed music. I was considering tagging the article for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G3, but decided a discussion may be more appropriate. -- Patchy1 02:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was soft delete. Soft, because there are an awful lot of ghits for this one and it should be speedy undeleted if anyone can find some decent references amongst them. Spinning Spark 20:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC) reply
No reliable sources seem to exist for this game. I previously nominated this for deletion, in which it was deleted, but now it's back. Renominating this for AfD since the article's content is new and thus G4 doesn't apply. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 09:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Raising AfD as proposed deletion was contested in July. Concern is that this podcast show does not meet WP:WEB notability requirements at this time. Breno talk 06:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jenks24 ( talk) 05:13, 22 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Not notable. Self-published author of eBook. Autobiography with sources only from author's own personal website. Escape Orbit (Talk) 01:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Golden Gate Transit. MBisanz talk 03:51, 23 November 2012 (UTC) reply
This doesnt seem to be notable enough, a privately owned fleet of no more than 5 buses, for transport to SF? Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 03:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jenks24 ( talk) 05:11, 22 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Non-notable subject, with almost no content and no references. - Mr X 22:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Delete. The article lacks sufficient context to identify the subject. A book search does not connect the Ismailzai to the Bangash; rather, Ismailzai is described as a division of a Pakistani tribe in Peshawar, as here. Does Ismailzai refer to Samilzai, which is described as one of the main divisions of the Bangash? That's unclear, and the article is too brief to establish this any further. In any case, Ismailzai fails WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage as a sub-clan in Pakistan, if that's what this indeed is about. If it's about a sub-tribe of the Bangash, as is claimed, it fails all notability criteria because no sources actually connect the two. Could be speedily deleted for lack of sufficient context, but it would be helpful if someone versed in these matters could take a look and maybe help resolve the confusion. -- Batard0 ( talk) 04:22, 31 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Imran series characters. This close makes no assertion on the correct title for the existing article, and editors are free to move that article to this title. Spinning Spark 20:35, 15 November 2012 (UTC) reply
A similar but more comprehensive page by the name of " Imran series characters" already exists on Wikipedia. Therefore, this page is completely redundant and not even needed to be re directed; it shall be deleted. StarryEyed ( talk) 10:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to K_Koke#Albums. Spinning Spark 20:44, 15 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Lacks notability per WP:MUSIC and WP:NALBUMS (unreleased material), and completely unreferenced. - Mr X 03:56, 25 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Terrace Park, Ohio. MBisanz talk 03:48, 23 November 2012 (UTC) reply
This is a lovely church, and an important part of the community it is in. However, that does not make it notable to the broader world. The history of the site it is located on is already described in more detail at the article on the village itself. Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Bush tax cuts#Extension of Bush tax cuts. MBisanz talk 03:52, 23 November 2012 (UTC) reply
There's no real indication of the importance, especially of the persistent importance, of this meeting. I can't help but think the name is meant to be a cute comparison to the beer summit. Maybe this deserves a sentence or two at United States elections, 2010, but I really don't think there's anything substantial to merge. BDD ( talk) 23:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser TSU 01:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Unreferenced and non-notable album. Tagged with {{ notability}} since december 2007. Bjelleklang - talk 00:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Association. MBisanz talk 03:52, 23 November 2012 (UTC) reply
No sources provided, and a quick google search does not turn up any reliable sources that I can find. Appears to be a high school sports leauge, which normally does not meet the notability threshhold we require. Paul McDonald ( talk) 18:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. As this article has not been previously deleted I see no need to SALT it. Drop me a note if recreation becomes a problem, though. Jenks24 ( talk) 05:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:CORP. Non-notable company that paid for article creation. Article was written by this notorious sock farmer [31] whose various accounts have been blocked over 50 times. Qworty ( talk) 06:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC). reply
The result was merge to Reactions to Innocence of Muslims. ( non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser TSU 01:23, 22 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Apart from failing WP:GNG (not a single hit on Google news for this) None of the sources mention a "Love our prophet day" Darkness Shines ( talk) 20:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was ( non-admin closure) Speedy delete by Jimfbleak as G5. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 01:34, 22 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:CORP. Non-notable company that paid for article creation. Article was written by this notorious sock farmer [34] whose various accounts have been blocked over 50 times. Qworty ( talk) 06:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Speedy Delete under G5 and G11, surely? Lukeno94 ( talk) 12:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jenks24 ( talk) 05:02, 22 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Nonnotable single-referenced organization, no improvement since tagged August Staszek Lem ( talk) 03:08, 1 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) — Theo polisme 02:33, 22 November 2012 (UTC) reply
This article and it's contents seem to be all contained already in the article Social constructionism. Therefore it should be either deleted or merged (if there is anything to merge). 88.114.154.216 ( talk) 19:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jenks24 ( talk) 04:59, 22 November 2012 (UTC) reply
No evidence of meeting WP:ENTERTAINER or the general WP:N guidelines, which requires non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent third-party sources. I performed a good faith search but, as this is a rather common name, I will happily withdraw if the sources are out there and I was too thick to spot them. Canadian Paul 15:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 03:53, 23 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Lacks notability. The only reference for this BLP is a meager, self-published (?) web page. - Mr X 00:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Party of the European Left. Spinning Spark 20:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Page serves only as link to wikisource. Everything is covered by Party of the European Left page and link to wikisource is there too. Magioladitis ( talk) 09:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:02, 23 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:BIO. No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, and references cited so far are local news that only mention him in passing. Bevans branham and Bevans Branham were speedied three times as spam on 5/6 Oct., and this less spammy re-write by the same author isn't asserting notability. Darth Sitges ( talk) 15:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply
I still believe that the subject is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article but the current state of the article is in shambles after all of the content was removed. I'd appreciate it if we could reach a decision sooner rather than later. Thank you, TrevorElwell ( talk) 16:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Can we please reach a decision on this? TrevorElwell ( talk) 19:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jenks24 ( talk) 04:59, 22 November 2012 (UTC) reply
No evidence of notability. The only reliable sources I can find are blurbs about one of her productions and appear restricted to the Dallas area. The mention in the Handbook of Texas is a one-sentence mention. I also do not see notability as an academic. Kinu t/ c 06:07, 1 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jenks24 ( talk) 04:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC) reply
According to Notability standards on Organizations, products should not have their own page unless including them on the main company's page would be problematic. No reason why this particular model of multiplexer is notable enough to be separate from the main Nokia Siemens Networks page. ReformedArsenal ( talk) 00:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to K Koke. ( non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser TSU 01:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Lacks notability per WP:MUSIC and WP:NALBUMS, and completely unreferenced. - Mr X 03:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jenks24 ( talk) 04:56, 22 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Not sure how a hit-and-run victim is notable outside of local press reports. Lots of people are killed daily in these types of accidents. Yes, no-one helped the victim, but does that make this article notable? I don't think so. It's just a standard news report. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 20:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 03:54, 23 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Non-notable musician. Does not pass WP:BAND as far as I can tell, although he has appeared on a number of records published by "High Technology Publishing."
Also see related afds:
Bjelleklang - talk 09:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus . Beeblebrox ( talk) 17:59, 23 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Without even referring to WP:CRYSTAL which it violates terribly. The only source to the tour is first party information, except for a mention in the first reference. No other notability presented, third-party or otherwise. Presents as factual Wikipedia information which is only a promoter's hope based on procuring venues and dates, and not disappointing ticket holders. :- ) Don 04:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) — Theo polisme 16:24, 22 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Non notabily for WP:FOR#Bilateral relations Stigni ( talk) 13:28, 31 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:58, 23 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Completing nomination for 64.30.196.253, who attempted to nominate the article for deletion here. Their rationale, as included in the template, is included verbatim below (with the timestamp of the edit noted). On the merits, I have no opinion. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:43, 7 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Just a mess, no reliable, independent third-party references that give significant coverage as a primary topic to the subject of the article. 64.30.196.253 08:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jenks24 ( talk) 04:53, 22 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:GNG, only passing references in reliable sources. Repeatedly created and deleted at Mohammed Al Maiman [64] Hack ( talk) 15:49, 7 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC) reply
This appears to be an advertisement for a new product. It is written in promotional language, and multiple sources are listed, but as far as I can tell none of them mention the subject of the article. It may also be original research. — David Eppstein ( talk) 16:29, 7 November 2012 (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}} . |
Not it is promotional article, because today, Threellop don't exist, it is closed, the reason this big crisis, don't exit new ideas. Principal objetive is to explain this new way to compute and share that knowledge with all world, because today, all people use von neumann architecture and this technology use teory of graphs and formal language. DNA computing is new type of computing using different nucloetide of DNA, more research groups use organic DNA and others research groups use mathematicals equations with nucleotides, for this reason it is wrong to use silicon computing, because in this new area exist new ways to solve it.
Exist a lot of machines with use that technology, principally in governments. This technology has several certification by MIT and Brown University.
I'm disappointed with wikipedia, because i thought that wikipedia was other thing (it is more objective and impartial), but that, it is real world, nothing is impartial, it's a pity. Because not all people have open mind for new ideas and somebody don't understand some concept, but it means that concept or theory is FRINGE or not correct. On the other hand, it's possible this article would be delete, but the idea can't delete..... -- Jose daniel llopis ( talk) 12:13, 18 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Friends of Europe. MBisanz talk 00:59, 23 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Possibly non-notable journal. Lots of unreferenced claims, and no references of note since tagged with {{ notability}} in december 2007. Bjelleklang - talk 21:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jenks24 ( talk) 04:52, 22 November 2012 (UTC) reply
If I understand this properly, this was a public access television show that ran for all of two episodes. Very, very few public access shows could be considered notable and I have found nothing whatsoever to indicate that this on would be. Beeblebrox ( talk) 00:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Spinning Spark 15:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Fails
WP:POLITICIAN and
WP:GNG. Any coverage of him comes not from his business career, but from having the temerity to challenge challenging
Nancy Pelosi twice, which makes him nothing more than a
paper candidate. She cleaned his clock defeated him both times by the same 85%-15% margin. –
Muboshgu (
talk)
16:49, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
reply
Thank you for redacting. This was giving me the impression for a minute you were showing bias in favor of one candidate. 15% is really significant, compared to the percentage obtained by third parties in general, barely reaching 5% so it is quite an achievement in light of the incumbent overwhelming odds. Cindy Sheehan's endorsement is notable because anti-war movement rarely supports Republican candidates so there is some unusual coalition there. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.48.179.40 ( talk) 02:34, 10 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 01:38, 22 November 2012 (UTC) reply
No assertion of notability of subject- most sources on web (not cited in article) appear to be social networks and/or promotional sites. Qxukhgiels ( talk) 14:50, 31 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Bishop Shanahan High School. MBisanz talk 00:59, 23 November 2012 (UTC) reply
This is a non-notable high school rugby team whose article I originally redirected to the high school. The creater of the article reverted the redirect so here we are. Essentially the only coverage provided is either primary or very local. There is an absence of detailed secondary sources from independant reliable sources which means this fails the inclusion threashold. I'm asking AFD to mandate a redirect and selective merge rather than outright deletion. Spartaz Humbug! 16:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC) reply
This article is incredibly detailed in comparison to other rugby union clubs, especially at the high school level. The club also has a rather large following not only at the school, but also the extensive alumni base that this spread throughout the northeastern United States. The club has also established relations aborad with teams in Scotland, Belgium, Canada, England, France, the Caymans, Portugal and Bermuda. DukeArlington ( talk) 14:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC) reply