This is an archived log. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to leave a message for me or comment on this log, please do so at User talk:Rhododendrites.
Reason: The more I typed about problems with this page on the talk page, the more I wondered if it should be kept at all. I just don't know what can/should be saved here. Unsourced. Totally arbitrary inclusion criteria, it seems. I went to ping the editors involved, but it was created by a blocked user and primarily the work of IPs otherwise...
Reason: No secondary sources, no real claim to notability other than a statement of how innovative its speakers were. Information could've just been pulled from the conference website -- although the conference website, the only source cited, is dead. Not to be confused with the conference held at MIT also called Media In Transition which is still being held.
Reason: Doesn't look like this tour received sufficient coverage in the years it ran to satisfy WP:GNG. Noticing there are a lot of small tours/festivals with very long lists of participants that don't really talk much about the actual tour aside from logistics and don't seem to have sources. Looks like one of them here.
Reason: Article is 12 years old and does not look to have ever contained any reliable secondary source whatsoever. WP:CORPDEPTH issues. There are a few notable artists, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED and the most well known among those listed here are just releases/remixes rather than artists listed on the label's artist page.
Reason: This is an ad for "Yensid". No reliable sources whatsoever, so nothing to merge (and we definitely don't need anything about the Yensid domain name in the Disney article (or any other). Possibly G11able. There was a character named Yen Sid in Fantasia modeled after Disney. That's already covered elsewhere and about the extent of this article we need.
Reason: Fails WP:ORG. The citations that look to be to reliable sources are actually press releases. Plenty of ghits, but I'm not seeing sufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.
Reason: Hodgepodge of statistical praise from different years, citing no reliable secondary sources independent of the subject (and I'm not seeing sufficient coverage out there to pass WP:EVENT).
Reason: Promotional article which spams links to the subject's [non-existent] website. A search for sources turns up some brief mentions, but not enough to cover WP:GNG.
Reason: No meaningful content beyond a statement of its existence, and no claim of significance other than "starring Keanu Reeves" (although that he's not on the cover but five other actors are, suggests he actually has a minor role).
Reason: Article was created by a bunch of now-blocked promotional sock puppets. The draft version of this article failed AfC multiple times before this one was created. It seems it doesn't qualify for G5, though, so a prod.
Reason: Article was created by a blocked sock puppeteer, almost certainly a result of undisclosed paid editing. I'm surprised to see that it doesn't qualify for CSD simply because he/she had not been caught yet at the time of creation. Let's not keep abusive promotional editing, eh?
Reason: Nearly the entire article was written by a blocked sock puppeteer, almost certainly a result of undisclosed paid editing. I was going to just revert to the previous version, but that version has almost no usable content, with e.g. the line in the lead that muses "possibly the world".
Reason: Article was created by a blocked sock puppeteer, almost certainly a result of undisclosed paid editing. I'm surprised to see that it doesn't qualify for CSD simply because he/she had not been caught yet at the time of creation. Let's not keep abusive promotional editing, eh?
Reason: Article was created by a now-blocked sock puppeteer, almost certainly a result of undisclosed paid editing. I'm surprised to see that although it was created after the sock puppetry began, it doesn't qualify for CSD simply because he/she had not been caught yet at the time of creation. Let's not keep abusive promotional editing, eh?
Reason: Article was created by a now-blocked sock puppeteer, almost certainly a result of undisclosed paid editing. I'm surprised to see that although it was created after the sock puppetry began, it doesn't qualify for CSD simply because he/she had not been caught yet at the time of creation. Let's not keep abusive promotional editing, eh?
Reason: Article was created by one now-blocked sock puppeteer, and developed by another now-blocked sock puppeteer, almost certainly a result of undisclosed paid editing. I'm surprised to see that although the edits took place after the sock puppetry began, it doesn't qualify for CSD simply because he/she had not been caught yet at the time. Let's not keep abusive promotional editing, eh?
Reason: Looks to fail WP:GNG. Plenty of mentions, press releases, etc. but not seeing sufficient coverage to satisfy GNG. Also, it reads like an ad ("sets the standard of excellence"?).
Reason: Promotional almost entirely unsourced autobiography. Might be an argument for WP:MUSBIO but it would need WP:TNT (and any sources at all -- the only one is a discography).
Reason: Unsourced article that's actually an OR-based list. The issue was first pointed out on the talk page in 2007, with no improvements since then.
A. Lightbourne: endorsed PROD. 14:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Reason: Endorsing prod. Part of promotional "scifan" activity, it seems, and no evidence of notability. No prejudice against creating an article about one (or more) of the books, if notable.
