< 28 January | 30 January > |
---|
The result was Speedy close, article is not the topic of deletion (but a contested section) matt ( talk) 13:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Nominated for deletion for legal reasons revolving around the auchengeigh theft, previous detailed on the Moodiesburn article until my removal today. These details must not return to either article. I will not tolerate ( talk) 13:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 00:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill ( talk) 23:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 00:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR. ttonyb ( talk) 23:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Although a merger discussion would seem to be in order as many of these articles do not convey any meaningful information and are single line sub-stubs. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC) reply
It lacks notability as it has not been expanded for three and half years and seems to be people writing out their English homework Lizzie Harrison ( talk) 16:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because also lack notability as individual articles: reply
Delete the first named poem analysis in the Afd proposal. That particular article does not show notability. --
Stormbay (
talk) 04:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)* maybe redirect the whole group to the
AQA Anthology article. --
Stormbay (
talk)
04:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. JForget 01:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete. Here lies yet another non-notable software application which lacks non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. JBsupreme ( talk) 23:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. There are some concerns about the quality of the sources, but it appears that enough people want to give the article the benefit of the doubt for the time being at least. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC) reply
Promotion for non-notable software product. The sources given are not significant, and I have been unable to find any significant independent coverage from reliable sources. Article was written by the company's CEO. It was speedied in December and this new version was mostly a copyright violation. Prod was contested without reason. Haakon ( talk) 20:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. kur ykh 03:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC) reply
This article is about a non-notable politician who was never elected (he placed 16th out of 22 candidates, receiving only 0.5% of the vote). All information on this person is already included within the
Liberian general election, 2005 article.
Onthegogo (
talk)
23:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
The following articles should also be added to this discussion:
reply
The result was delete. Icewedge ( talk) 04:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
Not enough information for an article right now. Needs more sources, WP:HAMMER. TheWeakWilled ( T * G) 23:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. No consensus to delete ( talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
Disputed prod - which I placed - so it has to come here. I prodded it because, "he fails Wp:ATHLETE, having not played basketball at its highest level". The user removed the prod - without explaining why (naturally), but didn't include any reasons as to why he might meet the aforementioned guideline. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)| (talk to me)| (What I've done) 16:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. JForget 01:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete. Software app which lacks non trivial coverage from multiple third party publications, thus failing GNG. JBsupreme ( talk) 22:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Michael Schelp. NW ( Talk) 22:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable production company, not seeing news or notable ghits. MBisanz talk 22:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. JForget 01:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete. Software application with no real claim to notability, nor does it appear to have significant coverage from multiple reliable third party publications thus failing GNG. JBsupreme ( talk) 22:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 00:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete. This was discussed approximately 3-4 months ago with the result being no consensus. Since that time, zero evidence has come forward of non-trivial coverage of this subject from reliable third party publications. JBsupreme ( talk) 22:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. consensus seems to be that there are not enough significant mentions in reliable, secondary sources to establish notability. NW ( Talk) 22:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete. And another non-notable software application which fails GNG. This article is apparently edited by the authors of the software (COI?) not that that has any real impact on the general notability here. JBsupreme ( talk) 22:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. NW ( Talk) 22:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete. Non-notable software application which fails GNG. JBsupreme ( talk) 22:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Virtually unanimous keep. ( non-admin closure) Blodance the Seeker 04:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 00:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
Unsourced BLP. Author is only known for one single book, and "known" may be an exaggeration: this is all I can find in Google News--a few mentions, really. Drmies ( talk) 22:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus ( NAC). Swarm( Talk) 00:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC) reply
Political candidate; no other indication of notability. Per WP:POLITICIAN, that is not enough. I know there is a view that POLITICIAN should be scrapped or ignored, but until there is consensus for that we should apply it. The point of POLITICIAN is that allowing candidates to have articles is an open invitation to COI editing and promotion: I note, for instance, that this article was first created, some time ago, by user Fred Mackintosh ( talk · contribs), and that the author of this version is creating a number of articles about candidates, all for the Liberal Democrat party. Even a neutrally-written article about a candidate constitutes promotion; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an election notice-board. JohnCD ( talk) 21:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Since the outcome is clear and there is some offsite canvassing that will just clutter the discussion I'll bring the shutters down now. The vast majority of the keep votes are non-policy based and have very littkle weight as a result. The one substantial keep vote asserts that the sources are notable but the overhwhealming consensus of established editors with policy based arguments is that the sources do not cut the mustard. The delete side is therefore a hands down winner. Spartaz Humbug! 10:16, 4 February 2010 (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}} . |
Delete. Looks to be a non-notable free/open source operating system. JBsupreme ( talk) 19:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep several sources found ( WP:NACD) CTJF83 chat 18:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC) reply
Poorly referenced article of a non-notable living person should be removed per WP:BLP. Onthegogo ( talk) 19:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Scott Mac (Doc) 22:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
Poorly-sourced BLP of a business person. The only "sources" are foreign language. I was willing to AGF on the sources, until I looked closer at them. The first isn't even accessible for perusal, and the second only mentions the man's last name ONE TIME in it. This does not satisfy the "non-trivial" source requirement for notability. Unit Anode 18:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 00:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete. Vaporware from the past, does not appear to have received any kind of significant coverage from reliable third parties. JBsupreme ( talk) 17:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Scott Mac (Doc) 23:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The only sources are from 2006 when the site was founded, with no substantial coverage afterward. A brief flurry of coverage from around the foundation does not translate to full blown notability if the site never got any coverage from third party sources after its foundation. Prod declined with a proposed merge to IMDb simply because it shares a founder was inspired by IMDb -- not a good idea in my opinion given the tenuous connection. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (
Many otters •
One bat •
One hammer)
03:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
reply
The result was speedy delete. Ronhjones (Talk) 23:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC) reply
This article has insufficient context to make it a valid article, yet more information than would qualify it for speedy deletion Fiddle Faddle ( talk) 16:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 00:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
It's unclear who this person was, and he doesn't seem very notable from Google nor is there much claim of notability here, of what I can decipher. fetch comms ☛ 16:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 00:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
No indications of notability. Claims of notability amount to front office jobs at various minor league sports teams and leagues. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 15:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. without prejudice to merge. Keep voters urged to find sources or risk another sucessful afd soon. Scott Mac (Doc) 22:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
With the relevant filter word 'Armenian' I've found no reliable sources at all, whether on web or on Google Books. Even the Armenian sources are virtually non-existent. Dastak turns ambiguous, giving several unrelated topics. Brand t] 14:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Keep or merge The paucity of sources on this settlement seems to suggest that little information exists on it. I have several historical-geographical books on Armenia and none of them mention it (I don't believe it is mentioned in the entry for Agulis in the Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia, either). Nevertheless, as Eupator showed above, the settlement did exist with that name at one time. I will look into a more comprehensive volume on historical geography, which will probably provide details on Dastak's previous names or its current state. After we have gathered the basic information, we'll probably merge this into another article.-- Marshal Bagramyan ( talk) 18:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Scott Mac (Doc) 22:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
fails WP:POLITICIAN Ironholds ( talk) 14:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 00:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. I can't find significant coverage for this high school student. Tim Song ( talk) 14:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep as a result of expansion. Good work, people. DS ( talk) 17:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:NOTABLE and WP:ONEEVENT. While the Declaration is itself notable, and many of its signatories are as well, it does not appear that this individual is notable for anything other than his signature. I cannot find anything about him in the literature. Since he is already listed at Albanian Declaration of Independence, Delete or Merge. Alexikoua ( talk) 22:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Keep - appears to meet notability and ref's ( talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
This article appears to be promotion. the artist hasn't released any reliable material yet, s she fails WP:N. Two quotes are not enough to establish notability. DasallmächtigeJ ( talk) 21:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Still fails WP:ATHLETE ( talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
Footballer who has never played at a fully professional level. Previously deleted by AfD twice as Jon Main for that reason, and he has not as yet advanced any further in his career... -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 22:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep, as a result of expansion. Good work, people. DS ( talk) 17:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:NOTABLE and WP:ONEEVENT. While the Declaration is itself notable, and many of its signatories are as well, it does not appear that this individual is notable for anything other than his signature. I cannot find anything about him in the literature. Since he is already listed at Albanian Declaration of Independence, Delete or Merge. Alexikoua ( talk) 22:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 17:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC) reply
This article is a content fork from Robert Baden-Powell which has two paragraphs on allegations that he was gay as well. It quotes at excessive length from the one book filled with speculation that powell was gay (written long after powell's death) and appears to be the subject of some agenda driven editing. It is a classic content fork as well as a coatrack. While there might be bits of Baden-Powell's life that could stand being broken out ( Robert Baden-Powell's impact on scouting say), what we have here is the creation of a forked article to give undue weight to a fringe set of speculation. Forks like this most crucially undermine WP:NPOV by hiving off a set of controversial and unproven claims and treating them as a topic of their own. There can be no "neutral point of view" when this is done. Witness the article as it currently stands "Baden-Powell liked boys, he sometimes talked to them when they were naked after swimming, sometimes he slept apart from his wife, he admired the male form OMG he was a homo who molested underaged boys!" Encyclopedic, this is not. Bali ultimate ( talk) 11:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Scott Mac (Doc) 22:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
Subject is a non-notable artist, fails WP:MUS, no credible assertion of notability. Catfish Jim and the soapdish ( talk) 14:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Ricta is and has been for many years a key figure within UK Hip Hop scene and I think definitely deserves a place here on Wikipedia.He is a familiar face within Hip Hop not just within the UK but also throughout Europe and is noted for being one of the first and even only soul style UK Hip Hop acts. He has sold thousands of CD's and performed alongside Hip Hop legends such as KRS-ONE , which for a UK Hip Hop artist is major ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beatbackrecs ( talk • contribs) 17:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Even recognizing the foreign notability is a challenge, this does not appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO ( talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
I found Vlad Agachi whose full name is Vlad Andrei Agachi, while checking Category:Unreferenced BLPs from September 2008.
Are these sufficient for Wikipedia? - 84user ( talk) 12:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC) 84user ( talk) 12:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn ( non-admin closure) Bradjamesbrown ( talk) 03:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
Not clear how this meets
Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Included references are largely to fan websites. Zero google news hits on the title. Not finding much beyond the "Books Monthly" references provided.
RadioFan (
talk)
12:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. Scott Mac (Doc) 21:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 00:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
Fails to meet the notability requirements. Since creation in 2005, this article has had no improvement, such as adding reliable sources, and has recently degraded into further original research and speculation. Based on a search through Google Books and Google News there seems little prospect that these issues will be addressed in the near future (unless the article is completely re-written as a summary of the use of the concept in works of fiction). Ash ( talk) 11:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 00:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
Fails to satisfy WP:NM in his own right. Refs are on other subjects with only incidental mentions or are promotional first party sites. JohnBlackburne words deeds 10:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep, even given the multitude of spurious !votes. — Kurykh 01:28, 13 July 2007 (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}} . |
14-year-old director of an independent film. Has sources, but I don't think they establish her notability. NawlinWiki 17:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete and comment Weak keep based on CONvergencecon info and fringe sources, as well as upcoming documentary.--
Ispy1981 07:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)without prejudice to recreation as this is obivously someone on the rise. It truly doesn't concern me either that an admin who originally voted delete is going down the list and looking for any reason to nullify others' votes. No, not at all. And, BTW, I'm a veteran user. You can check my contribs, find any flaws you like, but you won't.--
Ispy1981
22:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
KEEP - as previously stated, she has received notable recognition in newspapers, from the Texas Filmakers Fund and was also a Guest of Honor (and compelling speaker) at a regional convention which drew 2700+ attendees. This recognition, coupled with her youth, make her a very interesting subject worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia.-- Slindorff 03:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)— Slindorff ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
KEEP - Excuse me? Emily was 12 and 13 when she wrote the screen play, directed and produced it and that is not notable? CONVergence, the third largest non-profit sci-fi convention in North America is a minor convention? Getting a grant from the Texas Filmmakers Production Fund is not notable? Excuse me? Wow. These comments are making my head spin. I wonder what your definition of notable is? Dare I say this, and am I going to get jumped on all over for saying it? - Or is it because she is a woman, a teen woman, that you want to dismiss, diminish and devalue her work and who she is? I find the whole question of her "lack" of notability insulting to her as a person, to teens and to women everywhere. Her inclusion in Wikipedia should not even be a question. How many 13 year olds do YOU know that are capable or driven to create such work? She made a 13-year-old's movie. Take a look at Mozart's first pieces - they show his age. Emily's movie shows hers. And when we look at the quality of the work she has created, we HAVE to take into account that she is 13, no, 14 now, and judge her work on its merits, now, at this point in time, as well as what she is showing us she is capable of. You have to be freaking kidding......and yes, this is my first comment on Wikipedia ever, why is that relevant? That I am taking the time to make this comment in the first place should count for something?*sheesh* Fiona in St Paul— 75.161.255.95 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep! In the book, Girls Make Media, Author Mary Celeste Kearney states that Emily is the first and youngest American teenage girl to make a feature length movie. I think that qualifies as notable. 12.106.2.2 13:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)MD reply
Agreed. Emily is extraordinary, not only as a teen but as a filmmaker and as a woman, and deserves recognition of that. Fiona in St Paul
Considering the enormous amount of truly useless trivia on Wikipedia, I find it astonishing that this article about a talented young filmmaker would be flagged for deletion. If you delete it now, someone is going to have to write a new one later, because this girl is destined to be really hugely successful. -Phoenixredux
COMMENT - I did read the entire discussion, and all I was saying was that the Wikipedia page wasn't written by a family member. Thanks for answering my questions Trusilver.
Comment on the whole deal It is my hope that whoever the closing admin is on this looks at the true discussion that has taken place and the consensus among editors who have been here longer than two seconds and not the spammy "Ohmigod, she's a teenager, just like me!" "Omigod, you guys are so sexist!" nature of some of the comments here. This is a discussion forum for the article and for its subject, based on policy and on the merits. If you can't discuss an article's merits without frivolous arguments, you don't belong here. IMDb has a whole sandbox for you to play in.--
Ispy1981
20:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
Keep for two reasons. First her accomplishments as a filmmaker at this age are out of the ordinary and have been recognized in a growing number of public arenas. Second on the basis of earlier comments in this debate indicating new evidence is forthcoming. I think if new sourcing is still pending, it behooves us to pause before moving forward with a delete. burnunit 02:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Strong Keep. Being profiled and discussed in an independent publication (such as the above-mentioned book) is strong evidence of notability. Iceberg3k 12:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete G7 by User:Nancy. Non-admin closure. -- Pgallert ( talk) 13:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Is a straight copyright violation added what looks like 3 times now by the same editor. I don't know if there are other variations on the name that have been added. Speedy's possible, but would suggest salt as well, plus some G4 standing too. Shadowjams ( talk) 09:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC) reply
I add TOP_1 for your consideration as an identical page. Anna Lincoln 09:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Scott Mac (Doc) 21:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete per WP:NOT a software directory. This is an indiscriminate list, as evidenced by what appears to be 99% red links and other trivial and unsourced items. JBsupreme ( talk) 09:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 00:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
I'm having trouble finding any good secondary sources. Other deletion avenues have been met with objections but not sources. This subject does not appear to meet the notability requirements of considerable coverage in reliable sources. ErikHaugen ( talk) 08:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. (I know I shouldn't comment here, but this runs TV ads in the UK - overwhelmingly notable) Scott Mac (Doc) 21:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete. Non-notable? Shouldn't we be a bit more ruthless with companies so that WP does not become an advertising medium for all manner of companies? -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 08:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep Expanded and sources added ( WP:NACD) CTJF83 chat 18:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC) reply
Appears to be original research. Article has never had references. Was PRODed in 2007. Barrylb ( talk) 07:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 00:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete. Yet another (of many) non-notable hobbyist astronomer, woodworker by trade. JBsupreme ( talk) 06:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 00:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
Obvious vanity page for a person who appears to have no particular notability or importance. The figure skating activities described in the article do not meet the WP:ATHLETE notability criteria of having competed at the "highest level" of the sport; see WP:WPFIGURE/N for further discussion on notability guidelines for figure skaters. I previously marked the article for speedy delete with concerns noted on the talk page, but notice was removed, so I'm doing it the hard way now..... Dr.frog ( talk) 06:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Needs more work with references and expansion, but clearly meets WP:N at this time, clear consensus to keep ( talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
In effect, an unsourced BLP, as with the 60,000 other BLPs to be nominated for deletion. The only reference is an unreliable source about his " outing" and the only external link is his bio on NBC news. He has never received any awards as a journalist, and he fails WP:POLITICIAN as a sub-cabinet official. The deletionists here must admit that we have a lot of work to do, or delete this one, too, and many more unsourced BLPs. The homophobes will love deleting this one. Bearian ( talk) 06:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Sandstein 07:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC) reply
My reasoning is that this list is redundant on four levels. The first is that there is a template already that binds together the subject matter. The second is that the information here is redundant to the information presented about the list entries in the articles on the freeways themselves. The third is that this list could be merged into the article on Metro Detroit similar to how List of state highways in Marquette County, Michigan is being merged into the article on Marquette County, Michigan. And finally, information here is also redundant to the content of the lists and articles on the statewide trunkline highway system. Imzadi1979 ( talk) 09:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. consensus is that the article is sourcable, however sourcing concerns have not been addressed. This may be undeleted (by me or any admin) if someone is willing to properly source it {sofixit} Scott Mac (Doc) 21:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
BLP of non notable writer. Viridae Talk 06:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. without prejudice to a merge to List of power stations in Australia. That can be decided on talk page. Scott Mac (Doc) 21:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
This page duplicates all entries in List of power stations in Australia (see relevant links/sections within link). I propose deletion or redirection of the article. Rehman( +) 05:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following related pages because the articles duplicates all entries of the List of power stations in Australia article (see relevant links/sections within link) as well as duplicating the already-duplicated List of wind farms in Australia article (main article for deletion):
The result was delete. this is a "weak" close. All that has been verified here is "it exists" - there's no independent sources showing notability. We don't AGF with WP:V. So delete, without prejuduce to recreation IF sources are given to assert notability. If recreated with a sourced assertion, then don't delete as a repost. Scott Mac (Doc) 21:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. The majority of the deletion !votes were based on the speculation in the earlier version. Removing the speculation would seem to address those concerns. For future reference, it might be better to try and address a content issue on the talk page before nominating for AfD. Ged UK 15:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Spaceman Spiff 06:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
Unsurprisingly, I can find no coverage of this Philippines-based video game fansite in reliable sources. No other evidence it meets WP:WEB. Another editor's PROD was contested without comment by the author. Glenfarclas ( talk) 04:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC) reply
I already edited it and put reference. Please remove it from deletion.
Majestic27 08:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 00:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
As per Category:Wikipedia image galleries and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strategic Air Command Group and Wing emblems gallery, this article is an image gallery that should actually reside on Commons. The appropriate gallery has been created at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Field_Army_insignia_of_the_United_States_Army. Thus this article has been listed for deletion. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 00:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
Person is as non-notable as her husband, Jûtien-Gustave DuRoi (also here at AfD). Nothing on Google News or Google Books, and the regular internets have nothing but Wiki copies, it seems. It saddens me, but Sallah is not notable. Drmies ( talk) 03:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 00:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
This an advertorial and appears to be written by an employee of the company, the sources are dead links and the company is greatly exagerating the amount of people working there and what they actually do. They are well known as e-mail spammers and this page should be removed from this great site we call wikipedia Ihelppeopleatgmail ( talk) 02:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 00:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable downloadable Wii game for which I can't find any coverage in a reliable source. PROD removed without comment by the author. Glenfarclas ( talk) 03:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Ged UK 15:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
I can't find much on this guy from Google, nor does he seem very notable from the article. fetch comms ☛ 02:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 00:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable company which does not meet WP:CORP or WP:GNG. Article contains no sources that offer significant coverage of PetroChem Wire, and none can be found.
Notes: the creating account, User:Petrochemwire, was blocked for COI editing. User:Boulderpr account was then created and after removing a prod on this article, was blocked for COI. User:Jgkeener account was then created and removed a second prod on this article. According to http://www.boulderpr.com/clients/, PetroChem Wire is a client of Keener Communications (aka Jim Keener). Dori ❦ ( Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 02:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Scott Mac (Doc) 18:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
A proposition not going into anything further than like the beginning of an essay, could be merged into gravity perhaps. fetch comms ☛ 02:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Support Deletion, proposition is adequately covered in Erik Verlinde (the proposer). Given that it is early days for this proposal/hypothesis, it would probably be unwise to extend it into the gravity article Peterxyz ( talk) 03:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy close, the article has been moved to incubation and its redirect deleted. Non-admin closure. -- Glenfarclas ( talk) 08:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Page moved to incubator for discussion UKRefugee ( talk) 01:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 00:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. nothing in gnews [85], which is very surprising as the article makes a number of claims that one would expect to be reported in the media. LibStar ( talk) 01:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Jayjg (talk) 05:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Non notable local councillor whose only claim to fame is being Mayor of a small council (pop:34,000). WP:POLITICIAN does allow "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.... A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists." This type of in depth coverage is lacking in Brolly's case and she has not held any kind of statewide office. Valenciano ( talk) 20:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Spaceman Spiff 06:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
Fails notability and WP:BLP due to lack of reliable secondary sources detailing the person. Contested prod. Izno ( talk) 00:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 00:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete. NN astronomer, fails general notability guidelines. JBsupreme ( talk) 00:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Nominator later !voted weak keep; so this is effectively a withdrawn nomination. ( non-admin closure) Bradjamesbrown ( talk) 03:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
Article about a director that is not notable and has no reliable sources that attribute notability to the subject. Thanks. Ism schism ( talk) 00:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Scott Mac (Doc) 18:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
Member of a board, not notable and no reliable sources attribute notability to the subject. Thanks. Ism schism ( talk) 00:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Scott Mac (Doc) 23:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The only sources are from 2006 when the site was founded, with no substantial coverage afterward. A brief flurry of coverage from around the foundation does not translate to full blown notability if the site never got any coverage from third party sources after its foundation. Prod declined with a proposed merge to IMDb simply because it shares a founder was inspired by IMDb -- not a good idea in my opinion given the tenuous connection. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (
Many otters •
One bat •
One hammer)
03:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
reply
The result was keep. Scott Mac (Doc) 21:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
This is a redundant list as information is given in the respective airline articles. It can be noted at Airbus A380 that there are seat layouts with higher or lower density, but such a seperate, confusing list is just not needed. Per aspera ad Astra ( talk) 00:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC) edit: Furthermore, there is a nearly infinite number of possible seat configs, therefore this list is never-endable. Per aspera ad Astra ( talk) 00:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Strong Keep - Per Ed Vielmetti. smithers - talk 02:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC) reply