The result was speedy delete A7. -- ais523 10:27, 26 April 2007 ( U T C)
Not notable WP:BIO Helmsb 20:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Crystal-ballism - No confirmation that this will be a single. Suggest redirect to album page until confirmed with source. - eo 21:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.-- cj | talk 17:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Crystal-ballism - No confirmation or source that will will be a single. Also titled incorrectly per naming convenions ("single" instead of "song"). Suggest redirect to album page. - eo 21:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus. -- Luigi30 ( Taλk) 16:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Singer whose claim to fame is performing at anime conventions. However, she's signed to a non-notable label, the article reads like a profile and not an encyclopedia article, and outside the four albums, two of which Amazon has not heard of (one of the albums isn't out yet), the article doesn't assert any kind of notability. It's here due to the discography, since that probably counts as such an assertion. Core desat 22:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Not Notable as per WP:BIO, Google only returned a page with his company on it. Latulla 21:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Punkmorten 17:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
This is a screaming conflict of interest. The article creator's username is similar to the person mentioned in the text, which is basically an advertisement for her venture. I'm listing it here because she removed the prod notice. YechielMan 19:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can be userfied if requested. WjB scribe 01:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC) reply
TV producer. Most likely autobiography. No sign of significant, reliable third-party coverage and seems to fail WP:BIO Pascal.Tesson 15:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Two mentions does not qualify as multiple non-trivial independent coverage. Guy ( Help!) 14:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Christian trumpeter. Authorship by user:Twwebster suggests a strong WP:COI. Is he notable? -- RHaworth 14:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Low budget film still in production. No assertion of notability. -- RHaworth 14:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Shimeru 18:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
It is not apparent that this page serves any more than a spot through which an advertising directory could receive more traffic. Keesiewonder talk 13:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC) reply
* Keep per
WP:WEB, and reasons brought forward in
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Finda, as it stands finda is a valid competitor to
Trade Me, it is well known, but the name isn't as sticky as Trade Me, also note, reference #1, could technically be called bias due to same parent company, and hence cannot be considered independant for
WP:WEB Criteria #1, however the remaining 3 references, are from my knowledge independant. --
NigelJ
talk
11:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result was no consensus. WjB scribe 00:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete - there do not appear to be independent reliable sources attesting to the subject's notability. Otto4711
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. Fails WP:BIO. There is only one source for his one TV appearance, a simple announcement [7]. Many of the 29 Google hits for "Shane Johnson" "comfort zone" (one of his comics) [8] are not about him and his comic. Only one hit for Shane Johnson and Fratstic (another comic of his). [9] Seems to be a student cartoonist who has not yet established any name in the professional cartooning world. Fram 10:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Paloma Walker 03:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The actual importance of this café is not supported by sources, while in the latter part the article looks and feels like spam for their publishing activity. The unique contributor to the article, Contributions/Poetry62 is also a contributor (often the main or unique one) to several articles about authors published by Giubbe Rosse: Menotti Lerro, qualified as "the youngest author of the Giubbe Rosse's collection" (which I am going to propose for speedy deletion after this debate), Silvano Zoi (similar to the previous one), Vittorio Vettori and several other ones of dubious notability. Goochelaar 11:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC) reply
My opinion
Dear friend, my idea of project was to improuve all the authours as much as possible. I love my town: Florence, I love Giubbe Rosse, and I love poets.
The reason because I improuved more one article than others is because Lerro has many pages on internet talking of him and also because I use to read his poetry, considering him a young and clever author and if Giorgio Bàrberi Squarotti (the main italian critic) and Roberto Carifi affirm it, I think we can trust them...
Well, about the notability of Giubbe Rosse... If you read the page about Eugenio Montale you will find also the word Giubbe Rosse inside, claiming the important and historical role it played in Italy and for our literature. Moreover in the actual 'collana Giubbe Rosse' is published the book of Mario Luzi (the most important italian writer we had in the last 50 years), and if Luzi published his last book here before to die, I think there is probably a reason...
My Idea was - when I had time - to improuve as much as possible - all the Giubbe Rosse's authors and some one I think could also help to improuve it, as happen for many stubs...
In conclusion, I just want invite you, before to affirm about the "dubious notability of Vittorio Vettori", to do some more search about this author because his notability is impossible to hide.
The same we can still say about Manlio Sgalambro and others.
Best regards
Poetry 62— Preceding unsigned comment added by Poetry62 ( talk • contribs)
The result was keep. WjB scribe 04:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Conflict of interest and questionable notability. The creator and major editor of this article (apart from a couple of IP editors) is
Edgarszilde who is a member of the band. Band doesn't have an website, only a MySpace (99 friends, 1191 profile views), their MySpace lists this article as their website.
Google gets 161 hits, a lot of which relate to the other members' projects or are to buy/download their music. Only claims of notability are radio airplay and music video screenings in Latvia; winning the Grand Prix of the biggest rock music festival in the Baltic States "Liepajas Dzintars" (whatever that means); and winning two prestigious Latvian Music Awards in 2003 (Best instrumental album of the Year and the best debut award) misread, award was for side project album. But still... it's so conflict of interest! If this article goes, can someone delete the album articles and all the images too.
kollision
10:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
Answer: First of all, it seems that the conflict of interest is based on the lack of knowledge on music scene in the Baltic States. It is important for me to educate the reader that the population of Latvia is less then 4 million. Only 60% of whom are Latvian origin. This concludes that bands popularity and importance in this country can not be based on millions of webpage hits. This alternative band self releases its recordings, therefore does not depend on any music companies and is respected only by smaller group of people. Of course "whatever that means" music festival, as you call it, in readers home town, assuming it is Texas or even NY, is without any significance, but lets not forget that www is created for everyone in the world and not just for Canada or the US. This band is significant in its region and culture, therefore it is also important that anybody in the world can access this information. Thank you. Is Wikipedia MTV, FOX and Hollywood representative, or informative and educational internet portal? What is critical here? To write about popular but ordinary pop stars who have their own webpages (payed by companies) and millions of google hits, or educate people about more significant and sapid cultural activities of the world?
Notability:
As I read through the notability list, Satellites LV has had several charted hits, shows abroad, full albums, singles, newspaper and other printed media articles and interviews. I must add that Satellites LV includes in itself many musical projects who have released records in Russia and Japan. Satellites LV is more considred a group of active (10 years) and mutually conected musicians rather than just an ordinary band. It has won awards and has received positive reviews from critics. Satellites LV is notable in its region. Most of the information online is in Latvian, therefore unavailable to you. About self promotion: This article does not advertise any websites or new albums, singles, posters, t-shirts, or any other merchandise. It has been added clearly only for information purposes.
Attribution:
Satellites LV with their side project Kuba - http://cdbaby.com/cd/kuba http://www.post-rock.lv/lat.htm#sat http://www.tvnet.lv/izklaide/article.php?id=479775 http://www.tvnet.lv/izklaide/music/Video/article.php?id=5874 http://www.doremi.lv/index.php?genre=7&artist=387&album=0&show_album=1
So, what happens now? Am I allowed to delete this and improve the site? What are the steps?
Edgars
The result was delete. Punkmorten 17:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
No evidence of notability, page is almost empty, not convinced it is neutral. Shame, it is a completely inoffensive article, but for the reasons mentioned I don't think it belongs in Wikipedia. Robinson weijman 10:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete as your every day MySpace musician— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍) 08:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC) reply
In my opinion, doesn't assert sufficient notability. Lack of references and sources, as well. Daniel Bryant 07:39, 20 March 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}} . |
KeepI saw him perform with Wynton Marsalis and Dave Samuels both grammy winners. So i think there is sufficient notability. just lackings in references and sources in my oppinion 74.195.240.49 17:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Keep. Joke nomination.-- Hús ö nd 03:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Non notable meme, possibly fun-craft. Shipsnote 03:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.-- Wizardman 21:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Failed candidate for the Texas state seat. Since he did not win, he is not notable. WhisperToMe 03:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Malcolm Use the schwartz! 00:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Article about improv group. No references, no claim to notability, reads like an ad for Monday nights at the George and Dragon Restaurant. Future Fun Jumper (TIC) 00:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Recreation of page deleted on March 4. Subject is not notable per WP:BIO Mwelch 00:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Editors, Harry T. Pringle was deleted some two weeks ago. However, it has six secondary links plus the obituary. Is he not notable? If not, then just kindly delete it again. Otherwise, I vote Keep.
````— Preceding unsigned comment added by Billy Hathorn ( talk • contribs)
The result was delete.-- cj | talk 18:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Article on a MMORPG deleted for a lack of notability for internet materials via a low participation Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kings of Chaos. That deletion was initially endorsed by the first deletion review, in which participation was equally thin. At a second deletion review, the consensus was to relist so the Washington Post article that wasn't discussed in the first AFD can be evaluated. This is a technical nomination on my part, I have no opinion. GRBerry 01:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 16:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete: Biased and not notable. Teh Original Mr. Orange (Orange juice?) 01:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC) reply
I was going to mark this as a speedy, but then I reconsidered and instead added a {{notability}} tag. The author removed the tag and rewrote the article so that it reads more like an advertisement, and left a note on the talk page telling people not to "vandalize" the article. While this could be real, it looks suspicious. JuJube 01:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Let me start by saying this is not an advertisement i just like the idea of secret shows and i think it should have a wiki. Secondly as some of this may be subjective, which can be changed, it is all from the MySpace Secret Shows page. Lastly why would u delete a perfectly good article just because it needs some touching up. After all the more articles the better and i assure you all of this has sources even the qoute: "it is notable for bringing great bands to small towns" is from the official page. P.S. myspace secret shows IS real. o ya and sry for deleting the notice i was just mad u (or someone else deleted the page b4 it was even finished. Martini833 02:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Well it's definately notable for more reasons. It has famous bands. Over 38 shows and has been running smoothly for more than a year. It is definately as notable as any event in the music scene and saying that it's not because they are "secret" is just like saying things that haven't come out yet and are not announced shouldnt be on wikipedia.. Martini833 02:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
OK if you can give me three logical reason why this is NOT notable instead of trying to counter everything I say then I will admit it is not notable and you can take over. And by the way if i dont think it's logical than sorry no way is this article being deleted without a "notable" (hahaha used ur word) reason. Anyway i worked so hard on it and it is my first full fledged aricle so could u find out the facts (or just read the article cus the facts are all there) youll see that this is no advertisement and it is all *(dare i say) notably correct. BTW this was really hard to do with the wikipedia code i wasnt familiar with so...... STOP ruining a perfectly good article. And again the more articles the better (as long as they have facts which you can cjeck out here www.myspace.com/secretshows. Martini833 02:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Thank you for not taking my above comment angrily. But anyways other sources can be found. But i couldnt just do that right now. I'll do that in some time. But why would you want to delete it. Check the sources. And if you could find others that find it notable that would be nice. Thank you again for not taking this aggresively. Martini833 02:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
P.S. Waiting for sources do not delete until proven to be unnotable etc. Martini833 02:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Let me just say I have a life and I cant just stay on the computer protecting this article. Anyway if you google myspace secret shows you"ll find non-myspace sources about the shows. I have checked and to my surprise (not really) they were indeed there. Martini833 02:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC) P.S. i hope you saw this< Keep. Sources on MySpace Secret Shows can be found,> Martini833 02:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC) Block quote reply
Not to sound rude but, why don't you just google it and find them for yourself i dont have time I'm about to leave the computer but would like to know what is going on in the discussions page. Martini833 02:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
How about this. From Wikipedia w/e "WHY DON'T YOU" you're the one that cares... and i think you know this by now MySpace Secret Shows is real and the article is fine. You just don't have anything else to do but delete things because it probably makes you feel good. How about u delete your ****ing profile and leave a good article (in this case myspace secret shows) alone. GAH you got me to tht level were im p***ed off. Thnk you
I know this is not personal but ur this close to making it! anyway wy dont you delete an article like that article on georgian martial arts. Martini833 03:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
KEEP If you havnt noticed they are not that secret. Before u comment read the actual article. and before you ask someone to check their facts wy dont u check the article first (cus the facts are all there)
Martini833 20:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
o ya and wy dont u just rewrite it if its such a big problem that it sounds much like an ad (which it isnt)
Martini833
20:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
OK. Leebo you really, Really, REALLY, REALLY need to get a life. Do you have any other activities in your life because to me you're on 24/7. Basically I've been on once a day at a specific time and you've been online (probably ticking people off) all day (and night long. So again
GET A LIFE and get a job and MOVE OUT OF
YOUR MOM'S BASEMENT —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
Martini833 (
talk •
contribs).
How many times do i have to say I am not an advertiser or a spammer Martini833 22:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC) reply
I know that this is the internet and I can't PROVE it but ill let u know im under the age of 14 and cant even get a job at Publix much lesss an ad company. anyway i do not spam i just made my first article on one of my interests so if u think my above comments were rude I'm sorry but feel free to reformat or rewrite or rephrase the article so it sounds like an encyclopedic entry. also dont delete it because it is well written and let me tell you ive seen much worse that hasnt been dleted example: Rancho Verde High School of course u wouldnt delete that because it is yours. and about the references feel free to add them yourself because the rest of the work was mine and it is ALL true and found on their webpage. anyway back to the advertisement/spam issue ive spoken to an admin about this to give me a way to straighten ths out... Martini833 22:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)P.S. im not a newbie this is just my first full fledge article ive done a lot of productive editing and the format is that of the Simpsons Comics and you are free to change it if u have a good reason Martini833 22:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC) reply
could someone please rewrite this to sound less like an ad. Martini833 21:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC) reply
After minor rephrasing for this page not to look like an ad this page should be updated by taking off the deletion notice because I have found an article that confirms its notability: "MySpace.com announced today it will commemorate the first birthday of the community's most popular franchise, Secret Shows presented by Chili's, by launching an alliance with Best Buy. Under the deal, MySpace Secret Show artists will receive promotion in more than 550 Best Buy stores nationwide." -ClearStation. Anyways if anyone would like to comment on this or edit this or see the full article please do. Article: http://clearstation.etrade.com/cgi-bin/bbs?post_id=7923196 o ya and http://www.newscorp.com/news/news_318.html Martini833 23:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC) reply
the first one is a press release the other is an article like you ppl asked for from a notable source so i REALLLLLLLLLLLLYYYYYYYYY think the deletion should be (hahah) deleted Martini833 00:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment yes the first one is written about the us ones and is by clearchannel which is nOT affiliated with myspae secret shows the first one is not a press release it's an article BY clear channel Martini833 00:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC) reply
no the description of myspace is by myspace not the actual article Martini833 00:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC) reply
well wat more do you want to keep this article there seems to be more and more that you want evrerytime i add something. Martini833 01:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC) reply
no offense orangemike but u are sooooooooooooooo late 65.11.27.42 19:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Article does not cite sources, contains no background, etc. Use the force ( Talk * Contribs) 01:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Shimeru 18:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Might be something worth adding eventually but this is just WP:OR with very little context and alot of POV. Peter Rehse 01:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Article does not cite sources, does not provide baackground, etc. Use the force ( Talk * Contribs) 01:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 05:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC) reply
not notable; promotional Tom Harrison Talk 02:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC) reply
dipusted PROD for student film that makes no assertion of notability Cornell Rockey 02:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. WjB scribe 00:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply
The term does not seem to be officially acknowledged let alone notable, and only seems to exist at all in relation to a single website and Yahoo group of Australian Origin Zeraeph 02:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect to Toyota Corolla. Shimeru 18:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
This article is unnecessary; its information is already in the Toyota Corolla article. Butterfly0fdoom 03:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. — bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC) reply
This is what categories are for, Category:Television shows set in Nevada already covers this subject adequately. A sub-caegory can be created if necessary, though it doesn't appear to be needed. Saikokira 03:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Notability not established or sourced per WP:CORP, WP:MUSIC. RJASE1 Talk 03:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. -- Luigi30 ( Taλk) 16:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Snake bgd 10:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Snake bgd 12:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Apparently someone's idea for a dream anime series. Non-existent, has no reliable sources to even indicate it's existence, much less any notability. Google search for "Armada Knights" brings up 9 hits, none of which are about an animed series by that name. NeoChaosX ( talk, walk) 04:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete as attack page, or at least a bio with no assertion of notability. Heimstern Läufer 05:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Blatant attack article on a nn person. Speedy tag was removed by an IP editor. janejellyroll 04:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy close: mistaken nomination: the same person, articles to be merged, not deleted. Mukadderat 05:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
This is the same individual as in the article Manuel Chrysoloras. This spelling is either an uncommon variant or a misspelling. It is given in the Catholic Encylopedia article, which I just edited and posted on Wikipedia. The other article, besides having the preferred spelling, is also more complete. Rbraunwa 04:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. WjB scribe 01:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Notability not established or sourced per WP:WEB. RJASE1 Talk 05:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Keep. MedHelp is notable and should stay on Wikipedia for 3 reasons. 1. It was founded in 1994 and is one of the first Healthcare community sites on the Internet. It precedes by several years, sites such as WebMD, Revolution Health and HealthBoards, all of which have articles on Wikipedia. 2. According to media measurement services such as HitWise and CommScore it is among the Top 10 largest healthcare online healthcare communities on the Internet, with 2.5 million users per month. 3. Several MedHelp articles have been referenced by wikipedia authors in their articles on topics such as Dyshidrosis, Proteinuria etc. Fdesouza 05:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted by Jimfbleak. MER-C 10:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Asserts significance, so cannot be speedy deleted, however I don't the significance asserted is sufficient for the person to warrant encyclopedia article. Furthermore, it appears to be self-authored. – Qxz 05:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep, no consensus.. -- Luigi30 ( Taλk) 13:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete Episode articles yes, clip shows no. What surprises me is when I listed this for AfD I found an earlier AfD here that had a strong consensus to delete, but the closing admin ignored this and no one took it to DRV. Ned Scott 05:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete Claiming a recap episode as noteable in any way is way out there. Jtrainor 04:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Del as clean-cut original research. While Therianthropy survived its vote for deletion on shaky grounds as a term traced 100 years ago and a modern 'net subculture, this taxonomy article is complete OR. The provided references do speak about lycantropy, verevolves, etc., but they don not say about theriantropy, hence, the whole article is 100% original fancruft to be deleted. Mukadderat 05:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. ♠ P M C♠ 16:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Spam No sources given to prove notability, does not meet WP:ORG. — Ocatecir Talk 06:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. References added during the course of the debate. WjB scribe 01:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC) reply
So its a furry comic book, and the article is totally unreferenced (and has been for months), and doesn't even give a hint as to whether this meets any notability guidelines. Delete, per WP:ATT and WP:N K @ng i e meep! 06:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. WjB scribe 04:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC) reply
A7:This person lacks notability according to Wikipedia guidelines and consensus. CA387 06:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted by Commander Keane. MER-C 10:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Nonsense redirect. — Ocatecir Talk 06:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Fails notability standard Silver seraph 06:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Shimeru 19:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
NN, with suspected COI (almost all edits are by User:Francoco, which appears to be a single-purpose account. Has an IMDB entry, so probably not proddable, but that entry consists of a number of minor bit-parts and that's all. Grutness... wha? 06:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Shimeru 19:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Article lacks notability. CA387 07:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Shimeru 19:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Vanity page. The subject of this article does not meet notability guidelines. CA387 08:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Majorly (o rly?) 14:44, 4 April 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}} . |
This article is a grotesque violation of the subject's copyright. It is a 32 kb+ step-by-step summary of a film series, and I do not know how to even begin to reduce this to something reasonable. I think the best thing to do is wipe it and start over.
WP:FICT does not like this article. Nor do
WP:WAF or
WP:NOT.
Chris Griswold (
☎
☓)
06:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
substitute for reading the manga. DaoKaioshin 14:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete as it consist of nothing but a plot summary (see WP:FICT). -- Whpq 17:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Keep/Spilt i think this article may be two long and much controversy because of its usefulness to many users but i think recoomending it for deletion is a rash descision... A wikiproject may be in order to help fix this article. Spilting in to seprate parts can help as well. On another hand i think a good idea would be to trim the Sections to less detail after the episode pertaining to that section is released which can greatly shorten the article over time. Reccomding this for deletion isnt something to take lightly because its two long copyright violation doesnt seem like a pertaining issue as it just records without posting content. if you posted the manga here i assume it would be a different story Matthew2c4u 20:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Article has been considerably improved and referenced since the nomination. WjB scribe 04:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Original research, personal essay, term appears to be made-up. >Radiant< 08:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Bobet 11:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Obvious hoax, and possible attack page. EALacey 08:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was withdrawn. >Radiant< 08:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC) reply
A cricket player who uses psychic power to win matches. "The source of his psychic powers is his mitt, which he carries around with him any time." Also he knows chinese proverbs and mispronounces people's names. Sounds rather hoaxy to me. >Radiant< 08:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. WjB scribe 01:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply
This is just not a plastic surgeon who meets any standard of notability with my field to merit inclusion. He is a somewhat obscure super-teriary specialist with no signifigant academic work or career publishing in our journals. There are some nice elements of the procedures he does that could possibly be merged into some of the other transgender related surgery articles, but Dr. Meltzer himself I feel doesn't really meet the standards of whom I understand wikipedia intends to include Droliver 07:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was SPEEDY DELETE, CSD G11.
Postdlf
22:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
Delete: No evidence or even assertion of notability; article reads like promotional piece for the company (a large swathe of it is a blatant copy of http://www.fbmc-benefits.com/corp_profile.asp ). There may be a case for an article on this company if anyone cares to establish its notability, but this is not that article. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 09:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. WjB scribe 01:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply
This claims to be a common motif in literature, but the term, referring to daughters who betray their father, does not seem to be in widespread use in the sense described here. I suggest deletion on the grounds of original research. Nydas (Talk) 09:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Rlevse 14:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC) (delete, delete, redir per anville. Rlevse 14:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Also nominated per reason below:
I believe these articles are nearly a speedy deletion under A1, as they contain little context regarding currently established articles, refering to what links here, the pages are interlinked, but do not contain links from other articles ( Eigenmode is an exception, due to articles discussing optical signals have linked to this article (until March 19, Eigenmode was a redirect to Normal mode [17]), in which case, I think a revert back to edit 54023351 would be a much better alternative to deletion. In addition, all three article have been tagged with templates such as {{ Unreferenced}}, {{ context}}, {{ OR}} and {{ Uncategorized}}, Marc Widdowson has been the sole human editor of all 3 articles. NigelJ talk 09:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Shimeru 19:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
event was one of many thousands of annual gatherings of lots of Christians around the world. Current sources are the website of the event itself, and a tiny mention in the local press. Note that there was no national press coverage, and the local coverage was minmal. If anything, this deserves a small mention in the Oxford Martyrs or Martyrs' Memorial article. Certainly not werll enough sourced or notable enough for its own article. Batmanand | Talk 10:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
This is merely a dictionary definition with no hope of becoming a genuine article. Contested prod. MER-C 10:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted by UtherSRG. -- Elkman (Elkspeak) 15:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Vanispamcruftisement which fails WP:BIO as non-notable sportsman. Contested prod. MER-C 10:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Notability rather questionable, and significant conflict of interest problems. Zetawoof( ζ) 10:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete g4, reposted, nothing new. NawlinWiki 15:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Vanity piece. Deleted previously, notability not risen since. Gekedo 11:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete per CSD G7. Xoloz 03:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Although undoubtedly notable among the university's students, I don't feel this guitarist is notable enough for an entry. Yes, has been playing for 28 years, but only live and in a small area. Google search brings up few sites, but nothing beyond that that would be given to a small group playing live gigs. Gekedo 19:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Undelete.At what point does one reach "Wikipedia status"? Is it a quantitative "they are known by x number of people" or is it something more complex? While I understand the spirit behind the deletion of pages, I feel that given the vastness of wikipedia it cannot be compared to a simple encyclopedia. I'm sure it is a great feat to have your name written up in Brittanica, for example, but should it be as difficult to be written up in wikipedia? These are not simply rhetorical questions, as I really would like to know peoples thoughts about this. I haven't been editing for that long so I'm still trying to figure things out. Je at uwo 20:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Je at uwo. Take a look at WP:BIO for an explantion of what is required to get listed on Wikipedia scope_creep 20:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Rick McGhie has attained a cult status at one of the largest universities in Canada. There is not one student who has walked the campus who doesn't know of his musical stylings. Rick McGhie has a a place in the heart of 25 000 students and hundreds of thousands of Alumni. I've seen things on Wikipedia that are far more meager or irrelevant than this entry. I think it should stay. 24.42.118.206 20:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Undelete.I would argue this, Kinu, with reference to WP:MUSIC. The seventh entry of this policy would apply here as Rick McGhie is a prominant example of a local scene of the University of Western Ontario. 129.100.180.234 21:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC) reply
This article is obviously a sarcastic hoax. Look at the author's contributions at Talk:Christianity if you aren't sure. Born2x 11:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge. — bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply
This is a page about a stillborn child on a soap opera that was never even given a legal name. Since there are already pages that have been created for the child's parents, information relating to the child could easily be incorporated onto those pages. D'Amico 11:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 05:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC) reply
WP:SPAM, none encyclopedic, has to be Deleted-- Greatestrowerever 23:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Daniel Bryant 05:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The player played just in Malta but hasn't played in any professional league. He played for one of the weakest national teams in Europe but just in qualification round since he is from a weak country like Malta but not to any euro or World Cup final phase. And his team nothing better than last position!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by KRBN ( talk • contribs)
The result was No consensus to delete. This was a tough one to close. A significant portion of the "keep" comments made did not cite policy, and seemed to border on WP:ILIKEIT. However, even discounting these, I couldn't find consensus to delete; WP:NEO is a guideline, and I don't feel comfortable asserting WP:IAR to apply it to this article when I couldn't find consensus to delete in the first place. This close places no prejudice against renominations of the article, and I strongly caution User:Davidhc to remain civil, constructive, and non-argumentative in future AfD debates. Badgering editors with views different than your own with incivil commentary is not acceptable. — bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Not notable, neologism, full of OR, does not cite sources other than blogs, all relevant content about the term is at Atrios already. Croctotheface 07:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Editors and Publishers Just to give one example of a secondary source: Along with the listing on the main page for the Friedman Unit, there is in individual entry in discussion page on the use of the term in an article in the print edition of Editors and Publishers. This article, you can read an excerpt included in the discussion, acknowledges that the term is widely used and is accurate in its description. This is all that is needed to verify the term Friedman Unit and keep this entry. The whole point of a secondary source is to find a reliable source (in this case a print article that was written by professional journalists and approved by professional editors) that documents the use of the term. The purpose of a secondary source is to provide documentation of existence, not act as proof of existence in itself. If you have any proof that the Editors and Publishers is not a professional print media, or that the article is a hoax, then please I would like to see it. Also, please read the article and the article's comments page before you post here and vaguely claim that reliable sources do not exist, because both the article and the discussion reliable secondary sources clearly. Davidhc 22:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Here is just one of the many sound arguments on the FU talk page, all of which apparently need to be copied into here if critics are not willing to engage in good faith discussion:
Again, that's just one of many dozens of sound arguments for keeping this article, despite any doubts raised on first-glance. Eugene Banks 08:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC) reply
What's the best protocol, should all discussion on this be placed here (copied here -- as only a small portion of the anti-delete arguments have been so far), or left on the article's Talk page? I'm increasingly suspecting that the arguments for deletion are a disguised form of POV, most likely relating to the highly contentious Iraq war. E.g.:
Multiple non-trivial sources There seems to be a lot of confusion over examples that people bring up in discussion and the examples that are in the article. (If you have good examples of the use of the term, please add them to the article.) The sources currently cited in the article are:
If you want to delete this article, then you are going to have to prove why ALL of these sources do not meet the non-trivial guidelines (I would say most of them are way above the criteria for non-trivial). You can not just go on slamming the Huffington Post or examples that are not in the main article and then say there is no notability. Please stick to the text. Davidhc 16:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC) reply
This article is legitimate as determined by the wikipedia guidelines and so it shoudl be kept. The "multiple non-trivial sources" given in this article prove that this article is a legitimate entry in Wikipedia. Wikipedia guidelines do a good job of making sure that articles are not hoaxes or inventions of their editors or made for the pure purpose of pushing neologisms that are not already widespread (by that I mean a neologism that is an invention of the editor). The Friedman Unit is a fact that exists outside of the context of this article, as the sources given in the article prove, and this article does an excellent job of presenting an encyclopedic summary of that fact to the general public. There is nothing more that you can ask of an encyclopedia. Davidhc 21:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment: Last night I went through the first 500 google-hits on the term "Friedman Unit." Out of that 500, there was exactly one link that constituted a reliable source, and it is already in the article. Perhaps more crucially, there were also almost 100 mirrors of the Wikipedia article, and at least 50 more that said "Wikipedia defines...." And of course WP was #1 and #2 on the google-hit parade. In other words - Wikipedia's entry is directly or indirectly responsible for 150 out of 500 of the top google-hits on this term. It certainly looks to me that WP:NEO is an issue here. Risker 23:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC) reply
An experiment: This may seem like overkill, but I ran a quick test of my own because this is an issue that is important to ALL entries in wikipedia. I ran three variations of google searches for the Friedman Unit to see how it faired alone, with, and without wikipedia in the search criteria using the search terms:
1) "Friedman Unit" 2) "Friedman Unit" wikipedia 3) "Friedman Unit" -wikipedia
The results were as follows:
Friedman Unit alone: 259,000 (Wikipedia entry was first hit) with: 587 without: 261,000
(NOTE: if you run Friedman Unit without the quotes you get over 1.5 million hits)
To get a random sample of wikipedia to compare it to, I hit the "random article" link five times and did the same test on the pages it gave me. The results were as follows:
Thottiyam alone: 546 (wikipedia first hit) with wikipedia: 92 without wikipedia: 510
Air transports of heads of state alone: 226 (wikipedia second hit) with: 154 without: 64
Yamaha DX7 alone: 127,000 (wikipedia 3rd hit) with: 963 without: 118,000
Music at Work alone: 77,900 (wikipedia 6th hit) with: 553 without: 73,100
Enfield Town F.C. alone: 559 (wikipedia 3rd hit) with: 226 without: 508
As you can see, ALL the entries came up with wikipedia in the top 10 hits. Also, the Friedman Unit has by far the best ratio of with to without than any of the five random entries, which means that by the argument given above, we would have to delete ALL of these entries, and I am sure many more. The reason wikipedia shows up is not because of the popularity of any given article, but because of the popularity of wikipedia in general. When people want a source to link a topic in their web page, they link to wikipedia. All the copycat sites know this, and so they farm off the wikipedia entries to get traffic. Hence there is a big difference between a site that mirrors the wikipedia article and someone saying "as defined by wikipedia" in their web page. Making the argument that a wikipedia page is somehow pushing a neologism only applies if that term does not exist anywhere else but in wikipedia. The multiple non-trivial sources given in the article on the Friedman unit prove that the term is in wide use without the help of the article. Davidhc 17:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Keep. It's out there, it's in use, it's a popular concept. I don't understand the urge to strip Wikipedia of articles. Nor do I understand people who contribute to an online encyclopedia that anybody can edit turning up their noses at blogs. Vidor 04:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete - The article cites many cases of people saying things will happen in 6 months, 3 months, 6-9 months etc. It cites no use (except by a blogger) of the term itself. If some one can come up with a citable use of the term 'Friedman unit' itself, they should do so and add it to the article. Otherwise it is a mere neologism. Peterkingiron 13:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Keep. Re: neologisms. Since this seems to be the main focus of requests for deletion, I've synthesized some of these points here, with minor improvements/ clarifications/ rejoinders. I hope this is OK with others. (My apologies in advance if not, I'm not trying to claim credit for these, nor put words in the original commenters' mouths, nor just repeat them. I'm trying to move the discussion forward.) BipDeBop 19:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC) reply
BipDeBop 19:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment. I'm no longer going to attempt to engage in the specifics of the debate here. If editors are going to insist that an article that mentions a term for one sentence is "about" the term, I don't really think that there's much hope for arriving at any kind of common ground. It seems to me that most of the arguments in favor of keeping amount to "it's important" or "I like it", which, obviously, are not the same as notability. I want to repeat, for probably the second or third time, that any and all relevant information about this term can be presented at Atrios and, potentially, Thomas Friedman. The current page can become a redirect. Nothing of value will be lost in doing this: this is not an attempt to erase the term. It simply does not meet the standards required to have its own Wikipedia article. Croctotheface 13:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
When I originally merged I used the following arguments. I consider them still to be valid and I still think the article should be deleted and a summary merged with Atrios.
WP:NEO does not apply solely to terms coined for or on Wikipedia:
WP:SYN discourages the collation of various unrelated sources to advance an original argument:
In addition, and importantly:
There are far better places for such research than Wikipedia. WP:NOT Lexis-Nexis.
This really belongs in either list of political epithets or in the Atrios article for these reasons. An expansive article on the term is unwarranted and really not greatly suitable for an encyclopedia.
Chris Cunningham 14:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Thank you Croctotheface, Risker, and Dhartung for changing your position from delete to keep with edits. If there is now a consensus to keep the article, then I think it is time to end the deletion debate and move back to the normal editing discussion on the article's talk page. If you would like to edit the article, however, please refrain from deleting large sections without reaching a consensus through the proper discussions. Davidhc 17:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Don't Take the law into your own hands We have not heard back from Dhartung, but if you all are still strongly for deletion, then your efforts to erase large sections of the article currently under debate in the absence of any consensus over those sections, can only be interpreted as having the intent to override the AfD procedures. It is important to note that there was no "editing" involved, only "white blanking" whole sections of the article along with their external references. Once more, the table section that was deleted was not debated in these pages. Much of the debate centered on the references in the body of the text, not the table. If you have issues with the table, then I suggest that we end the deletion debate and move back to editing, or that you debate the contents of the table in this discussion, and keep pushing for deletion. However, if you want the article deleted, then you are going to have to either wait for a consensus, or wait for an administrator to weigh in, as specified in the discussion guidelines. You can not take the law into your own hands and start deleting the article at your own discretion while a debate is ongoing. This is not my opinion, this is simply following the guidelines of a discussion. I am going to restore the article so that it can be debated properly without censoring the very text that we are supposed to be debating. Davidhc 20:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Friedman (unit). If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Croctotheface 23:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Hindutva pseudoscience has been redirected to Hindutva propaganda by the creator of article. Aksi_great ( talk) 13:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete - There was a clear consensus to delete at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hindutva_pseudoscience but it was rejected because the nominator was a sock of a banned user. That aside, the logic used to AFD it still holds Namely:
Keep
a) Google with [+Hindutva +pseudoscience] gets 566 hits: not all that many but certainly not none.
b) Nanda and Sokal both make a serious presentation of the mix of postmodernism, pseudoscience and religion that is being pressed into service, apparently with political aims. There does appear to be a real and current phenomeonon (and one that seems to discredit both science and genuine religious believers).
c) There also appear to be clear examples of heavy promotion of one or two Indian scientists on Wikipedia; and occasional claims for discoveries in mathematics that stretch credibility somewhat. For myself, I feel that outrageous claims are disrespectful towards the early mathematician, and possibly towards religious pioneers also.
It is not easy, however, to see an easy solution. I'll have a look at the entries for the BNP, Christian fundamentalism, Dawkins and Reductionism and maybe change my mind. Davy p 23:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC) reply
[29] with [30], and still look like a knowledgeable person. Coining a term is not "nit picking", and blaiming others of bad faith shows only bad faith on your side, because you think any one who opposes this term is "Hindutva"-vadi.-- Scheibenzahl 10:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. WjB scribe 01:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Stub on a Norwegian You-tube celebrity, previously deleted via
AFD, and protected due to recreations. The nominator at deletion review intends to replace the stub with a translation of the article at the Norwegian Wikipedia.
[31]. That article has several references, most of which appear to be in Norwegian. If there is a relevant Norwegian Wikiproject or deletion sorting noticeboard, could someone notify them, as this discussion will be better if folks that can evaluate the sources show up. This is a technical nomination, I have no opinion.
GRBerry
01:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result was Keep. This decision does not preclude a merge, which seems to be the nominator's goal, but if a merge is to be performed, the history must be kept in order to meet the terms of the GNU license. Shimeru 19:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Sorted as part of the Notability wikiproject! -- Futurano 20:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. -- Luigi30 ( Taλk) 13:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Apparently is the red light distrcit of Prague. Does that mean it warrants its own entry, or can it be merged or deleted? Montchav 01:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete - hoax. -- RHaworth 12:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Hoax. Larry the Cucumber is voiced by Mike Nawrocki and there is no Richard Baker in The Nightmare Before Christmas or Looney Tunes: Back in Action. JuJube 23:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Punkmorten 17:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
A valuable resource. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scarfo ( talk • contribs) 2007/03/26 00:52:30
The result was Keep. — bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Irrelevant and insignificant
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC) reply
First of all this page looks to me as an essay. Second, I don't see what it adds. It treats four ancient Greek goddesses with their own article. So, what is it? A mere repetition? I hope I am wrong but IMO this "article" has nothing to do with an encyclopedic article. Yannismarou 18:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 05:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable video game. Expired prod removed by User:NYC JD with the comment "deprod. 1982 video game published by notable publisher - worth an AfD". The article remains an unreferenced stub, containing nothing in the way of notability for the game. There is no information on innovative features, high sales or other large popularity, industry awards, authors, new programming techniques, or so on. Mikeblas 12:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 05:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC) reply
One of three people in similar circumstances, nothing to indicate that there will be any ongoing notability, the case itself can be covered adequately in women in the military without the problems of giving undue weight to a single incident in her life, which is essentially what this article is about. People get busted in the military from time to time, it sometimes makes the news for a day or two, occasionally the case is noticed for some wider reason, very few of the individuals achieve lasting notability. In the mean time we have an article which focuses on one minor incident in the subject's life, which is the only thing that has ever really been subject of external attention, and that seems to me to violate WP:BLP Guy ( Help!) 12:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC) reply
CV style article on individual with no particularly notable achievements. Warofdreams talk 12:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to List of General Hospital characters. WjB scribe 01:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply
This character never existed on-screen and has solely been referenced in a past format. This information could easily be included on other, more relevant, pages. D'Amico 11:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Ryanjunk 14:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply
This is a gargantuan (190 kb) set of tables for conjugating verbs in Bulgarian. We have many excellent articles on languages here, and they all contain similar tables. But those articles provide a mix of different things - historical analysis, phonology, grammar, etc. The problem here, is that it is almost all tables. Something like this is better suited for Wikibooks, or Wikiversity. I just do not see how this is appropriate for an encyclopedia. And it doesn't help that most of it is in Cyrillic, as the average English speaking Joe or Jane will just see a mass of gibberish.
Someone has put a ton of work into it, so I don't want to see it deleted altogether, but it really needs to be completely migrated off. If anyone sees anything else at all like this in other languages, feel free to apend this AfD. Ultimately, though, Delete, for the record. -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 13:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Here's how I explained the conjugation in the main article Bulgarian grammar before I decided to make the article similar to the German and Spanish ones:
Present Tense
Verbs form the present tense according to their conjugation. They take the following personal endings:
Personal endings | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Person | 1st and 2nd
conjugation |
3rd
conjuation | ||
Singular | Plural | Singular | Plural | |
1st | -а/я | -м | -м | -ме |
2nd | -ш | -те | -ш | -те |
3rd | - | -ат/ят | - | -т |
These endings are placed directly after the form of the verb in third person singular (that is why it has no ending - it just ends in e, и, а or я), except for -а, -я, -ат and -ят. Before these endings are added, the final е/и is removed.
First conjugation verbs which in third person singular end in:
Second conjugation verbs that in third person singular end in:
VI type verbs are all the verbs or the third conjugation.
Past Imperfect Tense
In order to conjugate a verb in this tense, one has to know the verb's past imperfect basis, to which the following personal endings are added (they are the same for all conjugations):
Personal endings
Past Imperfect Tense | ||
---|---|---|
Person | Number | |
Singular | Plural | |
First | -х | -хме |
Second | -ше | -хте |
Third | -ше | -ха |
The basis is formed from the determiner of the verb's conjugation (its third person singular form in the present simple tense). Here are the rules for forming the basis (there are also a very few irregular verbs):
Past aorist tense
Similarly, as in past imperfect tense, verbs have past aorist basis to which the following personal endings are added (they are the same for all conjugations):
Personal endings
Past Aorist Tense | ||
---|---|---|
Person | Number | |
Singular | Plural | |
First | -х | -хме |
Second | - | -хте |
Third | - | -ха |
Rules for forming the basis:
I have deleted most of this because I saw that in the German and Spanish articles there are no such explanations. But I preserved a small part of it in the article Bulgarian verbs.
Note that this does not include some important verb groups and the conjugation of the participles.
I, personally, find the above more confusing than just tables because for example the verb играя in the present tense is of type I, in the Past Imperfect of type III and in the Past Aorist of type XIII. If I had explained the conjugation of the participles, it would have been of some other type. In the tables it is just type 18.1. I wrote the tables using and correcting information (mostly dialectisms and wrong classification) from the Bulgarian wiktionary. Arath 15:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. I'll recreate as a redirect to airdancer.-- Wizardman 14:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Notability Kntrabssi 13:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
*Redirect either to Airdancers or Merge+Redirect to whatever Family Guy episode that's from.--
Wizardman 03:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC) (Struck through to prevent COI as I close this)--
Wizardman 14:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to the Family Guy episode this appeared in, as Wizardman said.
Plasticbottle
06:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result was redirect to Jehovah's Witnesses. WjB scribe 01:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete This is an extremely rare term that in my eyes do not need its own article. If it has to be mentioned at all, it should be done in another article. Summer Song 13:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Withdrawn by nominator.-- Isotope23 13:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Originally listed as a speedy delete, it was contested with the contention that this is an important newspaper in the UAE. I changed this to a PROD and posted on the talkpage that it needed to be demonstrated with reliable sources that the contention is true. This was deprodded with no appreciable evidence provided that this is in any way notable, so I'm nominating it for AfD. Isotope23 13:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 14:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply
I deleted this information from The Godfather article for these exact reasons. Now it's been split off into a completely different page. The article contains non-notable information references that other media has made to the films. So basically any time anyone says "I'm gonna make him an offer he can't refuse." or "Take the cannoli." it's detailed in this article. This information is trivial and unencyclopedic. Because it is essentially a trivia section in disguise, it violates WP:AVTRIV. I understand that it provides examples of the impact The Godfather has had on pop culture, which is why a few references should be given as an example within the main article (such as the frequent references within The Sopranos), however only as examples not the entire collage of every "that time that show had that guy who said that quote from The Godfather". The Filmaker 14:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The point is not necessarily the original research aspect (which I may have overemphasized to prove a point) or the fact that it lacks attribution as a whole, it's the fact that all that's being attributed to (or can be attributed to) is the work itself, and articles that merely cite the work itself can not stand on their own (this is basically an extrapolation of WP:NOT plot summaries). By attributing secondary sources as well, one is showing that the topic is notable for inclusion because experts and fans cite these comparisons. Wikipedia should be a tertiary source. Again, the point is not that all material attributed to the work itself is original research, it's that if it relies exclusively on the works, then it might not be notable for inclusion. From Wikipedia:Notability: "...to have an attributable article, a topic should be notable enough that the information about it will have been researched, checked, and evaluated through publication in independent reliable sources." Also, "topic can fail to satisfy the criteria because there are insufficient published works from reliable sources that are independent of the subject [in relation to the subject at hand; what is reliable in one topic, like a video game, may not be in another]. Without such sources, a proper encyclopedia article cannot be built at all. Such articles are usually nominated for deletion, via one of the Wikipedia deletion processes." Again, certain subtopics within an article, like plot summaries, obviously don't apply here. However, if at least a portion of this article does not adhere to these notability criteria, then the article's inclusion on Wikipedia is often questioned. And that is the case with "in popular culture" articles.
Let's put it in another perspective. An article just describing a character's plot role in a video game violates WP:NOT and will most likely lead to deletion or merge unless or until work is done. However, if that article is enhanced to include sections on how the character was designed (using, say, interviews and editorial columns on gaming sites), merchandise the character has spawned (action figures, etc), and how the character was received by gaming critics, then it can stand on its own as an encyclopedia article. Again, that can not be said about this list of times a line from the Godfather has been mentioned. Pillar one of the five pillars and WP:ENC help stress the purpose of Wikipedia as not involving collections like this. The reason many people are voting delete here is becuase we've been here many times in the past, and those situations have almost always resulted in deletion because nobody mentioned ways to turn it into a full article. Also, dogma is not formed by consensus; Wikipedia policy is. And because Wikipedia policy is built by consensus, that consensus can be changed. Just look at Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll for an example. — Deckill er 06:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy deleted. - Mailer Diablo 05:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Does not assert notability of subject. Contributions from one editor only who has no other edits so may be autobio Lou.weird 14:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Questionable notability school Guroadrunner 14:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete and make a category if someone wants to. John Reaves (talk) 03:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply
An AFD was considered in its talk page before, and the fact the school system is worldwide can be represented fine with the main article. List is full of "red" Wikipedia links which may encourage people to make non-notable school articles. Guroadrunner 14:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete has been transwikied. John Reaves (talk) 04:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Page is not being used for anything but project management. Wikipedia is not a forum, Wikipedia is not a webspace provider, and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It appears that this article might potentially end up violating Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising as well. Slavlin 14:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment Dear Slavlin, and Andrew: With "nurture networks" we (10 professionals in the field of development cooperation) intended to assemble our well based knowledge and experience on building, maintaining and e-facilitating online networks - with close connections to the fields of e-moderation (referring to leading international experts), to communties of practice, online communication tools (and to other already described key issues by wikipedia). It was definitely not our intention to maintain a workspace, to advertise something or to nurture group activities. Online collaboration has a powerful future - and it was our intention to assemble, to link and compile the already existing experiences and facts in a better way. Wikipedia - an encyclopedia - seemed us above all to be one of the best instruments to "construct new knowledge". But you are right, we do not have enough experience in "wikifying" - and all the requested procedures to pass your quality control system. I apologise too that one of us was removing your note about deletion. For us deleting everything would be the logical consequence, we've understood already. Is there any possibility to get guidance by one of you to make it - and to overcome the most important obstacles so that the content can remain here? Otherwise we would only like to ask you to give some days more that we can save all the linked content properly - before you delete it. Thanks a lot in advance and kind regards from the Alps, Julie nadja 18:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC) reply
NN Cisco exec: short resume, big picture. Also seems merely to be a promotional, CV-like page with no sources Baccyak4H ( Yak!) 15:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 05:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Press release. Prod contested. -- Ezeu 15:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Zero references. Zero google hits for Ajitasaurus. Zero google hits for Tragironosaur. Possibly WP:HOAX. Prod was removed by anonymous without explanation. ~a ( user • talk • contribs) 15:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to National Buffalo Wing Festival. WjB scribe 01:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Entire basis for article already covered by the event he created, the National Buffalo Wing Festival. Almost would consider a speedy delete because of NN, etc. Guroadrunner 15:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The page for "Shakir husain" seems to be a vanity entry on Wikipedia. There are no references or links, and no evidence to support any of the claims is offered. Whilst google produces a number of links to 'Shakir Husain', who may or may not be the person represented on the current entry for that name, this article is currently unencyclopaedic and as such I am suggesting that it be considered for deletion. The globetrotter 15:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC) reply
This is a non-notable biography of a musician that fails WP:A and WP:BIO/ WP:MUSIC. See talk page for lengthy attempts to scare up proper reliable sources to verify the article's claims. Notability claims hinge on Purl's "unclear" involvement with a non-notable hip hop group and a YouTube video that, while it featured some notable performers, has attracted no outside attention. Google search results are low: Starstruck Ricky Purl receives 122 uniques Google hits and none appear to be reliable sources. "Ricky Purl" & "Ricky D. Purl" are busts. The "Starstruck video on YouTube has been up for almost a year and received less than 1700 views. Scientizzle 16:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.-- Wizardman 05:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline - Seraphim Whipp 16:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Someone has made individual articles for each episode of season 1 for the television show 8 Simple Rules. However, the information contained in each is a duplicate of information already found at List of 8 Simple Rules episodes. For example, the same information at Wall of Shame (8 Simple Rules episode) is also inside the aforementioned list (see the listing for the second episode). I am proposing that all of the individual articles are deleted because the information is already neatly found on the list of episodes. I will handle the individual AFDs (or prods ?) for all if a "delete" consensus is reached. -- Guroadrunner 15:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Unsourced stub regarding non-notable cheerleader team. Time given to provide sources for "award-winning" claim, but no sources forthcoming StuartDouglas 16:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. -- Luigi30 ( Taλk) 13:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply
I belive this page may be a hoax. I am unable to find any reference to either of the people named on it. Shimaspawn 16:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:HOAX, WP:ATT, WP:MUSIC and probably WP:BULLSHIT as well. An article created by a single-purpose account about a purported music festival held in New Jersey in 2004 and claiming the attendance of numerous prominent groups. However, a directed Google search turns up zero relevant hits, there are no sources, and it contains such encyclopedic entries as "Events Rumored To Have Happened" and "Members of Skynet claim to be stuck in traffic, while they are actually in the parking lot across the street getting drunk." Notability tagged since November 2006, hasn't been touched since. The things you run into while clicking Random article.' RGTraynor 16:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. WjB scribe 01:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply
-- Postcard Cathy 16:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. WjB scribe 04:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC) reply
There is no assertation of notability, and little to be found. The article lacks verification and reliable sources to back up its claim of importance as an internet meme. Teke 17:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC) reply
The article reads like an advertisement. I couldn't glean notability from Google because of "noise," so I'm inviting Canadians to chime in on this. YechielMan 18:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete - notability was not asserted, advertisement. WjB scribe 01:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Procedural nomination. Someone gave this an afd1 but didn't know how to finish. The apparent reason to delete is that the article reads like an advertisement for a nonnotable product. YechielMan 20:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. Herostratus 14:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete - bodybuilding competitions are not notable based on who competed in them. Nor is Schwarzenegger's mere participation in an event automatically notable to him. Otto4711 19:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Merge most notable as per Masaruemoto, delete the rest
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC) reply
This is a clear example of crystal balling. 2009 is 2 years away, this article (along with the rest of the 2009 articles/cat) has no need to exist currently. RobJ1981 19:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable slang terminology OverlordQ 19:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. John Reaves (talk) 03:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Although the article is clearly not crystalballing, it is well sourced and does not claim to state what will happen during the eighth gen, i believe that there has not been enough improvement since the last time it was deleted, which can be found here. J.L.Main 19:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Yes, there might be little speculation in this page, but name any huge-sized page that doesn't have any speculation! It's true though, Apple would be a major competitor if they reentered. Why delete a page, and then have to re-make it? If you don't keep it, I recomend at least preserving a copy of it. Besides, up until a few months prior to release, the Xbox 360 was still the Xbox 2! AlexanderTG 22:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Shimeru 20:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC) reply
He's fathered a semi-notable person (currently up for deletion). That doesn't make him notable in any event. Carlossuarez46 20:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC) reply
In my opinion, this is a vanity page as the article creator admits to being Harry Max. A google search didn't turn up much on this person either. RobJ1981 20:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
No evidence that the subject meets Wikipedia:Notability (people). No references. The external links consist of the subject's own site, two art sites which appear to display images submitted by anyone, and one link which seems not to work. The author has removed importance and notability templates from the article without providing evidence of notability, despite being notified of the need for notability on his/her User talk:Dvie. EALacey 20:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC) reply
This is an overly broad topic. Also, there is a "Category:Plays by year" that does the same thing and better. Clarityfiend 20:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. WjB scribe 05:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC) reply
A hoax episode of SpongeBob SquarePants. The only source that could be found is a forum and that is just a copy of a revision on List of SpongeBob SquarePants episodes. This was previously prodded, but an IP address removed it. Squirepants101 21:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Mainly, the deletion reasons have been addressed. If anyone still wants this deleted, a new AfD should be started, so the article can be judged from the beginning in its improved state. Mango juice talk 15:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable wrestler. No assertion of notability. If this is deleted, Konan big (which redirects to it) should be deleted as well. TJ Spyke 21:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete non notable, I agree with PepsiPlunge, it's a shame to delete such great work.
Plasticbottle
06:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
*Delete I guess we can only hope that the author creates many more masterpieces to replace this one. I will always be grateful for the expansion of my Mexican Spanish vocabulary with the term "el mariconcito".
Suriel1981
12:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result was redirect. I'm choosing Christianity and Islam because there is actually content there, as opposed to Islamic comparative religion. If you don't like it, be bold and improve upon my choice. Mango juice talk 15:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply
this article does not have any content that is attributed to reliable sources after two years. It is not a notable topic, and it is a clear POV fork. It should also be noted that the previous Afd does not discuss notability or whether this is a POV fork. Sefringle 22:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep and Cleanup. Ryanjunk 15:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply
This article is clearly not NPOV on grounds of religious bias - see Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Bias. IMHO it is so heavily influenced throughout by a particular point of view that it is unsalvageable andy 22:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Deleted by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prhizzm, relisted, no consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prhizzm (second nomination).
This is an artist whose work (such as it is, there is not much) is mainly self-published. There are no significant external sources in the article. According to the subject (who has edited the article) he has yet to release a single full-length album. Keep arguments at last AfD look suspiciously like WP:IHEARDOFHIM, I see no evidence that this artist meets the primary notability criterion. Even Alkivar, who has seen him perform, advocated deletion. -- Guy ( Help!) 22:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Nomination Withdrawn. EliminatorJR Talk 00:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC) reply
This article is an autobiography about some childrens. Martial BACQUET 22:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. WjB scribe 05:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Here we have a scientist who dissents from the mainstream view of gravitaiton and dark matter - a relativity dissident. There is precisely one external source, which discusses him along with other dissidents. There are no cited independent sources of which he is primary subject. He seems to be mildly popular with certain pseudoscience proponents and fringe bloggers, but that is about it. The subject seems to be one of the few who is well-informed on the subject, and has resorted to editing himself as user:Supergenius66. Guy ( Help!) 22:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC) reply
This article is a good example of crystal balling. Purely just a schedule as of now, and can't be expanded much more. How about we wait until a lot later for this? I don't see why people are in such a rush to make 2008 (and even 2009) articles. RobJ1981 22:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Daniel Bryant 05:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:BIO - not yet played league football and U-17 is a boys, not a notable, level - Delete. Bridgeplayer 23:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Not notable Epbr123 23:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted under criterion WP:CSD#A7; no assertion of notability. – Riana talk 02:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC) reply
I only saw the {{ AFD}} template on the page with no link to discussion, so I'll nominate it. This page is possible web vanity that fails WP:WEB, and is not notable. I can't even find it on google. -- AAA! ( AAAA) 23:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Not notable. Epbr123 23:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. WjB scribe 05:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Reluctant nomination - this page has been a one-line content free stub for two three years. I don't see how it could be expanded, other than by turning it into a long indiscriminate list, since each story would presumably have its own entry. However, there's not a single folktale actually listed that I can find, and given the time elapsed, it seems unlikely that anyone's planning on adding any. Besides, even if it were kept it would probably be better as
Chinese folktales, since that's the phrase actually used in the text. -
Iridescenti
(talk to me!)
23:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result was keep. WjB scribe 05:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Unsourced nonsense page for a supposed secret society of media personalities. Fails WP:NFT, WP:ATT, at least. Speedy deletion tag removed by an anon. Resolute 23:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Searching for this name yields only a football player, even when specifically searching in relation to the EA game in question. For lack of sources, I have to treat it as a hoax, and furthermore the article is marginally POV.
The result was keep. WjB scribe 05:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Does not contain any valuable information. BlackBear 12:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete A7. -- ais523 10:27, 26 April 2007 ( U T C)
Not notable WP:BIO Helmsb 20:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Crystal-ballism - No confirmation that this will be a single. Suggest redirect to album page until confirmed with source. - eo 21:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.-- cj | talk 17:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Crystal-ballism - No confirmation or source that will will be a single. Also titled incorrectly per naming convenions ("single" instead of "song"). Suggest redirect to album page. - eo 21:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus. -- Luigi30 ( Taλk) 16:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Singer whose claim to fame is performing at anime conventions. However, she's signed to a non-notable label, the article reads like a profile and not an encyclopedia article, and outside the four albums, two of which Amazon has not heard of (one of the albums isn't out yet), the article doesn't assert any kind of notability. It's here due to the discography, since that probably counts as such an assertion. Core desat 22:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Not Notable as per WP:BIO, Google only returned a page with his company on it. Latulla 21:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Punkmorten 17:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
This is a screaming conflict of interest. The article creator's username is similar to the person mentioned in the text, which is basically an advertisement for her venture. I'm listing it here because she removed the prod notice. YechielMan 19:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can be userfied if requested. WjB scribe 01:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC) reply
TV producer. Most likely autobiography. No sign of significant, reliable third-party coverage and seems to fail WP:BIO Pascal.Tesson 15:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Two mentions does not qualify as multiple non-trivial independent coverage. Guy ( Help!) 14:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Christian trumpeter. Authorship by user:Twwebster suggests a strong WP:COI. Is he notable? -- RHaworth 14:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Low budget film still in production. No assertion of notability. -- RHaworth 14:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Shimeru 18:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
It is not apparent that this page serves any more than a spot through which an advertising directory could receive more traffic. Keesiewonder talk 13:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC) reply
* Keep per
WP:WEB, and reasons brought forward in
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Finda, as it stands finda is a valid competitor to
Trade Me, it is well known, but the name isn't as sticky as Trade Me, also note, reference #1, could technically be called bias due to same parent company, and hence cannot be considered independant for
WP:WEB Criteria #1, however the remaining 3 references, are from my knowledge independant. --
NigelJ
talk
11:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result was no consensus. WjB scribe 00:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete - there do not appear to be independent reliable sources attesting to the subject's notability. Otto4711
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. Fails WP:BIO. There is only one source for his one TV appearance, a simple announcement [7]. Many of the 29 Google hits for "Shane Johnson" "comfort zone" (one of his comics) [8] are not about him and his comic. Only one hit for Shane Johnson and Fratstic (another comic of his). [9] Seems to be a student cartoonist who has not yet established any name in the professional cartooning world. Fram 10:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Paloma Walker 03:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The actual importance of this café is not supported by sources, while in the latter part the article looks and feels like spam for their publishing activity. The unique contributor to the article, Contributions/Poetry62 is also a contributor (often the main or unique one) to several articles about authors published by Giubbe Rosse: Menotti Lerro, qualified as "the youngest author of the Giubbe Rosse's collection" (which I am going to propose for speedy deletion after this debate), Silvano Zoi (similar to the previous one), Vittorio Vettori and several other ones of dubious notability. Goochelaar 11:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC) reply
My opinion
Dear friend, my idea of project was to improuve all the authours as much as possible. I love my town: Florence, I love Giubbe Rosse, and I love poets.
The reason because I improuved more one article than others is because Lerro has many pages on internet talking of him and also because I use to read his poetry, considering him a young and clever author and if Giorgio Bàrberi Squarotti (the main italian critic) and Roberto Carifi affirm it, I think we can trust them...
Well, about the notability of Giubbe Rosse... If you read the page about Eugenio Montale you will find also the word Giubbe Rosse inside, claiming the important and historical role it played in Italy and for our literature. Moreover in the actual 'collana Giubbe Rosse' is published the book of Mario Luzi (the most important italian writer we had in the last 50 years), and if Luzi published his last book here before to die, I think there is probably a reason...
My Idea was - when I had time - to improuve as much as possible - all the Giubbe Rosse's authors and some one I think could also help to improuve it, as happen for many stubs...
In conclusion, I just want invite you, before to affirm about the "dubious notability of Vittorio Vettori", to do some more search about this author because his notability is impossible to hide.
The same we can still say about Manlio Sgalambro and others.
Best regards
Poetry 62— Preceding unsigned comment added by Poetry62 ( talk • contribs)
The result was keep. WjB scribe 04:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Conflict of interest and questionable notability. The creator and major editor of this article (apart from a couple of IP editors) is
Edgarszilde who is a member of the band. Band doesn't have an website, only a MySpace (99 friends, 1191 profile views), their MySpace lists this article as their website.
Google gets 161 hits, a lot of which relate to the other members' projects or are to buy/download their music. Only claims of notability are radio airplay and music video screenings in Latvia; winning the Grand Prix of the biggest rock music festival in the Baltic States "Liepajas Dzintars" (whatever that means); and winning two prestigious Latvian Music Awards in 2003 (Best instrumental album of the Year and the best debut award) misread, award was for side project album. But still... it's so conflict of interest! If this article goes, can someone delete the album articles and all the images too.
kollision
10:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
Answer: First of all, it seems that the conflict of interest is based on the lack of knowledge on music scene in the Baltic States. It is important for me to educate the reader that the population of Latvia is less then 4 million. Only 60% of whom are Latvian origin. This concludes that bands popularity and importance in this country can not be based on millions of webpage hits. This alternative band self releases its recordings, therefore does not depend on any music companies and is respected only by smaller group of people. Of course "whatever that means" music festival, as you call it, in readers home town, assuming it is Texas or even NY, is without any significance, but lets not forget that www is created for everyone in the world and not just for Canada or the US. This band is significant in its region and culture, therefore it is also important that anybody in the world can access this information. Thank you. Is Wikipedia MTV, FOX and Hollywood representative, or informative and educational internet portal? What is critical here? To write about popular but ordinary pop stars who have their own webpages (payed by companies) and millions of google hits, or educate people about more significant and sapid cultural activities of the world?
Notability:
As I read through the notability list, Satellites LV has had several charted hits, shows abroad, full albums, singles, newspaper and other printed media articles and interviews. I must add that Satellites LV includes in itself many musical projects who have released records in Russia and Japan. Satellites LV is more considred a group of active (10 years) and mutually conected musicians rather than just an ordinary band. It has won awards and has received positive reviews from critics. Satellites LV is notable in its region. Most of the information online is in Latvian, therefore unavailable to you. About self promotion: This article does not advertise any websites or new albums, singles, posters, t-shirts, or any other merchandise. It has been added clearly only for information purposes.
Attribution:
Satellites LV with their side project Kuba - http://cdbaby.com/cd/kuba http://www.post-rock.lv/lat.htm#sat http://www.tvnet.lv/izklaide/article.php?id=479775 http://www.tvnet.lv/izklaide/music/Video/article.php?id=5874 http://www.doremi.lv/index.php?genre=7&artist=387&album=0&show_album=1
So, what happens now? Am I allowed to delete this and improve the site? What are the steps?
Edgars
The result was delete. Punkmorten 17:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
No evidence of notability, page is almost empty, not convinced it is neutral. Shame, it is a completely inoffensive article, but for the reasons mentioned I don't think it belongs in Wikipedia. Robinson weijman 10:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete as your every day MySpace musician— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍) 08:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC) reply
In my opinion, doesn't assert sufficient notability. Lack of references and sources, as well. Daniel Bryant 07:39, 20 March 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}} . |
KeepI saw him perform with Wynton Marsalis and Dave Samuels both grammy winners. So i think there is sufficient notability. just lackings in references and sources in my oppinion 74.195.240.49 17:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Keep. Joke nomination.-- Hús ö nd 03:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Non notable meme, possibly fun-craft. Shipsnote 03:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.-- Wizardman 21:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Failed candidate for the Texas state seat. Since he did not win, he is not notable. WhisperToMe 03:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Malcolm Use the schwartz! 00:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Article about improv group. No references, no claim to notability, reads like an ad for Monday nights at the George and Dragon Restaurant. Future Fun Jumper (TIC) 00:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Recreation of page deleted on March 4. Subject is not notable per WP:BIO Mwelch 00:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Editors, Harry T. Pringle was deleted some two weeks ago. However, it has six secondary links plus the obituary. Is he not notable? If not, then just kindly delete it again. Otherwise, I vote Keep.
````— Preceding unsigned comment added by Billy Hathorn ( talk • contribs)
The result was delete.-- cj | talk 18:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Article on a MMORPG deleted for a lack of notability for internet materials via a low participation Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kings of Chaos. That deletion was initially endorsed by the first deletion review, in which participation was equally thin. At a second deletion review, the consensus was to relist so the Washington Post article that wasn't discussed in the first AFD can be evaluated. This is a technical nomination on my part, I have no opinion. GRBerry 01:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 16:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete: Biased and not notable. Teh Original Mr. Orange (Orange juice?) 01:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC) reply
I was going to mark this as a speedy, but then I reconsidered and instead added a {{notability}} tag. The author removed the tag and rewrote the article so that it reads more like an advertisement, and left a note on the talk page telling people not to "vandalize" the article. While this could be real, it looks suspicious. JuJube 01:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Let me start by saying this is not an advertisement i just like the idea of secret shows and i think it should have a wiki. Secondly as some of this may be subjective, which can be changed, it is all from the MySpace Secret Shows page. Lastly why would u delete a perfectly good article just because it needs some touching up. After all the more articles the better and i assure you all of this has sources even the qoute: "it is notable for bringing great bands to small towns" is from the official page. P.S. myspace secret shows IS real. o ya and sry for deleting the notice i was just mad u (or someone else deleted the page b4 it was even finished. Martini833 02:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Well it's definately notable for more reasons. It has famous bands. Over 38 shows and has been running smoothly for more than a year. It is definately as notable as any event in the music scene and saying that it's not because they are "secret" is just like saying things that haven't come out yet and are not announced shouldnt be on wikipedia.. Martini833 02:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
OK if you can give me three logical reason why this is NOT notable instead of trying to counter everything I say then I will admit it is not notable and you can take over. And by the way if i dont think it's logical than sorry no way is this article being deleted without a "notable" (hahaha used ur word) reason. Anyway i worked so hard on it and it is my first full fledged aricle so could u find out the facts (or just read the article cus the facts are all there) youll see that this is no advertisement and it is all *(dare i say) notably correct. BTW this was really hard to do with the wikipedia code i wasnt familiar with so...... STOP ruining a perfectly good article. And again the more articles the better (as long as they have facts which you can cjeck out here www.myspace.com/secretshows. Martini833 02:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Thank you for not taking my above comment angrily. But anyways other sources can be found. But i couldnt just do that right now. I'll do that in some time. But why would you want to delete it. Check the sources. And if you could find others that find it notable that would be nice. Thank you again for not taking this aggresively. Martini833 02:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
P.S. Waiting for sources do not delete until proven to be unnotable etc. Martini833 02:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Let me just say I have a life and I cant just stay on the computer protecting this article. Anyway if you google myspace secret shows you"ll find non-myspace sources about the shows. I have checked and to my surprise (not really) they were indeed there. Martini833 02:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC) P.S. i hope you saw this< Keep. Sources on MySpace Secret Shows can be found,> Martini833 02:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC) Block quote reply
Not to sound rude but, why don't you just google it and find them for yourself i dont have time I'm about to leave the computer but would like to know what is going on in the discussions page. Martini833 02:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
How about this. From Wikipedia w/e "WHY DON'T YOU" you're the one that cares... and i think you know this by now MySpace Secret Shows is real and the article is fine. You just don't have anything else to do but delete things because it probably makes you feel good. How about u delete your ****ing profile and leave a good article (in this case myspace secret shows) alone. GAH you got me to tht level were im p***ed off. Thnk you
I know this is not personal but ur this close to making it! anyway wy dont you delete an article like that article on georgian martial arts. Martini833 03:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
KEEP If you havnt noticed they are not that secret. Before u comment read the actual article. and before you ask someone to check their facts wy dont u check the article first (cus the facts are all there)
Martini833 20:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
o ya and wy dont u just rewrite it if its such a big problem that it sounds much like an ad (which it isnt)
Martini833
20:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
OK. Leebo you really, Really, REALLY, REALLY need to get a life. Do you have any other activities in your life because to me you're on 24/7. Basically I've been on once a day at a specific time and you've been online (probably ticking people off) all day (and night long. So again
GET A LIFE and get a job and MOVE OUT OF
YOUR MOM'S BASEMENT —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
Martini833 (
talk •
contribs).
How many times do i have to say I am not an advertiser or a spammer Martini833 22:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC) reply
I know that this is the internet and I can't PROVE it but ill let u know im under the age of 14 and cant even get a job at Publix much lesss an ad company. anyway i do not spam i just made my first article on one of my interests so if u think my above comments were rude I'm sorry but feel free to reformat or rewrite or rephrase the article so it sounds like an encyclopedic entry. also dont delete it because it is well written and let me tell you ive seen much worse that hasnt been dleted example: Rancho Verde High School of course u wouldnt delete that because it is yours. and about the references feel free to add them yourself because the rest of the work was mine and it is ALL true and found on their webpage. anyway back to the advertisement/spam issue ive spoken to an admin about this to give me a way to straighten ths out... Martini833 22:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)P.S. im not a newbie this is just my first full fledge article ive done a lot of productive editing and the format is that of the Simpsons Comics and you are free to change it if u have a good reason Martini833 22:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC) reply
could someone please rewrite this to sound less like an ad. Martini833 21:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC) reply
After minor rephrasing for this page not to look like an ad this page should be updated by taking off the deletion notice because I have found an article that confirms its notability: "MySpace.com announced today it will commemorate the first birthday of the community's most popular franchise, Secret Shows presented by Chili's, by launching an alliance with Best Buy. Under the deal, MySpace Secret Show artists will receive promotion in more than 550 Best Buy stores nationwide." -ClearStation. Anyways if anyone would like to comment on this or edit this or see the full article please do. Article: http://clearstation.etrade.com/cgi-bin/bbs?post_id=7923196 o ya and http://www.newscorp.com/news/news_318.html Martini833 23:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC) reply
the first one is a press release the other is an article like you ppl asked for from a notable source so i REALLLLLLLLLLLLYYYYYYYYY think the deletion should be (hahah) deleted Martini833 00:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment yes the first one is written about the us ones and is by clearchannel which is nOT affiliated with myspae secret shows the first one is not a press release it's an article BY clear channel Martini833 00:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC) reply
no the description of myspace is by myspace not the actual article Martini833 00:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC) reply
well wat more do you want to keep this article there seems to be more and more that you want evrerytime i add something. Martini833 01:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC) reply
no offense orangemike but u are sooooooooooooooo late 65.11.27.42 19:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Article does not cite sources, contains no background, etc. Use the force ( Talk * Contribs) 01:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Shimeru 18:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Might be something worth adding eventually but this is just WP:OR with very little context and alot of POV. Peter Rehse 01:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Article does not cite sources, does not provide baackground, etc. Use the force ( Talk * Contribs) 01:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 05:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC) reply
not notable; promotional Tom Harrison Talk 02:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC) reply
dipusted PROD for student film that makes no assertion of notability Cornell Rockey 02:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. WjB scribe 00:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply
The term does not seem to be officially acknowledged let alone notable, and only seems to exist at all in relation to a single website and Yahoo group of Australian Origin Zeraeph 02:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect to Toyota Corolla. Shimeru 18:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
This article is unnecessary; its information is already in the Toyota Corolla article. Butterfly0fdoom 03:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. — bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC) reply
This is what categories are for, Category:Television shows set in Nevada already covers this subject adequately. A sub-caegory can be created if necessary, though it doesn't appear to be needed. Saikokira 03:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Notability not established or sourced per WP:CORP, WP:MUSIC. RJASE1 Talk 03:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. -- Luigi30 ( Taλk) 16:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Snake bgd 10:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Snake bgd 12:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Apparently someone's idea for a dream anime series. Non-existent, has no reliable sources to even indicate it's existence, much less any notability. Google search for "Armada Knights" brings up 9 hits, none of which are about an animed series by that name. NeoChaosX ( talk, walk) 04:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete as attack page, or at least a bio with no assertion of notability. Heimstern Läufer 05:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Blatant attack article on a nn person. Speedy tag was removed by an IP editor. janejellyroll 04:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy close: mistaken nomination: the same person, articles to be merged, not deleted. Mukadderat 05:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
This is the same individual as in the article Manuel Chrysoloras. This spelling is either an uncommon variant or a misspelling. It is given in the Catholic Encylopedia article, which I just edited and posted on Wikipedia. The other article, besides having the preferred spelling, is also more complete. Rbraunwa 04:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. WjB scribe 01:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Notability not established or sourced per WP:WEB. RJASE1 Talk 05:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Keep. MedHelp is notable and should stay on Wikipedia for 3 reasons. 1. It was founded in 1994 and is one of the first Healthcare community sites on the Internet. It precedes by several years, sites such as WebMD, Revolution Health and HealthBoards, all of which have articles on Wikipedia. 2. According to media measurement services such as HitWise and CommScore it is among the Top 10 largest healthcare online healthcare communities on the Internet, with 2.5 million users per month. 3. Several MedHelp articles have been referenced by wikipedia authors in their articles on topics such as Dyshidrosis, Proteinuria etc. Fdesouza 05:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted by Jimfbleak. MER-C 10:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Asserts significance, so cannot be speedy deleted, however I don't the significance asserted is sufficient for the person to warrant encyclopedia article. Furthermore, it appears to be self-authored. – Qxz 05:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep, no consensus.. -- Luigi30 ( Taλk) 13:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete Episode articles yes, clip shows no. What surprises me is when I listed this for AfD I found an earlier AfD here that had a strong consensus to delete, but the closing admin ignored this and no one took it to DRV. Ned Scott 05:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete Claiming a recap episode as noteable in any way is way out there. Jtrainor 04:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Del as clean-cut original research. While Therianthropy survived its vote for deletion on shaky grounds as a term traced 100 years ago and a modern 'net subculture, this taxonomy article is complete OR. The provided references do speak about lycantropy, verevolves, etc., but they don not say about theriantropy, hence, the whole article is 100% original fancruft to be deleted. Mukadderat 05:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. ♠ P M C♠ 16:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Spam No sources given to prove notability, does not meet WP:ORG. — Ocatecir Talk 06:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. References added during the course of the debate. WjB scribe 01:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC) reply
So its a furry comic book, and the article is totally unreferenced (and has been for months), and doesn't even give a hint as to whether this meets any notability guidelines. Delete, per WP:ATT and WP:N K @ng i e meep! 06:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. WjB scribe 04:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC) reply
A7:This person lacks notability according to Wikipedia guidelines and consensus. CA387 06:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted by Commander Keane. MER-C 10:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Nonsense redirect. — Ocatecir Talk 06:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Fails notability standard Silver seraph 06:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Shimeru 19:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
NN, with suspected COI (almost all edits are by User:Francoco, which appears to be a single-purpose account. Has an IMDB entry, so probably not proddable, but that entry consists of a number of minor bit-parts and that's all. Grutness... wha? 06:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Shimeru 19:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Article lacks notability. CA387 07:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Shimeru 19:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Vanity page. The subject of this article does not meet notability guidelines. CA387 08:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Majorly (o rly?) 14:44, 4 April 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}} . |
This article is a grotesque violation of the subject's copyright. It is a 32 kb+ step-by-step summary of a film series, and I do not know how to even begin to reduce this to something reasonable. I think the best thing to do is wipe it and start over.
WP:FICT does not like this article. Nor do
WP:WAF or
WP:NOT.
Chris Griswold (
☎
☓)
06:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
substitute for reading the manga. DaoKaioshin 14:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete as it consist of nothing but a plot summary (see WP:FICT). -- Whpq 17:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Keep/Spilt i think this article may be two long and much controversy because of its usefulness to many users but i think recoomending it for deletion is a rash descision... A wikiproject may be in order to help fix this article. Spilting in to seprate parts can help as well. On another hand i think a good idea would be to trim the Sections to less detail after the episode pertaining to that section is released which can greatly shorten the article over time. Reccomding this for deletion isnt something to take lightly because its two long copyright violation doesnt seem like a pertaining issue as it just records without posting content. if you posted the manga here i assume it would be a different story Matthew2c4u 20:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Article has been considerably improved and referenced since the nomination. WjB scribe 04:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Original research, personal essay, term appears to be made-up. >Radiant< 08:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Bobet 11:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Obvious hoax, and possible attack page. EALacey 08:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was withdrawn. >Radiant< 08:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC) reply
A cricket player who uses psychic power to win matches. "The source of his psychic powers is his mitt, which he carries around with him any time." Also he knows chinese proverbs and mispronounces people's names. Sounds rather hoaxy to me. >Radiant< 08:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. WjB scribe 01:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply
This is just not a plastic surgeon who meets any standard of notability with my field to merit inclusion. He is a somewhat obscure super-teriary specialist with no signifigant academic work or career publishing in our journals. There are some nice elements of the procedures he does that could possibly be merged into some of the other transgender related surgery articles, but Dr. Meltzer himself I feel doesn't really meet the standards of whom I understand wikipedia intends to include Droliver 07:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was SPEEDY DELETE, CSD G11.
Postdlf
22:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
Delete: No evidence or even assertion of notability; article reads like promotional piece for the company (a large swathe of it is a blatant copy of http://www.fbmc-benefits.com/corp_profile.asp ). There may be a case for an article on this company if anyone cares to establish its notability, but this is not that article. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 09:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. WjB scribe 01:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply
This claims to be a common motif in literature, but the term, referring to daughters who betray their father, does not seem to be in widespread use in the sense described here. I suggest deletion on the grounds of original research. Nydas (Talk) 09:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Rlevse 14:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC) (delete, delete, redir per anville. Rlevse 14:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Also nominated per reason below:
I believe these articles are nearly a speedy deletion under A1, as they contain little context regarding currently established articles, refering to what links here, the pages are interlinked, but do not contain links from other articles ( Eigenmode is an exception, due to articles discussing optical signals have linked to this article (until March 19, Eigenmode was a redirect to Normal mode [17]), in which case, I think a revert back to edit 54023351 would be a much better alternative to deletion. In addition, all three article have been tagged with templates such as {{ Unreferenced}}, {{ context}}, {{ OR}} and {{ Uncategorized}}, Marc Widdowson has been the sole human editor of all 3 articles. NigelJ talk 09:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Shimeru 19:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
event was one of many thousands of annual gatherings of lots of Christians around the world. Current sources are the website of the event itself, and a tiny mention in the local press. Note that there was no national press coverage, and the local coverage was minmal. If anything, this deserves a small mention in the Oxford Martyrs or Martyrs' Memorial article. Certainly not werll enough sourced or notable enough for its own article. Batmanand | Talk 10:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
This is merely a dictionary definition with no hope of becoming a genuine article. Contested prod. MER-C 10:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted by UtherSRG. -- Elkman (Elkspeak) 15:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Vanispamcruftisement which fails WP:BIO as non-notable sportsman. Contested prod. MER-C 10:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Notability rather questionable, and significant conflict of interest problems. Zetawoof( ζ) 10:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete g4, reposted, nothing new. NawlinWiki 15:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Vanity piece. Deleted previously, notability not risen since. Gekedo 11:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete per CSD G7. Xoloz 03:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Although undoubtedly notable among the university's students, I don't feel this guitarist is notable enough for an entry. Yes, has been playing for 28 years, but only live and in a small area. Google search brings up few sites, but nothing beyond that that would be given to a small group playing live gigs. Gekedo 19:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Undelete.At what point does one reach "Wikipedia status"? Is it a quantitative "they are known by x number of people" or is it something more complex? While I understand the spirit behind the deletion of pages, I feel that given the vastness of wikipedia it cannot be compared to a simple encyclopedia. I'm sure it is a great feat to have your name written up in Brittanica, for example, but should it be as difficult to be written up in wikipedia? These are not simply rhetorical questions, as I really would like to know peoples thoughts about this. I haven't been editing for that long so I'm still trying to figure things out. Je at uwo 20:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Je at uwo. Take a look at WP:BIO for an explantion of what is required to get listed on Wikipedia scope_creep 20:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Rick McGhie has attained a cult status at one of the largest universities in Canada. There is not one student who has walked the campus who doesn't know of his musical stylings. Rick McGhie has a a place in the heart of 25 000 students and hundreds of thousands of Alumni. I've seen things on Wikipedia that are far more meager or irrelevant than this entry. I think it should stay. 24.42.118.206 20:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Undelete.I would argue this, Kinu, with reference to WP:MUSIC. The seventh entry of this policy would apply here as Rick McGhie is a prominant example of a local scene of the University of Western Ontario. 129.100.180.234 21:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC) reply
This article is obviously a sarcastic hoax. Look at the author's contributions at Talk:Christianity if you aren't sure. Born2x 11:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge. — bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply
This is a page about a stillborn child on a soap opera that was never even given a legal name. Since there are already pages that have been created for the child's parents, information relating to the child could easily be incorporated onto those pages. D'Amico 11:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 05:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC) reply
WP:SPAM, none encyclopedic, has to be Deleted-- Greatestrowerever 23:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Daniel Bryant 05:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The player played just in Malta but hasn't played in any professional league. He played for one of the weakest national teams in Europe but just in qualification round since he is from a weak country like Malta but not to any euro or World Cup final phase. And his team nothing better than last position!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by KRBN ( talk • contribs)
The result was No consensus to delete. This was a tough one to close. A significant portion of the "keep" comments made did not cite policy, and seemed to border on WP:ILIKEIT. However, even discounting these, I couldn't find consensus to delete; WP:NEO is a guideline, and I don't feel comfortable asserting WP:IAR to apply it to this article when I couldn't find consensus to delete in the first place. This close places no prejudice against renominations of the article, and I strongly caution User:Davidhc to remain civil, constructive, and non-argumentative in future AfD debates. Badgering editors with views different than your own with incivil commentary is not acceptable. — bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Not notable, neologism, full of OR, does not cite sources other than blogs, all relevant content about the term is at Atrios already. Croctotheface 07:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Editors and Publishers Just to give one example of a secondary source: Along with the listing on the main page for the Friedman Unit, there is in individual entry in discussion page on the use of the term in an article in the print edition of Editors and Publishers. This article, you can read an excerpt included in the discussion, acknowledges that the term is widely used and is accurate in its description. This is all that is needed to verify the term Friedman Unit and keep this entry. The whole point of a secondary source is to find a reliable source (in this case a print article that was written by professional journalists and approved by professional editors) that documents the use of the term. The purpose of a secondary source is to provide documentation of existence, not act as proof of existence in itself. If you have any proof that the Editors and Publishers is not a professional print media, or that the article is a hoax, then please I would like to see it. Also, please read the article and the article's comments page before you post here and vaguely claim that reliable sources do not exist, because both the article and the discussion reliable secondary sources clearly. Davidhc 22:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Here is just one of the many sound arguments on the FU talk page, all of which apparently need to be copied into here if critics are not willing to engage in good faith discussion:
Again, that's just one of many dozens of sound arguments for keeping this article, despite any doubts raised on first-glance. Eugene Banks 08:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC) reply
What's the best protocol, should all discussion on this be placed here (copied here -- as only a small portion of the anti-delete arguments have been so far), or left on the article's Talk page? I'm increasingly suspecting that the arguments for deletion are a disguised form of POV, most likely relating to the highly contentious Iraq war. E.g.:
Multiple non-trivial sources There seems to be a lot of confusion over examples that people bring up in discussion and the examples that are in the article. (If you have good examples of the use of the term, please add them to the article.) The sources currently cited in the article are:
If you want to delete this article, then you are going to have to prove why ALL of these sources do not meet the non-trivial guidelines (I would say most of them are way above the criteria for non-trivial). You can not just go on slamming the Huffington Post or examples that are not in the main article and then say there is no notability. Please stick to the text. Davidhc 16:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC) reply
This article is legitimate as determined by the wikipedia guidelines and so it shoudl be kept. The "multiple non-trivial sources" given in this article prove that this article is a legitimate entry in Wikipedia. Wikipedia guidelines do a good job of making sure that articles are not hoaxes or inventions of their editors or made for the pure purpose of pushing neologisms that are not already widespread (by that I mean a neologism that is an invention of the editor). The Friedman Unit is a fact that exists outside of the context of this article, as the sources given in the article prove, and this article does an excellent job of presenting an encyclopedic summary of that fact to the general public. There is nothing more that you can ask of an encyclopedia. Davidhc 21:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment: Last night I went through the first 500 google-hits on the term "Friedman Unit." Out of that 500, there was exactly one link that constituted a reliable source, and it is already in the article. Perhaps more crucially, there were also almost 100 mirrors of the Wikipedia article, and at least 50 more that said "Wikipedia defines...." And of course WP was #1 and #2 on the google-hit parade. In other words - Wikipedia's entry is directly or indirectly responsible for 150 out of 500 of the top google-hits on this term. It certainly looks to me that WP:NEO is an issue here. Risker 23:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC) reply
An experiment: This may seem like overkill, but I ran a quick test of my own because this is an issue that is important to ALL entries in wikipedia. I ran three variations of google searches for the Friedman Unit to see how it faired alone, with, and without wikipedia in the search criteria using the search terms:
1) "Friedman Unit" 2) "Friedman Unit" wikipedia 3) "Friedman Unit" -wikipedia
The results were as follows:
Friedman Unit alone: 259,000 (Wikipedia entry was first hit) with: 587 without: 261,000
(NOTE: if you run Friedman Unit without the quotes you get over 1.5 million hits)
To get a random sample of wikipedia to compare it to, I hit the "random article" link five times and did the same test on the pages it gave me. The results were as follows:
Thottiyam alone: 546 (wikipedia first hit) with wikipedia: 92 without wikipedia: 510
Air transports of heads of state alone: 226 (wikipedia second hit) with: 154 without: 64
Yamaha DX7 alone: 127,000 (wikipedia 3rd hit) with: 963 without: 118,000
Music at Work alone: 77,900 (wikipedia 6th hit) with: 553 without: 73,100
Enfield Town F.C. alone: 559 (wikipedia 3rd hit) with: 226 without: 508
As you can see, ALL the entries came up with wikipedia in the top 10 hits. Also, the Friedman Unit has by far the best ratio of with to without than any of the five random entries, which means that by the argument given above, we would have to delete ALL of these entries, and I am sure many more. The reason wikipedia shows up is not because of the popularity of any given article, but because of the popularity of wikipedia in general. When people want a source to link a topic in their web page, they link to wikipedia. All the copycat sites know this, and so they farm off the wikipedia entries to get traffic. Hence there is a big difference between a site that mirrors the wikipedia article and someone saying "as defined by wikipedia" in their web page. Making the argument that a wikipedia page is somehow pushing a neologism only applies if that term does not exist anywhere else but in wikipedia. The multiple non-trivial sources given in the article on the Friedman unit prove that the term is in wide use without the help of the article. Davidhc 17:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Keep. It's out there, it's in use, it's a popular concept. I don't understand the urge to strip Wikipedia of articles. Nor do I understand people who contribute to an online encyclopedia that anybody can edit turning up their noses at blogs. Vidor 04:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete - The article cites many cases of people saying things will happen in 6 months, 3 months, 6-9 months etc. It cites no use (except by a blogger) of the term itself. If some one can come up with a citable use of the term 'Friedman unit' itself, they should do so and add it to the article. Otherwise it is a mere neologism. Peterkingiron 13:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Keep. Re: neologisms. Since this seems to be the main focus of requests for deletion, I've synthesized some of these points here, with minor improvements/ clarifications/ rejoinders. I hope this is OK with others. (My apologies in advance if not, I'm not trying to claim credit for these, nor put words in the original commenters' mouths, nor just repeat them. I'm trying to move the discussion forward.) BipDeBop 19:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC) reply
BipDeBop 19:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment. I'm no longer going to attempt to engage in the specifics of the debate here. If editors are going to insist that an article that mentions a term for one sentence is "about" the term, I don't really think that there's much hope for arriving at any kind of common ground. It seems to me that most of the arguments in favor of keeping amount to "it's important" or "I like it", which, obviously, are not the same as notability. I want to repeat, for probably the second or third time, that any and all relevant information about this term can be presented at Atrios and, potentially, Thomas Friedman. The current page can become a redirect. Nothing of value will be lost in doing this: this is not an attempt to erase the term. It simply does not meet the standards required to have its own Wikipedia article. Croctotheface 13:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
When I originally merged I used the following arguments. I consider them still to be valid and I still think the article should be deleted and a summary merged with Atrios.
WP:NEO does not apply solely to terms coined for or on Wikipedia:
WP:SYN discourages the collation of various unrelated sources to advance an original argument:
In addition, and importantly:
There are far better places for such research than Wikipedia. WP:NOT Lexis-Nexis.
This really belongs in either list of political epithets or in the Atrios article for these reasons. An expansive article on the term is unwarranted and really not greatly suitable for an encyclopedia.
Chris Cunningham 14:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Thank you Croctotheface, Risker, and Dhartung for changing your position from delete to keep with edits. If there is now a consensus to keep the article, then I think it is time to end the deletion debate and move back to the normal editing discussion on the article's talk page. If you would like to edit the article, however, please refrain from deleting large sections without reaching a consensus through the proper discussions. Davidhc 17:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Don't Take the law into your own hands We have not heard back from Dhartung, but if you all are still strongly for deletion, then your efforts to erase large sections of the article currently under debate in the absence of any consensus over those sections, can only be interpreted as having the intent to override the AfD procedures. It is important to note that there was no "editing" involved, only "white blanking" whole sections of the article along with their external references. Once more, the table section that was deleted was not debated in these pages. Much of the debate centered on the references in the body of the text, not the table. If you have issues with the table, then I suggest that we end the deletion debate and move back to editing, or that you debate the contents of the table in this discussion, and keep pushing for deletion. However, if you want the article deleted, then you are going to have to either wait for a consensus, or wait for an administrator to weigh in, as specified in the discussion guidelines. You can not take the law into your own hands and start deleting the article at your own discretion while a debate is ongoing. This is not my opinion, this is simply following the guidelines of a discussion. I am going to restore the article so that it can be debated properly without censoring the very text that we are supposed to be debating. Davidhc 20:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Friedman (unit). If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Croctotheface 23:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Hindutva pseudoscience has been redirected to Hindutva propaganda by the creator of article. Aksi_great ( talk) 13:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete - There was a clear consensus to delete at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hindutva_pseudoscience but it was rejected because the nominator was a sock of a banned user. That aside, the logic used to AFD it still holds Namely:
Keep
a) Google with [+Hindutva +pseudoscience] gets 566 hits: not all that many but certainly not none.
b) Nanda and Sokal both make a serious presentation of the mix of postmodernism, pseudoscience and religion that is being pressed into service, apparently with political aims. There does appear to be a real and current phenomeonon (and one that seems to discredit both science and genuine religious believers).
c) There also appear to be clear examples of heavy promotion of one or two Indian scientists on Wikipedia; and occasional claims for discoveries in mathematics that stretch credibility somewhat. For myself, I feel that outrageous claims are disrespectful towards the early mathematician, and possibly towards religious pioneers also.
It is not easy, however, to see an easy solution. I'll have a look at the entries for the BNP, Christian fundamentalism, Dawkins and Reductionism and maybe change my mind. Davy p 23:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC) reply
[29] with [30], and still look like a knowledgeable person. Coining a term is not "nit picking", and blaiming others of bad faith shows only bad faith on your side, because you think any one who opposes this term is "Hindutva"-vadi.-- Scheibenzahl 10:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. WjB scribe 01:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Stub on a Norwegian You-tube celebrity, previously deleted via
AFD, and protected due to recreations. The nominator at deletion review intends to replace the stub with a translation of the article at the Norwegian Wikipedia.
[31]. That article has several references, most of which appear to be in Norwegian. If there is a relevant Norwegian Wikiproject or deletion sorting noticeboard, could someone notify them, as this discussion will be better if folks that can evaluate the sources show up. This is a technical nomination, I have no opinion.
GRBerry
01:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result was Keep. This decision does not preclude a merge, which seems to be the nominator's goal, but if a merge is to be performed, the history must be kept in order to meet the terms of the GNU license. Shimeru 19:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Sorted as part of the Notability wikiproject! -- Futurano 20:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. -- Luigi30 ( Taλk) 13:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Apparently is the red light distrcit of Prague. Does that mean it warrants its own entry, or can it be merged or deleted? Montchav 01:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete - hoax. -- RHaworth 12:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Hoax. Larry the Cucumber is voiced by Mike Nawrocki and there is no Richard Baker in The Nightmare Before Christmas or Looney Tunes: Back in Action. JuJube 23:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Punkmorten 17:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
A valuable resource. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scarfo ( talk • contribs) 2007/03/26 00:52:30
The result was Keep. — bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Irrelevant and insignificant
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC) reply
First of all this page looks to me as an essay. Second, I don't see what it adds. It treats four ancient Greek goddesses with their own article. So, what is it? A mere repetition? I hope I am wrong but IMO this "article" has nothing to do with an encyclopedic article. Yannismarou 18:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 05:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable video game. Expired prod removed by User:NYC JD with the comment "deprod. 1982 video game published by notable publisher - worth an AfD". The article remains an unreferenced stub, containing nothing in the way of notability for the game. There is no information on innovative features, high sales or other large popularity, industry awards, authors, new programming techniques, or so on. Mikeblas 12:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 05:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC) reply
One of three people in similar circumstances, nothing to indicate that there will be any ongoing notability, the case itself can be covered adequately in women in the military without the problems of giving undue weight to a single incident in her life, which is essentially what this article is about. People get busted in the military from time to time, it sometimes makes the news for a day or two, occasionally the case is noticed for some wider reason, very few of the individuals achieve lasting notability. In the mean time we have an article which focuses on one minor incident in the subject's life, which is the only thing that has ever really been subject of external attention, and that seems to me to violate WP:BLP Guy ( Help!) 12:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC) reply
CV style article on individual with no particularly notable achievements. Warofdreams talk 12:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to List of General Hospital characters. WjB scribe 01:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply
This character never existed on-screen and has solely been referenced in a past format. This information could easily be included on other, more relevant, pages. D'Amico 11:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Ryanjunk 14:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply
This is a gargantuan (190 kb) set of tables for conjugating verbs in Bulgarian. We have many excellent articles on languages here, and they all contain similar tables. But those articles provide a mix of different things - historical analysis, phonology, grammar, etc. The problem here, is that it is almost all tables. Something like this is better suited for Wikibooks, or Wikiversity. I just do not see how this is appropriate for an encyclopedia. And it doesn't help that most of it is in Cyrillic, as the average English speaking Joe or Jane will just see a mass of gibberish.
Someone has put a ton of work into it, so I don't want to see it deleted altogether, but it really needs to be completely migrated off. If anyone sees anything else at all like this in other languages, feel free to apend this AfD. Ultimately, though, Delete, for the record. -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 13:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Here's how I explained the conjugation in the main article Bulgarian grammar before I decided to make the article similar to the German and Spanish ones:
Present Tense
Verbs form the present tense according to their conjugation. They take the following personal endings:
Personal endings | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Person | 1st and 2nd
conjugation |
3rd
conjuation | ||
Singular | Plural | Singular | Plural | |
1st | -а/я | -м | -м | -ме |
2nd | -ш | -те | -ш | -те |
3rd | - | -ат/ят | - | -т |
These endings are placed directly after the form of the verb in third person singular (that is why it has no ending - it just ends in e, и, а or я), except for -а, -я, -ат and -ят. Before these endings are added, the final е/и is removed.
First conjugation verbs which in third person singular end in:
Second conjugation verbs that in third person singular end in:
VI type verbs are all the verbs or the third conjugation.
Past Imperfect Tense
In order to conjugate a verb in this tense, one has to know the verb's past imperfect basis, to which the following personal endings are added (they are the same for all conjugations):
Personal endings
Past Imperfect Tense | ||
---|---|---|
Person | Number | |
Singular | Plural | |
First | -х | -хме |
Second | -ше | -хте |
Third | -ше | -ха |
The basis is formed from the determiner of the verb's conjugation (its third person singular form in the present simple tense). Here are the rules for forming the basis (there are also a very few irregular verbs):
Past aorist tense
Similarly, as in past imperfect tense, verbs have past aorist basis to which the following personal endings are added (they are the same for all conjugations):
Personal endings
Past Aorist Tense | ||
---|---|---|
Person | Number | |
Singular | Plural | |
First | -х | -хме |
Second | - | -хте |
Third | - | -ха |
Rules for forming the basis:
I have deleted most of this because I saw that in the German and Spanish articles there are no such explanations. But I preserved a small part of it in the article Bulgarian verbs.
Note that this does not include some important verb groups and the conjugation of the participles.
I, personally, find the above more confusing than just tables because for example the verb играя in the present tense is of type I, in the Past Imperfect of type III and in the Past Aorist of type XIII. If I had explained the conjugation of the participles, it would have been of some other type. In the tables it is just type 18.1. I wrote the tables using and correcting information (mostly dialectisms and wrong classification) from the Bulgarian wiktionary. Arath 15:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. I'll recreate as a redirect to airdancer.-- Wizardman 14:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Notability Kntrabssi 13:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
*Redirect either to Airdancers or Merge+Redirect to whatever Family Guy episode that's from.--
Wizardman 03:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC) (Struck through to prevent COI as I close this)--
Wizardman 14:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to the Family Guy episode this appeared in, as Wizardman said.
Plasticbottle
06:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result was redirect to Jehovah's Witnesses. WjB scribe 01:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete This is an extremely rare term that in my eyes do not need its own article. If it has to be mentioned at all, it should be done in another article. Summer Song 13:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Withdrawn by nominator.-- Isotope23 13:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Originally listed as a speedy delete, it was contested with the contention that this is an important newspaper in the UAE. I changed this to a PROD and posted on the talkpage that it needed to be demonstrated with reliable sources that the contention is true. This was deprodded with no appreciable evidence provided that this is in any way notable, so I'm nominating it for AfD. Isotope23 13:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 14:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply
I deleted this information from The Godfather article for these exact reasons. Now it's been split off into a completely different page. The article contains non-notable information references that other media has made to the films. So basically any time anyone says "I'm gonna make him an offer he can't refuse." or "Take the cannoli." it's detailed in this article. This information is trivial and unencyclopedic. Because it is essentially a trivia section in disguise, it violates WP:AVTRIV. I understand that it provides examples of the impact The Godfather has had on pop culture, which is why a few references should be given as an example within the main article (such as the frequent references within The Sopranos), however only as examples not the entire collage of every "that time that show had that guy who said that quote from The Godfather". The Filmaker 14:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The point is not necessarily the original research aspect (which I may have overemphasized to prove a point) or the fact that it lacks attribution as a whole, it's the fact that all that's being attributed to (or can be attributed to) is the work itself, and articles that merely cite the work itself can not stand on their own (this is basically an extrapolation of WP:NOT plot summaries). By attributing secondary sources as well, one is showing that the topic is notable for inclusion because experts and fans cite these comparisons. Wikipedia should be a tertiary source. Again, the point is not that all material attributed to the work itself is original research, it's that if it relies exclusively on the works, then it might not be notable for inclusion. From Wikipedia:Notability: "...to have an attributable article, a topic should be notable enough that the information about it will have been researched, checked, and evaluated through publication in independent reliable sources." Also, "topic can fail to satisfy the criteria because there are insufficient published works from reliable sources that are independent of the subject [in relation to the subject at hand; what is reliable in one topic, like a video game, may not be in another]. Without such sources, a proper encyclopedia article cannot be built at all. Such articles are usually nominated for deletion, via one of the Wikipedia deletion processes." Again, certain subtopics within an article, like plot summaries, obviously don't apply here. However, if at least a portion of this article does not adhere to these notability criteria, then the article's inclusion on Wikipedia is often questioned. And that is the case with "in popular culture" articles.
Let's put it in another perspective. An article just describing a character's plot role in a video game violates WP:NOT and will most likely lead to deletion or merge unless or until work is done. However, if that article is enhanced to include sections on how the character was designed (using, say, interviews and editorial columns on gaming sites), merchandise the character has spawned (action figures, etc), and how the character was received by gaming critics, then it can stand on its own as an encyclopedia article. Again, that can not be said about this list of times a line from the Godfather has been mentioned. Pillar one of the five pillars and WP:ENC help stress the purpose of Wikipedia as not involving collections like this. The reason many people are voting delete here is becuase we've been here many times in the past, and those situations have almost always resulted in deletion because nobody mentioned ways to turn it into a full article. Also, dogma is not formed by consensus; Wikipedia policy is. And because Wikipedia policy is built by consensus, that consensus can be changed. Just look at Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll for an example. — Deckill er 06:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy deleted. - Mailer Diablo 05:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Does not assert notability of subject. Contributions from one editor only who has no other edits so may be autobio Lou.weird 14:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Questionable notability school Guroadrunner 14:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete and make a category if someone wants to. John Reaves (talk) 03:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply
An AFD was considered in its talk page before, and the fact the school system is worldwide can be represented fine with the main article. List is full of "red" Wikipedia links which may encourage people to make non-notable school articles. Guroadrunner 14:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete has been transwikied. John Reaves (talk) 04:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Page is not being used for anything but project management. Wikipedia is not a forum, Wikipedia is not a webspace provider, and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It appears that this article might potentially end up violating Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising as well. Slavlin 14:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment Dear Slavlin, and Andrew: With "nurture networks" we (10 professionals in the field of development cooperation) intended to assemble our well based knowledge and experience on building, maintaining and e-facilitating online networks - with close connections to the fields of e-moderation (referring to leading international experts), to communties of practice, online communication tools (and to other already described key issues by wikipedia). It was definitely not our intention to maintain a workspace, to advertise something or to nurture group activities. Online collaboration has a powerful future - and it was our intention to assemble, to link and compile the already existing experiences and facts in a better way. Wikipedia - an encyclopedia - seemed us above all to be one of the best instruments to "construct new knowledge". But you are right, we do not have enough experience in "wikifying" - and all the requested procedures to pass your quality control system. I apologise too that one of us was removing your note about deletion. For us deleting everything would be the logical consequence, we've understood already. Is there any possibility to get guidance by one of you to make it - and to overcome the most important obstacles so that the content can remain here? Otherwise we would only like to ask you to give some days more that we can save all the linked content properly - before you delete it. Thanks a lot in advance and kind regards from the Alps, Julie nadja 18:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC) reply
NN Cisco exec: short resume, big picture. Also seems merely to be a promotional, CV-like page with no sources Baccyak4H ( Yak!) 15:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 05:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Press release. Prod contested. -- Ezeu 15:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Zero references. Zero google hits for Ajitasaurus. Zero google hits for Tragironosaur. Possibly WP:HOAX. Prod was removed by anonymous without explanation. ~a ( user • talk • contribs) 15:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to National Buffalo Wing Festival. WjB scribe 01:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Entire basis for article already covered by the event he created, the National Buffalo Wing Festival. Almost would consider a speedy delete because of NN, etc. Guroadrunner 15:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The page for "Shakir husain" seems to be a vanity entry on Wikipedia. There are no references or links, and no evidence to support any of the claims is offered. Whilst google produces a number of links to 'Shakir Husain', who may or may not be the person represented on the current entry for that name, this article is currently unencyclopaedic and as such I am suggesting that it be considered for deletion. The globetrotter 15:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC) reply
This is a non-notable biography of a musician that fails WP:A and WP:BIO/ WP:MUSIC. See talk page for lengthy attempts to scare up proper reliable sources to verify the article's claims. Notability claims hinge on Purl's "unclear" involvement with a non-notable hip hop group and a YouTube video that, while it featured some notable performers, has attracted no outside attention. Google search results are low: Starstruck Ricky Purl receives 122 uniques Google hits and none appear to be reliable sources. "Ricky Purl" & "Ricky D. Purl" are busts. The "Starstruck video on YouTube has been up for almost a year and received less than 1700 views. Scientizzle 16:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.-- Wizardman 05:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline - Seraphim Whipp 16:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Someone has made individual articles for each episode of season 1 for the television show 8 Simple Rules. However, the information contained in each is a duplicate of information already found at List of 8 Simple Rules episodes. For example, the same information at Wall of Shame (8 Simple Rules episode) is also inside the aforementioned list (see the listing for the second episode). I am proposing that all of the individual articles are deleted because the information is already neatly found on the list of episodes. I will handle the individual AFDs (or prods ?) for all if a "delete" consensus is reached. -- Guroadrunner 15:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Unsourced stub regarding non-notable cheerleader team. Time given to provide sources for "award-winning" claim, but no sources forthcoming StuartDouglas 16:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. -- Luigi30 ( Taλk) 13:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply
I belive this page may be a hoax. I am unable to find any reference to either of the people named on it. Shimaspawn 16:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:HOAX, WP:ATT, WP:MUSIC and probably WP:BULLSHIT as well. An article created by a single-purpose account about a purported music festival held in New Jersey in 2004 and claiming the attendance of numerous prominent groups. However, a directed Google search turns up zero relevant hits, there are no sources, and it contains such encyclopedic entries as "Events Rumored To Have Happened" and "Members of Skynet claim to be stuck in traffic, while they are actually in the parking lot across the street getting drunk." Notability tagged since November 2006, hasn't been touched since. The things you run into while clicking Random article.' RGTraynor 16:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. WjB scribe 01:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply
-- Postcard Cathy 16:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. WjB scribe 04:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC) reply
There is no assertation of notability, and little to be found. The article lacks verification and reliable sources to back up its claim of importance as an internet meme. Teke 17:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC) reply
The article reads like an advertisement. I couldn't glean notability from Google because of "noise," so I'm inviting Canadians to chime in on this. YechielMan 18:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete - notability was not asserted, advertisement. WjB scribe 01:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Procedural nomination. Someone gave this an afd1 but didn't know how to finish. The apparent reason to delete is that the article reads like an advertisement for a nonnotable product. YechielMan 20:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. Herostratus 14:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete - bodybuilding competitions are not notable based on who competed in them. Nor is Schwarzenegger's mere participation in an event automatically notable to him. Otto4711 19:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Merge most notable as per Masaruemoto, delete the rest
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC) reply
This is a clear example of crystal balling. 2009 is 2 years away, this article (along with the rest of the 2009 articles/cat) has no need to exist currently. RobJ1981 19:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable slang terminology OverlordQ 19:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. John Reaves (talk) 03:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Although the article is clearly not crystalballing, it is well sourced and does not claim to state what will happen during the eighth gen, i believe that there has not been enough improvement since the last time it was deleted, which can be found here. J.L.Main 19:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Yes, there might be little speculation in this page, but name any huge-sized page that doesn't have any speculation! It's true though, Apple would be a major competitor if they reentered. Why delete a page, and then have to re-make it? If you don't keep it, I recomend at least preserving a copy of it. Besides, up until a few months prior to release, the Xbox 360 was still the Xbox 2! AlexanderTG 22:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Shimeru 20:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC) reply
He's fathered a semi-notable person (currently up for deletion). That doesn't make him notable in any event. Carlossuarez46 20:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC) reply
In my opinion, this is a vanity page as the article creator admits to being Harry Max. A google search didn't turn up much on this person either. RobJ1981 20:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
No evidence that the subject meets Wikipedia:Notability (people). No references. The external links consist of the subject's own site, two art sites which appear to display images submitted by anyone, and one link which seems not to work. The author has removed importance and notability templates from the article without providing evidence of notability, despite being notified of the need for notability on his/her User talk:Dvie. EALacey 20:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC) reply
This is an overly broad topic. Also, there is a "Category:Plays by year" that does the same thing and better. Clarityfiend 20:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. WjB scribe 05:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC) reply
A hoax episode of SpongeBob SquarePants. The only source that could be found is a forum and that is just a copy of a revision on List of SpongeBob SquarePants episodes. This was previously prodded, but an IP address removed it. Squirepants101 21:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Mainly, the deletion reasons have been addressed. If anyone still wants this deleted, a new AfD should be started, so the article can be judged from the beginning in its improved state. Mango juice talk 15:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable wrestler. No assertion of notability. If this is deleted, Konan big (which redirects to it) should be deleted as well. TJ Spyke 21:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete non notable, I agree with PepsiPlunge, it's a shame to delete such great work.
Plasticbottle
06:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
*Delete I guess we can only hope that the author creates many more masterpieces to replace this one. I will always be grateful for the expansion of my Mexican Spanish vocabulary with the term "el mariconcito".
Suriel1981
12:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result was redirect. I'm choosing Christianity and Islam because there is actually content there, as opposed to Islamic comparative religion. If you don't like it, be bold and improve upon my choice. Mango juice talk 15:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply
this article does not have any content that is attributed to reliable sources after two years. It is not a notable topic, and it is a clear POV fork. It should also be noted that the previous Afd does not discuss notability or whether this is a POV fork. Sefringle 22:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep and Cleanup. Ryanjunk 15:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply
This article is clearly not NPOV on grounds of religious bias - see Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Bias. IMHO it is so heavily influenced throughout by a particular point of view that it is unsalvageable andy 22:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Deleted by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prhizzm, relisted, no consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prhizzm (second nomination).
This is an artist whose work (such as it is, there is not much) is mainly self-published. There are no significant external sources in the article. According to the subject (who has edited the article) he has yet to release a single full-length album. Keep arguments at last AfD look suspiciously like WP:IHEARDOFHIM, I see no evidence that this artist meets the primary notability criterion. Even Alkivar, who has seen him perform, advocated deletion. -- Guy ( Help!) 22:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Nomination Withdrawn. EliminatorJR Talk 00:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC) reply
This article is an autobiography about some childrens. Martial BACQUET 22:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. WjB scribe 05:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Here we have a scientist who dissents from the mainstream view of gravitaiton and dark matter - a relativity dissident. There is precisely one external source, which discusses him along with other dissidents. There are no cited independent sources of which he is primary subject. He seems to be mildly popular with certain pseudoscience proponents and fringe bloggers, but that is about it. The subject seems to be one of the few who is well-informed on the subject, and has resorted to editing himself as user:Supergenius66. Guy ( Help!) 22:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC) reply
This article is a good example of crystal balling. Purely just a schedule as of now, and can't be expanded much more. How about we wait until a lot later for this? I don't see why people are in such a rush to make 2008 (and even 2009) articles. RobJ1981 22:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Daniel Bryant 05:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:BIO - not yet played league football and U-17 is a boys, not a notable, level - Delete. Bridgeplayer 23:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Not notable Epbr123 23:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted under criterion WP:CSD#A7; no assertion of notability. – Riana talk 02:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC) reply
I only saw the {{ AFD}} template on the page with no link to discussion, so I'll nominate it. This page is possible web vanity that fails WP:WEB, and is not notable. I can't even find it on google. -- AAA! ( AAAA) 23:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Not notable. Epbr123 23:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. WjB scribe 05:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Reluctant nomination - this page has been a one-line content free stub for two three years. I don't see how it could be expanded, other than by turning it into a long indiscriminate list, since each story would presumably have its own entry. However, there's not a single folktale actually listed that I can find, and given the time elapsed, it seems unlikely that anyone's planning on adding any. Besides, even if it were kept it would probably be better as
Chinese folktales, since that's the phrase actually used in the text. -
Iridescenti
(talk to me!)
23:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result was keep. WjB scribe 05:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Unsourced nonsense page for a supposed secret society of media personalities. Fails WP:NFT, WP:ATT, at least. Speedy deletion tag removed by an anon. Resolute 23:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Searching for this name yields only a football player, even when specifically searching in relation to the EA game in question. For lack of sources, I have to treat it as a hoax, and furthermore the article is marginally POV.
The result was keep. WjB scribe 05:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Does not contain any valuable information. BlackBear 12:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC) reply