The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 01:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Tone 16:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-notable political party. This is a political party which only ever fielded one candidate, who only received 200 votes out of an electorate of at least 5,000. As far as I can tell, it never received significant coverage in reliable sources; the only coverage I can find is trivial (e.g. [1]). This article was previously nominated for deletion back in 2005 and kept, on the dubious grounds that all political parties that have ever existed are automatically notable. If that was ever policy, I don't believe it is any more. Robofish ( talk) 23:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
*Delete for lack of significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Niteshift36 ( talk) 02:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to List of political parties in Norway. Tone 16:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-notable political party. While I'm sure many people like the idea of it, this party only received 65 votes in the only election they contested, or 0.07% of the votes in that county. It doesn't seem to have received any attention from reliable independent sources, even looking for Norwegian-language ones, and the versions of the article in other language Wikipedias don't provide any additional evidence of notability. Robofish ( talk) 23:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 01:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Prod denied. The film has not begun production and has not had significant coverage so by WP:NFF, it is WP:TOOSOON for a stand-alone article. BOVINEBOY 2008 22:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Not notable. Krakatoa Katie 04:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Unremarkable person - only real claim of notability is being the brother of someone notable, and owning a business. Google search on "Ken Mbiuki" shows only 31 unique results - mostly social media links or passing mentions. MikeWazowski ( talk) 22:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Beeblebrox ( talk) 19:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC) reply
fails WP:NTENNIS Mayumashu ( talk) 22:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. WP:MADEUP The Bushranger One ping only 01:23, 2 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Redundant of existing qualification pages. Additionally, comparison is on totally unequal grounds due to different qualifying methods in games played, etc. No indiction such a table is used in any form to meet GNG. Declined PROD, removed without comment. Ravendrop 21:55, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep, nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Edgepedia ( talk) 12:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Not reality, but a hyped up artproject. Night of the Big Wind talk 21:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Henri Hudson ( talk) 22:48, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. some WP:RS improvement - clear consensus to keep - references to WP:GNG and WP:CLUB ( non-admin closure) Off2riorob ( talk) 14:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD, Non-notable Golf Club (Fails WP:CLUB), possible COI. Mt king (edits) 22:16, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
delete I made the proposed deletion that was contested, so I think we can assume I agree. On the other hand I arrived at the article via Mtking's post on COI board so we'll have seen the same evidence. Failedwizard ( talk) 15:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. causa sui ( talk) 17:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Nonnotable dance teacher who is quoted in one article in Financial Times (which is more about tango itself than about Mr. Alonso). Fails WP:BIO. NawlinWiki ( talk) 22:11, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
In this article WebCite from La Nación, I could not find Alonso's name.
This article WebCite from De Echo is about Alonso's coming to Amsterdam. It has contact information, such as a phone number and email, at the article's end. This "announcement", possibly a press release, falls under WP:ROUTINE.
This article WebCite from East London Advertiser does not mention Alonso.
In this article WebCite from La Nación, Alonso is mentioned once.
In this article WebCite from FormulaTV, Alonso is mentioned once.
In this article WebCite from Sur Digital, Alonso is mentioned once.
In this article WebCite from torreviejaip.tv, Alonso is mentioned once.
In this article WebCite from Huelva Información, Alonso is mentioned once.
In this article WebCite from El Diario Montañés, Alonso is mentioned twice.
In this article WebCite from ADN, Alonso is mentioned once.
In this page WebCite from Red Aragón, I could not find any mention of Alonso.
In this article WebCite from El Correo Digital, Alonso is mentioned once.
In this article WebCite from Il Quotidiano, Alonso is mentioned once.
In the first result of the search for "Pablo Alonso" and "Flamenco", the source states: "Pablo Alonso es un muchacho joven, con cierto aire deportivo de moderno hombre de negocios, que tiene desde hace quince días una querida que se llama Laurita." This translates to "Pablo Alonso is a young boy with an air of modern sports businessman, who has for fifteen days loved one who is called Laurita." (see Google Translate). I am certain this has no relevance to the Pablo Alonso in this article.
This article WebCite from the Financial Times is about tango and contains some quotes and biographical information about Alonso.
This article WebCite from Tango Norte is an interview with Alonso and contains little secondary information. Cunard ( talk) 09:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect. Beeblebrox ( talk) 19:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC) reply
A bunch of articles about colors, such as this one and the most of the ones linked in that AfD, were just deleted. This is an poorly-sourced (only source is a dictionary) stub about a non-notable color. It fails WP:GNG and I'd say that it is a WP:DICDEF. Slon02 ( talk) 19:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Beeblebrox ( talk) 19:44, 2 October 2011 (UTC) reply
This is a minor and inconsequential character, with just three or four comic book appearences since being created twenty years ago. "It's a parody of Galactus" is all the out-of-universe information we may ever say about it. There are no secondary sources, and with this context, I seriously doubt they exist for this article Cambalachero ( talk) 02:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. No quorum here. causa sui ( talk) 17:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Future event, crystal-balling, no refs Pesky ( talk … stalk!) 12:37, 10 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Ok, so my understanding is that the whole reason this page is considered for deletion is because of a lack of references. There is no mirror balling and I apologise for the lack of references. I have now referenced everything which will hopefully clear everything up. There is no reason for its deletion. As SL93 states, this season is well and truly confirmed and even now has its own official web page discussing the new format. Bbmaniac ( talk) 01:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC) reply
What are you talking about? How is information on the show's official site not a good enough reference? That's like saying information on YouTube's About Page about YouTube is invalid, which makes no sense. The other references come from TV Tonight, which if you didn't know, is a very reliable source of television information whereby the author of the blog has ties with Network Ten chief programmer David Mott (Don't believe me? Ask him). The blog post that is referenced references itself from the Network Ten PR detailing their program launch and info for returning shows. Unless it has been taken down, I did reference the page number in which information about TBLS is featured in the PR. I invite you to look for the document and read for yourself. Bbmaniac ( talk) 06:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. causa sui ( talk) 17:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Nothing more than a list; much better dealt with through categories. violet/riga [talk] 20:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
It might be that the list is fine as it is simply because there is utility simply in having all directors listed in one page, as a complement to the fragmented subdivisions of the Category:Directors category system, particularly given the international character of the film and TV industries, overlapping genres, etc. If you are looking for coverage of a particular director, you may not remember how to spell his name (I constantly have this problem with Krzysztof Kieślowski) or have problems with diacritics, or you may not know whether he's British, Australian, or American, if his movies are shown in theaters around the world.
It might be that the list should be, while kept all on one page, further developed so as to have a annotated and perhaps sortable table with nationality, medium, birthdate/deathdate, years active, etc.
Or it might be that this should be split into a list of lists, as with the even more broad profession of writers.
So regardless of which way the list should go, the answer is normal editing and discussion, not deletion. None of which has even been attempted, judging from the lack of talk page posts by the deletion nom. Violetriga thinks I'm being rude for judging her deletion rationale harshly. But given that the deletion comments thus far display very little substance (or effort) regarding this list and its potential, are contrary to relevant guidelines ( WP:CLN), contrary to editing policy ( WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM) and contrary to deletion policy ( WP:ATD), these comments should be criticized so that hopefully such weak and wasteful AFDs won't be started in the future. postdlf ( talk) 23:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was No Consensus. Although most of the 'Keep' "votes" are weak (it is not obvious why we should have articles on all X11 colors if they are not discusses in sources) there is no consensus among other participants as to whether the article should be merged, redirected, or deleted. While further discussion at this AfD is unlikely to generate a clear consensus, discussions either at the articles talk page or a centralized discussion of how to handle less notable/poorly sourced X11 colors might be in productive. Eluchil404 ( talk) 04:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC) reply
A bunch of articles about colors, such as this one and the most of the ones linked in that AfD, were just deleted. This is an poorly-sourced (only source is a dictionary) stub about a non-notable color. It fails WP:GNG and I'd say that it might even be a WP:DICDEF. Slon02 ( talk) 17:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Heroes of Might and Magic. causa sui ( talk) 17:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC) reply
No third-party sources exist that can WP:verify notability. Without significant coverage in reliable independent secondary sources, it's impossible to write something that meets the general notability guideline and WP:NOT#PLOT. Shooterwalker ( talk) 15:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete ( Wikipedia:CSD#G12). Tonywalton Talk 01:30, 26 September 2011 (UTC) reply
WP:NOTGUIDE. Avenue X at Cicero ( talk) 19:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Will userfy upon request. causa sui ( talk) 17:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC) reply
No indication of meeting WP:BAND. claim to being compared to the Beatles not backed up by given reference. Disputed prod. noq ( talk) 19:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 01:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC) reply
WP:NOTDICT. Avenue X at Cicero ( talk) 19:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-notable concept. Only one source provided, which seems dubious and unreliable. A quick search on Google can find no results. Also, we have an article on stellar evolution - the 'new theory' seems to add nothing to the concept. ItsZippy ( talk • contributions) 18:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 01:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC) reply
This organization seems to consist of an aikido school founded in 2009 and schools where the founder has given seminars. I can find no independent sources about this organization and the article makes no claims of notability. Existing is not the same as notable. The Academy is already mentioned in the article on the founder so there's really nothing to merge. Papaursa ( talk) 18:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC) reply
WP:NOTABILITY - documents a new format created this month; only gets 2 non-Wikipedia google hits. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day Nat Gertler ( talk) 17:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 01:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-notable person. Article creator has asserted notability but has not provided any sources or evidence. Contested PROD and CSD. ItsZippy ( talk) 18:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC) reply
To RandomAct, before accusing the Wikipedia community of using the site for promotion, take a look at what has been said on the talk page! "Information and evidence for the aforementioned contacts in work will be added very soon. Reports from the likes of BBC are generally released later on to avoid copying, or to await copyright clearance. There are several press reports on this subject if you delve further into search results." Also think about this one, since your tone of writing seems to dismiss the validity and skill of the subject. 'This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because no human is unimportant, and it is purely lack of server space that we all don't have Wikipedia pages. This is a young man who will go far in the future, but his past (and present) should not be forgotten.' Lastly, as a Wikipedia Administrator, I would have thought that you of all people would have noticed that the site you claim to be 'promoting' the subject by use of Wikipedia has been dormant since February. Here is an example of a source to verify some claims of the article. [11] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garycake ( talk • contribs) — Garycake ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 01:08, 2 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by an IP without providing an explaination. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 17:19, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 01:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Article was originally created and then speedied under A7. It was recreated and then the article was prodded and was deproded, but original concern was not addressed so we are at Afd. I am unable to locate reliable source coverage to establish notability. I note that there is also a Sockpuppet investigation regarding some of the editors on the article here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Bandarudanaiahkavi. ConcernedVancouverite ( talk) 16:19, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. Blatant hoax. Deleted per CSD G3 The Bushranger One ping only 05:36, 1 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD. Suspected WP:HOAX/ WP:MADEUP/ WP:NF – no ghits, no sources, no nuffink. matt ( talk) 16:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 00:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Autobiography with no encyclopedic sources. Only link is to listing of works for sale, which violates WP:Yourself. Editors are discouraged from creating a page about themselves. If Robert Lugibihl is notable, a 3rd party will eventually create an article about him. AstroCog ( talk) 15:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Jasper - please see links http://www.sequentialtart.com/archive/jan00/lugibihl.shtml
http://comicbookdb.com/creator.php?ID=3806 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlugibihl ( talk • contribs) 18:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete ( G6). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 15:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Author possibly wanted to create redirect. Unforunately, page cannot be redirected due to incorrect typo. Therefore, nominating for deletion. Avenue X at Cicero ( talk) 14:40, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. The Bushranger One ping only 00:53, 2 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Unencylcopedic WP:LISTCRUFT, this is of interest to only a limited audience. Runs against WP:NOTDIRECTORY #8 and WP:WHIM #3. Prod disputed. PK T(alk) 14:08, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Delete Per nom. Patken4 ( talk) 15:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. causa sui ( talk) 17:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Appears to be original research or synth. Last I checked, the talk page and the main page were the same content. AstroCog ( talk) 12:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Actress that simply does not meet WP:BIO. Her only credited roles are a part in a five minute trailer of a film that has yet to be completed and a small part in an independent horror film. The only media coverage I could find is this BBC report on the five minute trailer but it's too superficial to be of much use. Pichpich ( talk) 12:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. The Bushranger One ping only 00:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Thinly sourced--at best -- biography of a minor--at best--environmental writer. No real claims of importance, impact, or notoriety can be found, other that he's been published by a trade/specialist press. CalendarWatcher ( talk) 11:12, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Article is a resume; lacks verifiable, third party sources; PROD tag removed, apparently by article creator Geoff Who, me? 22:19, 11 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 00:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. No quorum. causa sui ( talk) 23:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Tagged the article with Template:Expand Ossetian (after creating it). The Bushranger One ping only 00:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC) reply
no sources Inthegarden52 ( talk) 19:58, 11 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. causa sui ( talk) 17:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Disputed PROD. Thai author with one reference (in Thai) from an unknown source. There is a corresponding article in the Thai Wikipedia, but it's also tagged with warnings. I'm unable to find any reliable sources demonstrating the subject's notability. Pburka ( talk) 17:11, 11 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 00:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Unremarkable podcast - while there are some claims of notability in the article, it appears to fail WP:WEB. Award was only a nomination, not a win, cover claim could could not be verified by the citation given. No article for main performer, no significant coverage from independent sources. MikeWazowski ( talk) 16:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 00:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC) reply
The subject appears to fail WP:GNG. It includes references, but they are only passing mentions in very old newspapers. I was unable to find any other reliable sources to establish notability for this company. Topher385 ( talk) 13:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. causa sui ( talk) 17:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Consists only of extensive content summary from a series of novels, contrary to WP:PLOT and WP:WAF. This aspect of the series has no third-party coverage in reliable sources that is substantial enough, per WP:GNG, to be the basis of an article. If deemed necessary, the content can be briefly summarized in the article about the series, Kushiel's Legacy. Otherwise it is best presented in the Wikia wiki dedicated to the series, which appears comprehensive enough to assume that this content, or its equivalent, is already present there. Sandstein 08:35, 11 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. causa sui ( talk) 17:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Consists only of extensive content summary from a series of novels, contrary to WP:PLOT and WP:WAF. This aspect of the series has no third-party coverage in reliable sources that is substantial enough, per WP:GNG, to be the basis of an article. If deemed necessary, the content can be briefly summarized in the article about the series, Kushiel's Legacy. Otherwise it is best presented in the Wikia wiki dedicated to the series, which appears comprehensive enough to assume that this content, or its equivalent, is already present there. Sandstein 08:35, 11 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Kushiel's Legacy. causa sui ( talk) 17:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Consists only of extensive content summary from a series of novels, contrary to WP:PLOT and WP:WAF. This aspect of the series has no third-party coverage in reliable sources that is substantial enough, per WP:GNG, to be the basis of an article. If deemed necessary, the content can be briefly summarized in the article about the series, Kushiel's Legacy. Otherwise it is best presented in the Wikia wiki dedicated to the series, which appears comprehensive enough to assume that this content, or its equivalent, is already present there. Sandstein 08:34, 11 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Kushiel's Legacy. Still redirecting so that future editorial merges are not precluded. causa sui ( talk) 17:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Consists only of extensive content summary from a series of novels, contrary to WP:PLOT and WP:WAF. This aspect of the series has no third-party coverage in reliable sources that is substantial enough, per WP:GNG, to be the basis of an article. If deemed necessary, the content can be briefly summarized in the article about the series, Kushiel's Legacy. Otherwise it is best presented in the Wikia wiki dedicated to the series, which appears comprehensive enough to assume that this content, or its equivalent, is already present there. Sandstein 08:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete all. I love the idea too, but unfortunately raw calendars do not belong in an encyclopedia. The "keep" !voters basically fall into WP:USEFUL. A transwiki, though, might be desirable. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC) reply
These "articles" are not articles in any sense of the word. They are calendars for the 14 years during which the French Republican Calendar was active, as well as the previous and next year based on the current date. They were moved into article-space solely in order "to remove [them] from the list of unused templates", which is a pretty weak reason, in my view. In article space, they are nothing other than unencyclopedic detail. Note also that they are trivial template transclusions.
See also Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 January 5#Template:NavigationRepYears, a previous discussion on this matter which was rather obscurely closed as "Merge". — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:37, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
PS, should the "Yx" page also be included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanisaac ( talk • contribs) 23:48, September 25, 2011 (UTC)
The result was delete. causa sui ( talk) 17:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Consists only of extensive content summary from a series of novels, contrary to WP:PLOT and WP:WAF. This aspect of the series has no third-party coverage in reliable sources that is substantial enough, per WP:GNG, to be the basis of an article. If deemed necessary, the content can be briefly summarized in the article about the series, Kushiel's Legacy. Otherwise it is best presented in the Wikia wiki dedicated to the series, which appears comprehensive enough to assume that this content, or its equivalent, is already present there. Sandstein 08:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Kushiel's Legacy. causa sui ( talk) 17:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Consists only of extensive content summary from a series of novels, contrary to WP:PLOT and WP:WAF. This aspect of the series has no third-party coverage in reliable sources that is substantial enough, per WP:GNG, to be the basis of an article. If deemed necessary, the content can be briefly summarized in the article about the series, Kushiel's Legacy. Otherwise it is best presented in the Wikia wiki dedicated to the series, which appears comprehensive enough to assume that this content, or its equivalent, is already present there. Sandstein 08:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Kushiel's Legacy. causa sui ( talk) 17:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Consists only of extensive content summary from a series of novels, contrary to WP:PLOT and WP:WAF. This aspect of the series has no third-party coverage in reliable sources that is substantial enough, per WP:GNG, to be the basis of an article. If deemed necessary, the content can be briefly summarized in the article about the series, Kushiel's Legacy. Otherwise it is best presented in the Wikia wiki dedicated to the series, which appears comprehensive enough to assume that this content, or its equivalent, is already present there. Sandstein 08:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Kushiel's Legacy. causa sui ( talk) 17:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Consists only of extensive content summary from a series of novels, contrary to WP:PLOT and WP:WAF. This aspect of the series has no third-party coverage in reliable sources that is substantial enough, per WP:GNG, to be the basis of an article. If deemed necessary, the content can be briefly summarized in the article about the series, Kushiel's Legacy. Otherwise it is best presented in the Wikia wiki dedicated to the series, which appears comprehensive enough to assume that this content, or its equivalent, is already present there. Sandstein 08:34, 11 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Kushiel's Legacy. causa sui ( talk) 17:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Consists only of extensive content summary from a series of novels, contrary to WP:PLOT and WP:WAF. This aspect of the series has no third-party coverage in reliable sources that is substantial enough, per WP:GNG, to be the basis of an article. If deemed necessary, the content can be briefly summarized in the article about the series, Kushiel's Legacy. Otherwise it is best presented in the Wikia wiki dedicated to the series, which appears comprehensive enough to assume that this content, or its equivalent, is already present there. Sandstein 08:31, 11 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Kushiel's Legacy. causa sui ( talk) 17:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Consists only of extensive content summary from a series of novels, contrary to WP:PLOT and WP:WAF. This aspect of the series has no third-party coverage in reliable sources that is substantial enough, per WP:GNG, to be the basis of an article. If deemed necessary, the content can be briefly summarized in the article about the series, Kushiel's Legacy. Otherwise it is best presented in the Wikia wiki dedicated to the series, which appears comprehensive enough to assume that this content, or its equivalent, is already present there. Sandstein 08:31, 11 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Kushiel's Legacy. causa sui ( talk) 17:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Consists only of extensive content summary from a series of novels, contrary to WP:PLOT and WP:WAF. This aspect of the series has no third-party coverage in reliable sources that is substantial enough, per WP:GNG, to be the basis of an article. If deemed necessary, the content can be briefly summarized in the article about the series, Kushiel's Legacy. Otherwise it is best presented in the Wikia wiki dedicated to the series, which appears comprehensive enough to assume that this content, or its equivalent, is already present there. Sandstein 08:29, 11 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Kushiel's Legacy. causa sui ( talk) 17:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Consists only of extensive content summary from a series of novels, contrary to WP:PLOT and WP:WAF. This aspect of the series has no third-party coverage in reliable sources that is substantial enough, per WP:GNG, to be the basis of an article. If deemed necessary, the content can be briefly summarized in the article about the series, Kushiel's Legacy. Otherwise it is best presented in the Wikia wiki dedicated to the series, which appears comprehensive enough to assume that this content, or its equivalent, is already present there. Sandstein 08:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Kushiel's Legacy. causa sui ( talk) 17:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Consists only of extensive content summary from a series of novels, contrary to WP:PLOT and WP:WAF. This aspect of the series has no third-party coverage in reliable sources that is substantial enough, per WP:GNG, to be the basis of an article. If deemed necessary, the content can be briefly summarized in the article about the series, Kushiel's Legacy. Otherwise it is best presented in the Wikia wiki dedicated to the series, which appears comprehensive enough to assume that this content, or its equivalent, is already present there. Sandstein 08:24, 11 September 2011 (UTC) reply
All the info on this page is NOT on the Kushiel's Legacy Main page. This should clearly stay up for reference on the different houses of the night court. The source's are the books in Kushiel's Legacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.61.18.163 ( talk) 22:29, 23 October 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was nomination withdrawn. (Non-admin closure) Raymie ( t • c) 20:07, 1 October 2011 (UTC) reply
I am unable to find sufficient critical reception for these games. Since my redirects to Dora the Explorer might get reverted, they are up for a deletion discussion.
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 00:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD of "Still no verification and no assertion of notability, so should be removed (WP:V, WP:N)" with "removing the stranges boxes at top". Does not pass WP:GNG; cannot find any secondary, non-trivial, reliable sources to establish notability. — HELLKNOWZ ▎ TALK 09:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 00:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC) reply
This is an unnecessary list, all entries have been available on List of best-selling music artists with a combination of other best-seller albums list (e.g. List of best-selling albums, List of best-selling albums in Australia). This page is also not controlled by any Wiki editor and just full of IP vandalism edits - Bluesatellite ( talk) 09:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep and rename Welsh-language comics, with concordant cleanup of article and expansion around new focus (non-admin closure). Moogwrench ( talk) 00:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC) reply
No evidence that there is, or ever has been, a notable distinct Welsh comics industry/scene. About 90% of the article refers to varying degrees of passing reference to Wales in comics published in other countries. -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 08:59, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 00:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Biography without sources. Google results are almost all written the same way, which suggests spam. Comte0 ( talk) 08:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep, withdrawn. — David Eppstein ( talk) 13:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
One reference for this BLP, and it is not even about the person. Unlikely that notability will be established. Page editor claims the subject's bio on the U of Chicago page establishes notability, though it is biased to talk up the subject. AstroCog ( talk) 04:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete all except NK Višnjevac and NK Draga. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC) reply
A bunch of non-notable football club stubs created by Cro ed ( talk · contribs). They are all currently playing in Croatian third level, none of them have ever appeared in the national cup or the Croatian top level league and thus they all fail WP:FOOTYN. Timbouctou ( talk) 21:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following pages for the same reason:
The result was speedy delete - author blanked it but there are several other delete reasons - let's be gentle and say "original research". — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 22:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
This may be valid information but the title of it is not reflective of the content of the article. Also, reads a lot like a news release. Originally, this article was PRODed due to the fact that it was mostly original research, but even if this doesn't apply any more, too little content remains for this to even constitute a stub. Jasper Deng (talk) 03:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Note - Apparently the creator of the article has blanked it. So I have db-g7'd it. DVdm ( talk) 20:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. causa sui ( talk) 17:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Without any significant reference. It seems insignificant. Day000Walker ( talk) 16:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC) reply
I will add references in a bit. Lukas Staniszewski
The result was delete. as pointed of by JoannaSerah the claims in the article are not verifiable J04n( talk page) 23:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC) reply
This unreferenced BLP is currently in CSD A7 territory, but claims of notability have been removed as being likely hoaxes. I don't know enough about US politics to make the call, but see the talk page for another editors investigations. I could find no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The-Pope ( talk) 03:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 00:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-encyclopedic, pointless article. Alex discussion ★ 12:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC) reply
If u all think that this is not a notable article then first delete Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts. It is a notable including military history of both countries. PRC and Japan have fought more wars then India and Pakistan. It is an artilce relating to military and military of both countries.-- Jozoisis ( talk) 16:16, 17 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Richwales ( talk) 04:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Unsalvageable spam about non-notable show. Orange Mike | Talk 02:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
I now have referenced thoroughly and cited all sources (deleted the references which had nothing to do with the show). The article looks very different. Thanks Jasper Deng and ConcernedVancouverite - you are right. It does read better. Please review it for non-deletion. Thank you. Domenico.y ( talk) 07:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y — Domenico.y ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
I just would like to say that this article is taking up most of my time and I can't edit other articles without this matter being solved and corrected. Thank you. Domenico.y ( talk) 18:24, 25 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y reply
Domenico.y ( talk) 18:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y reply
I have taken out the majority of the the organizatiion's website itself links now. Thank you. Domenico.y ( talk) 00:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y reply
Hi Admin,
Being Born Again Couture Fashion Show is a notable article, the show started in Australia (citing the references I have put, not many other fashion shows get this amount of press and post-press). And the show has changed the course of history for 2 famous Australian fashion designers' designs: Finetti and Lo Sordo.
ConcernedVancouverite said that he has researched and said I have not found "coverage that was not only promotional material from the lead-up to the event". That is why I put in references post show on ABC TV and The Fashion Consultancy after it happened. ABC TV is big in Australia. The fact that famous Australian fashion designers Finetti and Lo Sordo held a fashion show one month after the BBAC show at Australia Fashion Week with exactly the same prints that they collaborated with artists in the BBAC show, it is obvious that they took inspiration from the show, makes it noteworthy and reliable source. So there is the post-press in the form of art and fashion design collaborated for these 2 fashion designers. If Finetti and Lo Sordo want to neglect the BBAC show and give all credit to themselves, then ok but it is apparent through the course of this article, what happened. It is a bit less obvious in the text of this article, so how do I made that more obvious?
I have put in references in nearly each sentence, not just from the organisation's website, proving that the research is reliable and true. Explain to me why an article like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikki_Ziegler is not nominated for deletion in 2008 and I only came across this article in September 2011 and tagged it {{noteable}} because it makes claims that are not referenced and in my opinion, not true?
Assist me to improve the article please and save it from deletion. Thank you. Domenico.y ( talk) 18:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y reply
Are you an Australian? Can you cite a show which changed the course of history for 2 famous Australian fashion designers' designs: Finetti and Lo Sordo?
The SMH is a very tiny part of the article. The fact that the SMH mentioned it is a feat for the organiser. I was trying to establish notably with the article I created...
Are you an Admin? If so, how do you think I should change the article to make it salvageable? Thank you. Domenico.y ( talk) 01:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y reply
The result was no consensus. Goodvac's arguments are very strong, but there is sufficient disagreement about whether the sources actually all fail GNG to put this AfD squarely in "no consensus" territory. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC) reply
No returns to support independent wikipedia notability that raises above WP:ORG or for which there is significant coverage in independent externals to a level that raises above the WP:GNG - Off2riorob ( talk) 01:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete all. No consensus without prejudice on Petra Cicvarić and Marija Omaljev-Grbić. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC) reply
A Croatian actor. Total experience is a combined total of two TV episodes and doing theatre in college. Speedy was declined. Here is the google translate of the biography reference in the article. Bgwhite ( talk) 07:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC) reply
I can't seem to find any guideline for fictional characters so I'll just start another AfD for them to get others' opinion. Timbouctou ( talk) 01:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. – MuZemike 20:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Bio (or, given the comment "an article written about me" on its talkpage, Autobio) of an allegedly notable conspiracy theorist. The only references in the article are self-produced. No apparent Web references from reliable sources. Fails WP:RS and WP:BLP, probably WP:AB as well. Proposed deletion tag has been removed by Annunakiownage so I'm bringing this to AfD Tonywalton Talk 00:18, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Unfortunately, all of you are wrong. Please provide what YOU think is a reliable source (even though four were provided) and they will be added onto the page. If you fail to do this, you will be reported to wikipedia for unlawful termination. The authorities may become involved also. Please provide information in the next 24 hours or I will personally report you to law enforcement. What you are doing is illegal, as reliable sources have been submitted. The person meets the notable person requirement as he is a "creative professional". His documentary films can be purchased over the internet and he is the contributing writer for the Moon hoax website. In fact, White himself owns the rights to nearly the entire theory. He is the sole copyright owner of Ralph Rene's "NASA Mooned AMERICA!"
So, please remove the AfD and give an example of what you consider reliable or you'll be reported to wiki and the police. Good day. I'm not going to show any mercy in reporting you and I will have this page kept up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.170.22 ( talk) 05:37, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
NOTE: This article does not fail WP:AB as it is not written about myself. To blatantly lie to the wikipedia community is both criminal and against the website's policy. Please provide evidence this article was written about myself as I live halfway across the world from Jarrah White. Until you do so, this will just be one more bold-faced lie.
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 00:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC) reply
A band. Unable to find reliable sources about the band. First album will be released at a later date. Fails WP:BAND Bgwhite ( talk) 07:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Found a review of their recent album by a blogger who saw them open up for the band.
Men Without Hats. The link is
here. I will add it to the references. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
CQQQ1006 (
talk •
contribs)
08:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
reply
The result was merge to Brotherhood of Evil. – MuZemike 20:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Fails the general notability guideline. No significant coverage in reliable sources. The article is additionally plot only coverage and thus violates what Wikipedia is not. Simone ( talk) 08:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. There seems to be a consensus for merging but nowhere to merge to. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Indiscriminate unmaintainable list of information ( WP:IINFO), see also WP:SALAT Ipsign ( talk) 09:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Katharine Hepburn#Relationships. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC) reply
I don't believe he is notable. The article only talks about the fact that he was married to Katharine Hepburn. This seems to be the only reason for his notability, and the bulk of that information can go on Hepburn's page. Lobo512 ( talk) 10:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. – MuZemike 20:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Lacks reliable independent secondary sources WP:RS to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Googling suggests there aren't any. From the opening paragraph at WP:N: "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." It's appropriate to mention Tower in the article on gcc, a product he worked on, based on primary sources, including [34], that describe his role. But without secondary sources, a separate article on the subject himself is contraindicated by policy and guidelines. Previous AfDs in 2006 deleted, then kept the article, but as was common at the time, very little of the discussion was policy-based. Msnicki ( talk) 14:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC) reply
This is a long article but nothing in it provides even marginal evidence of notability, and the information in the article is not verifiable using reputable sources. The one source that actually uses the term "Applied Consciousness Sciences" is a self-published book. Looie496 ( talk) 16:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
9/18/2011 The article was not yet complete. Thank you for your feedback. Today added references to the different topics covered in the article. We're looking forward to the next round of feedback so we may continually improve the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlomonsanto ( talk • contribs) 06:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC) reply
This unreferenced WP:BLP seems to indicate that the subject isn't notable among WP:ACADEMICs. He's held a few positions which might be considered notable, but I'm not sure, and they're not supported by references. Given the subject's common name, it's very difficult to find reliable sources. I've found a text book he's written [37] but that's about it. Pburka ( talk) 17:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Question to nominator. As far as I can see, this BLP was not prodded before being taken to AfD. Why? Xxanthippe ( talk) 22:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC). reply
I wrote this article. Dr. Myers was Executive Director of the Association for Business Communication for many years. That in itself is notable enough in my opinion for his inclusion at least as a small entry. What would you like me to do to make this a more suitable entry? Thank you. David A. Victor
The result was no consensus. While there are some arguments for merging or redirect, they can continue to be discussed locally; however, there is no consensus for deletion here. – MuZemike 20:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC) reply
A bunch of articles about colors, such as this one and the most of the ones linked in that AfD, were just deleted. This is an unsourced stub about a non-notable color. It fails WP:GNG and I'd say that it might even be a WP:DICDEF. Slon02 ( talk) 18:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply