The result was merge to Florida–LSU football rivalry. Information about the football game can be added to the 2007 Florida Gators football team and the 2007 LSU Tigers football team articles too. ( non-admin closure) Armbrust The Homunculus 15:52, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I propose to Merge the essential facts of this article to a single paragraph summary within the existing Florida–LSU football rivalry article. Per WP:SPORTSEVENT, "[r]egular season games in professional and college leagues are not inherently notable." Therefore, such events must satisfy the general notability standards per WP:GNG. While this article is largely unsourced, there were numerous day-after game articles written about the 2007 LSU-UF football game, as there are about all Division I football games, but there is no indication in the college football literature that this was a truly notable standout regular season game whose contemporary coverage exceeded WP:ROUTINE. From a policy standpoint, Wikipedia does not need a proliferation of long-winded, thinly sourced articles about individual college football games of marginal notability -- that's why Wikiproject College football has actively encouraged the development of college football rivalry articles that aggregate the collective history of CFB rivalry series and provide brief summaries of the most notable games in the series. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 23:12, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. Three relistings ought to be enough; and although the number of editors participating in the AfD has not been overwhelming, there seems to be a clear consensus for deletion. Deor ( talk) 13:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
This article is troubling as it seems to be a promotional piece written by the subject, thereby violating the guidelines of WP:Autobiography and self promotion It was properly submitted and approved under the Articles for creation process, but a search does not indicate any discussion of the submitted article before its approval.
A review of User contributions to the article indicates that 87% of the edits were made by the User:jamesdaviddiamond, the subject of the article (the percentage becomes higher if we delete bot edits) and conversely, 128 of jamesdaviddiamond's 164 edits (i.e., 78%) were to his autobiographical article. This looks suspiciously like a Single Purpose Account.
When one considers the question of notability, there are three categories to consider. The subject is an attorney, a political figure, and an educator.
As the guideline about autobiographies cautions, "People will write overly positive impressions of themselves." This article seems to suffer from such inflation of perceptions.
SteveMcCluskey ( talk) 16:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
EditorJohnny ( talk) 20:37, 11 June 2014 (UTC)He seems to meet many of the standards for an attorney (Bearian/Standards#Notability_of_attorneys) having been an editor of a law school journal, a legislator, handled a notable case, taught law. I think the page should be edited and not deleted. I am going to try to curtail some of the self promotional materials — Preceding unsigned comment added by EditorJohnny ( talk • contribs) 20:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
The Sockpuppet investigation, mentioned above, has closed, blocking User:EditorJohnny as a sockpuppet of User:Jamesdaviddiamond, who has been cautioned about using alternate accounts "for the purposes of deceiving others into seeing more support for your position". EditorJohnny's support for keeping the article can be ignored and Jamesdaviddiamond's use of a sockpuppet weakens the case for keeping his autobiography. -- SteveMcCluskey ( talk) 11:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
I have been silent to date throughout the entire deletion debate, silent during the review of what is referred to as sockpuppetry, or use of alternate accounts. During this period I went about the business of editing various articles which interest me, including making minor edits of the autobiographical article. The users who have participated in both discussions appear to have honorable community-minded intentions and to be unbiased. Although I wholly disagree with the conclusions reached regarding sockpuppetry, a user has been deleted and it is time to move on. As to Professor McCluskey's SteveMcCluskey conclusion that the case has been weakened for keeping the autobiographical article, nothing can be further from the truth. During this process the article has been edited and improved and the edits are wholly consistent with the comments and suggestions made on this page. When it comes down to it, the question appears to be whether the subject--me--is notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. I leave that judgement to the community and only ask that my career be reviewed in its entirety and not a piecemeal fashion (legislator, attorney, educator, grassroots lobbyist, prosecutor, author, academic, speechwriter, etc.) as it is the uncommon breadth of experiences which make it notable. (I prefer not to engage in this debate, but by way of example, and it is just one brief example, few former criminal prosecuting attorneys after a 30 year career would spend a year studying American Indian Tribal Courts and Tribal Law and devote time to research the lessons society can learn from indigenous communities and link it to societal need for community healing following school shootings). If, after reviewing the merits of the article the community reaches the conclusion that the article requires more detail of notable accomplishment, or should be edited (as into a stub) or even deleted I shall gladly live with that conclusion. Jamesdaviddiamond ( talk) 14:20, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. As a note unrelated to the close, please note that the biography is a copyvio, as the text of the biographical information was present in IMDB as early as November 2005, according to the Wayback Machine. j⚛e decker talk 05:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Notability not shown with any sources, let alone the WP:SECONDARY ones required by WP:BASIC. Binksternet ( talk) 05:28, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 08:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Interviews are primary sources. To satisfy the notability requirement of WP:BASIC, in-depth coverage must be seen in WP:SECONDARY sources. Binksternet ( talk) 05:47, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. There were a substantial number of keeps but for the most part these either failed to understand the requirements of the GNG or else failed to respond to counter claims that they do not meet GNG. I caution anyone from following the link to ref#2 which set off my security software for attempting to run an untrusted application. Spinning Spark 12:59, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Minor conspiracy theorist not notable by WP standards, fails WP:BIO. With the exception of one incident in 2006 (see WP:BLP1E for why one incident isn't enough), links are either to primary material, a student newspaper (not WP:RS), other non-WP:RS sources, or refer to a minor and badly failed House candidacy in 2008 (fails WP:BIO for politicians). Page is listed in the "9/11 conspiracy theory" category, which artificially inflates the number of pages linking to it. Note that the previous AfD unleashed a truly remarkable amount of sock-puppetry and meat-puppetry from the conspiracy woodwork and this is likely to happen again. Fleenier ( talk) 15:02, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Walton-on-the-Hill#Bramley School. ( non-admin closure) Armbrust The Homunculus 15:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
It's simply not notable. There are 4 cited sources; two are directory type listings. One is a routine inspection report by the responsible authority and finally the school's own website. No press or any other independent reliable sources that prove notability. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 21:36, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica 1000 19:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Doesn't appear to meet
WP:ORG. Other content issues are apparent, I .. must admit that I was frankly surprised to find that this wasn't the organization's About page, not including the separate advertisement which now leads the description of the organization.
j⚛e decker
talk 18:54, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Okay. I first googled "AFA wiki" to find a disambiguation page that did not list the AFA at all. I made a suggestion that it be listed.
Then I thought of googling, "American Federation of Astrologers wiki" and found this page, which surprised me. Then I was further surprised to find it was listed for deletion.
The American Federation of Astrologers, like them or not, approve of them or not, are the largest and oldest astrological society in the world. Since 1950 they have published some 640 books, all of them on astrology. They have held annual or bi-annual conferences since the late 1930's, they have a membership in the thousands. If you want I can phone them and get an exact number for you. They have published a monthly newsletter for some decades - ink on paper. The AFA were an outgrowth of the American Academy of Astrologicans, founded in 1916, and the Astrologer's Guild of 1926, both long gone.
Wiki's blatant hostility to astrology is well-known, though here and there I am starting to see cracks in the facade.
Please end this discussion by keeping the entry for the American Federation of Astrologers. It easily qualifies for it own unique Wiki page.
Thank-you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.15.102.104 ( talk) 16:12, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Collapsing academic discussion of astrology history per
WP:NOTFORUM
Ivanvector (
talk) 20:27, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
|
---|
Having read Wiki's rules for significant organizations, let's continue: The applicable rules are intended to apply to insignificant groups. The person who declares himself to be the president of a group with him as its only member. Wiki needs to revise its policy to include groups which have been socially excluded, which astrology, as a whole has, and which the AFA, specifically, has been. Wiki will refuse to do this for the simple reason that the underlying problem with astrology is not scientific, but political. Wiki does not want to be the one to let the side down and be the first to admit astrology might exist. It would rather someone else went first. The consequence of this policy is that Wiki attracts bullies as editors which it cannot control (there seems to be no end of them), while, on the other hand, it generates a great deal of hostility in the general community, who are unaware of the 364-ish year battle to eradicate astrology by every means possible. The "scientific" hostility to astrology is based on the French Enlightenment of 1650 which declared the subject a dead letter. This was codified in 1751, a century later, in Diderot's Enclyclopedie. No rationale was given. You can read the original entries for both Astrology and Astrologer in English translation if you like. These opinions had previously been restricted to catchpenny publications of no merit, as you will find in F. Leigh Gardner's Catalog Raisonee of Works on the Occult Sciences, Volume II, originally published in 1911, reprinted n 1977 as Bibliotheca Astrologica, by Symbols and Signs, North Hollywood, CA. Gardner, who was loosely associated with the Golden Dawn, had bought an old library from someone who collected everything, good as well as bad. It's a useful survey. There were very few books, from the start of printing, up to about 1890 or so, that escaped him, as I have long used him as a reference. The origin of the French Enlightenment has been a puzzle but has a simple source: It was a reaction to the end of the 30 Years War some two years prior. In that war Germany had destroyed itself and its science and culture. The Enlightenment was the French asserting themselves as superior. Which they have done at every opportunity since. The underlying reason for this, as well as a possible explanation of why astrology specifically was banned, may have to do with a fear that Lutheranism, in the guise of the Huguenots, might spread uncontrollably throughout France - as the Cathars very nearly did some centuries before. No one wanted a religious war in France. (Germany was a ghastly example.) Separating French culture from German culture might have been part of the solution. In this regard, note the spread of atheism in France as a result of the Enlightenment as a counter both to the Church and to the Huguenots. This uniquely French atheism has persisted to the present day and has long included many scientists (Wiki editors among them, it seems). It is notable that prior to the 30 Years War, astrology was strongly developed in Germany (as well as England), which was one of the things the Germans got from the Italian Renaissance, as you can derive if you read closely the Wiki entries on Italian Renaissance, French Renaissance, and German Renaissance. As the Renaissance was itself touched off by plunder taken by the Crusaders from the Holy Land, you should also Wiki the Twelfth Century Translators. Know that most of the books that John of Seville and his friends translated were astrological in nature, as those were the most highly prized. They produced Latin translations of Arabic translations of Greek originals. Many of these have recently been translated into English by various academic as well as astrological translators. The result may well be as profound in the 21st century as it was in the 15th. These are still powerful books. So far as the French exclusion of astrology, remember the French have always excluded what they did not like. The early Impressionists were excluded from the official salons. The French have repeatedly attempted to ban popular English-language words and phrases, such as le weekend (le fin de la semaine), only to be defeated by its own population, who will have none of it. Presently the French are attempting to ban Muslims. The French are highly insular and highly centralized, always have been, always will be. Please don't fault me for writing that. Do your basic homework. This does not mean I dislike the French or think of them inferior in any way. I am fluent in the language and am well-traveled in the country and while I admire them greatly the culture itself baffles me. Which is an honest statement. Since at least the 1980's, astrologers have had increasing fun romping through the old texts and reinventing themselves. Thanks to the work of Otto Neugebauer, David Pingree, Robert Schmidt, Benjamin Dykes and some others, Hellenistic astrology (a rather inferior brand, in my opinion) is on the verge of becoming a subject taught at the university level here in America. Seventeenth century English astrology may yet emerge at the university level in England, as there are are academics sorting through the writings of Simon Forman, which will lead them in all manner of interesting directions which have already been well explored by people just outside the university. For that matter, a uniquely German astrology emerged in the early 20th century, which has students here in the US. As for the French, astrology continues to be little known. As a culture they just don't like it, which is an opinion to which they are entitled. Wiki should recognize the objections to astrology have been, are, and will continue to be political, not scientific. American astrologers may revive the subject only to discover that astrologers have always been reviled, as the subject itself is a nasty one and always will be. So long as excuses can be invented, various heroes can be found to continue to exclude and deny astrology, often at no credit to the truth. Astrologers exist, like it or not. Virtually every astrologer knows of the American Federation of Astrologers. To the members of the community, the AFA is like asking if you are a Republican or a Democrat, it's that well-known. Wiki should excuse itself from this ancient, rancid, French argument and let the AFA page stand. My suggestion: Revise Wiki's rules for significance to admit groups and organizations which are socially excluded but significant and well-known in their own communities. Heaven knows, I can find enough obscure organizations with Wiki pages. No, I do not sign these. Wiki bans astrologers who write with their own names. That's social exclusion. Which is a topic that I believe has its own Wiki page. You might review it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.15.102.104 ( talk) 18:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC) |
The result was no consensus. ( Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica 1000 19:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't feel that this person is notable. Fails WP:SOLDIER - does being mentioned in a book make him notable enough? Gbawden ( talk) 10:37, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 05:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
No evidence of notability, plus horrible formatting errors. Staglit ( talk) 16:26, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
The result was keep. If I am erring, then on the side of caution--inclusion. Final contribution to the AfD gives some indication of notability. Drmies ( talk) 15:04, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Another Debian Project Leader, but not notable outside of Debian. Jamesx 12345 18:19, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. → Call me Hahc 21 04:21, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
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 procedurally without objection to the delete rationale. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 19:34, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. → Call me Hahc 21 04:21, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Unremarkable animator. Three episodes of The Simpsons over three years isn't particularly notable, and he has no awards or honors. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 01:21, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. ( Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica 1000 19:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Notability questionable JacobiJonesJr ( talk) 00:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. → Call me Hahc 21 04:21, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
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 by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 19:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
The result was Redirect. Nick ( talk) 20:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
I created this page unaware of the fact that another page 2014 Lahore clash describing the same event exists. Rafiullah ( talk) 13:21, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. § FreeRangeFrog croak 10:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
It's an unsourced essay. Ad Orientem ( talk) 13:16, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 05:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Deprodded by creator (now blocked for spamming...) a while back without any rationale. The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. Seems like a vanity bio, most of which is about a different topic anyway. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:00, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 15:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Per WP:NFF, shooting for the film has not started. - Vivvt ( Talk) 12:47, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. → Call me Hahc 21 04:21, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
This is an autobiography that lack wp:notability. I can't find reliable sources with significant coverage. Vanjagenije ( talk) 12:08, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. Drmies ( talk) 15:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't the Guinness Book of Records, so I'm not sure what place this article has here - isn't it a WP:ONEEVENT? It's about a self-supporting structure of beer cans that was made by students to raise money for a charity (and subsequently dismantled). Neither is it the world's largest because it was not validated by the World Records people. I'm not sure where this could be merged to (obviously not in its detailed entirety) because there's no existing Wikipedia article on Thoroughbred Park, Beer Day Out (festival) or Shake It Up (charity). Sionk ( talk) 11:29, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 05:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Article's subject fails to meet WP:GNG. A search on GoogleNews produces no hits, a regular Google search shows pages of statistics but no substantive coverage. I have verified that there are no articles on him the Russian Wikipedia. While he may appear to meet WP:NSPORT, he does not meet the the more-fundamental requirements of WP:GNG. KDS4444 Talk 10:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 • (talk) 08:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Article's subject does not meet WP:GNG. GoogleNews produces no hits, Google web search produces a list of advertisements for the book. Could not find substantive coverage from multiple independent secondary sources, so am proposing deletion. KDS4444 Talk 09:55, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
The result was Keep ( non-admin closure). Sir Sputnik ( talk) 00:18, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Article's subject fails to meet WP:GNG. A search on GoogleNews produces no hits, a regular Google search shows pages of statistics but no substantive coverage. I have verified that there are no articles on him in either the Serbian or Serbo-Croatian Wikipedias. While he may appear to meet WP:NSPORT, he does not meet the the more-fundamental requirements of WP:GNG. KDS4444 Talk 09:15, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
The result was Keep ( non-admin closure). Sir Sputnik ( talk) 00:17, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Article's subject fails to meet WP:GNG. A search on GoogleNews produces no hits, a regular Google search shows pages of statistics but no substantive coverage. I have verified that there are no articles on him in either the Serbian or Serbo-Croatian Wikipedias. While he may appear to meet WP:NSPORT, he does not meet the the more-fundamental requirements of WP:GNG. KDS4444 Talk 09:14, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
The result was Keep ( non-admin closure). Sir Sputnik ( talk) 00:15, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Article's subject fails to meet WP:GNG. A search on GoogleNews produces no hits, a regular Google search shows pages of statistics but no substantive coverage. I have verified that there are no articles on him in either the Serbian or Serbo-Croatian Wikipedias. While he may appear to meet WP:NSPORT, he does not meet the the more-fundamental requirements of WP:GNG. KDS4444 Talk 09:12, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
The result was Keep ( non-admin closure). Sir Sputnik ( talk) 00:14, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Article's subject fails to meet WP:GNG. A search on GoogleNews produces no hits, a regular Google search shows pages of statistics but no substantive coverage. I have verified that there are no articles on him in the Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia. While he may appear to meet WP:NSPORT, he does not meet the the more-fundamental requirements of WP:GNG. KDS4444 Talk 09:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
The result was Keep ( non-admin closure). Sir Sputnik ( talk) 00:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Article's subject fails to meet WP:GNG. A search on GoogleNews produces no hits, a regular Google search shows pages of statistics but no substantive coverage. I have verified that there are no articles on him in either the Serbian or Serbo-Croatian Wikipedias. While he may appear to meet WP:NSPORT, he does not meet the the more-fundamental requirements of WP:GNG. KDS4444 Talk 09:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
The result was Keep ( non-admin closure). Sir Sputnik ( talk) 00:11, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Article's subject fails to meet WP:GNG. A search on GoogleNews produces no hits, a regular Google search shows pages of statistics but no substantive coverage. I have verified that there are no articles on him in either the Serbian or Serbo-Croatian Wikipedias. While he may appear to meet WP:NSPORT, he does not meet the the more-fundamental requirements of WP:GNG. KDS4444 Talk 09:06, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
*Keep - Sources indicate that the individual has played in a
fully professional league and so passes
WP:NFOOTY. Article needs expanding not deleting. Per current consensus, players who have played in a fully professional league are assumed notable. Presence or lack thereof on Serbian WP or any other Wiki is not relevant.
Fenix down (
talk) 11:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC) Actually not sure he has played FPL.
Fenix down (
talk) 11:54, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
The result was Keep ( non-admin closure). Sir Sputnik ( talk) 00:10, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Article's subject fails to meet WP:GNG. A search on GoogleNews produces no hits, a regular Google search shows pages of statistics but no substantive coverage. I have verified that there are no articles on him in either the Serbian or Serbo-Croatian Wikipedias. While he may appear to meet WP:NSPORT, he does not meet the the more-fundamental requirements of WP:GNG. KDS4444 Talk 09:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
*Keep - Sources indicate that the individual has played in a
fully professional league and so passes
WP:NFOOTY. Article needs expanding not deleting. Per current consensus, players who have played in a fully professional league are assumed notable. Presence or lack thereof on Serbian WP or any other Wiki is not relevant.
Fenix down (
talk) 11:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC) Actually not sure he has played FPL.
Fenix down (
talk) 11:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
The result was keep ( non-admin closure). Sir Sputnik ( talk) 20:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Article's subject fails to meet WP:GNG. A search on GoogleNews produces no hits, a regular Google search shows pages of statistics but no substantive coverage. I have verified that there are no articles on him in either the Serbian or Serbo-Croatian Wikipedias. While he may appear to meet WP:NSPORT, he does not meet the the more-fundamental requirements of WP:GNG. KDS4444 Talk 09:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
*Keep - Sources indicate that the individual has played in a
fully professional league and so passes
WP:NFOOTY. Article needs expanding not deleting. Per current consensus, players who have played in a fully professional league are assumed notable. Presence or lack thereof on Serbian WP or any other Wiki is not relevant.
Fenix down (
talk) 11:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC) Anctually not sure he has played FPL.
Fenix down (
talk) 11:52, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
The result was Keep ( non-admin closure). Sir Sputnik ( talk) 00:09, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Article's subject fails to meet WP:GNG. A search on GoogleNews produces no hits, a regular Google search shows only pages of statistics which are inadequate per WP:SPORTCRIT. I have verified that there are no articles on him in either the Serbian or Serbo-Croatian Wikipedias (the one result on the Serbian Wikipedia is not him but another, now-deceased Marko Ristić). While he may appear to meet WP:NSPORT, he does not meet the the more-fundamental requirements of WP:GNG. KDS4444 Talk 09:00, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
The result was Keep ( non-admin closure). Sir Sputnik ( talk) 00:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Article's subject fails to meet WP:GNG. A search on GoogleNews produces no hits, a regular Google search shows pages of statistics but no substantive coverage. I have verified that there are no articles on him in either the Serbian or Serbo-Croatian Wikipedias. While he may appear to meet WP:NSPORT, he does not meet the the more-fundamental requirements of WP:GNG. KDS4444 Talk 08:50, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
*Keep - Sources indicate that the individual has played in a
fully professional league and so passes
WP:NFOOTY. Article needs expanding not deleting. Per current consensus, players who have played in a fully professional league are assumed notable. Presence or lack thereof on Serbian WP or any other Wiki is not relevant.
Fenix down (
talk) 11:42, 30 June 2014 (UTC) Actually, not sure he has played in an FPL.
Fenix down (
talk) 11:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
The result was Keep ( non-admin closure). Sir Sputnik ( talk) 00:06, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Article's subject fails to meet WP:GNG. A search on GoogleNews produces no hits, a regular Google search is an endless list of pages offering statistics only, no substantive coverage. Article's single reference is of the same type. I have verified that there are no articles on him in either the Serbian or Serbo-Croatian Wikipedias. WP:NSPORTS remains subordinate to WP:GNG, and this individual does not appear to meet the notability requirements set forth in WP:GNG. KDS4444 Talk 08:43, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. It appears prudent to hold off an AfD discussion at this time. ( Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica 1000 15:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
This (presently unreleased) 2014 single appears to not meet WP:NSONGS at this time. After several source searches, coverage from reliable sources is lacking, and those in the article are mostly unreliable with the exception of 4Music, which appears likely to simply include a listing of the song (e.g. see the formatting of the 4Music listing for June 27 at [20]). I found this source, which is quite short in length and coverage, but that's all thus far in terms of those to establish topic notability per Wikipedia's standards. NorthAmerica 1000 06:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
The result was merge to Minnesota Timberwolves. ( non-admin closure) Armbrust The Homunculus 15:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
The article is unreferenced and explains no significance whatsoever about the subject. JC · Talk · Contributions 05:49, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
The result was redirect to The Gatekeepers. Of note is that the nominator also appears to generally agree with a redirect, in a comment within the discussion. ( Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica 1000 14:22, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
No WP:RS to show notability. I've worked on the article in the past and never came up with anything. He worked at the NYTimes, he wrote a book reviewed by the Times, but it wasn't a best seller, and apparently he's not written anything else. SW3 5DL ( talk) 00:01, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 • (talk) 08:27, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Non notable individual. MCNBiografias is not reliable, and the only other accesible source is the Library of the Chilean Congress, which is a catalog entry for a book of Cruz, but that does not make him notable. Diego Grez ( talk) 01:02, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Please see the following References are added where they do literary Interest, these primary sources are aggregated into the article and these are: [Study on Chilean literature, 1940, Pastene foreword written by M. Correa, October 1940] and [History of Literature Illustrated Francisco A. Encina, written by Leopoldo Castedo, vol. 11, pp. 144-152]
You can see here the proposed deletion [ [21]] which does not take into account the references of this literary critic -- Historiador1923 ( talk) 05:34, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. Meager consensus is delete. Added sources that mention the site, or cite it briefly, do not add up to significant discussion. Drmies ( talk) 15:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Sparsely sourced article about a six month old company. The only useable source is a New York Times blog post by a freelance journalist from Bangalore. Fails WP:ORG. - Mr X 11:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
The result was No consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination ( non-admin closure) czar ♔ 22:19, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Subject is an unnecessary WP:CONTENTFORK from Skread. No indication is given of independent notability and no sources are cited. Ad Orientem ( talk) 18:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
@ Ad Orientem: I agree on the point of sources (which I will look for again and add to the article later on), but it's a production discography like any other. Skread is a very revered record producer in France and I think the contents of the article would be too much to put in Skread's main article alone. I had even provided article links to some of the albums but it appears someone removed them. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 17:03, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 16:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Subject is a minor award with self nomination and the winners have pay for their own trophy and the engraving. Thousands are given annually. Cited sources are primary and or trivial in their coverage and do not meet WP:GNG. A Google yielded a gazillion hits but mostly of the run of the mill sort including lots of promotional announcements by awardees. Ad Orientem ( talk) 17:56, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
comment I just did a search on "bogus OR criticisms OR fix AND "telly awards"" and didn't personally find any dissent, at worst there was a question that was raised in a blog and this was not answered. Is there anything wrong with "self nomination and the winners hav(ing to) pay for their own trophy and the engraving"? If there are criticisms couldn't a section be placed on the page entitled something like "Criticisms of the Telly Awards"? The articles lead seems straightforward. The body does have questionable notability so perhaps the notabilty box at the top of the page can stay. The bottom of the page contains [Telly_Award#External_links]. There are links here across the industry and the Telly Awards are mentioned. Maybe some further work might be done so show this organisations place in the pecking order of awards. My only objection is not that this is a minor award but that a minor award should be called "THE Telly Awards". Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Telly Awards also gives evidence of extremely positive editing of the article. Gregkaye ( talk) 11:34, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
The result was keep. j⚛e decker talk 06:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Article's subject fails to meet WP:GNG. A search on GoogleNews produces no hits, a regular Google search produces only links to Facebook, Twitter, IMDb, etc. The Transfermarkt link is a trivial listing of a name and statistics, not evidence of notability, as is the SoccerWay citation. Yes, he played at the levels which WP:NSPORTS suggests would qualify him for notability, but upon further inspection, I do not see this being met in real terms, and WP:NSPORTS remains subordinate to WP:GNG. I have verified that there are no articles on him in either the Serbian or Serbo-Croatian Wikipedias. There may be sources somewhere in one of these languages-- can anyone identify and provide links to some of these which offer any non-trivial coverage (i.e., more than just a name and some statistics)? KDS4444 Talk 05:00, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Giant Snowman 17:30, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 16:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:NHOCKEY. He has been drafted to the NHL but only in the fourth round. If he plays in the NHL then he should be included, but until then this is a case of WP:NotJustYet. Tchaliburton ( talk) 04:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 06:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:NHOCKEY. He has been drafted to the NHL but only in the second round. If he plays in the NHL then he should be included, but until then this is a case of WP:NotJustYet. Tchaliburton ( talk) 04:06, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. → Call me Hahc 21 04:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:NHOCKEY. He has been drafted to the NHL but only in the second round. If he plays in the NHL then he should be included, but until then this is a case of WP:NotJustYet. Tchaliburton ( talk) 04:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 05:08, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:NHOCKEY. He has been drafted to the NHL but only in the second round. If he plays in the NHL then he should be included, but until then this is a case of WP:NotJustYet. Tchaliburton ( talk) 04:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Armbrust The Homunculus 15:38, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Non-notable album, merge to the bands page as per WP:NALBUM. Murry1975 ( talk) 10:37, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete. § FreeRangeFrog croak 06:31, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Its a video game review and guide. Isnt suitable for Wikipedia Lor Chat 02:08, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. → Call me Hahc 21 04:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Hasn't been expanded from 3 sentences in over 10 days. Seems like news, with no lasting coverage. 117Avenue ( talk) 02:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. → Call me Hahc 21 04:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Unreferenced bio. As far as I know, having a holiday does not make a person notable. 117Avenue ( talk) 01:56, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. → Call me Hahc 21 04:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
This stub has been tagged as lacking any references or sources for over four years. I searched online for any reference to this company, but only got mirrors of this stub. Holdek ( talk) 00:31, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. Pace last contribution, no real secondary sources at all. Drmies ( talk) 15:18, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Not notable per
WP:AUTHOR. No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources.
Ahecht (
TALK
PAGE) 15:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Poison the Well (band). There is a clear consensus that a separate artucle isn't warranted, but no consensus to remove the history of the page. ( non-admin closure) Armbrust The Homunculus 15:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Does not meet notability requirements under WP:MUSBIO nor WP:GNG, article includes no reliable sources. Jacona ( talk) 21:38, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Angry Birds. No argument made for notability, no prejudice against editorially-considered, verifiable inclusion of facts about the topic to the target article. j⚛e decker talk 17:35, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Entirely fictional, in-universe article, lacking reliable, independent sources. Angry Birds Wiki and other fan sites do not satisfy WP:GNG. Better consolidated and merged into Angry Birds, as in the case of Mushroom Kingdom, a larger and arguably better-known fictional world that is a subtopic of Super Mario (series), or Kanto (Pokémon), which redirects to Pokémon universe. --Animalparty-- ( talk) 17:24, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Ayam Pelung. Of note is that the nominator also agrees with a redirect, in a comment within the discussion. ( Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica 1000 14:30, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
I can't figure out what this is about. It is so incoherent I seriously considered CSD per G-1, but thought I'd send it here first in case someone can discern something worth salvaging. Ad Orientem ( talk) 16:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Michael_Moorcock_bibliography#Other_collections. More pedantically: No argument was made that the book was notable. j⚛e decker talk 15:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Reason Mikeblas ( talk) 14:01, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
The result was keep. Sourcing seems to make this pass GNG. Copyvio concerns can be tackled separately, if any remain. Drmies ( talk) 15:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
fails WP:GNG and WP:EVENT, created by a single purpose editor, fancy name but has only been held once and all I could find is local coverage. LibStar ( talk) 13:55, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
The result was No consensus. (Non-admin close. If you think I'm WP:INVOLVED, please revert.) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Subject does not meet notability guidelines for musicians. ~ Super Hamster Talk Contribs 05:49, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. j⚛e decker talk 15:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Failure of GNG Mr. Guye ( talk) 01:21, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. Largely WP:V/WP:RS concerns, with a reliable source, notability would generally be presumed. j⚛e decker talk 14:56, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Partially translated (very badly) from an unknown source, there is zero value to this is at it currently stands, and improvement does not seem likely or indeed possible. Recommend using WP:TNT on this so that a fresh start can be had Jac16888 Talk 11:24, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
The result was keep. I'd ask @ SteveStrummer: to start an WP:RM about the request to rename. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
No citations to establish notability. Novato 123chess456 ( talk) 15:17, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
The result was Keep. Michig ( talk) 10:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
De-PRODed but does not meet WP:NALBUMS. Supplied source is nothing more than a track listing. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 04:02, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
The result was No consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination ( non-admin closure) czar ♔ 22:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Promotional Article Jayakumar RG ( talk) 16:33, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
The result was keep. → Call me Hahc 21 04:15, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
A working actress but not quite notable per WP:ENTERTAINER, WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. Binksternet ( talk) 16:31, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Armbrust The Homunculus 15:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Non-notable album, merge to the bands page as per WP:NALBUM . Murry1975 ( talk) 10:38, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete all. The various special notability guidelines, NFOOTY included, live in tension with our general notability guideline. When the subject notability guidelines and general notability guidelines give different results, the community tends to weight one or the other differently depending on which subject notability guideline we are considering, but both are pretty much always in play in various degree.
In this instance, NFOOTY gives a plainly ambiguous result. Having looked to the April discussion at WT:NFOOTY, I find that while there was a consensus to remove the League from the FPL, I do not see that there is a consensus about whether the league is or isn't fully-professional, it is instead simply so far unverified either way. We don't know.
I'm left with the view that any argument based on NFOOTY here is pretty weak, and I have weighted NFOOTY arguments in general here quite weakly. In addition, SNGs in general and NFOOTY in particular is usually, as a matter of textual interpretation, treated as putting the burden of proof on those wishing to show notability via the criteria, which further reduced the weight of keep arguments based on NFOOTY.
In short, GNG arguments get most of the weight here. And we have unanimous consensus below that the players do not meet GNG.
DangerousPanda's June 1 close, mentioned below, deserves mention. I believe that it was a wise, patient close, with a prejudice toward retaining material and a Gentle Mallet of Clue suggesting that an RfC was needed on the League's status. To the best of my knowledge, discussion has completely halted on that question, no RfC has been created, the last discussion at WT:NPERSON was in April, and AFAIK no attempts have been made to pursue this through AZ-speaking editors and so on. It is now a different time, and what made sense then does not necessarily make sense today. Patience is different than acceptance that we will leave this question unanswered indefinitely.
In summary, NFOOTY's result is "answer hazy", and no amount of voting in this AfD will really get to the bottom of the ambiguity. Until that ambiguity is resolved, I believe that GNG is the only meaningful policy-based measure of the notability of players from this League. -- j⚛e decker talk 04:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 21:20, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
I am also nominating the following articles for the same reason. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 21:22, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. Existent coverage is not sufficient to meet GNG, as outlined by the delete votes. → Call me Hahc 21 04:14, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
This article was created 88 months ago by Sydneyunderground. How come no-one has added any indication of notability? I could A7 this if I wanted to as an unremarkable organised event. Laun chba ller 21:15, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. → Call me Hahc 21 04:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Dead project (merged with Reunion.com in 2008), never notable. The references that initially seemed to prove notability do not really discuss the Wink service and/or do not indicate notability. Please see /info/en/?search=Talk:Wink_Technologies Wieldthespade ( talk) 18:01, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
The result was Keep. Article has already been moved to Rani Bhatiyani. Michig ( talk) 10:28, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello. No one is disrespecting the author's religious feelings, but they are not appropriate for Wikipedia. See WP:NOTESSAY and Wikipedia:Alternative outlets. Magog the Ogre ( t • c) 18:31, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Those who don't have any knowledge of Hindu culture , kindly don't propose the deletion of this article ; keep
Keep
The result was delete. → Call me Hahc 21 04:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Delete, I'm going to say that this person doesn't actually pass the gng or the guidelines for wp:professional. Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 18:41, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 20:02, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. postdlf ( talk) 15:32, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
CinemaSins is notable, but a list of all their videos is not appropriate per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Tchaliburton ( talk) 23:21, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 01:39, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Contested PROD. Does not meet Does not meet WP:NALBUMS. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 23:27, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Comment On 19 June 2014 the nominator PRODed some 50+ Hillsong-related articles see here. From 21 June I noticed this list and that some 10+ of these PRODs were charting albums at either ARIA or Billboard. I have gone through more of the 50+ list and added sources where possible and dePRODed any that I felt had a reliable source for their existence. I was hoping to get time to supply further sources to attempt to establish notability. With so many article to research this is not necessarily achievable in a short time-frame. The nominator has sent most of the dePRODed articles straight to AfD. I ask for time/assistance in actually searching for sources to support the articles' notability. shaidar cuebiyar ( talk) 09:34, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. Without prejudice to a redirect j⚛e decker talk 14:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Probable hoax. No Ghits that I can find. The article was deleted, back in 2004, following
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gatch gereftani. However, though the text is nearly identical, this article is probably not speedable as a recreation since it has the addition of a reference that I am not able to check.
TerriersFan (
talk) 00:39, 29 June 2014 (UTC)