![]() |
The result was keep. Keep due to publications and RS coverage L Faraone 02:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC) reply
Unremarkable surgeon, fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. WWGB ( talk) 05:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Electorate of Trier. J04n( talk page) 11:07, 2 April 2013 (UTC) reply
Reason
This is just information copied and pasted out of an old encyclopaedia and does not really explain what the Elector of Trier did very well. There is a better article on the Electorate of Trier that this article would be better redirected to. Smeat75 ( talk) 22:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. J04n( talk page) 11:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC) reply
This has been tagged as a hoax. I don't think it's that, the "micronation" exists, at least in someone's head, but it is not notable. The first four references are deadlinks. The fifth is about a local town and does not mention the "republic"; the sixth is a short paragraph referring to the proprietor as a "witty caterer who did this marketing move so that his motel became one of the most popular in West Hercegovina." The current website of the "republic" is here and is mainly about the tourist attractions. Wikipedia is not here to help with marketing gimmicks. The bundled article is about the currency, and stands or falls with the main article. JohnCD ( talk) 18:33, 9 March 2013 (UTC) reply
Here's more. This topic attracted the attention of the Turkish
news agency Anadolu
[38]. That news-story was transmitted here on Bosnian newssite Klix
[39]. Interesting: see the date (published on 16.03.2013, 16 March 2013, few days ago); it seems that someone reads Wikipedia :).
Many micronation projects started as joke or as protest action against the inefficient (local) government, or at least, to draw the attention of the general public.
This project has survived. The daily newspapers, the internet portals and other media of the state importance wrote about this. And they still are. This is not just local news: the media from all peoples from Hercegovina and Bosnia are writing about this, as well as the neighbouring Croatia and Serbia. And Turkish news agency Anadolu. This went international.
This project lives its 11th year. It started cultural and sports manifestations.
This is not a project of a "lonesome child and his/hers friends in his/hers room" that lasted for few weeks and that only his very neighbours knew about that.
Kubura (
talk) 02:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. J04n( talk page) 11:10, 2 April 2013 (UTC) reply
Appears to fail WP:BIO. Prod declined by article creator without explanation. Ray Talk 21:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. J04n( talk page) 11:10, 2 April 2013 (UTC) reply
Non-notable distribution of Linux. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. J04n( talk page) 11:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC) reply
advertising, largely unsourced The Banner talk 21:29, 26 March 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete-- Ymblanter ( talk) 06:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC) reply
Not fully confident PRODing this (not sure why). Basically, it's a very poorly referenced article, that's horrendously formatted to boot. Even if this guy is notable, the article needs a total rewrite. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete g7, author request, per last comment, see below. NawlinWiki ( talk) 03:09, 27 March 2013 (UTC) reply
Neologism created by a company called iOPW; no independent sources or evidence that anyone else uses this term. See WP:NEO and WP:SPAM. NawlinWiki ( talk) 21:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC) reply
I understand this term has not been recognized or validated by outside sources, I would like to take this opportunity to resubmit this at a later date under the guidelines of Wikipedia and maintain the highest level of quality content this wonderful encyclopedia has to offer.
The result was KEEP. Spinning Spark 13:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC) reply
WP:VICTIM, WP:ONEEVENT. The pair's only notability derives from their death, and it's not enough to maintain an article on. Ducknish ( talk) 20:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Those arguing delete has not sufficiently demonstrate why Bridges is subject to WP:VICTIM given the obituary cited. KTC ( talk) 20:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC) reply
Notability is derived from WP:ONEEVENT, an event that itself is of dubious notability. Ducknish ( talk) 20:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. J04n( talk page) 11:13, 2 April 2013 (UTC) reply
Seems to fail WP:NEVENT. Not the subject of significant worldwide coverage, no evidence of lasting historical impact, and none of those involved are themselves notable. Nothing that makes this crime significant beyond the norm. Ducknish ( talk) 20:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep per criterion 1—nomination withdrawn by nominator with no opinions advocating deletion having been offered. Non-admin closure. Deor ( talk) 16:23, 28 March 2013 (UTC) reply
This is another "New World inscription which proves precolumbian Old World contact". The issue in this case is that there is next to nothing about it: there are credulous reports from a public library and two local newspapers, a passing reference in a work talking about an even more obscure fringe theory, and an entry in a book on regional Forteana. There is also a self-published website whose research on the matter, as we have been able to confirm, shows that much of what is said in the other sources is untrue or misrepresented. For example, the text was supposedly translated by two "professional historians," who are in fact nothing of the kind, but in reality are also fringe researchers. So the upshot is that the article we have is a bit of original research which we put together to sort out the bank of unreliable sources we have to work with. The situation is similar to that of Kobrin Bible, whose final version was a bit of OR I cobbled together to deal with the several credulous sources and one skeptical site which we had to work with (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kolbrin Bible (2nd nomination). Mangoe ( talk) 20:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. J04n( talk page) 18:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC) reply
was PRODded 11 months ago with the concern "POV potential, as well as a fly-by stub with no refs or effort to substantiate the subject - I am not saying there are not slums in Indonesia - but this current stub has no effort to back up with WP:RS or text or anything". PROD was removed but article has not been improved since. — rybec 20:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. A redirect would be a good option but she is mentioned in more than one article.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 07:03, 3 April 2013 (UTC) reply
Inadequately sourced article about non-notable actor. I am unable to find any reliable sources. The only source in the article is a gossip blog. Fails WP:NACTOR. - Mr X 19:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. J04n( talk page) 21:00, 2 April 2013 (UTC) reply
Inadequately sourced article about non-notable actor. I am unable to find any reliable sources. Fails WP:NACTOR. - Mr X 19:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. L Faraone 02:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC) reply
This is nothing more than an advertisement masquerading as an article - part of a WP:Walled garden of spam - Allan Savory and Holistic Management International. ukexpat ( talk) 19:38, 26 March 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. J04n( talk page) 11:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC) reply
Article has existed for 6 years on an association that has been discussed, but doesn't exist. And it's unreferenced. No evidence of meeting WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn ( talk) 18:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Call screening. J04n( talk page) 21:41, 2 April 2013 (UTC) reply
Unsourced, no indication of meeting WP:LISTN. The inclusion criteria are uselessly vague. I'd say we should merge it into Call screening, but none of the content is worth merging. Huon ( talk) 17:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC) reply
The inclusion criteria is not vague and contributes to the working knowledge of participants seeking the definitons and information of historial or current call rejection or blocking techniques. There are many links to valuable information within wikipedia from this page. The search terms "List of devices to screen telephone calls" can be found on google's search results page that links to the result page at wiki. This is obviously a working search group and is very active. Deletion of the page would break that search path and disrupt the findings "people" are searching for. Call Screening referred to above doesn't list any of the items featured on List of devices to screen telephone calls page. Guest8566 ( talk) 13:40, 26 March 2013
The result was delete. J04n( talk page) 21:56, 2 April 2013 (UTC) reply
A biography of a priest. Doesn't seem to pass WP:N. He was a deacon, but (correct me if I am wrong) this does not make one as notable as a bishop or such. Seems to have written a book or two, but bibliographical information is not very well presented, and I have concerns he would pass WP:AUTHOR. One ref is an obituary, two elinks are not even described, and are not in English (not a problem per se, but I cannot verify they even mention him). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:32, 4 March 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. If anyone wants to Transwiki it I would be happy to userfy it to them on request. J04n( talk page) 10:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC) reply
Advertising. No reliable sources The Banner talk 16:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. For Wikivoyage, it is way too long (usually we provide there a couple of lines for such a hotel), and, besides, I am sure it will be recreated there anyway.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 07:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC) reply
Advertising. No reliable sources. The Banner talk 16:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. If anyone wants to Transwiki it I would be happy to userfy it to them on request. J04n( talk page) 10:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC) reply
advertising. No reliable sources The Banner talk 16:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete a7, webcontent with no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki ( talk) 21:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:N and sources used fail WP:RS. Xfansd ( talk) 15:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. J04n( talk page) 22:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC) reply
Subject may or may not pass WP:NFOOTY as he has played part of one game in a league cup game between two teams who play in a fully professional league but did not go on to make any further appearances (after 13 Sept 2011). Lack of substantial references means he fails WP:GNG, similar to the case of Fearghus Bruce in this recent deletion discussion. C 679 15:29, 26 March 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. A1 A7 will restore if someone brings more content to the article that makes it meet WP:GNG Secret account 17:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC) reply
PROD contested without any rationale. Concern was "Non-notable programming function. Orphaned article, very short stub, its only reference admits its undocumented..." Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:18, 26 March 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete, copyright violation. Article contents were Hindi song lyrics from a movie, dedicated to those who had been ditched by their former girlfriends. So's this closure, BTW. Please remember that there are other deletion processes available besides WP:AFD. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC) reply
Unsourced article consisting of song lyrics in a non-English language. Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 15:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Zager and Evans. J04n( talk page) 22:26, 2 April 2013 (UTC) reply
No indication of individual notability, member of a one-hit wonder band ( Zager and Evans) which already has an article — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 14:57, 26 March 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Zager and Evans. J04n( talk page) 22:27, 2 April 2013 (UTC) reply
No indication of individual notability aside from membership of Zager and Evans — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 14:57, 26 March 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. J04n( talk page) 22:28, 2 April 2013 (UTC) reply
Unsourced article about a non-notable, non-English neologism. Fails WP:MADEUP. - Mr X 14:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete g11, blatant self-promotion. NawlinWiki ( talk) 14:39, 26 March 2013 (UTC) reply
Promotion (and for something non-notable at that). Also CoI as username is almost the same as article name. ChrisHodgesUK ( talk) 14:38, 26 March 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. L Faraone 02:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC) reply
This list, in table form was created against consensus. It is a content fork, of sorts, from English Defence League. The original discussion rejecting the creation of a list spin-off can be found here [45]. The list is an incomplete record of street demonstrations by the subject organisation. It lacks neutrality and has no obvious encyclopaedic purpose as a record of miscellaneous individual dated events which, by themselves, are lacking in notability. A case for merging some of the events into the host article might be made, but it is difficult to see why that would add to the completeness of the main article from which this list is forked. Leaky Caldron 11:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. I initially wrote a rationale for a "delete" close of this article. But after rereading comments by those posted, the consensus states that while many of the various mentions of Barro, such as in TIME's 140 list and Forbes' 30 under 30 subcategorisation, do not by themselves constitute "substantial depth of coverage", the number of them in aggregate support a case for inclusion per WP:BASIC. Valid arguments were also made for inclusion under WP:CREATIVE, and while no single point clearly applies, enough of them (1, 3, 5) partially apply. L Faraone 02:32, 4 April 2013 (UTC) reply
![]() | If you came here because you read about this discussion at
Salon.com, 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}} . |
There's a conspicuous lack of anything approaching the depth of coverage normally needed for a biography. An article by the subject himself doesn't count, and neither does a blurb written by his employer. Nor, for that matter, does an editorial that mentions him in passing. Finally, placing 103rd in a list of the 140 best Twitter feeds of 2012, according to one man's opinion, also proves nothing in terms of encyclopedic notability.
Is there any evidence that Barro has been, per WP:BASIC, "the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject"? - Biruitorul Talk 14:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC) reply
You disparage the Atlantic article and the Twitter list, but what is it about them that is not "reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject"? Are they not reliable? Are they not intellectually independent of each other? Are they not independent of Barro?
I also disagree that the Atlantic article mentions him "in passing". The whole article is a summary of the ideas of Barro and a few others, attributed to them. DB Durham NC ( talk) 15:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC) reply
One additional candidate for "significant coverage" is Josh' presence on Forbes' 30 Under 30 list in 2012. Josh's work regularly receives praise from other notable bloggers with wikipedia entries, e.g. Marginal Revolution, Brad DeLong, Matt Yglesias, etc., though admittedly such citations do not map neatly into wikipedia's notability criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David.DeRemer ( talk • contribs) 18:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC) reply
I added another independent source attesting notability (explicitly!). DB Durham NC ( talk) 19:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC) reply
Important comment on WP:GNG- Most of you above have been asserting the subject's notability because of "significant coverage" in three sources. You fail to realize that "significant coverage in reliable sources establishes only a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion.". According to WP:GNG and WP:NOPAGE, it's up to us to decide if the coverage is enough for the subject to warrant a stand-alone article. And frankly, just read the article. There is nothing here that warrants its own article space in the encyclopedia. The article states (1) He works for Bloomberg, (2) He has a lot of followers on Twitter, (3) Both Forbes and David Brooks see potential in him, (4) He's a Republican/Libertarian, (5) He studied at Harvard, (6) He lives in Queens, and (7) He's Robert Barro's son. Does any of that assert notability? Not really. I think (1), (3) and (7) are enough to get him a mention in Robert Barro's article, while (2), (5) and (6) are trivial and unneeded. Feed back ☎ 23:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. I realize it's a bit early to close, but this is going the way of WP:SNOW. Also, I was the admin that declined the speedy nom of Sephiroth's in the first place, and can now totally see his point of view. Keeper | 76 13:52, 28 March 2013 (UTC) reply
Proposing deletion for 40th Military Police Detachment. Article is of minimal if any notability. There are many military units in the US Military, not to mention the world wide military, not every unit needs an article, just because it has a history. Consider also that this unit is a detachment, not even a Battalion, Brigade, or other large unit that would generally be considered notable. This is not to denigrate a smaller unit that has historical or modern significance. As an example, Seal Team Six is notable because of the caliber of its personnel, the missions it's conducted, ect. Not simply because of its existence, although as a Special Operations unit, that in my mind may make it notable in the absence of other information. Finally, I believe this article does not mean the general notability guideline, which is the standard for inclusion on a WP:MILHIST article; because it has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Sephiroth storm ( talk) 14:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 23:34, 3 April 2013 (UTC) reply
"Just another lawyer" - fails WP:BIO - references are to sources connected with the subject (his legal chambers' website) or to online profiles (eg Chambers and Partners - not to be confused with his legal chambers at http://33knowledge.com) and do not demonstrate notability. ukexpat ( talk) 13:57, 26 March 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. L Faraone 02:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC) reply
PROD dropped for the following reason: obekop has played in the top professional league of his country and has represented Cameroon at FIFA sanctioned Under-20 African Nations qualifying matches. However, the Cameroonian top tier is not listed as a league in WP:FPL and youth international results do not count towards WP:NFOOTY. Also the player still fails WP:GNG. ArsenalFan700 ( talk) 11:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. L Faraone 02:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC) reply
Stop - Hammer Time, without prejudice to re-create in the future. Shirt58 ( talk) 11:37, 26 March 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was KEEP. Spinning Spark 14:05, 5 April 2013 (UTC) reply
nonnotable card game Curb Chain ( talk) 10:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete A7. James086 Talk 08:37, 30 March 2013 (UTC) reply
Page has been deleted under A7 criteria. The subject fails to meet Wikipedia:Notability Morning Sunshine ( talk) 10:18, 26 March 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. L Faraone 02:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC) reply
Ostensibly the article is a biography, but it is really a WP:COATRACK for a political party. There are sources, yes, but the sources are part of the coatrack. Prominent in the article is the line "There has been a lot of rumors circulating especially in the blogosphere that Nurul Nuha will be contesting the Nibong Tebal seat for next election." Wikipedia is not a place to propound rumours, nor to agitate for some sort of political result. The person is not notable. Rumours and counter rumours do not make the person notable.
It is not even worth redirecting to the political party. There is no substance here. Fiddle Faddle ( talk) 09:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. L Faraone 02:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC) reply
Subject of article is not notable, the article itself reads like a press release, includes irrelevant references, and misrepresents the references it does have. "Their music has been featured in worldwide mainstream media such as CBS News, The Huffington Post, The Huffington Post UK, The Huffington Post Chicago, National Geographic, BuzzFeed, The Soup, College Humor, Nintendo Life, and Yahoo! Music Canada." This statement is clearly not true, especially if one clicks through to Yahoo music link, which is just a random blog on yahoo music. The remaining news links are predominately web pieces linking to their youtube videos. (And a last point, their discography seems to only include covers?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowtheory ( talk • contribs) 09:25, 26 March 2013
Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation. This article provides a large number of references and external links to prove notability and no attempt has been made by any editors to misrepresent links to create notability. All links are to valid sources.
If you read the comments on this articles talk page you will see the concerns the individual editors have had about proving notability. Constitutive advice and help would be more valid then an attempt to delete an article.
A list of the claimed miss represented references should have been posted so that editors could check and amend/fix any miss representations, if they exist.
Not clear how you can claim that The Huffington Post, CBS News Chicago Tribune and National Geographic are not valid.
The point about the discography section is not clear at all. They are a harp duet and their singles are all covers as listed, where is the problem with listing their singles even if they are covers?
I can see no reason for deleting an article just because it is yet to be completed. On that bases Wikipedia would have very little information and would have die out years ago.
The article and its talk page could do with being movied to Camille and Kennerly without the Kitt at the end as when searching Wikipedia for them it is unlikely a user would type in Camille and Kennerly kitt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robcamstone ( talk • contribs) 12:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC) reply
This article was created in December 2011, and had never been proposed for deletion. One can argue that the article needs improvement, but I cannot believe that here I am spending time to defend a page just because someone arbitrarily proposed it for deletion. Let's examine the arguments put forth by Knowtheory
1. "Subject of article is not notable"
This is an article about a biography of living persons; therefore, the subject of the article must be the living persons (Camille and Kennerly Kitt). Hence, you must be able to prove that the subject of the article is not notable. Exactly which parameters/guidelines are you using for your claim?
2. "the article itself reads like a press release"
I disagree entirely. That's just your opinion. Besides, even if you were hypothetically correct, please provide a Wikipedia link which states that an article that reads like a press release should be considered for deletion. There are articles on Wikipedia that are biographies of living persons, which I have encountered, that do read like press releases, and have not been deleted.
3. "includes irrelevant references"
You did not specify which ones, and besides, since when do articles get proposed for deletion because they have included irrelevant references?
4. "and misrepresents the references it does have."
That is a false statement. You cited one reference to claim that the article in general misrepresents the references it does have. If you question the validity of the Yahoo! Canada source, we can debate that, and, as I said, the article can be improved, but your assertion is false. There are plenty of excellent references. So far, you have not provided a single reason for drastically proposing this article for deletion.
5. "The remaining news links are predominately web pieces linking to their youtube videos."
This statement makes no sense at all. If a completely independent news website featuring the artists happens to include links to their YouTube videos (as is the case with Nintendo Life and CBS News), why is that wrong? Which Wikipedia guideline states that such a situation constitutes a reason for proposing the deletion of an article?
6. "And a last point, their discography seems to only include covers"
Again, provide a Wikipedia link with a guideline stating that if an artist performs covers of songs, and not original material, that artist is not worthy of a Wikipedia page.
Now, I'd like to ask the Wikipedia community if there is anything that can be done in the future to prevent random users from proposing the arbitrary deletion of a page. This was such a waste of time for me and naturally for the community members that have to spend time dealing with this nonsense. Any advice on how to improve the article is most welcome. Thanks in advance... Dontreader ( talk) 19:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. L Faraone 02:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:NSOFT. Dewritech ( talk) 09:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. 28bytes ( talk) 21:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC) reply
This freeware web browser appears to fail WP:N. Several searches in Google News archive and Google Books are only providing press releases and tangential mentions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 07:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. G3: Blatant hoax Yunshui 雲 水 09:57, 26 March 2013 (UTC) reply
This article is entirely false, and no references are cited to support the basis of the content of this article. Kiddie Techie ( talk) 07:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 23:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC) reply
No WP:RS whatsoever to indicate that she meets the requirements of WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:MUSICBIO. Qworty ( talk) 06:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. L Faraone 02:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC) reply
No WP:RS whatsoever to indicate that she meets the requirements of WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:MUSICBIO. Qworty ( talk) 06:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was MERGE to Hérouxville, Quebec. Spinning Spark 14:19, 5 April 2013 (UTC) reply
This seems to quite clearly fail WP:NOT#NEWS. Ironholds ( talk) 05:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC) reply
For the record, what actually happened here is that this content used to be in the main article on Hérouxville, Quebec until User:Veillg1 spun it out to its own article in January of this year. It warrants mention somewhere, certainly — for one thing, it was the single overriding issue that completely swamped and upended the Quebec general election, 2007 — but you're right that it doesn't need its own separate article. In fact, it originally started off as a separate article called Hérouxville Standards back in 2007, but quite rightly got redirected to the article about the town within a couple of months — thus creating the subsection which just got forked back off here. Merge back to Hérouxville, Quebec and then delete this title as an unwarranted content fork. Bearcat ( talk) 02:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:01, 2 April 2013 (UTC) reply
1. sources fail WP:GNG WP:CORP. (unrelated to AfD COI / SPA creator) Widefox; talk 23:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 12:27, 29 March 2013 (UTC) reply
I brought this to AfD because this article is fairly old and I doubt that the author will come back from their half-decade retirement to address the PROD. Letting a PROD expire on an old article with no discussion didn't seem like it would be beneficial to the encyclopedia.
Subject does not appear to be notable under WP:GNG, WP:BIO, or WP:ARTIST.
Searching for coverage is difficult as there was a David Tolley that was an amateur golfer and a rather notable David Tolley who is a musician (although I'm not sure he's notable by WP standards as his fame came mostly from one event where he received a great deal of coverage after being pulled out of the audience to perform on Carson).
A Google News search provides no hits for the subject of this article and in a Google News Archive search, I could only find one mention of Tolley (the one in this article) that I wouldn't consider significant coverage in the first 6 pages of results. The article provides one article that's an interview with Tolley and the source seems to be reliable, although it's not a particularly notable source (ABC.net.au is not affiliated with American Broadcasting Company).
The subject may be notable but I'm not finding any proof that he has received significant and independent coverage from reliable sources (more than one). I can't find any proof of having released music on a notable label, winning any major award, or having made any major contributions to any of his listed fields. The subject may be notable in the future but doesn't seem to be now. Perhaps someone else will have more luck searching for coverage. OlYeller21 Talktome 17:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. L Faraone 02:52, 4 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The article was listed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Blondetourage, but due to someone removing the AFD tag, the article was not deleted. I am re-listing here, and reposting the votes garnered at the previous deletion discussion. Feed back ☎ 04:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC) reply
(the team didn't have any notable storyline or feud) -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 18:09, 31 March 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 16:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC) reply
Uninterpretable essay. Dicklyon ( talk) 04:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC) reply
*Redirect to
Short-time Fourier transform#Resolution issues, per Mark Viking's reasoning above.
Ray
Talk 02:56, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 16:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC) reply
Uninterpretable essay. Dicklyon ( talk) 04:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. 28bytes ( talk) 21:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC) reply
Article about a non-notable fictional series. Unable to find any sources to establish notability. May be a hoax. - Mr X 03:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete: arguments that the topic has not been sufficiently covered in reliable sources to meet the general notability guideline do not appear to have been effectively rebutted. Aside from the concerns over poor sourcing, there appear to be BLP concerns which also do not appear to have been effectively rebutted. 28bytes ( talk) 21:27, 3 April 2013 (UTC) reply
As this stands today, it's a stub with one ref of poor reliability. I tend to be more of an inclusionist when it comes to 'net memes, but at this stage this doesn't look like a keeper. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. L Faraone 02:52, 4 April 2013 (UTC) reply
Deprodded by creator. Original prod concern was "Software - no proof of notability, fails WP:GNG. Please show on talk why this topic is notable." Nothing has been changed in the article since the prod nom. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:27, 26 March 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 23:41, 3 April 2013 (UTC) reply
Does not appear to meet any of the criteria listed in WP:NMUSIC. The only reference link is dead, and a Google search turned up mostly the subject's own social media, blogs, etc. Nick— Contact/ Contribs 03:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. L Faraone 02:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC) reply
Deprodded by creator. My original concern was "No indication of notability - seems to fail WP:CORP. Please explain on talk how this article is notable." Sources seem of poor reliability, some are self-published. The author has not added any sources since my prod, only remove some content. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 16:18, 3 April 2013 (UTC) reply
129.237.139.158 has nominated this article for deletion for the following reason: "Remove the Chlamydophila wikipedia entry. Chlamydophila is not an accepted nomenclature for these bacteria. Labeling or describing as such confuses students and scientist unfamiliar with the field. The Chlamydia community has evaluated the merit of this nomenclature and determined it to be unsupported. The published scientific report entitled 'Divergence without difference: phylogenetics and taxonomy of Chlamydia resolved.' described this exact resolution." I don't know much about the subject, so I am neutral. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:55, 26 March 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. If anyone wants to Transwiki the page I would be happy to userfy it to them. J04n( talk page) 11:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC) reply
advertising The Banner talk 01:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete. Reaper Eternal ( talk) 15:16, 26 March 2013 (UTC) reply
Seems to be an attack page. Demeaning and un-encyclopaedic content. EagerToddler39 ( talk) 01:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:04, 2 April 2013 (UTC) reply
Non-notable video game with no reliable sources. Atlantima ( talk) 22:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. As the original nominator, I am changing to weak keep and will be WP:BOLD and close this, since there is only one other delete vote and there is obviously NOT going to be a consensus to delete, after 16 days. Non-admin closure. Safiel ( talk) 16:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC) reply
This is a newly created article about a death row inmate. I am not sure whether or not this falls under WP:BLP1E, so I will take this to AfD. Right now, I am leaning weakly to delete, with the possibility of creating the "event" article, but I am definitely open to reconsideration on this. Safiel ( talk) 23:04, 18 March 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC) reply
Unable to find reliable, secondary sources which discuss this voice actress in depth, existing source is essentially a resume, marked for sources for five years and two months. j⚛e decker talk 03:26, 19 March 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Education in Singapore. If anyone has a better target in mind feel free to edit it. J04n( talk page) 11:17, 4 April 2013 (UTC) reply
I understand per a long standing precedent at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, primary schools do not warrant their own articles. But as no article for Holland Grove Road (school's location) exists, where should I redirect? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. L Faraone 02:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC) reply
As one of the sculptors for Madame Tussauds London, Wiltshire has received some mention in passing in articles about the celebrities whose likenesses appear at the museum, but no in depth coverage to be found. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 13:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. L Faraone 02:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The evidence supporting this article is scant indeed. The physical description of the device is sourced to a blog, which is by its nature not a reliable source. The historical evidence refers to several devices that are called collars, but which the author insists are really this "iron bit" device, with no evidence to back up this connection. The Social Implications section appears to be the author's own conclusion, which would constitute original research. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 13:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC) reply
Unwisely accepted from AfC - no reason is apparent why this brand should be notable DGG ( talk ) 20:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to MuzikMafia. L Faraone 02:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC) reply
Does not pass WP:BIO. Some features in small publications related to his field. Beach drifter ( talk) 03:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC) reply
Bill Moore is an important person who was involved in the historical thing "He was part of launching a historical brand called the MuzikMafia. MuzikMafiz produced $40 Million dollars per year in revenue as well as had books, tv shows, and television appearances."
The muzikmafia book confirms his role in that organization. It would fit into the policy of the wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kavdiamanju ( talk • contribs) 03:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC) reply