The result was keep. — David Eppstein ( talk) 15:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Does not assert notability as per WP:BIO. αѕєηιηє t/ c 17:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Dreadstar † 04:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC) reply
There is no evidence of notability here. The award that the district has won is given to over one thousand districts a year in the US and Iceland. The award is given to any district (who decides to apply) who had no deaths in residential fires for a given year. According to this, for one of the years, there were only three total residential fires in the district, so I wouldn't say that's very notable. The other claim is that the district was the first in the area so it's notable. I can't find a source supporting it, and I don't really know if being the first is that notable. I don't really see this meeting our WP:CORP guidelines which would be the most relevant for this type of organization. Metros ( talk) 00:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Dreadstar † 03:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Non notable boxer, fails WP:ATHLETE, no other assertion of notability, no reliable sources. Mister Senseless™ ( Speak - Contributions) 23:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
.
The result was Keep. Dreadstar † 04:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Individual Robot Wars competitors are completely non-notable - the chance of multiple, reliable non-trivial published sources being written about the individual robots is close to nil. Delete. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 23:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Dreadstar † 04:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Individual Robot Wars competitors are completely non-notable - the chance of multiple, reliable non-trivial published sources being written about the individual robots is close to nil. Delete.
This one was a good Robot Wars latecomer, but as with the others, reliable third party sources about the robot? I don't think they exist. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 23:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Dreadstar † 04:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Individual Robot Wars competitors are completely non-notable - the chance of multiple, reliable non-trivial published sources being written about the individual robots is close to nil. Delete.
It was so great watching Road Block win the first series of Robot Wars, but completely not worth an individual encyclopedia article. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 23:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Dreadstar † 04:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Individual Robot Wars competitors are completely non-notable - the chance of multiple, reliable non-trivial published sources being written about the individual robots is close to nil. Delete.
And this is Razer, possibly the most notorious robot of them all. Reliable, non-trivial third party sources are yet to be provided... h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 23:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Agree with User:Nabla that the focus should be switched to subject's being a former "Scottish national triple jump champion". Dreadstar † 04:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Not-notable "Capacity Management Consultant", amateur sports coach and former amateur athlete.
The result was keep. Dreadstar † 05:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Individual Robot Wars competitors are completely non-notable - the chance of multiple, reliable non-trivial published sources being written about the individual robots is close to nil. Delete. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 23:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus, default to Keep. Dreadstar † 01:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Individual Robot Wars competitors are completely non-notable - the chance of multiple, reliable non-trivial published sources being written about the individual robots is close to nil. Delete. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 23:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. AfD is not cleanup, and so any COI/POV issues can be (and apparently have been) handled through the standard editing process. -- jonny- m t 02:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC) reply
No sign of any notability of this "robot" project, which article even admits, failed. WP:Conflict of Interest - robot creator Marpsan, is the sole contributor and he has made no other contributions to WP. Most of article is a personal essay by Marspan. Camillus (talk) 22:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Dreadstar † 05:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply
This article is littered with problems, after I cleaned up the vandalism, it still reads like an ad, has no independent sources, and talks about Nintendo and Wizards of the Coast tours which I have a feeling are completely unrelated to this board game. I don't know enough about the Pokemon franchise, so I'm not entirely sure about notability, but unless someone wants to undertake a rescue mission and finds material to expand this with, I'm sure any pertinent information could probably be merged with the main Pokemon article. Mister Senseless™ ( Speak - Contributions) 23:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Dreadstar † 05:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete: Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 23:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep (non-admin closure) with strong consensus to merge to be acted upon on the article/talkpage. Skomorokh 00:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD. Reason for contention of prod can be found at Talk:Portuguese Third Division: Série A. My reason for deletion is that this article adds nothing to its main article, Portuguese Third Division. In order to survive this AfD, I believe it needs to focus more on the competition itself, instead of the competing clubs. – Pee Jay 22:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Dreadstar † 05:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply
No sources. No notability. Article itself implies it's about a 'chess.com member' which is not notable. ChessCreator ( talk) 22:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
http://blog.chess.com/Graw81/my-boungcloud-attack-games ChessA4 ( talk) 19:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Dreadstar † 05:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable individual. Only 1 reliable source in the article has significant coverage and the article overstates his notability with vague and non-neutral wording ("interviewed by various", "countless media outlets", "a dedicated following"). Mr. Z-man 22:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete, does not meet Wikipedia:BIO#Athletes, insufficient secondary sources to establish notability.
WP:ATHLETE While Perry may pass criteria by competing in a professional league, I'm not sure that a career minor-leaguer, without attaining some kind of record or noteworthy achievement while in the minors, is necessarily notable. From WP:Notability (people), "meeting one or more [of the criteria] does not guarantee that a subject should be included". Wolfer68 ( talk) 22:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep (non-admin closure) per lack of delete preferences. Issue of merging/redirecting left to editors of the article/talkpage. Skomorokh 00:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Rejected speedy, procedural nom, I'm neutal. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 21:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Dreadstar † 05:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply
No claim to fame: a girl who wrote a few poems and short stories(?). Google search fails to support notability. One of her 2 cited awards is a split 3rd place in a Hungarian competition. Gregorik ( talk) 22:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
{{
notability|biographies}}
as given by the
guidelines would of been sensible. PS I'm no way related to this page/person until I saw the nomination on the Articles for deletion log. The lack of Google coverage doesn't surprise me when you consider this is about someone writing in a foreign language and that coverage and awards are in physical publications and not the web.
ChessCreator (
talk)
14:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
reply{{
notability|biographies}}
does not suffice. See
WP:NOT and
WP:BIO. End of argument.
Gregorik (
talk)
16:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
reply{{
notability|biographies}}
applies, it's in the
Wikipedia:BIO#Insufficient_sources guidelines.
ChessCreator (
talk)
21:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
replyThe result was Keep. Espresso Addict ( talk) 03:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply
A small county airport. Article is very difficult to read, and seems to be a list of 'features', most of which are not explained, and would not make sense to somebody who was not familiar on the subject. Fusion Mix 21:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
♠Return to Original Page.I believe the reason the page was created was to create a reference for pilots. If worse came to worse, they would have somewhere to go. Just because the type is not understandable to everyone, doesn't make it worthless. I liked it as it was, as it was true, and had some important information on it.
The result was Speedy delete G4 by User:Martijn Hoekstra. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 21:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, WP:MADEUP, almost WP:CB ukexpat ( talk) 21:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Googling "Steve Lambert" superbike returned 25 results, the Wikipedia entry and several copies of the entry on other sites, some for a UK police sergeant with the same name, the most relevant result is wera.com the Western Eastern Roadracing Association an association for amateur roadracing but the profile does not much the article's claims. Its also easy to see he didnt win all the races there [3] [4] . This article is either fake or about a non-notable local racer Chris Ssk talk 21:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Deleted by User:Gonzo fan2007 -- JForget 00:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Individual of marginal encyclopaedic importance, subject expresses a very clear preference not to have an article (see WP:BLP). He has had an interesting career, but there are no compelling sources cited. VRTS ticket # 2008032210012452 confirms subject preference. Guy ( Help!) 21:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect non-admin closure by -- Lenticel ( talk) 01:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The books are certainly notable, the spells and other story-related elements, not so much. Fails WP:N ukexpat ( talk) 21:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Boldly redirected per WP:COMMONSENSE and the nom's comment above. Not going to non-admin close someone else's AfD TRAVELLINGCARI My story Tell me yours 00:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Espresso Addict ( talk) 02:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Article began life as guerrilla spam for a Danish company. With the company name removed it becomes a non-notable neologism. -- RHaworth ( Talk) ( contribs) 21:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Dreadstar † 05:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I think that this is a bit too specific for Wikipedia. Any relevant information can be found at Vehicle registration plates of the United States. Captain panda 20:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Not sure how this works but this article should be deleted since it has stolen material (text and photos) from several websites, including the ALPCA archives. [5] [6] [7] The New Jersey article does the same thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Battersea Bosco ( talk • contribs) 01:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC) reply
They blagged some stuff from the ALPCA archives, which is password protected. This and the New Jersey article need to be deleted since it is proprietary information. We always loved American number plates and we think that it is not right to steal things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Battersea Bosco ( talk • contribs) 02:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment I have to ask if an article is basically made up of copyright violations does that mean we have to delete them and maybe start over? -- Plate King ( talk) 02:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete as copyvio by User:TexasAndroid, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 21:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Apparently about a school, but it does not specify where. Provides no context, seems to ramble on, almost as if it were a press release or from the website of the school. Very POV, potentially beyond salvage. Removed prod. Random 89 20:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. per WP:SNOW (non-admin) - M ilks F 'avorite C ookie 22:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC) reply
This article a) has no real-world context and b) does not give any hint to reliable independent sources. The topic seems to fail WP:N. The only source given is another Wiki. There are two sections which were supposed to contain sourcable real-world information, but they remained empty; there have been no recent additions except vandalism. B. Wolterding ( talk) 20:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Dreadstar † 05:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Notability not established Hgilbert ( talk) 20:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 00:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Spam article, disguised as psychology, created by notorious wikispammer Arthur Carmazzi, whose WP:AUTO is up for deletion below. Qworty ( talk) 20:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
my name is Marcie Coldwell, PR executive for Mr. Carmazzi, founder of the Directive Communication methodology. i would like to clarify that Direcitive Communication is a "Methodology", it is used by many consultants and speakers throughout Asia, NOT only Mr. Carmazzi, it is implemented mostly in multi-nationals across Asia, although there are a few in Europe and North America. also, it is in my opinion slanderous to refer to Mr. Carmazzi as a "notorious wikispammer", we are doing a job to inform the public of "Proven" methods in organisational change and training, this makes us no money or helps us to sell books or porduct, true, it is PR, and then so is everything that mentions any new idea that is not from someone who is dead. as stated below, we made every attempt to make these and all other entries as objective as possible to maintain the Wikipedia standards and respect its intention. and, as for refferences, we added the references in accordance with the request that was posted a few days ago. Carmaz ( talk) 08:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Please read the article? it was information about a methodology, no promotion, only information and method and how the method is used. Please see my comments below pertaining to "PR", Marcie. Carmaz ( talk) 04:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Dreadstar † 06:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Extremely aggressive wikispammer who has inserted himself and his spamlinks into several articles and has been reprimanded by other editors: [9]. Spam report is here: [10] He's a non-notable "motivational speaker" who has a grand total of two hits on Google News, one of which is his father's obituary from 1969: [11]. Also created the spam article Directive Communication, which is the name of his business, and which I'm going to AfD next. Qworty ( talk) 19:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
my name is Marcie Coldwell, PR executive for Mr. Carmazzi, while i do understand that in the US, you may have specific criteria as notible, we can provide substantial "international" (within Asia and the Middle East) print (and some TV) coverage of Mr. Carmazzi and his Directive Communication methodology. also, we can provide Notable Organisations such as Emirates (also not a US organisation but still quite large)that will attest to the results this methodolgy provides. Mr. Carmazzi was also chosen as one of the top 30 leadership gurus in the world for his contibutions. all this is verifiable and we would gladly prvide scans of news article, TV coverage, radio interview recordings. of course they are all in Asia and the Middle East. also, while we did start the two articles, contrubutions to them were later made by others. for verification of the media and awards mentioned, please contact me at: marcie@directivecommunication.com - also, we made every attempt to make these as objective as possible to maintain the Wikipedia standards and respect its intention Carmaz ( talk) 07:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC) additionally, i honestly do not see how you only get a few hits on google, perhaps you could type in "Arthur Carmazzi", "Arthur F Carmazzi" Carmaz ( talk) 08:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC) reply
if you read the articles, you will find we NEVER promoted his programs, ever! we gave general unbiased information! According to (Robert L. Heath, Encyclopedia of Public Relations). PR is is a management function that focuses on two-way communication and fostering of mutually beneficial relationships between an organization and its publics. it is NOT designed to "Promote" only to inform. when a company comes out with a new product there is a very big difference between the promotion, and the information that they are launching a product. information is published because it is newsworthy, promotion identifies the reasons, emotional and practical, to buy the product or service; then there is the call to action. we did none of that, only presented the facts - and, if by any means any wiki-master believes differently, we would gladly revise the objectivity to be within the appropriate standards. do not judge the quality of the information based on my job title... Please.
Marcie Carmaz ( talk) 04:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC) reply
i find it interesting the editors of wikipeda will keep a quote by Mr Carmazzi in the leadership section, yet, delete his name from and credit from it. why? is that ethical by Wikipedia standards? "Leadership is not about changing the mindset of the group but in the cultivation of an environment that brings out the best (inspires) in the individuals in that group. Each individual has various environments that bring out different facets from their own identity, and each facet is driven by emotionally charged perceptions within each environment. To lead, one must create a platform through education and awareness where individuals fill each others needs. This is accomplished by knowing why people may react favorably to a situation in environment A, but get frustrated or disillusioned in environment B."
and, if wikipedia is in the information industry, it is inevitability reconcilable for PR, look up Robin Sharma, Ken Blanchard, Tom Peters well known in America, these pages contain information about these people and, while it is obecjtive (at least some of it), it is in essence PR. the question you should ask, is do people really want to know, if, no one cares, then, fine, delete delete delete, but what of the 36% HR professionals in Singapore who know who Arthur Carmazzi is (according to an independent research we engaged National University of Singapore to do). what of the over 260,000 people in Asia who have heard Mr Carmazzi speak, what of the millions who have seen him on TV or Print and want to find out more. the information on Wikipedia was specifically unbiased and written in a non-promotion standard (unlike other articles that are still up). if ANY of you are living in Asia, then i would have more confidence in your appreciation, or not, since at least you would have the exposure and be able to make intelligent decisions. and if you are not, then at least the desire to get the facts which we will gladly provide by email. we have offices in Bali, Singapore and Malaysia and anyone of you can call. i will provide the numbers.
please get the facts! first search google with "Arthur Carmazzi" and "Arthur F Carmazzi" there are over 9000 directly related pages in 6 different languages that i found. then, contact me for copies of print articles and TV (including the CNN of China called "Dialogue") that Mr. Carmazzi and the Directive Communication methodology have appeared in. let me send you the facts. Mr Carmazzi has made an impact here in Asia and the Middle East, we have the references, we have the proof. my email: marcie@directivecommuniation.com
W. C. Fields one said "don't confuse me with the facts, i have already made up my mind" we don't believe this to be wikipedia's philosophy. Carmaz ( talk) 04:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC) reply
marcie. Carmaz ( talk) 09:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Arthur F Carmazzi (born August 21, 1962) is an Italian American writer / speaker living in Asia and expert on Psychological applications to Leadership and Organisational Culture Enhancement and Development. He is mostly known for his contribution as the founder of the Directive Communication Methodology.
Biography
Carmazzi was born in Carson City, Nevada. He went to Carson High School and attended University of Nevada - Reno, Pacific University, and Montana State University majoring in various disciplines from business to psychology and international marketing to chemical and electrical engineering. While he attended these various universities over a 5 year period, he received no degree. He was hired as a Copywriter in his first job in Deco & Co. in 1986, in spite of his challenge of dyslexia and A.D.S., he was soon promoted to the youngest account executive in the history of the company. He left Deco on 1988 to build a small company he purchased – Frontier Corporate Kit Company – that dealt in corporate business structure to a legal clientele. He built the company to the 3rd largest of its kind in the United States.
In 1990, he was stabbed in an attempted robbery where he almost lost his life. This event gave him new a new perspective in life so he sold his company and most of his positions then traveled the globe for 2 years to find his greater self. In 1992, he moved to South Korea as Managing Director to the Asian venture of the Grail Corporation, an American consulting company dealing in the creation of new retail distribution chains for B2B organisations.
In 1997, Carmazzi’s success prompted him to start his own retail chain in Singapore. Within a year and a half, Carmazzi had not only lost everything, he found himself a half-million Singapore Dollars in Debt. He acclaims this experience as his first real lesson in how ego affects organisational effectiveness. Carmazzi was forced to go back into the corporate world in 1999 to repay his debt and fundamentally survive. Entering as a department head in a dysfunctional Multi-National, Carmazzi, considering himself a positive and hardworking individual, found himself being assimilated into the dysfunctional culture and taking on the negative characteristics of the culture such as blaming and being uncooperative. This conflict of identity eventually led Carmazzi to the research that founded the Directive Communication Methodology.
After a few successes in applying the new Directive Communication method, including saving the organisation he worked for an additional $17,000 a week in wastage, Carmazzi formed his own firm to facilitate Directive Communication based Training and organisational development applications. In 2005, he began licensing Directive Communication to other trainers and consultants around the globe. . Bestselling author The 6 Dimensions of Top Achievers, a joint project with his friend David Rogers, was published in 2000, and became a bestseller in Singapore and then Malaysia. The book researched 50 different self-made millionaires from around the world and presented their strategies from a replicatable psychological perspective. In his more recent books, Carmazzi took lessons from his own life and failures and his take on the decision making process in relation to environment.
In the December 2002 “Identity Intelligence” was published and ranked 32 in sales on the first day of release, only to be taken off the shelves by the threat of a law suit for improper structure in referencing of his research. When the matter was solved in Carmazzi’s favor 4 years later, the publishers no longer accepted the title for distribution. The book only sold about 12,200 copies at Carmazzi’s talks and website by 2006.
Carmazzi now focuses on Leadership and Organisational Development and developing other Directive Communication certified trainers and consultants. He continues to write and speak about his applications of the Directive Communication methodology. His Asia headquarters is base in Bali Indonesia. In 2007, Carmazzi was awarded as the number 10 most influential leadership professional by Leadership Gurus International.
Works
2000 – The 6 Dimensions of Top Acheivers (co-written with David Rogers) 2002 – Identity Intelligence 2005 – Leadership Intelligence – the force for making the right decisions for personal and professional success 2007 – Lessons from the Monkey King, leading change to create Gorilla Sized Results 2007 – The Culture Evolution handbook 2004 - 2007 The Directive Communication Facilitation Series (12 volumes)
References Arthur F Carmazzi - official site Arthur F Carmazzi: Personal – Personal site Summary Biography from Leadership Gurus
Marcie. Carmaz ( talk) 13:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC) reply
there is more than one person here, and while it is likely that the "inappropriate" link to Mr. Carmazzi's video to youtube came from this office, namely my assistant so I am responsible, we are NOT spammers and are trying to resolve this in an intelligent communicative manner, i personally do not appreciate being called names when we are trying to follow guidelines and regulation. To date, NO ONE has requested for the proof of notability we are more than happy to give. Have we made mistakes in guideline, yes, I, we, are not perfect but we do learn from our mistakes and we are commited to working within Wikipedia’s practices. Marcie. Carmaz ( talk) 13:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC) reply
in reference to posting, we can admit, (and once again as a learning curve trying to work within the WP guidlines), to informational posts in Organizational culture, Organization development, Leadership, Leadership development, Transformational leadership, Industrial and organizational psychology, as these would be within Mr. Carmazzi's scope of expertise. We would not and have not to my knowlege put posts on Customer service, and Motivational speaker as this is NOT an area where we could contribute anything valuable.
again, please stop calling me names and assist us to work properly within the community, Mr. carmazzi is a great source of new information that has helped thousands of people and organisations. sharing wisdom is of benefit to everyone. as for proof, we would love to give you whatever proof you would like, i have left my email address and NO ONE has asked, is there another way to get you the proof? Carmaz ( talk) 07:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep (non-admin closure) per lack of delete preferences. Skomorokh 00:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply
TV show of doubtable notability. Sources given are merely a directory listing and an IMDB entry (which doesn't confer notability). PROD was contested. B. Wolterding ( talk) 19:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Deleted by User:Lectonar -- JForget 00:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I wanted to place this as a speedy deletion but that was reverted recommending I should nominate this as AFD instead. My reason is all it is, is just a one line sentence with nothing to back this claim up for that reason is the source is nonexistent. Moosato Cowabata ( talk) 19:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Dreadstar † 06:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Violates WP:COI and WP:AUTO and fails to establish WP:N. Mundane padded resume of a run-of-the-mill businessman. Qworty ( talk) 19:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirected. Editors are free to merge as appropriate. Pastordavid ( talk) 21:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Independent sources are missing for this manga; only a link to a directory listing is provided. PROD was contested, with comment "ann coverage suggests futher sources can befound, and yuki seems to be a reasonably notable mangaka". I don't see evidence for that. B. Wolterding ( talk) 19:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. faithless (speak) 09:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable artist with a bunch of self-released albums, little or no media coverage and no references. Fails WP:MUSIC. Prod removed without comment. — Hello, Control Hello, Tony 19:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy close Article was redirected to Gentlemen's agreement, no point in keeping discussion open as this appears to be a fairly non-controversial redirect. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 21:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Not-notable, verging on the WP:MADEUP, no references. Should be deleted (or possibly redirected to Gentlemen's agreement) ukexpat ( talk) 18:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Deleted by Orangemike as a copyvio. Davewild ( talk) 20:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Hard to follow but appears to be WP:OR and unreferenced. ukexpat ( talk) 18:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. As demonstrated below, subject meets the threshhold for notability set by WP:MUSIC; and conflicts of interest - while a reason to watch the page for POV and bias - are not a reason for deletion. Pastordavid ( talk) 21:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete for failing WP:N. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 09:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Minor action, possible POV with only the U.S. mil. source TheFEARgod ( Ч) 17:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment Regarding all of these (are there more than the 3 nominated here) military operations articles. Not that I think that each one is particularly notable, but I'm not sure if AfD us the best place to decide that. Does one of the appropriate wikiprojects have guidelines on this sort of thing? Random 89 20:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- jonny- m t 02:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Minor action, possible POV with only the U.S. mil. source TheFEARgod ( Ч) 17:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. While I agree with Pixelface that the rationale presented in the nomination was a bit...lackadaisical, further discussion resulted in a clear consensus that the operation is non-notable, a fundamental issue that is not addressed by the comments in favor of keeping the article. -- jonny- m t 02:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Minor action, possible POV with only the U.S. mil. source TheFEARgod ( Ч) 17:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. faithless (speak) 09:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:RS, WP:CORP - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 17:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Speedy Delete,Agreed, fully. Mww113 ( talk) 17:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Small consensus, yes, but convincing, per WP:MUSIC and lack of sources (and apparent lack of availability of sources, meaning, they don't exist. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Totally unsourced. An early revision refers to it as a "fan album". Later revisions call it an "unreleased album". In either case, it sounds to be a fan bootleg of some sort. The likelihood of such an item being notable is IMHO low. And with no references, even that small chance is not shown. TexasAndroid ( talk) 17:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was unanimous keep (non-admin closure). Skomorokh 00:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply
unsourced, non-notable article about a local DJ Rtphokie ( talk) 13:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. John254 03:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete unsourced one-liner that could be notable, might be useful, or could be just pure misinformation - the earliest known something, known by whom? - without sourcing, and context, WP would be better without than with this one... Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 17:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Company which appears to fail WP:COMPANY. A Google search for "Mosley Guitars", returns only 78 hits, mostly advertising/press release-type stuff by the company itself and links to their eBay auctions. Nothing on Google News. Unable to find any coverage whatsoever in reliable secondary sources. This was brought to attention on the talk page of the article, however - which is concerning, if true. This is a cached portion of the deleted thread from that forum, where several users voice their concerns about some of the claims made by the company. Kurt Shaped Box ( talk) 17:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable non-governmental organization in UK for a fringe psychotherapy. The article has no secondary, independent sources per
WP:RS, and is written as an advert. Delete and start from scratch if necessary.
Bearian (
talk)
17:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was Delete Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails to establish notability, no sources. WP:CSD#A7 Rtphokie ( talk) 17:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails to establish notability, no reliable sources. WP:CSD#A7 Rtphokie ( talk) 17:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails to establish notability, no sources. WP:CSD#A7 Rtphokie ( talk) 17:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep per article improvements/sourcing. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails to establish notability, no sources. WP:CSD#A7 Rtphokie ( talk) 17:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus to delete. However, there are rumbles of a possible future merge/redirect. That would be for the talk pages of the relevant articles though, not for AfD. "No consensus", of course, defaults to keep. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Poorly sourced, unnotable crufty plot summaries.
This article has very poor sources, with one being a broken link and the other coming from an inappropriate third party, suggesting that notability has not been established for the subject of this article to non-Ultima Online players and the real world.
The article contains a mixture of cruft-like plot summaries and release dates in the form of a directory/list, both of which are what Wikipedia is not and is likely to attract unwelcome original research.
This article has these issues to deal with that other editors apparently are not interested in fixing, giving little chance for this article's survival. IAmSasori ( talk) 18:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete and redirect to Bruce Haack. -- jonny- m t 02:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails notability for music. Poorly written. Ward3001 ( talk) 20:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep However, some improvements and some cleanup is needed for this article. -- JForget 00:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC) reply
This article has phone number,email and address of various temples.Earlier proded and prod removed by the author.Further it is mere list of temples for which there no articles and the moment a mere list. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 20:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. SynergeticMaggot ( talk) 23:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable group. Albums all self-released on their own Rasta Rumba label. Google News archive turns up 3 trivial mentions. Fails WP:MUSIC (and WP:V). — Hello, Control Hello, Tony 19:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. -- Angelo ( talk) 13:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply
There are no third party sources on this topic, unless you count one obscure blog. It easily fails notability requirements. Psych less 19:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep (and remove/rewrite history section for any copyvio). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Radio stations under Part 15 (i.e. low-power stations) are generally not considered notable. Since the article on this student station is quite elaborate, I prefer a wider discussion. It's already briefly mentioned in Rhode Island College, so there's probably nothing to merge. B. Wolterding ( talk) 16:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 00:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable single. Mdsummermsw ( talk) 20:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 00:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable single. Mdsummermsw ( talk) 20:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 00:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable album. Mdsummermsw ( talk) 20:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Black Kite 00:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Doesn't meet WP:NOTE Al.locke ( talk) 16:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. -- Angelo ( talk) 13:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply
According to the article, "Marilyn Manson & The Spooky Kids did not have an official tour, but these are the dates in which they performed, mainly in Florida. The different presentations initiated in 1989 and finished in 1993." This article is therefore synthesis on a non-notable topic, with no sources to attest to its notability (how could they, as this is only found on Wikipedia?). Blast Ulna ( talk) 21:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 00:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Originally PRODded on March 23. Original author wrote in email to OTRS saying that the notability should be OK now, but appeared not to realize the procedure here, so I'm transferring this to AFD. Here are the contents of the email sent to OTRS (with personal information removed):
This pertains to the article on artist " Don Kartel ". In addition to submitting a picture we wanted to further state that in light of the request for deletion, new material has been added in the artist's favour, that should serve as sufficient notability. The delete date would have been tomorrow, but upon realising today, the information was added. We would like to also add this picture to the article. Provide any problems may arise, feel free to contact us, and we shall be more than willing to rectify the matter As much as possible what we aim to do is highlight the artist in a greater light, in that his bio can reflect his work ethic and accomplishments. The birthdate of the artist is Nov 30 1982, Born in Scarborough, Ontario, Canada...currently affiliated with Pro Records...formely a member "on point"..formely a member of "waiting room records" just in the event that you can give him a bio on par to other established artists such as lil wayne, chamillionaire etc. Provided any problems may arise, feel free to contact us, and we shall be more than willing to rectify the matter There are 3 external links, all of which we have added as updates 1 Hip Hop Canada Link 2 Ringtones Site @ Flextones 3 Myspace Links
I have no opinion the article, and am making the AFD nomination simply to bring this to the larger community. There was a photo attached to the OTRS email and if the article is kept, I will add it. howcheng { chat} 21:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Well if that's the way people feel, and the sources aren't adequate, then please delete it. I was the author. I felt that it was sufficient, maybe i was wrong.These complications really aren't worth my time. Aparently the artist was a pigment of my imagination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kartelevision ( talk • contribs) 07:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 00:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Seems to have limited notability, no third-party sources. Calvin 1998 ( t- c) 23:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- jonny- m t 02:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
This article lacks any major, independent third party references, and thus does not comply with WP:N. TheNobleSith ( talk) 00:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete Lack of third-party sources. Put another way, no sources other than SW ones make any mention of this subject. Thus, it does not comply with WP:N. TheNobleSith ( talk) 19:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Nonadmin close. Xymmax ( talk) 13:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Notability is not inherited. Being brother to a famous historical figure does not make one notable. That said, given who the historical figure is, I figured I would AFD this instead of A7 speedy, to give it a chance in case I am missing something. TexasAndroid ( talk) 16:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Espresso Addict ( talk) 02:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply
There's no reliable sources included to verify that this is a notable parenting technique. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide seems to apply as well. Prod removed without comment or change by creator. FisherQueen ( talk · contribs) 16:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy deleted by Pedro. EconomicsGuy ( talk) 08:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Not a speedy candidate and quite possibly a good faith creation The only sources available are either blogs or travel sites of uncertain reliability and independence. Basically an essay and the parts that are of encyclopedic value could easily be merged into
Travel 2.0 until this subject matures enough to warrant an independent article.
EconomicsGuy (
talk)
15:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. Evaluating this discussion was somewhat difficult. However, after discounting the large number of SPAs and apparent sockpuppets, there was a clear consensus to delete. Blueboy 96 21:09, 9 April 2008 (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}} . |
A large portion of these !votes for keeping this article have generated from a post on the NASIOC forums, thread located here, in which Wikipedian editors, among other things, are called douchebags for nominating this article. Just an FYI Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I have attempted to previously place this as a PROD, but the article creator user:RCIM wanted to dispute this, stating that a internet forum dressed as a car club is notable because 1) it has been in existence since 1999, 2) 140,000 members, these of which wouldn't have to pay a penny to join, 3) it boasts of being the largest, for a national club, it will be. All in all I can't see why is this organization being anywhere notable. Moosato Cowabata ( talk) 15:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The point is, when deciding to delete or keep an article, the burden of proof should be on those who wish to delete, not keep, and this should be a HEAVY burden. Drive space is cheap. Making Wikipedia more inclusive is better - if some "unnecessary" articles are there, so what? It's not like a paper encyclopedia that will get physically larger with more entries. The search feature will allow someone to find what they are looking for - no one has to "turn pages" past the NASIOC entry to get to what they want.
The level of emotion and the perseverance that a handful of people have toward pushing through this deletion speaks volumes. Why are they so concerned? No one doing a routine "clean up" would be so determined to delete an entry. There's more to this story. We'll probably never know.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.156.2.34 ( talk)
Keep I think the biggest misconception here is the fact that it it *NOT* merely an advertisement for a car club. The article is just some facts about an internet automotive community large enough to be of some note. It's obviously of some importance if the manufacturer chooses to have direct contact with the members. Speaking of members, the membership base grows at a fairly good clip which I think proves its notability since NASIOC does not blatantly look for PR or advertisement opportunities. I also have to question the motives of the member who brought it to scrutiny, since he seems to have a conflict of interest, and a some of the people calling for deletion also seem to have more than a passing interest in Mitsubishis. Upnygimp ( talk) 20:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)— Upnygimp ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
( talk) 11:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Espresso Addict ( talk) 02:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Not even in production, therefore falls foul of WP:CRYSTAL ukexpat ( talk) 15:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
See also related AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jewel (2009)
The result was Delete. Espresso Addict ( talk) 03:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Not even in production, therefore falls foul of WP:CRYSTAL. ukexpat ( talk) 15:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
See also related AfD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jewel (Murali K. Thalluri's film)
The result was Keep, and update article. I think all computer companies should make pillows, BTW. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply
No sources after 2006 and the so-called manufacturer's website now links to a pillow sheet manufacturer. Shii (tock) 15:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
http://www.lemote.com/index.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.21.53 ( talk) 06:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete (as noted, the article fails WP:N due to lack of significant reliable sources independent of the subject) -- Angelo ( talk) 13:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Unregistered fledgling Canadian political party. No sources other than own website. Their FAQ states that they are unregistered (i.e., not a real party in the eyes of the Canadian goverment). Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 15:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
It is a real party working on registration at the provincial level. For sources on the party please see the references posted on article. 24.137.85.230 ( talk) 16:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- jonny- m t 03:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Doesn't seem to be notable outside the Project 86 article. αѕєηιηє t/ c 15:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete ---- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I originally nominated this as a CSD as it deserved for the reason that it is a non-notable as there are a number of organizations that enter car shows.
but another editor removed this nomination stating that "mentions in DVDs/magazines/etc. constitute a weak claim to notability"
If this is notable, thatn what about a large umber of owners club, does this make them notable and in my case, this oe is absolutely not.
Also, this article is created by an editor who the Co-Leader in Training (NorCal Human Resource Director) [29], therefore he has COI issues within the article
IMO, editors are not allowed to create articles about themselves and their organizations, this is the reason why this will have to go. Moosato Cowabata ( talk) 15:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I'm tempted to speedy this as an "unsourced or badly sourced negative bio" per WP:BLP, but let's see what others think.
We have a lot of these articles, so it would be good to form a view. Docg 14:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Delete arguments (a plot summary in the form of a timeline, mostly based on original research) are stronger than the keep arguments. Fram ( talk) 20:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Article consists entirely of plot ( WP:NOT#PLOT), and the given dates (especially the months) are totally original research (as a diehard SG-1 fan, I can tell). If we assume that the years are about right, this timeline would still be redundant to the season articles of Stargate SG-1 and Stargate Atlantis ( Stargate Infinity is not considered canon). The backstory of the Ancients and the Goa'uld is given in the respective race articles (and those have severe WP:WAF problems as well) and is thus redundant in this article, too. I have added a per-year timeline to List of Stargate works sometime ago, so a basic and non-OR overview is still there. I have tagged the timeline article as {{ unencyclopedic}} a month ago and informed the Stargate WikiProject (which I am part of), and (1) no-one except one person replied and (2) the one person who replied pointed to a gateworld page (as a fansite not a reliable source), but its subpages seem to be dead (and, from memory, they didn't give months either). Additionally, I have contacted the Stargate wikia a few weeks ago for transwikiing, but they are not interested since they already got their own timeline structure. In short: delete. – sgeureka t• c 14:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Concise, this isn't. I find the article List of Stargate works and it's linked articles well sufficient to encyclopedic purposes; this article however: inaccordant with policy and obsolescent in purpose. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 21:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC) reply"Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development and historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot. This applies to both stand-alone works and series. A concise plot summary is appropriate as part of the larger coverage of a fictional work."
The result was Delete -- JForget 00:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable school basketball gym. Fusion Mix 14:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Evolution of sex. Moreschi ( talk) ( debate) 20:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply
This article appears to be a crank theory, as well as incoherent. All the links are either by this theory's creator or unrelated. I recommend that this title be redirected to sex.
- The way, the truth, and the light ( talk) 14:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete It is a crank theory and incoherent gibberish as suggested above. The Y chromosome, for example, has very few genes on it and is not a platform for experimentation as suggested. This is well known empirical fact. Also, in some animals the chromosome that functioned in a role similar to that the Y fulfils in humans has long since disappeared, as there is no real need to have a special chromosome to have the separate sex. The Y in humans is, itself, predicted to disappear with the few functions it is currently responsible for relocating elsewhere. When the Y disappears there will still be males and females. Males will be X and females XX. The evolutionary advantage of sexual reproduction versus asexual reproduction is the same as for less complex organisms. Sexual reproduction provides greater genetic variation among the individuals which makes the species more robust to attacks from things like viruses and so on, and other rapid changes in an environment. The advantage of asexual reproduction is the rapid elimination of less optimal variations, as they are replaced (outcompeted) by the most optimal variation. However, asexual reproduction risks the line being extinguished if some threat that is tuned into the narrow range of ‘optimal’ variations comes along. This is not so much of a problem for less complex organisms, as new lines are being created at a reasonable rate. However, as more complex organisms take longer to develop from the less complex organisms, they need to be using sexual reproduction to get to the more complex stage (without being extinguished at some earlier stage). -- 203.214.3.114 ( talk) 23:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment Why are there only two sexes for more complex organisms rather than three? Three sexes really add nothing as far as increasing variation among offspring and if all three sexes need to be involved in reproduction a species having three sexes would be at a disadvantage in species against species competition, because two sexes getting together for reproduction is easier than needing three. -- 203.214.3.114 ( talk) 23:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep per WP:SNOW. Lone delete vote provided no rationale. -- JForget 00:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable book Itsmejudith ( talk) 14:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was } Delete ---- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was 'delete. Insufficient significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject to meet WP:N. Dreadstar † 01:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Unsourced article, can't find any evidence that the Official UK Charts Company publishes any such chart. As far as i know there is a singles chart (which combines downloads and sales) and a download only chart but no sales only chart. this document is the infopack form the charts company, page 14 details the charts they produce as you can see such a chart is non-existant. neonwhite user page talk 14:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete (both) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable artist. Has released one album and one mixtape, neither of which charted nationally. Fails WP:MUSIC. Including non-notable album which fails WP:MUSIC#Albums. — Hello, Control Hello, Tony 14:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete ---- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:BIO. Football player without appearance in a professional competition or even in the highest national competition. Plays in third division of Bosnian football league. His name gets very, very few Google hits [37], [38] [39], and no Google News hits [40] [41] [42]. Current professional soccer players in Europe always get more hits (certainly when they sign for e.g. FK Partizan, who competed in the Champions league a few years ago. Not to be confused with Nenad Đorđević, an at first glance similar name, and an actual player of Partizan. Fram ( talk) 13:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Pretty speedy keep per WP:SNOW. The Rambling Man ( talk) 15:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC) reply
keep i found the page extremely useful —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.50.32 ( talk) 06:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. No prejudice regarding furthering the merge discussions on the relevant talkpage(s). No consensus to merge here, but a consensus may develop outside of Afd. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Transwikied dictionary definition. WP is not a dictionary. TexasAndroid ( talk) 12:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep (nonadministrative closure). Subject likely notable. There does not appear to be a grounds for deletion. Disruptive nomination by likely sockpuppet account. Wikidemo ( talk) 16:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC) reply
This article seems to be nothing more then WP:TRIVIA, it doesn't seem to be notable. This article already exists at head light. NewAtThis ( talk) 12:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep (nonadministrative closure). Subject likely notable. There does not appear to be a grounds for deletion. Disruptive nomination by likely sockpuppet account. Wikidemo ( talk) 16:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Mini one sentence and one box article without any links or references on non notable song, not even a stub tag on it. Merge to appropriate album article maybe. NewAtThis ( talk) 12:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep (non admin closure). No consensus to delete, issues with sourcing to be addressed on the article's talkpage. Skomorokh 00:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Unreleased album with little or no media coverage; the only reference is the artist's MySpace page. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums and WP:V. Prod removed without comment. — Hello, Control Hello, Tony 12:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was merge. To be honest, though, the content already exists in Marstons Mills, Massachusetts#Schools, so I'll simply perform a history merge and leave it at that. -- jonny- m t 03:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD. Not the slightest indication of notability given. TexasAndroid ( talk) 12:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Well, that's settled then. Go for it. Merge/redirect amongst yourselves. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply
This phrase appears only in the work of one author, and only in respect of one event. There must be a more generic article to which we can redirect or merge this, since queues for essential goods were a perennial part of Soviet life, but I can't find it. Guy ( Help!) 12:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete as spam. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply
wildlife reserve previously tagged for speedy deletion. I'm neutral on the issue Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 11:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply
This page is original research and seems to speculate on a hypothetical production of Romeo and Juliet. It would not be useful to merge it into Romeo and Juliet as WP:BARD is restricted to a 700-900 word limit on plot summaries, and it would cause undue weight to be placed on this one scene. (that is, even if it could be reliably sourced - I don't know if it could be - usually the balcony scene is the one that's focussed on in academic essays...) Turning it into a redirect would not be useful as it is at a strange name (including " marks). Please note that this is a contested proposed deletion. Malkinann ( talk) 11:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. John254 03:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC) reply
All sources given for this language course are primary, and while Google returns a number of download sites, I didn't find independent coverage. The topic would therefore fail WP:N. On the other hand, some users objected to deletion on the talk page, so the question might be controversial. B. Wolterding ( talk) 11:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete for failing to establish notability. Seraphim♥ Whipp 10:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Non notable with no third party sources in the article Bidgee ( talk) 05:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was unanimous keep (non-admin closure). Prospect of merging left up to editors of the article. Skomorokh 01:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Propose article be moved to either wikiquote or wikibook IMO has little or no encyclopedic value and reads a little promotional. BigDunc ( talk) 21:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Damn it! She skipped Titus Andronicus. - Smerdis of Tlön ( talk) 14:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy close. Redirects should be nominated at WP:RFD. Non-admin closure. -- Dhartung | Talk 23:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. The advertising is already mentioned in the parent article, can be expanded if sourced. Black Kite 22:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Non notable advert. RepriseRubric ( talk) 17:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 ( talk) 23:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Someone previously proposed PROD because "this is more of a description of a category than an article, not notable and zero references. Speedy delete?". The page is in pretty lousy shape, but this looks like an area that could actually use an article - iPod software (Apple and 3rd-party) has a significant impact on a number of people's lives. The techniques behind it are well discussed though Apple doesn't participate in those discussions. I'd say keep in accordance with
WP:HEYdelete, but I thought I'd put that up for discussion.
Coanda-1910 (
talk)
08:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was Delete per DGG's rationale. Black Kite 22:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Michael Bounds' article states he is a college professor and was head of a department of an Australian university for a few years. That does not make someone notable. There are a lot of college professors out there. Furthermore there is only one link and no sourcing in the article to back up the claims. The article does not seem to establish notability. It is not verified. A good search didn't turn up a thing besides this article. He did seem to write a book on gentrification in Australia. However amazon.com seems to show it as his only published work. I should note most college professors do write and publish a book or two for the sole purposes of their own courses. That is what this book appears to be. I think the article should then be deleted. As for all the editors that have expressed concerns over my inexperience with AfDs, I hope I have herein satisfied your suggestions and concerns regarding proper listing. NewAtThis ( talk) 11:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 00:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Possible hoax article. There is no Wallington canal. Google gives few hits, all from Wikipedia. The majority of the text seems to be a reworking of Croydon Canal, and the sources provided do not specifically mention a canal in Wallington, and mention Wallington itself only in passing. Think outside the box 10:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Lack of WP:V and WP:RS remains an issue for the article. Pigman ☿ 23:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Hoax (and/or) Theory of Rex Gilroy (and/or) non-noted creature. Seems all referring back to a line in a book (2006) Dinosaurs: Dead Or Alive?. No reliable sources offered and none can be found. Single mention in a book, no news articles, no scholarly articles and no web mentions I can see outside a small circle of crypto zoologists. Fails to be a subject that is any way verifyable Peripitus (Talk) 09:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Just because this cryptid is little known and primarily researched by a man whom many think might be insane does not make it a hoax. It is not a hoax. Just google it if you must, its noy a hoax, and I believe at least marginally desrving of its own Wikipedia page. Spykeesam ( talk) 20:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Subject lacks any kind of notability or coverage in reliable sources. The page's only reference is to a blog. Meatsgains( talk) 01:49, 27 June 2018 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- jonny- m t 03:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable neologism, original research, unreferenced, and I cannot find any sources online after having tried searching that are reliable and mention this form of sexual assault. All of this suggests that this article should be deleted. Certainly not worth a standalone article. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 09:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
No reason to delete this article. It is very accurate. Many video sites have this kind of sexual assaults tagged as sharking. It is important to inform everyone what this kind of unacceptable behavior is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.68.96 ( talk) 00:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Severe BLP issues. Moreschi ( talk) ( debate) 21:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS. If it made any difference, Lindström is variously described as a model and a socialite but the news articles I scanned fail to expand on that in any detail. This is a sad case of a pretty girl [48] having gotten caught up in a crime which may well be newsworthy, but is hardly encyclopaedic content. — Moondyne click! 08:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
There's at least three other intersecting accounts but unfortunately I don't have the time to write it all up. I do get the distinct aroma of smelly socks though. — Moondyne click! 09:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep (non-admin closure). There were no delete preferences, and the possibility of merging is left up to article editors. Skomorokh 01:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable and almost irretrevable as a WP page due to quality. -- Alan Liefting- ( talk) - 08:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of vegetarians (3rd
The result was keep. There was no consensus to delete. Kingturtle ( talk) 20:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete Listcruft Dotsod1 ( talk) 07:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was srsly keptz. Send your rickrolls this way, I'm going non-admin on this one. dihydrogen monoxide ( H2O) 10:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Srsly guyz. Sceptre ( talk) 02:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus. The nominator and subsequent participators here have presented a very strong case for deletion based on our relevant notability guideline for websites. However, some credence needs to be given to the availability of sources for a genre of music that historically does not get any mainstream media coverage, such as metal/death music. The "alexa ranking", or hit count, as cited by Evenfiel below, in this case, does garner some significance as being a high-traffic website for its fanbase. Looking at the concerns of the notability camp, and the ramifications/fallout of deleting this article as far as the List of online music databases, they balance themselves out to a firm "no consensus" to delete. (I'm not a vote counter by any means, but as an FYI, it came out in support of non-consensus closure, at 9D/8K. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I'm aware that this nomination might make me very unpopular among my fellow metalheads on wikipedia but I do not believe the website qualifies as notable per wikipedia's guidelines on websites. The article currently asserts the website's high traffic as reported on alexa.com but the popularity of a website is not an acceptable criteria for notability. Many other websites attract higher traffic and hence are more popular but they do not merit an article page on wikipedia either: see, for instance mobile9.com which has a current traffic rank of 251 over the Encyclopaedia Metallum's 1099. The wikipedia guidelines on notability for websites provide three criterias: multiple non-trivial publication on independent works; receiving a well-known award; and being distributed via a medium independent of the site. Encyclopaedia Metallum does not fulfil any of these three criterias. Despite being around on wikipedia since early 2005, the article page does not and presumably has never asserted notability according to any of these criterias. I've spent a long time on google searching the internet for references to assert the website's notability but I was not able to find any. Hence, this nomination. -- Bardin ( talk) 06:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep per an apparent WP:HEY. Barnstars are thataway. -- jonny- m t 01:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Does not assert notability, and the author is asserting ownership of the article at the end. αѕєηιηє t/ c 06:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment:Thank you for your comment. Thanks to my Harvard friend Russell—who just email me another sources (I shall have more sources by mornong) regarding the work of Muktadhara—The sources is The New York Times and Wikipedia. Here're they: [51] [ http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE7DB1739F935A35755C0A96F958260&scp=1&sq=muktadhara&st=nyt] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jewelakhter ( talk • contribs) March 24 2008— Jewelakhter ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
CommentThis article is noting comparing what Muktadhara is doing and what it has done over the years to promote Bengali Language, the 5th largestspoken language in the world. I am in support of keeping this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.61.20.129 ( talk • contribs) March 26 2008
CommentThis is great Phil. Thanks for taking time from your busy schadule to do it. Wikiphedia needs people like you. I also thank Mr. Rashidul Bari for his article. Like many people, i think Wikiphedia should have this article (on Muktadhara)about years ago. Thank you. Komer Nath, Brooklyn College — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.245.180.110 ( talk • contribs) March 26 2008— 146.245.180.110 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment Mr. Bari I followed Mr. Phil footstep--meaning I edited the text because it was more of a first person. now i fixed it. Nahid, York College —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.61.20.129 ( talk) 01:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC) reply
CommentPhil & Nahid thank you--& don't hesitate to edit it as long as it needed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jewelakhter ( talk • contribs) March 28 2008
Delete - article reads like a magazine interview. I am not convinced that the requirements of WP:BIO are satisfied, but it's clear that the current article should not stand. B.Wind ( talk) 06:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Keep it Muktadhara is a pioneer of many things: 1. International Mother Language Day(21st February) 2. Ekosee Boi Mela (largest Bengali book fair in World) 3. 10 Greatest living Bengalis & 4. International Bengali Book Festival(held every year in the United States) Thus, I think Wikipedia can consider keeping this article. However, it must be edited properly—which I hope someone (with that ability) will do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.61.20.129 ( talk • contribs) 3 April 2008
KeepI've formatted the it a bit to help meet with Wiki's policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.61.20.129 ( talk) 00:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Keep It The Daily Independent, one of the prominent English newspapers in Bangladesh published Mr. Rashidul Bari’s article on Muktadhara. Please read it from the link : [52] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.61.20.129 ( talk) 21:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 00:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I'm not sure if this is a hoax or WP:CRYSTAL, but I can't find any references to this book anywhere. I would guess that it's a hoax given the editor's other edits. Rnb ( talk) 05:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. ---- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable band per [53] and [54]. Mostly just blogs, myspace, various metal listings and other such trivial directories. Wisdom89 ( T / C) 05:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sandstein ( talk) 21:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply
So? Who does "research" on latte art?
I'll see if I can find any citations for this.
Stormchaser (
talk)
00:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was Redirect to Staffordshire University (and delete the completely NN The Fox and Tiger Show. Black Kite 23:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable student radio station neonwhite user page talk 04:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following related pages - non-notable show on the above station:
Delete both. Student radio programs are rarely noted beyond their local environment and are rarely mentioned in news media; the first is an Internet station that has very limited exposure/access. The GK Radio article borders on promotional in natural (any more so and it would be in speedy deletion territory). B.Wind ( talk) 06:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. I am only deleting the main focus of the article. Please run a separate AfD for the other article, as there does not appear to be a consensus to delete it. Rjd0060 ( talk) 23:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC) reply
This list appears to be original research and a violation of WP:DIRECTORY/ WP:IINFO. Jfire ( talk) 04:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus as to whether or not the subject is sufficiently notable to warrant his own article, so defaulting to keep without prejudice to re-nomination after a reasonable amount of time. While there is significant adspeak in the article as it is, a quick cleanup can take care of that, and so I'm not inclined to speedy it as it stands. -- jonny- m t 02:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Previously tagged as an advertisement and a COI violation, the article was apparently written by Frank Romano himself [56]. No verifiable, reliable, third-party sources whatsoever are provided to establish notability. Qworty ( talk) 04:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. -- Dhartung | Talk 07:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I may be way off base, but this page seems like nonsense, If it's me, i'll be happy to withdraw, but think it needs a second or third set of eyes.
Cube lurker (
talk)
04:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. -- MCB ( talk) 07:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, newly minted play that only gets 42 unique Ghits, from minor writer (one lone Ghit for another of his claimed works), that apparently has to date only been performed by a school production company. Shawisland ( talk) 03:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep -- JForget 00:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC) reply
No references whatsoever (violates WP:CITE, et al.); tons of original research (violates WP:OR); poorly-written/-worded; biased (violates WP:NPOV); juries are covered in MANY other more-relevant articles (i.e. "Jury"). Mr. P. S. Phillips ( talk) 04:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was merge. After discounting the sockpuppets, it seems that the level of support for merging the content and support for keeping the article is roughly equal. However, the arguments for merging focus on a lack of secondary sources--a key requirement for establishing notability. As this issue is not addressed by the comments recommending that the article be left as is, I am inclined to give more weight to the merge comments when determining consensus. -- jonny- m t 10:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable comic book character, word is more often seen as NYC police slang. Blast Ulna ( talk) 04:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. -- jonny- m t 09:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
No assertion of notability beyond being among sons of Rahmi Koç. Yes, this guy works work in Koç Group (what a suprise, guess who hired him? Yes his father!.. And currently his brother is in charge...), but . Since the relationships do not confer notability, this guy has no awards, no honors, no widely recognized contribution, no creative professional, no entertainer, no diplomat, no politician, nothing but his surname... (by the way, the article Koç family mentions about him, which is enough IMHO) F10F11 ( talk) 02:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. There are no arguments to delete outside of the nomination. No prejudice against merging information from this article into another relevant article and leaving a {{ R from merge}}. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Completely original research; highly inaccurate; zero references; does not deserve its own article (if something is to be said about combo washer/dryers, it should be in the main washer and/or dryer article(s)). Mr. P. S. Phillips ( talk) 04:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- jonny- m t 16:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Not notable DimaG ( talk) 01:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Moreschi ( talk) ( debate) 21:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply
There is no indication of WP:ORG notability for this organization. In fact, the cited sources within the article do nothing more than refer to it by name. Furthermore, the bulk of the article is devoted to a screed against a rival organization. The admitted "Press & Information Secretary" of Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam and "office bearer" of Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam have been the main authors of this article and taken over Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi as well. I originally placed a small section on the ASI at the bottom of the Shahi article, but the members of this organization found it unsatisfactory for their apparent promotional needs, dutifully ignoring my many explantations of WP:COI, WP:N, WP:NPOV, etc. This article should be deleted. A redirect to Shahi would seem appropriate, and perhaps even a small merge of material, but the current work is a sham of an encyclopedia article. — Scien tizzle 22:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Interestingly, no Google news hits. Nothing links to their home page. / edg ☺ ☭ 00:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC) replyAs appears from its name, the Anjuman-e Sarfaroshan-e Islam presents itself as somewhat closer to mainline Islam...
— Weekly DurDesh article linked from References
However, I have tried my level best to make this article as good as I can and provide as much reference as possible. The sumary of references is given as under:
Moreover, I am not here to promote ASI but I want to submit the correct information, which is the moto of wikipedia. There’s no conflict of interest neither I want to violate the policies of wikipedia. Still if you think that this article should be deleted, you may do that.-- Iamsaa ( talk) 11:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted by Golbez ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) at 06:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC) per WP:CSD#G3 (vandalism); deletion request on other article withdrawn. cab ( talk) 06:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Clearly a hoax. With all of these brands which this Telkom CEO licences out to other parties, he would be a multi-multi-trillionaire, and his name would be a household name. Would anyone like to contact Mr Branson and tell him about this guy's ownership of Heaven, and that the Virgin Group now seems to be owned by this guy. Россавиа Диалог 03:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep (non-admin closure). As with the previous two nominations, no delete preferences were expressed, and editors are reminded that WP:PROBLEMS are not grounds for deletion. Skomorokh 01:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Not notable as an author, as his self-published book fails WP:BK. Insufficient WP:RS presented to establish any other notability. Thousands of Cubans have been jailed by Castro and thousands have come to the United States. Obviously, we're not going to have articles about each of them. There's an assertion that he was a lawyer in Cuba, but no evidence is given that he was a notable one. Qworty ( talk) 03:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Ghits confirm she was Leon Trotsky's daughter and born in exile but notability is not inherited and sadly, dying of tuberculosis doesn't make her notable either. TRAVELLINGCARI My story Tell me yours 03:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was 'Speedy delete per CSD G11 Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 05:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Unsourced article about a non-notable school. There are less than 250 results on Google, none of them reliable. — Wenli ( reply here) 03:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Withdrawn. — BradV 21:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC) reply
This article about a fictitious game fails verifiability and notability. Appears to be entirely original research. — BradV 03:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 ( talk) 23:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC) reply
It sounds like being the founder of the poet slam *might* make her notable but I can't find anything to connect her with the event, reliable source or not, and otherwise she seems to be just another poet. There's only 10 ghits in any language for her given name, all appear to be Wiki mirrors and other copies. TRAVELLINGCARI My story Tell me yours 03:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 02:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested prod, removed by author. Article is entirely original research and an essay. Cites no secondary sources; fails
WP:RS,
WP:V,
WP:OR. —
HelloAnnyong
(say whaaat?!)
03:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was speedily deleted by Golbez ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) as WP:CSD#G3 (vandalism) at 06:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC). cab ( talk) 06:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Article on an apparent April Fools joke; no evidence the film is actually in production. Powers T 02:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was KEEP per WP:SNOW. Non-admin closure. Itub ( talk) 09:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
original research, not verified, no RS NewAtThis ( talk) 02:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Consensus is that the article does not demonstrate notability, and an effort to find sources has evidently failed to produce usable reliable sourcing. There is no prejudice against coverage of this topic in a related article, like iTunes, and, of course, an article on this topic may be created at any time that it can be shown as more than a neologism, with demonstration that it meets WP:N. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Unsourced "event" for purchasing digital music downloads. I don't see how this is possibly notable as it could apply to any artist or any download on any day of the year. - eo ( talk) 02:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Sources now provided. Espresso Addict ( talk) 03:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Unreferenced since June 2006, this article gives no assertion of notability. A Google search turns up nothing, not even a confirmation of its existence. — BradV 02:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
![]() | This is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Paul Iorio. Please do not modify it. The result was "delete". The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. |
The result was keep, without prejudice against a merge and redirect to Xanth if size does not bar that option. Consensus on this may be determined in article talk space. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Not only is this unreferenced, it has no real-world notability, as WP:FICT suggests it should. Biruitorul ( talk) 01:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Indian presidential election, 2007. Dreadstar † 18:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC) reply
"Know Pratibha Patil" was essentially just an attack site used by the opposition against the ruling party's candidate in the Indian presidential election last year. No particular evidence of notability has been shown (the site itself is already dead), and while a sentence stating that the site existed wouldn't hurt in the article devoted to the election, this page is overkill. Biruitorul ( talk) 01:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus, default to keep. Dreadstar † 17:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I'm not entirely sure what to make of this page. It just seems straight up unencyclopedic. Smashville BONK! 01:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Like International Association of Methodist-related Schools, Colleges, and Universities and the Association of Presbyterian Colleges and Universities. I can see what this person was trying to replicate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.33.85.92 ( talk) 02:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
There were two prep-schools on the list, Fork Union Academy and San Marcos Academy, which I've taken off. The redlink for Yellowstone Baptist might become an article, although I have second thoughts about whether it would survive the deletion process. Mandsford ( talk) 17:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy keep. Nominator has stated withdrawal as shown below; furthermore, no actual reason for deletion was given, just reasons for improvement -- the article's been tagged for references, which is pretty much all it needs. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 02:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Article has no sources. It is an unreferenced stub for a significant amount of time, yet this article has a key importance for Wikipedia Music. It is dormant. Alex Perrier ( talk) 01:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Dreadstar † 17:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Lots of problems with this one. First off, it's a copyvio from here: [85]. It fails to meet WP:N and doesn't provide WP:RS. It also looks as if it might be WP:COI, since the article was created by an account called Wheelierecord, and a "wheelie record" is claimed for the subject. Finally, Wheelierecord is a WP:single-purpose account, created to promote and spam Hensel onto multiple WP pages: [86]. I realize that the guy was born with a serious birth defect, but that assertion is not going to be enough to satisfy WP:N. Qworty ( talk) 01:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Tikiwont ( talk) 08:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Confusing. Is it just list of names or what? Me what do u want? Your Hancock Please 01:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. The term might actually point to several different contexts, but this article isn't considered helpful. Tikiwont ( talk) 08:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Pretty obviously made up ( WP:MADEUP) and verging on WP:CB. Non-notable, unencyclopedic. ukexpat ( talk) 01:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to -phob-. Dreadstar † 17:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a dictionary - this article is nothing more than a definition and even uses Wiktionary as a reference!! ukexpat ( talk) 00:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Dreadstar † 05:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC) reply
All these lists are perfect violation of WP:NOT#INFO, no sources or notabilty on why all these basketball games are special from any other NBA game, the only sources are neilson ratings, also including all it's subpages National Basketball Association games televised by ABC in the 2002-03 season, National Basketball Association games televised by ABC in the 2003-04 season, National Basketball Association games televised by ABC in the 2004-05 season, and so on Delete Secret account 00:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete G7 by User:Jmlk17. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 01:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Almost certainly a hoax, no Ghits. WP:CB ukexpat ( talk) 00:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was self-admitted vandalism, not worth an AFD, next time tag it as a speedy delete. Secret account 00:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. Self-confessed April Fools joke. Roleplayer ( talk) 00:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep. Obviously notable, non-admin closure. MrPrada ( talk) 06:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
completely unsourced original research, not verified, does not establish notability, no citations nor external links NewAtThis ( talk) 00:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. See [89]. MrPrada ( talk) 06:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
non notable, non sourced original research, not verified, doesn't assert notability. NewAtThis ( talk) 00:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Snowball keep plus withdrawal of nom Grutness... wha? 01:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
non notable sing, original research, no sources reliable nor otherwise since mid to late 2007, no substantive edits, one external link
NewAtThis (
talk)
00:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
SPEEDY KEEP AND MOTION TO WITHDRAW, per 10 pound hammer's edits. NewAtThis ( talk) 01:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Dreadstar † 05:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC) reply
There is no information provided in this article. Nitraven ( talk) 12:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. — David Eppstein ( talk) 15:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Does not assert notability as per WP:BIO. αѕєηιηє t/ c 17:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Dreadstar † 04:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC) reply
There is no evidence of notability here. The award that the district has won is given to over one thousand districts a year in the US and Iceland. The award is given to any district (who decides to apply) who had no deaths in residential fires for a given year. According to this, for one of the years, there were only three total residential fires in the district, so I wouldn't say that's very notable. The other claim is that the district was the first in the area so it's notable. I can't find a source supporting it, and I don't really know if being the first is that notable. I don't really see this meeting our WP:CORP guidelines which would be the most relevant for this type of organization. Metros ( talk) 00:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Dreadstar † 03:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Non notable boxer, fails WP:ATHLETE, no other assertion of notability, no reliable sources. Mister Senseless™ ( Speak - Contributions) 23:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
.
The result was Keep. Dreadstar † 04:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Individual Robot Wars competitors are completely non-notable - the chance of multiple, reliable non-trivial published sources being written about the individual robots is close to nil. Delete. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 23:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Dreadstar † 04:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Individual Robot Wars competitors are completely non-notable - the chance of multiple, reliable non-trivial published sources being written about the individual robots is close to nil. Delete.
This one was a good Robot Wars latecomer, but as with the others, reliable third party sources about the robot? I don't think they exist. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 23:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Dreadstar † 04:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Individual Robot Wars competitors are completely non-notable - the chance of multiple, reliable non-trivial published sources being written about the individual robots is close to nil. Delete.
It was so great watching Road Block win the first series of Robot Wars, but completely not worth an individual encyclopedia article. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 23:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Dreadstar † 04:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Individual Robot Wars competitors are completely non-notable - the chance of multiple, reliable non-trivial published sources being written about the individual robots is close to nil. Delete.
And this is Razer, possibly the most notorious robot of them all. Reliable, non-trivial third party sources are yet to be provided... h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 23:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Agree with User:Nabla that the focus should be switched to subject's being a former "Scottish national triple jump champion". Dreadstar † 04:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Not-notable "Capacity Management Consultant", amateur sports coach and former amateur athlete.
The result was keep. Dreadstar † 05:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Individual Robot Wars competitors are completely non-notable - the chance of multiple, reliable non-trivial published sources being written about the individual robots is close to nil. Delete. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 23:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus, default to Keep. Dreadstar † 01:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Individual Robot Wars competitors are completely non-notable - the chance of multiple, reliable non-trivial published sources being written about the individual robots is close to nil. Delete. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 23:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. AfD is not cleanup, and so any COI/POV issues can be (and apparently have been) handled through the standard editing process. -- jonny- m t 02:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC) reply
No sign of any notability of this "robot" project, which article even admits, failed. WP:Conflict of Interest - robot creator Marpsan, is the sole contributor and he has made no other contributions to WP. Most of article is a personal essay by Marspan. Camillus (talk) 22:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Dreadstar † 05:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply
This article is littered with problems, after I cleaned up the vandalism, it still reads like an ad, has no independent sources, and talks about Nintendo and Wizards of the Coast tours which I have a feeling are completely unrelated to this board game. I don't know enough about the Pokemon franchise, so I'm not entirely sure about notability, but unless someone wants to undertake a rescue mission and finds material to expand this with, I'm sure any pertinent information could probably be merged with the main Pokemon article. Mister Senseless™ ( Speak - Contributions) 23:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Dreadstar † 05:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete: Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 23:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep (non-admin closure) with strong consensus to merge to be acted upon on the article/talkpage. Skomorokh 00:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD. Reason for contention of prod can be found at Talk:Portuguese Third Division: Série A. My reason for deletion is that this article adds nothing to its main article, Portuguese Third Division. In order to survive this AfD, I believe it needs to focus more on the competition itself, instead of the competing clubs. – Pee Jay 22:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Dreadstar † 05:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply
No sources. No notability. Article itself implies it's about a 'chess.com member' which is not notable. ChessCreator ( talk) 22:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
http://blog.chess.com/Graw81/my-boungcloud-attack-games ChessA4 ( talk) 19:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Dreadstar † 05:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable individual. Only 1 reliable source in the article has significant coverage and the article overstates his notability with vague and non-neutral wording ("interviewed by various", "countless media outlets", "a dedicated following"). Mr. Z-man 22:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete, does not meet Wikipedia:BIO#Athletes, insufficient secondary sources to establish notability.
WP:ATHLETE While Perry may pass criteria by competing in a professional league, I'm not sure that a career minor-leaguer, without attaining some kind of record or noteworthy achievement while in the minors, is necessarily notable. From WP:Notability (people), "meeting one or more [of the criteria] does not guarantee that a subject should be included". Wolfer68 ( talk) 22:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep (non-admin closure) per lack of delete preferences. Issue of merging/redirecting left to editors of the article/talkpage. Skomorokh 00:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Rejected speedy, procedural nom, I'm neutal. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 21:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Dreadstar † 05:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply
No claim to fame: a girl who wrote a few poems and short stories(?). Google search fails to support notability. One of her 2 cited awards is a split 3rd place in a Hungarian competition. Gregorik ( talk) 22:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
{{
notability|biographies}}
as given by the
guidelines would of been sensible. PS I'm no way related to this page/person until I saw the nomination on the Articles for deletion log. The lack of Google coverage doesn't surprise me when you consider this is about someone writing in a foreign language and that coverage and awards are in physical publications and not the web.
ChessCreator (
talk)
14:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
reply{{
notability|biographies}}
does not suffice. See
WP:NOT and
WP:BIO. End of argument.
Gregorik (
talk)
16:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
reply{{
notability|biographies}}
applies, it's in the
Wikipedia:BIO#Insufficient_sources guidelines.
ChessCreator (
talk)
21:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
replyThe result was Keep. Espresso Addict ( talk) 03:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply
A small county airport. Article is very difficult to read, and seems to be a list of 'features', most of which are not explained, and would not make sense to somebody who was not familiar on the subject. Fusion Mix 21:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
♠Return to Original Page.I believe the reason the page was created was to create a reference for pilots. If worse came to worse, they would have somewhere to go. Just because the type is not understandable to everyone, doesn't make it worthless. I liked it as it was, as it was true, and had some important information on it.
The result was Speedy delete G4 by User:Martijn Hoekstra. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 21:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, WP:MADEUP, almost WP:CB ukexpat ( talk) 21:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Googling "Steve Lambert" superbike returned 25 results, the Wikipedia entry and several copies of the entry on other sites, some for a UK police sergeant with the same name, the most relevant result is wera.com the Western Eastern Roadracing Association an association for amateur roadracing but the profile does not much the article's claims. Its also easy to see he didnt win all the races there [3] [4] . This article is either fake or about a non-notable local racer Chris Ssk talk 21:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Deleted by User:Gonzo fan2007 -- JForget 00:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Individual of marginal encyclopaedic importance, subject expresses a very clear preference not to have an article (see WP:BLP). He has had an interesting career, but there are no compelling sources cited. VRTS ticket # 2008032210012452 confirms subject preference. Guy ( Help!) 21:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect non-admin closure by -- Lenticel ( talk) 01:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The books are certainly notable, the spells and other story-related elements, not so much. Fails WP:N ukexpat ( talk) 21:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Boldly redirected per WP:COMMONSENSE and the nom's comment above. Not going to non-admin close someone else's AfD TRAVELLINGCARI My story Tell me yours 00:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Espresso Addict ( talk) 02:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Article began life as guerrilla spam for a Danish company. With the company name removed it becomes a non-notable neologism. -- RHaworth ( Talk) ( contribs) 21:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Dreadstar † 05:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I think that this is a bit too specific for Wikipedia. Any relevant information can be found at Vehicle registration plates of the United States. Captain panda 20:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Not sure how this works but this article should be deleted since it has stolen material (text and photos) from several websites, including the ALPCA archives. [5] [6] [7] The New Jersey article does the same thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Battersea Bosco ( talk • contribs) 01:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC) reply
They blagged some stuff from the ALPCA archives, which is password protected. This and the New Jersey article need to be deleted since it is proprietary information. We always loved American number plates and we think that it is not right to steal things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Battersea Bosco ( talk • contribs) 02:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment I have to ask if an article is basically made up of copyright violations does that mean we have to delete them and maybe start over? -- Plate King ( talk) 02:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete as copyvio by User:TexasAndroid, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 21:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Apparently about a school, but it does not specify where. Provides no context, seems to ramble on, almost as if it were a press release or from the website of the school. Very POV, potentially beyond salvage. Removed prod. Random 89 20:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. per WP:SNOW (non-admin) - M ilks F 'avorite C ookie 22:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC) reply
This article a) has no real-world context and b) does not give any hint to reliable independent sources. The topic seems to fail WP:N. The only source given is another Wiki. There are two sections which were supposed to contain sourcable real-world information, but they remained empty; there have been no recent additions except vandalism. B. Wolterding ( talk) 20:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Dreadstar † 05:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Notability not established Hgilbert ( talk) 20:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 00:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Spam article, disguised as psychology, created by notorious wikispammer Arthur Carmazzi, whose WP:AUTO is up for deletion below. Qworty ( talk) 20:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
my name is Marcie Coldwell, PR executive for Mr. Carmazzi, founder of the Directive Communication methodology. i would like to clarify that Direcitive Communication is a "Methodology", it is used by many consultants and speakers throughout Asia, NOT only Mr. Carmazzi, it is implemented mostly in multi-nationals across Asia, although there are a few in Europe and North America. also, it is in my opinion slanderous to refer to Mr. Carmazzi as a "notorious wikispammer", we are doing a job to inform the public of "Proven" methods in organisational change and training, this makes us no money or helps us to sell books or porduct, true, it is PR, and then so is everything that mentions any new idea that is not from someone who is dead. as stated below, we made every attempt to make these and all other entries as objective as possible to maintain the Wikipedia standards and respect its intention. and, as for refferences, we added the references in accordance with the request that was posted a few days ago. Carmaz ( talk) 08:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Please read the article? it was information about a methodology, no promotion, only information and method and how the method is used. Please see my comments below pertaining to "PR", Marcie. Carmaz ( talk) 04:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Dreadstar † 06:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Extremely aggressive wikispammer who has inserted himself and his spamlinks into several articles and has been reprimanded by other editors: [9]. Spam report is here: [10] He's a non-notable "motivational speaker" who has a grand total of two hits on Google News, one of which is his father's obituary from 1969: [11]. Also created the spam article Directive Communication, which is the name of his business, and which I'm going to AfD next. Qworty ( talk) 19:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
my name is Marcie Coldwell, PR executive for Mr. Carmazzi, while i do understand that in the US, you may have specific criteria as notible, we can provide substantial "international" (within Asia and the Middle East) print (and some TV) coverage of Mr. Carmazzi and his Directive Communication methodology. also, we can provide Notable Organisations such as Emirates (also not a US organisation but still quite large)that will attest to the results this methodolgy provides. Mr. Carmazzi was also chosen as one of the top 30 leadership gurus in the world for his contibutions. all this is verifiable and we would gladly prvide scans of news article, TV coverage, radio interview recordings. of course they are all in Asia and the Middle East. also, while we did start the two articles, contrubutions to them were later made by others. for verification of the media and awards mentioned, please contact me at: marcie@directivecommunication.com - also, we made every attempt to make these as objective as possible to maintain the Wikipedia standards and respect its intention Carmaz ( talk) 07:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC) additionally, i honestly do not see how you only get a few hits on google, perhaps you could type in "Arthur Carmazzi", "Arthur F Carmazzi" Carmaz ( talk) 08:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC) reply
if you read the articles, you will find we NEVER promoted his programs, ever! we gave general unbiased information! According to (Robert L. Heath, Encyclopedia of Public Relations). PR is is a management function that focuses on two-way communication and fostering of mutually beneficial relationships between an organization and its publics. it is NOT designed to "Promote" only to inform. when a company comes out with a new product there is a very big difference between the promotion, and the information that they are launching a product. information is published because it is newsworthy, promotion identifies the reasons, emotional and practical, to buy the product or service; then there is the call to action. we did none of that, only presented the facts - and, if by any means any wiki-master believes differently, we would gladly revise the objectivity to be within the appropriate standards. do not judge the quality of the information based on my job title... Please.
Marcie Carmaz ( talk) 04:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC) reply
i find it interesting the editors of wikipeda will keep a quote by Mr Carmazzi in the leadership section, yet, delete his name from and credit from it. why? is that ethical by Wikipedia standards? "Leadership is not about changing the mindset of the group but in the cultivation of an environment that brings out the best (inspires) in the individuals in that group. Each individual has various environments that bring out different facets from their own identity, and each facet is driven by emotionally charged perceptions within each environment. To lead, one must create a platform through education and awareness where individuals fill each others needs. This is accomplished by knowing why people may react favorably to a situation in environment A, but get frustrated or disillusioned in environment B."
and, if wikipedia is in the information industry, it is inevitability reconcilable for PR, look up Robin Sharma, Ken Blanchard, Tom Peters well known in America, these pages contain information about these people and, while it is obecjtive (at least some of it), it is in essence PR. the question you should ask, is do people really want to know, if, no one cares, then, fine, delete delete delete, but what of the 36% HR professionals in Singapore who know who Arthur Carmazzi is (according to an independent research we engaged National University of Singapore to do). what of the over 260,000 people in Asia who have heard Mr Carmazzi speak, what of the millions who have seen him on TV or Print and want to find out more. the information on Wikipedia was specifically unbiased and written in a non-promotion standard (unlike other articles that are still up). if ANY of you are living in Asia, then i would have more confidence in your appreciation, or not, since at least you would have the exposure and be able to make intelligent decisions. and if you are not, then at least the desire to get the facts which we will gladly provide by email. we have offices in Bali, Singapore and Malaysia and anyone of you can call. i will provide the numbers.
please get the facts! first search google with "Arthur Carmazzi" and "Arthur F Carmazzi" there are over 9000 directly related pages in 6 different languages that i found. then, contact me for copies of print articles and TV (including the CNN of China called "Dialogue") that Mr. Carmazzi and the Directive Communication methodology have appeared in. let me send you the facts. Mr Carmazzi has made an impact here in Asia and the Middle East, we have the references, we have the proof. my email: marcie@directivecommuniation.com
W. C. Fields one said "don't confuse me with the facts, i have already made up my mind" we don't believe this to be wikipedia's philosophy. Carmaz ( talk) 04:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC) reply
marcie. Carmaz ( talk) 09:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Arthur F Carmazzi (born August 21, 1962) is an Italian American writer / speaker living in Asia and expert on Psychological applications to Leadership and Organisational Culture Enhancement and Development. He is mostly known for his contribution as the founder of the Directive Communication Methodology.
Biography
Carmazzi was born in Carson City, Nevada. He went to Carson High School and attended University of Nevada - Reno, Pacific University, and Montana State University majoring in various disciplines from business to psychology and international marketing to chemical and electrical engineering. While he attended these various universities over a 5 year period, he received no degree. He was hired as a Copywriter in his first job in Deco & Co. in 1986, in spite of his challenge of dyslexia and A.D.S., he was soon promoted to the youngest account executive in the history of the company. He left Deco on 1988 to build a small company he purchased – Frontier Corporate Kit Company – that dealt in corporate business structure to a legal clientele. He built the company to the 3rd largest of its kind in the United States.
In 1990, he was stabbed in an attempted robbery where he almost lost his life. This event gave him new a new perspective in life so he sold his company and most of his positions then traveled the globe for 2 years to find his greater self. In 1992, he moved to South Korea as Managing Director to the Asian venture of the Grail Corporation, an American consulting company dealing in the creation of new retail distribution chains for B2B organisations.
In 1997, Carmazzi’s success prompted him to start his own retail chain in Singapore. Within a year and a half, Carmazzi had not only lost everything, he found himself a half-million Singapore Dollars in Debt. He acclaims this experience as his first real lesson in how ego affects organisational effectiveness. Carmazzi was forced to go back into the corporate world in 1999 to repay his debt and fundamentally survive. Entering as a department head in a dysfunctional Multi-National, Carmazzi, considering himself a positive and hardworking individual, found himself being assimilated into the dysfunctional culture and taking on the negative characteristics of the culture such as blaming and being uncooperative. This conflict of identity eventually led Carmazzi to the research that founded the Directive Communication Methodology.
After a few successes in applying the new Directive Communication method, including saving the organisation he worked for an additional $17,000 a week in wastage, Carmazzi formed his own firm to facilitate Directive Communication based Training and organisational development applications. In 2005, he began licensing Directive Communication to other trainers and consultants around the globe. . Bestselling author The 6 Dimensions of Top Achievers, a joint project with his friend David Rogers, was published in 2000, and became a bestseller in Singapore and then Malaysia. The book researched 50 different self-made millionaires from around the world and presented their strategies from a replicatable psychological perspective. In his more recent books, Carmazzi took lessons from his own life and failures and his take on the decision making process in relation to environment.
In the December 2002 “Identity Intelligence” was published and ranked 32 in sales on the first day of release, only to be taken off the shelves by the threat of a law suit for improper structure in referencing of his research. When the matter was solved in Carmazzi’s favor 4 years later, the publishers no longer accepted the title for distribution. The book only sold about 12,200 copies at Carmazzi’s talks and website by 2006.
Carmazzi now focuses on Leadership and Organisational Development and developing other Directive Communication certified trainers and consultants. He continues to write and speak about his applications of the Directive Communication methodology. His Asia headquarters is base in Bali Indonesia. In 2007, Carmazzi was awarded as the number 10 most influential leadership professional by Leadership Gurus International.
Works
2000 – The 6 Dimensions of Top Acheivers (co-written with David Rogers) 2002 – Identity Intelligence 2005 – Leadership Intelligence – the force for making the right decisions for personal and professional success 2007 – Lessons from the Monkey King, leading change to create Gorilla Sized Results 2007 – The Culture Evolution handbook 2004 - 2007 The Directive Communication Facilitation Series (12 volumes)
References Arthur F Carmazzi - official site Arthur F Carmazzi: Personal – Personal site Summary Biography from Leadership Gurus
Marcie. Carmaz ( talk) 13:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC) reply
there is more than one person here, and while it is likely that the "inappropriate" link to Mr. Carmazzi's video to youtube came from this office, namely my assistant so I am responsible, we are NOT spammers and are trying to resolve this in an intelligent communicative manner, i personally do not appreciate being called names when we are trying to follow guidelines and regulation. To date, NO ONE has requested for the proof of notability we are more than happy to give. Have we made mistakes in guideline, yes, I, we, are not perfect but we do learn from our mistakes and we are commited to working within Wikipedia’s practices. Marcie. Carmaz ( talk) 13:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC) reply
in reference to posting, we can admit, (and once again as a learning curve trying to work within the WP guidlines), to informational posts in Organizational culture, Organization development, Leadership, Leadership development, Transformational leadership, Industrial and organizational psychology, as these would be within Mr. Carmazzi's scope of expertise. We would not and have not to my knowlege put posts on Customer service, and Motivational speaker as this is NOT an area where we could contribute anything valuable.
again, please stop calling me names and assist us to work properly within the community, Mr. carmazzi is a great source of new information that has helped thousands of people and organisations. sharing wisdom is of benefit to everyone. as for proof, we would love to give you whatever proof you would like, i have left my email address and NO ONE has asked, is there another way to get you the proof? Carmaz ( talk) 07:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep (non-admin closure) per lack of delete preferences. Skomorokh 00:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply
TV show of doubtable notability. Sources given are merely a directory listing and an IMDB entry (which doesn't confer notability). PROD was contested. B. Wolterding ( talk) 19:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Deleted by User:Lectonar -- JForget 00:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I wanted to place this as a speedy deletion but that was reverted recommending I should nominate this as AFD instead. My reason is all it is, is just a one line sentence with nothing to back this claim up for that reason is the source is nonexistent. Moosato Cowabata ( talk) 19:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Dreadstar † 06:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Violates WP:COI and WP:AUTO and fails to establish WP:N. Mundane padded resume of a run-of-the-mill businessman. Qworty ( talk) 19:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirected. Editors are free to merge as appropriate. Pastordavid ( talk) 21:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Independent sources are missing for this manga; only a link to a directory listing is provided. PROD was contested, with comment "ann coverage suggests futher sources can befound, and yuki seems to be a reasonably notable mangaka". I don't see evidence for that. B. Wolterding ( talk) 19:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. faithless (speak) 09:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable artist with a bunch of self-released albums, little or no media coverage and no references. Fails WP:MUSIC. Prod removed without comment. — Hello, Control Hello, Tony 19:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy close Article was redirected to Gentlemen's agreement, no point in keeping discussion open as this appears to be a fairly non-controversial redirect. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 21:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Not-notable, verging on the WP:MADEUP, no references. Should be deleted (or possibly redirected to Gentlemen's agreement) ukexpat ( talk) 18:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Deleted by Orangemike as a copyvio. Davewild ( talk) 20:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Hard to follow but appears to be WP:OR and unreferenced. ukexpat ( talk) 18:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. As demonstrated below, subject meets the threshhold for notability set by WP:MUSIC; and conflicts of interest - while a reason to watch the page for POV and bias - are not a reason for deletion. Pastordavid ( talk) 21:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete for failing WP:N. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 09:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Minor action, possible POV with only the U.S. mil. source TheFEARgod ( Ч) 17:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment Regarding all of these (are there more than the 3 nominated here) military operations articles. Not that I think that each one is particularly notable, but I'm not sure if AfD us the best place to decide that. Does one of the appropriate wikiprojects have guidelines on this sort of thing? Random 89 20:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- jonny- m t 02:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Minor action, possible POV with only the U.S. mil. source TheFEARgod ( Ч) 17:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. While I agree with Pixelface that the rationale presented in the nomination was a bit...lackadaisical, further discussion resulted in a clear consensus that the operation is non-notable, a fundamental issue that is not addressed by the comments in favor of keeping the article. -- jonny- m t 02:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Minor action, possible POV with only the U.S. mil. source TheFEARgod ( Ч) 17:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. faithless (speak) 09:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:RS, WP:CORP - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 17:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Speedy Delete,Agreed, fully. Mww113 ( talk) 17:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Small consensus, yes, but convincing, per WP:MUSIC and lack of sources (and apparent lack of availability of sources, meaning, they don't exist. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Totally unsourced. An early revision refers to it as a "fan album". Later revisions call it an "unreleased album". In either case, it sounds to be a fan bootleg of some sort. The likelihood of such an item being notable is IMHO low. And with no references, even that small chance is not shown. TexasAndroid ( talk) 17:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was unanimous keep (non-admin closure). Skomorokh 00:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply
unsourced, non-notable article about a local DJ Rtphokie ( talk) 13:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. John254 03:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete unsourced one-liner that could be notable, might be useful, or could be just pure misinformation - the earliest known something, known by whom? - without sourcing, and context, WP would be better without than with this one... Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 17:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Company which appears to fail WP:COMPANY. A Google search for "Mosley Guitars", returns only 78 hits, mostly advertising/press release-type stuff by the company itself and links to their eBay auctions. Nothing on Google News. Unable to find any coverage whatsoever in reliable secondary sources. This was brought to attention on the talk page of the article, however - which is concerning, if true. This is a cached portion of the deleted thread from that forum, where several users voice their concerns about some of the claims made by the company. Kurt Shaped Box ( talk) 17:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable non-governmental organization in UK for a fringe psychotherapy. The article has no secondary, independent sources per
WP:RS, and is written as an advert. Delete and start from scratch if necessary.
Bearian (
talk)
17:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was Delete Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails to establish notability, no sources. WP:CSD#A7 Rtphokie ( talk) 17:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails to establish notability, no reliable sources. WP:CSD#A7 Rtphokie ( talk) 17:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails to establish notability, no sources. WP:CSD#A7 Rtphokie ( talk) 17:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep per article improvements/sourcing. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails to establish notability, no sources. WP:CSD#A7 Rtphokie ( talk) 17:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus to delete. However, there are rumbles of a possible future merge/redirect. That would be for the talk pages of the relevant articles though, not for AfD. "No consensus", of course, defaults to keep. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Poorly sourced, unnotable crufty plot summaries.
This article has very poor sources, with one being a broken link and the other coming from an inappropriate third party, suggesting that notability has not been established for the subject of this article to non-Ultima Online players and the real world.
The article contains a mixture of cruft-like plot summaries and release dates in the form of a directory/list, both of which are what Wikipedia is not and is likely to attract unwelcome original research.
This article has these issues to deal with that other editors apparently are not interested in fixing, giving little chance for this article's survival. IAmSasori ( talk) 18:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete and redirect to Bruce Haack. -- jonny- m t 02:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails notability for music. Poorly written. Ward3001 ( talk) 20:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep However, some improvements and some cleanup is needed for this article. -- JForget 00:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC) reply
This article has phone number,email and address of various temples.Earlier proded and prod removed by the author.Further it is mere list of temples for which there no articles and the moment a mere list. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 20:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. SynergeticMaggot ( talk) 23:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable group. Albums all self-released on their own Rasta Rumba label. Google News archive turns up 3 trivial mentions. Fails WP:MUSIC (and WP:V). — Hello, Control Hello, Tony 19:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. -- Angelo ( talk) 13:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply
There are no third party sources on this topic, unless you count one obscure blog. It easily fails notability requirements. Psych less 19:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep (and remove/rewrite history section for any copyvio). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Radio stations under Part 15 (i.e. low-power stations) are generally not considered notable. Since the article on this student station is quite elaborate, I prefer a wider discussion. It's already briefly mentioned in Rhode Island College, so there's probably nothing to merge. B. Wolterding ( talk) 16:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 00:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable single. Mdsummermsw ( talk) 20:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 00:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable single. Mdsummermsw ( talk) 20:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 00:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable album. Mdsummermsw ( talk) 20:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Black Kite 00:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Doesn't meet WP:NOTE Al.locke ( talk) 16:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. -- Angelo ( talk) 13:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply
According to the article, "Marilyn Manson & The Spooky Kids did not have an official tour, but these are the dates in which they performed, mainly in Florida. The different presentations initiated in 1989 and finished in 1993." This article is therefore synthesis on a non-notable topic, with no sources to attest to its notability (how could they, as this is only found on Wikipedia?). Blast Ulna ( talk) 21:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 00:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Originally PRODded on March 23. Original author wrote in email to OTRS saying that the notability should be OK now, but appeared not to realize the procedure here, so I'm transferring this to AFD. Here are the contents of the email sent to OTRS (with personal information removed):
This pertains to the article on artist " Don Kartel ". In addition to submitting a picture we wanted to further state that in light of the request for deletion, new material has been added in the artist's favour, that should serve as sufficient notability. The delete date would have been tomorrow, but upon realising today, the information was added. We would like to also add this picture to the article. Provide any problems may arise, feel free to contact us, and we shall be more than willing to rectify the matter As much as possible what we aim to do is highlight the artist in a greater light, in that his bio can reflect his work ethic and accomplishments. The birthdate of the artist is Nov 30 1982, Born in Scarborough, Ontario, Canada...currently affiliated with Pro Records...formely a member "on point"..formely a member of "waiting room records" just in the event that you can give him a bio on par to other established artists such as lil wayne, chamillionaire etc. Provided any problems may arise, feel free to contact us, and we shall be more than willing to rectify the matter There are 3 external links, all of which we have added as updates 1 Hip Hop Canada Link 2 Ringtones Site @ Flextones 3 Myspace Links
I have no opinion the article, and am making the AFD nomination simply to bring this to the larger community. There was a photo attached to the OTRS email and if the article is kept, I will add it. howcheng { chat} 21:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Well if that's the way people feel, and the sources aren't adequate, then please delete it. I was the author. I felt that it was sufficient, maybe i was wrong.These complications really aren't worth my time. Aparently the artist was a pigment of my imagination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kartelevision ( talk • contribs) 07:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 00:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Seems to have limited notability, no third-party sources. Calvin 1998 ( t- c) 23:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- jonny- m t 02:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
This article lacks any major, independent third party references, and thus does not comply with WP:N. TheNobleSith ( talk) 00:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete Lack of third-party sources. Put another way, no sources other than SW ones make any mention of this subject. Thus, it does not comply with WP:N. TheNobleSith ( talk) 19:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Nonadmin close. Xymmax ( talk) 13:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Notability is not inherited. Being brother to a famous historical figure does not make one notable. That said, given who the historical figure is, I figured I would AFD this instead of A7 speedy, to give it a chance in case I am missing something. TexasAndroid ( talk) 16:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Espresso Addict ( talk) 02:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply
There's no reliable sources included to verify that this is a notable parenting technique. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide seems to apply as well. Prod removed without comment or change by creator. FisherQueen ( talk · contribs) 16:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy deleted by Pedro. EconomicsGuy ( talk) 08:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Not a speedy candidate and quite possibly a good faith creation The only sources available are either blogs or travel sites of uncertain reliability and independence. Basically an essay and the parts that are of encyclopedic value could easily be merged into
Travel 2.0 until this subject matures enough to warrant an independent article.
EconomicsGuy (
talk)
15:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. Evaluating this discussion was somewhat difficult. However, after discounting the large number of SPAs and apparent sockpuppets, there was a clear consensus to delete. Blueboy 96 21:09, 9 April 2008 (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}} . |
A large portion of these !votes for keeping this article have generated from a post on the NASIOC forums, thread located here, in which Wikipedian editors, among other things, are called douchebags for nominating this article. Just an FYI Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I have attempted to previously place this as a PROD, but the article creator user:RCIM wanted to dispute this, stating that a internet forum dressed as a car club is notable because 1) it has been in existence since 1999, 2) 140,000 members, these of which wouldn't have to pay a penny to join, 3) it boasts of being the largest, for a national club, it will be. All in all I can't see why is this organization being anywhere notable. Moosato Cowabata ( talk) 15:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The point is, when deciding to delete or keep an article, the burden of proof should be on those who wish to delete, not keep, and this should be a HEAVY burden. Drive space is cheap. Making Wikipedia more inclusive is better - if some "unnecessary" articles are there, so what? It's not like a paper encyclopedia that will get physically larger with more entries. The search feature will allow someone to find what they are looking for - no one has to "turn pages" past the NASIOC entry to get to what they want.
The level of emotion and the perseverance that a handful of people have toward pushing through this deletion speaks volumes. Why are they so concerned? No one doing a routine "clean up" would be so determined to delete an entry. There's more to this story. We'll probably never know.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.156.2.34 ( talk)
Keep I think the biggest misconception here is the fact that it it *NOT* merely an advertisement for a car club. The article is just some facts about an internet automotive community large enough to be of some note. It's obviously of some importance if the manufacturer chooses to have direct contact with the members. Speaking of members, the membership base grows at a fairly good clip which I think proves its notability since NASIOC does not blatantly look for PR or advertisement opportunities. I also have to question the motives of the member who brought it to scrutiny, since he seems to have a conflict of interest, and a some of the people calling for deletion also seem to have more than a passing interest in Mitsubishis. Upnygimp ( talk) 20:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)— Upnygimp ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
( talk) 11:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Espresso Addict ( talk) 02:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Not even in production, therefore falls foul of WP:CRYSTAL ukexpat ( talk) 15:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
See also related AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jewel (2009)
The result was Delete. Espresso Addict ( talk) 03:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Not even in production, therefore falls foul of WP:CRYSTAL. ukexpat ( talk) 15:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
See also related AfD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jewel (Murali K. Thalluri's film)
The result was Keep, and update article. I think all computer companies should make pillows, BTW. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply
No sources after 2006 and the so-called manufacturer's website now links to a pillow sheet manufacturer. Shii (tock) 15:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
http://www.lemote.com/index.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.21.53 ( talk) 06:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete (as noted, the article fails WP:N due to lack of significant reliable sources independent of the subject) -- Angelo ( talk) 13:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Unregistered fledgling Canadian political party. No sources other than own website. Their FAQ states that they are unregistered (i.e., not a real party in the eyes of the Canadian goverment). Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 15:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
It is a real party working on registration at the provincial level. For sources on the party please see the references posted on article. 24.137.85.230 ( talk) 16:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- jonny- m t 03:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Doesn't seem to be notable outside the Project 86 article. αѕєηιηє t/ c 15:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete ---- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I originally nominated this as a CSD as it deserved for the reason that it is a non-notable as there are a number of organizations that enter car shows.
but another editor removed this nomination stating that "mentions in DVDs/magazines/etc. constitute a weak claim to notability"
If this is notable, thatn what about a large umber of owners club, does this make them notable and in my case, this oe is absolutely not.
Also, this article is created by an editor who the Co-Leader in Training (NorCal Human Resource Director) [29], therefore he has COI issues within the article
IMO, editors are not allowed to create articles about themselves and their organizations, this is the reason why this will have to go. Moosato Cowabata ( talk) 15:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I'm tempted to speedy this as an "unsourced or badly sourced negative bio" per WP:BLP, but let's see what others think.
We have a lot of these articles, so it would be good to form a view. Docg 14:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Delete arguments (a plot summary in the form of a timeline, mostly based on original research) are stronger than the keep arguments. Fram ( talk) 20:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Article consists entirely of plot ( WP:NOT#PLOT), and the given dates (especially the months) are totally original research (as a diehard SG-1 fan, I can tell). If we assume that the years are about right, this timeline would still be redundant to the season articles of Stargate SG-1 and Stargate Atlantis ( Stargate Infinity is not considered canon). The backstory of the Ancients and the Goa'uld is given in the respective race articles (and those have severe WP:WAF problems as well) and is thus redundant in this article, too. I have added a per-year timeline to List of Stargate works sometime ago, so a basic and non-OR overview is still there. I have tagged the timeline article as {{ unencyclopedic}} a month ago and informed the Stargate WikiProject (which I am part of), and (1) no-one except one person replied and (2) the one person who replied pointed to a gateworld page (as a fansite not a reliable source), but its subpages seem to be dead (and, from memory, they didn't give months either). Additionally, I have contacted the Stargate wikia a few weeks ago for transwikiing, but they are not interested since they already got their own timeline structure. In short: delete. – sgeureka t• c 14:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Concise, this isn't. I find the article List of Stargate works and it's linked articles well sufficient to encyclopedic purposes; this article however: inaccordant with policy and obsolescent in purpose. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 21:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC) reply"Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development and historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot. This applies to both stand-alone works and series. A concise plot summary is appropriate as part of the larger coverage of a fictional work."
The result was Delete -- JForget 00:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable school basketball gym. Fusion Mix 14:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Evolution of sex. Moreschi ( talk) ( debate) 20:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply
This article appears to be a crank theory, as well as incoherent. All the links are either by this theory's creator or unrelated. I recommend that this title be redirected to sex.
- The way, the truth, and the light ( talk) 14:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete It is a crank theory and incoherent gibberish as suggested above. The Y chromosome, for example, has very few genes on it and is not a platform for experimentation as suggested. This is well known empirical fact. Also, in some animals the chromosome that functioned in a role similar to that the Y fulfils in humans has long since disappeared, as there is no real need to have a special chromosome to have the separate sex. The Y in humans is, itself, predicted to disappear with the few functions it is currently responsible for relocating elsewhere. When the Y disappears there will still be males and females. Males will be X and females XX. The evolutionary advantage of sexual reproduction versus asexual reproduction is the same as for less complex organisms. Sexual reproduction provides greater genetic variation among the individuals which makes the species more robust to attacks from things like viruses and so on, and other rapid changes in an environment. The advantage of asexual reproduction is the rapid elimination of less optimal variations, as they are replaced (outcompeted) by the most optimal variation. However, asexual reproduction risks the line being extinguished if some threat that is tuned into the narrow range of ‘optimal’ variations comes along. This is not so much of a problem for less complex organisms, as new lines are being created at a reasonable rate. However, as more complex organisms take longer to develop from the less complex organisms, they need to be using sexual reproduction to get to the more complex stage (without being extinguished at some earlier stage). -- 203.214.3.114 ( talk) 23:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment Why are there only two sexes for more complex organisms rather than three? Three sexes really add nothing as far as increasing variation among offspring and if all three sexes need to be involved in reproduction a species having three sexes would be at a disadvantage in species against species competition, because two sexes getting together for reproduction is easier than needing three. -- 203.214.3.114 ( talk) 23:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep per WP:SNOW. Lone delete vote provided no rationale. -- JForget 00:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable book Itsmejudith ( talk) 14:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was } Delete ---- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was 'delete. Insufficient significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject to meet WP:N. Dreadstar † 01:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Unsourced article, can't find any evidence that the Official UK Charts Company publishes any such chart. As far as i know there is a singles chart (which combines downloads and sales) and a download only chart but no sales only chart. this document is the infopack form the charts company, page 14 details the charts they produce as you can see such a chart is non-existant. neonwhite user page talk 14:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete (both) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable artist. Has released one album and one mixtape, neither of which charted nationally. Fails WP:MUSIC. Including non-notable album which fails WP:MUSIC#Albums. — Hello, Control Hello, Tony 14:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete ---- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:BIO. Football player without appearance in a professional competition or even in the highest national competition. Plays in third division of Bosnian football league. His name gets very, very few Google hits [37], [38] [39], and no Google News hits [40] [41] [42]. Current professional soccer players in Europe always get more hits (certainly when they sign for e.g. FK Partizan, who competed in the Champions league a few years ago. Not to be confused with Nenad Đorđević, an at first glance similar name, and an actual player of Partizan. Fram ( talk) 13:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Pretty speedy keep per WP:SNOW. The Rambling Man ( talk) 15:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC) reply
keep i found the page extremely useful —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.50.32 ( talk) 06:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. No prejudice regarding furthering the merge discussions on the relevant talkpage(s). No consensus to merge here, but a consensus may develop outside of Afd. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Transwikied dictionary definition. WP is not a dictionary. TexasAndroid ( talk) 12:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep (nonadministrative closure). Subject likely notable. There does not appear to be a grounds for deletion. Disruptive nomination by likely sockpuppet account. Wikidemo ( talk) 16:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC) reply
This article seems to be nothing more then WP:TRIVIA, it doesn't seem to be notable. This article already exists at head light. NewAtThis ( talk) 12:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep (nonadministrative closure). Subject likely notable. There does not appear to be a grounds for deletion. Disruptive nomination by likely sockpuppet account. Wikidemo ( talk) 16:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Mini one sentence and one box article without any links or references on non notable song, not even a stub tag on it. Merge to appropriate album article maybe. NewAtThis ( talk) 12:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep (non admin closure). No consensus to delete, issues with sourcing to be addressed on the article's talkpage. Skomorokh 00:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Unreleased album with little or no media coverage; the only reference is the artist's MySpace page. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums and WP:V. Prod removed without comment. — Hello, Control Hello, Tony 12:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was merge. To be honest, though, the content already exists in Marstons Mills, Massachusetts#Schools, so I'll simply perform a history merge and leave it at that. -- jonny- m t 03:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD. Not the slightest indication of notability given. TexasAndroid ( talk) 12:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Well, that's settled then. Go for it. Merge/redirect amongst yourselves. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply
This phrase appears only in the work of one author, and only in respect of one event. There must be a more generic article to which we can redirect or merge this, since queues for essential goods were a perennial part of Soviet life, but I can't find it. Guy ( Help!) 12:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete as spam. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply
wildlife reserve previously tagged for speedy deletion. I'm neutral on the issue Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 11:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply
This page is original research and seems to speculate on a hypothetical production of Romeo and Juliet. It would not be useful to merge it into Romeo and Juliet as WP:BARD is restricted to a 700-900 word limit on plot summaries, and it would cause undue weight to be placed on this one scene. (that is, even if it could be reliably sourced - I don't know if it could be - usually the balcony scene is the one that's focussed on in academic essays...) Turning it into a redirect would not be useful as it is at a strange name (including " marks). Please note that this is a contested proposed deletion. Malkinann ( talk) 11:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. John254 03:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC) reply
All sources given for this language course are primary, and while Google returns a number of download sites, I didn't find independent coverage. The topic would therefore fail WP:N. On the other hand, some users objected to deletion on the talk page, so the question might be controversial. B. Wolterding ( talk) 11:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete for failing to establish notability. Seraphim♥ Whipp 10:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Non notable with no third party sources in the article Bidgee ( talk) 05:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was unanimous keep (non-admin closure). Prospect of merging left up to editors of the article. Skomorokh 01:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Propose article be moved to either wikiquote or wikibook IMO has little or no encyclopedic value and reads a little promotional. BigDunc ( talk) 21:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Damn it! She skipped Titus Andronicus. - Smerdis of Tlön ( talk) 14:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy close. Redirects should be nominated at WP:RFD. Non-admin closure. -- Dhartung | Talk 23:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. The advertising is already mentioned in the parent article, can be expanded if sourced. Black Kite 22:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Non notable advert. RepriseRubric ( talk) 17:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 ( talk) 23:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Someone previously proposed PROD because "this is more of a description of a category than an article, not notable and zero references. Speedy delete?". The page is in pretty lousy shape, but this looks like an area that could actually use an article - iPod software (Apple and 3rd-party) has a significant impact on a number of people's lives. The techniques behind it are well discussed though Apple doesn't participate in those discussions. I'd say keep in accordance with
WP:HEYdelete, but I thought I'd put that up for discussion.
Coanda-1910 (
talk)
08:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was Delete per DGG's rationale. Black Kite 22:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Michael Bounds' article states he is a college professor and was head of a department of an Australian university for a few years. That does not make someone notable. There are a lot of college professors out there. Furthermore there is only one link and no sourcing in the article to back up the claims. The article does not seem to establish notability. It is not verified. A good search didn't turn up a thing besides this article. He did seem to write a book on gentrification in Australia. However amazon.com seems to show it as his only published work. I should note most college professors do write and publish a book or two for the sole purposes of their own courses. That is what this book appears to be. I think the article should then be deleted. As for all the editors that have expressed concerns over my inexperience with AfDs, I hope I have herein satisfied your suggestions and concerns regarding proper listing. NewAtThis ( talk) 11:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 00:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Possible hoax article. There is no Wallington canal. Google gives few hits, all from Wikipedia. The majority of the text seems to be a reworking of Croydon Canal, and the sources provided do not specifically mention a canal in Wallington, and mention Wallington itself only in passing. Think outside the box 10:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Lack of WP:V and WP:RS remains an issue for the article. Pigman ☿ 23:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Hoax (and/or) Theory of Rex Gilroy (and/or) non-noted creature. Seems all referring back to a line in a book (2006) Dinosaurs: Dead Or Alive?. No reliable sources offered and none can be found. Single mention in a book, no news articles, no scholarly articles and no web mentions I can see outside a small circle of crypto zoologists. Fails to be a subject that is any way verifyable Peripitus (Talk) 09:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Just because this cryptid is little known and primarily researched by a man whom many think might be insane does not make it a hoax. It is not a hoax. Just google it if you must, its noy a hoax, and I believe at least marginally desrving of its own Wikipedia page. Spykeesam ( talk) 20:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Subject lacks any kind of notability or coverage in reliable sources. The page's only reference is to a blog. Meatsgains( talk) 01:49, 27 June 2018 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- jonny- m t 03:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable neologism, original research, unreferenced, and I cannot find any sources online after having tried searching that are reliable and mention this form of sexual assault. All of this suggests that this article should be deleted. Certainly not worth a standalone article. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 09:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
No reason to delete this article. It is very accurate. Many video sites have this kind of sexual assaults tagged as sharking. It is important to inform everyone what this kind of unacceptable behavior is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.68.96 ( talk) 00:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Severe BLP issues. Moreschi ( talk) ( debate) 21:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS. If it made any difference, Lindström is variously described as a model and a socialite but the news articles I scanned fail to expand on that in any detail. This is a sad case of a pretty girl [48] having gotten caught up in a crime which may well be newsworthy, but is hardly encyclopaedic content. — Moondyne click! 08:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
There's at least three other intersecting accounts but unfortunately I don't have the time to write it all up. I do get the distinct aroma of smelly socks though. — Moondyne click! 09:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep (non-admin closure). There were no delete preferences, and the possibility of merging is left up to article editors. Skomorokh 01:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable and almost irretrevable as a WP page due to quality. -- Alan Liefting- ( talk) - 08:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of vegetarians (3rd
The result was keep. There was no consensus to delete. Kingturtle ( talk) 20:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete Listcruft Dotsod1 ( talk) 07:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was srsly keptz. Send your rickrolls this way, I'm going non-admin on this one. dihydrogen monoxide ( H2O) 10:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Srsly guyz. Sceptre ( talk) 02:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus. The nominator and subsequent participators here have presented a very strong case for deletion based on our relevant notability guideline for websites. However, some credence needs to be given to the availability of sources for a genre of music that historically does not get any mainstream media coverage, such as metal/death music. The "alexa ranking", or hit count, as cited by Evenfiel below, in this case, does garner some significance as being a high-traffic website for its fanbase. Looking at the concerns of the notability camp, and the ramifications/fallout of deleting this article as far as the List of online music databases, they balance themselves out to a firm "no consensus" to delete. (I'm not a vote counter by any means, but as an FYI, it came out in support of non-consensus closure, at 9D/8K. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I'm aware that this nomination might make me very unpopular among my fellow metalheads on wikipedia but I do not believe the website qualifies as notable per wikipedia's guidelines on websites. The article currently asserts the website's high traffic as reported on alexa.com but the popularity of a website is not an acceptable criteria for notability. Many other websites attract higher traffic and hence are more popular but they do not merit an article page on wikipedia either: see, for instance mobile9.com which has a current traffic rank of 251 over the Encyclopaedia Metallum's 1099. The wikipedia guidelines on notability for websites provide three criterias: multiple non-trivial publication on independent works; receiving a well-known award; and being distributed via a medium independent of the site. Encyclopaedia Metallum does not fulfil any of these three criterias. Despite being around on wikipedia since early 2005, the article page does not and presumably has never asserted notability according to any of these criterias. I've spent a long time on google searching the internet for references to assert the website's notability but I was not able to find any. Hence, this nomination. -- Bardin ( talk) 06:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep per an apparent WP:HEY. Barnstars are thataway. -- jonny- m t 01:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Does not assert notability, and the author is asserting ownership of the article at the end. αѕєηιηє t/ c 06:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment:Thank you for your comment. Thanks to my Harvard friend Russell—who just email me another sources (I shall have more sources by mornong) regarding the work of Muktadhara—The sources is The New York Times and Wikipedia. Here're they: [51] [ http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE7DB1739F935A35755C0A96F958260&scp=1&sq=muktadhara&st=nyt] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jewelakhter ( talk • contribs) March 24 2008— Jewelakhter ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
CommentThis article is noting comparing what Muktadhara is doing and what it has done over the years to promote Bengali Language, the 5th largestspoken language in the world. I am in support of keeping this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.61.20.129 ( talk • contribs) March 26 2008
CommentThis is great Phil. Thanks for taking time from your busy schadule to do it. Wikiphedia needs people like you. I also thank Mr. Rashidul Bari for his article. Like many people, i think Wikiphedia should have this article (on Muktadhara)about years ago. Thank you. Komer Nath, Brooklyn College — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.245.180.110 ( talk • contribs) March 26 2008— 146.245.180.110 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment Mr. Bari I followed Mr. Phil footstep--meaning I edited the text because it was more of a first person. now i fixed it. Nahid, York College —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.61.20.129 ( talk) 01:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC) reply
CommentPhil & Nahid thank you--& don't hesitate to edit it as long as it needed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jewelakhter ( talk • contribs) March 28 2008
Delete - article reads like a magazine interview. I am not convinced that the requirements of WP:BIO are satisfied, but it's clear that the current article should not stand. B.Wind ( talk) 06:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Keep it Muktadhara is a pioneer of many things: 1. International Mother Language Day(21st February) 2. Ekosee Boi Mela (largest Bengali book fair in World) 3. 10 Greatest living Bengalis & 4. International Bengali Book Festival(held every year in the United States) Thus, I think Wikipedia can consider keeping this article. However, it must be edited properly—which I hope someone (with that ability) will do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.61.20.129 ( talk • contribs) 3 April 2008
KeepI've formatted the it a bit to help meet with Wiki's policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.61.20.129 ( talk) 00:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Keep It The Daily Independent, one of the prominent English newspapers in Bangladesh published Mr. Rashidul Bari’s article on Muktadhara. Please read it from the link : [52] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.61.20.129 ( talk) 21:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 00:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I'm not sure if this is a hoax or WP:CRYSTAL, but I can't find any references to this book anywhere. I would guess that it's a hoax given the editor's other edits. Rnb ( talk) 05:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. ---- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable band per [53] and [54]. Mostly just blogs, myspace, various metal listings and other such trivial directories. Wisdom89 ( T / C) 05:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sandstein ( talk) 21:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply
So? Who does "research" on latte art?
I'll see if I can find any citations for this.
Stormchaser (
talk)
00:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was Redirect to Staffordshire University (and delete the completely NN The Fox and Tiger Show. Black Kite 23:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable student radio station neonwhite user page talk 04:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following related pages - non-notable show on the above station:
Delete both. Student radio programs are rarely noted beyond their local environment and are rarely mentioned in news media; the first is an Internet station that has very limited exposure/access. The GK Radio article borders on promotional in natural (any more so and it would be in speedy deletion territory). B.Wind ( talk) 06:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. I am only deleting the main focus of the article. Please run a separate AfD for the other article, as there does not appear to be a consensus to delete it. Rjd0060 ( talk) 23:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC) reply
This list appears to be original research and a violation of WP:DIRECTORY/ WP:IINFO. Jfire ( talk) 04:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus as to whether or not the subject is sufficiently notable to warrant his own article, so defaulting to keep without prejudice to re-nomination after a reasonable amount of time. While there is significant adspeak in the article as it is, a quick cleanup can take care of that, and so I'm not inclined to speedy it as it stands. -- jonny- m t 02:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Previously tagged as an advertisement and a COI violation, the article was apparently written by Frank Romano himself [56]. No verifiable, reliable, third-party sources whatsoever are provided to establish notability. Qworty ( talk) 04:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. -- Dhartung | Talk 07:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I may be way off base, but this page seems like nonsense, If it's me, i'll be happy to withdraw, but think it needs a second or third set of eyes.
Cube lurker (
talk)
04:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. -- MCB ( talk) 07:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, newly minted play that only gets 42 unique Ghits, from minor writer (one lone Ghit for another of his claimed works), that apparently has to date only been performed by a school production company. Shawisland ( talk) 03:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep -- JForget 00:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC) reply
No references whatsoever (violates WP:CITE, et al.); tons of original research (violates WP:OR); poorly-written/-worded; biased (violates WP:NPOV); juries are covered in MANY other more-relevant articles (i.e. "Jury"). Mr. P. S. Phillips ( talk) 04:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was merge. After discounting the sockpuppets, it seems that the level of support for merging the content and support for keeping the article is roughly equal. However, the arguments for merging focus on a lack of secondary sources--a key requirement for establishing notability. As this issue is not addressed by the comments recommending that the article be left as is, I am inclined to give more weight to the merge comments when determining consensus. -- jonny- m t 10:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable comic book character, word is more often seen as NYC police slang. Blast Ulna ( talk) 04:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. -- jonny- m t 09:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
No assertion of notability beyond being among sons of Rahmi Koç. Yes, this guy works work in Koç Group (what a suprise, guess who hired him? Yes his father!.. And currently his brother is in charge...), but . Since the relationships do not confer notability, this guy has no awards, no honors, no widely recognized contribution, no creative professional, no entertainer, no diplomat, no politician, nothing but his surname... (by the way, the article Koç family mentions about him, which is enough IMHO) F10F11 ( talk) 02:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. There are no arguments to delete outside of the nomination. No prejudice against merging information from this article into another relevant article and leaving a {{ R from merge}}. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Completely original research; highly inaccurate; zero references; does not deserve its own article (if something is to be said about combo washer/dryers, it should be in the main washer and/or dryer article(s)). Mr. P. S. Phillips ( talk) 04:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- jonny- m t 16:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Not notable DimaG ( talk) 01:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Moreschi ( talk) ( debate) 21:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply
There is no indication of WP:ORG notability for this organization. In fact, the cited sources within the article do nothing more than refer to it by name. Furthermore, the bulk of the article is devoted to a screed against a rival organization. The admitted "Press & Information Secretary" of Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam and "office bearer" of Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam have been the main authors of this article and taken over Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi as well. I originally placed a small section on the ASI at the bottom of the Shahi article, but the members of this organization found it unsatisfactory for their apparent promotional needs, dutifully ignoring my many explantations of WP:COI, WP:N, WP:NPOV, etc. This article should be deleted. A redirect to Shahi would seem appropriate, and perhaps even a small merge of material, but the current work is a sham of an encyclopedia article. — Scien tizzle 22:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Interestingly, no Google news hits. Nothing links to their home page. / edg ☺ ☭ 00:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC) replyAs appears from its name, the Anjuman-e Sarfaroshan-e Islam presents itself as somewhat closer to mainline Islam...
— Weekly DurDesh article linked from References
However, I have tried my level best to make this article as good as I can and provide as much reference as possible. The sumary of references is given as under:
Moreover, I am not here to promote ASI but I want to submit the correct information, which is the moto of wikipedia. There’s no conflict of interest neither I want to violate the policies of wikipedia. Still if you think that this article should be deleted, you may do that.-- Iamsaa ( talk) 11:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted by Golbez ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) at 06:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC) per WP:CSD#G3 (vandalism); deletion request on other article withdrawn. cab ( talk) 06:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Clearly a hoax. With all of these brands which this Telkom CEO licences out to other parties, he would be a multi-multi-trillionaire, and his name would be a household name. Would anyone like to contact Mr Branson and tell him about this guy's ownership of Heaven, and that the Virgin Group now seems to be owned by this guy. Россавиа Диалог 03:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep (non-admin closure). As with the previous two nominations, no delete preferences were expressed, and editors are reminded that WP:PROBLEMS are not grounds for deletion. Skomorokh 01:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Not notable as an author, as his self-published book fails WP:BK. Insufficient WP:RS presented to establish any other notability. Thousands of Cubans have been jailed by Castro and thousands have come to the United States. Obviously, we're not going to have articles about each of them. There's an assertion that he was a lawyer in Cuba, but no evidence is given that he was a notable one. Qworty ( talk) 03:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Ghits confirm she was Leon Trotsky's daughter and born in exile but notability is not inherited and sadly, dying of tuberculosis doesn't make her notable either. TRAVELLINGCARI My story Tell me yours 03:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was 'Speedy delete per CSD G11 Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 05:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Unsourced article about a non-notable school. There are less than 250 results on Google, none of them reliable. — Wenli ( reply here) 03:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Withdrawn. — BradV 21:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC) reply
This article about a fictitious game fails verifiability and notability. Appears to be entirely original research. — BradV 03:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 ( talk) 23:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC) reply
It sounds like being the founder of the poet slam *might* make her notable but I can't find anything to connect her with the event, reliable source or not, and otherwise she seems to be just another poet. There's only 10 ghits in any language for her given name, all appear to be Wiki mirrors and other copies. TRAVELLINGCARI My story Tell me yours 03:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 02:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested prod, removed by author. Article is entirely original research and an essay. Cites no secondary sources; fails
WP:RS,
WP:V,
WP:OR. —
HelloAnnyong
(say whaaat?!)
03:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was speedily deleted by Golbez ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) as WP:CSD#G3 (vandalism) at 06:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC). cab ( talk) 06:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Article on an apparent April Fools joke; no evidence the film is actually in production. Powers T 02:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was KEEP per WP:SNOW. Non-admin closure. Itub ( talk) 09:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
original research, not verified, no RS NewAtThis ( talk) 02:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Consensus is that the article does not demonstrate notability, and an effort to find sources has evidently failed to produce usable reliable sourcing. There is no prejudice against coverage of this topic in a related article, like iTunes, and, of course, an article on this topic may be created at any time that it can be shown as more than a neologism, with demonstration that it meets WP:N. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Unsourced "event" for purchasing digital music downloads. I don't see how this is possibly notable as it could apply to any artist or any download on any day of the year. - eo ( talk) 02:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Sources now provided. Espresso Addict ( talk) 03:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Unreferenced since June 2006, this article gives no assertion of notability. A Google search turns up nothing, not even a confirmation of its existence. — BradV 02:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
![]() | This is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Paul Iorio. Please do not modify it. The result was "delete". The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. |
The result was keep, without prejudice against a merge and redirect to Xanth if size does not bar that option. Consensus on this may be determined in article talk space. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Not only is this unreferenced, it has no real-world notability, as WP:FICT suggests it should. Biruitorul ( talk) 01:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Indian presidential election, 2007. Dreadstar † 18:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC) reply
"Know Pratibha Patil" was essentially just an attack site used by the opposition against the ruling party's candidate in the Indian presidential election last year. No particular evidence of notability has been shown (the site itself is already dead), and while a sentence stating that the site existed wouldn't hurt in the article devoted to the election, this page is overkill. Biruitorul ( talk) 01:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus, default to keep. Dreadstar † 17:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I'm not entirely sure what to make of this page. It just seems straight up unencyclopedic. Smashville BONK! 01:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Like International Association of Methodist-related Schools, Colleges, and Universities and the Association of Presbyterian Colleges and Universities. I can see what this person was trying to replicate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.33.85.92 ( talk) 02:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
There were two prep-schools on the list, Fork Union Academy and San Marcos Academy, which I've taken off. The redlink for Yellowstone Baptist might become an article, although I have second thoughts about whether it would survive the deletion process. Mandsford ( talk) 17:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy keep. Nominator has stated withdrawal as shown below; furthermore, no actual reason for deletion was given, just reasons for improvement -- the article's been tagged for references, which is pretty much all it needs. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 02:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Article has no sources. It is an unreferenced stub for a significant amount of time, yet this article has a key importance for Wikipedia Music. It is dormant. Alex Perrier ( talk) 01:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Dreadstar † 17:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Lots of problems with this one. First off, it's a copyvio from here: [85]. It fails to meet WP:N and doesn't provide WP:RS. It also looks as if it might be WP:COI, since the article was created by an account called Wheelierecord, and a "wheelie record" is claimed for the subject. Finally, Wheelierecord is a WP:single-purpose account, created to promote and spam Hensel onto multiple WP pages: [86]. I realize that the guy was born with a serious birth defect, but that assertion is not going to be enough to satisfy WP:N. Qworty ( talk) 01:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Tikiwont ( talk) 08:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Confusing. Is it just list of names or what? Me what do u want? Your Hancock Please 01:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. The term might actually point to several different contexts, but this article isn't considered helpful. Tikiwont ( talk) 08:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Pretty obviously made up ( WP:MADEUP) and verging on WP:CB. Non-notable, unencyclopedic. ukexpat ( talk) 01:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to -phob-. Dreadstar † 17:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a dictionary - this article is nothing more than a definition and even uses Wiktionary as a reference!! ukexpat ( talk) 00:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Dreadstar † 05:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC) reply
All these lists are perfect violation of WP:NOT#INFO, no sources or notabilty on why all these basketball games are special from any other NBA game, the only sources are neilson ratings, also including all it's subpages National Basketball Association games televised by ABC in the 2002-03 season, National Basketball Association games televised by ABC in the 2003-04 season, National Basketball Association games televised by ABC in the 2004-05 season, and so on Delete Secret account 00:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete G7 by User:Jmlk17. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 01:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Almost certainly a hoax, no Ghits. WP:CB ukexpat ( talk) 00:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was self-admitted vandalism, not worth an AFD, next time tag it as a speedy delete. Secret account 00:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. Self-confessed April Fools joke. Roleplayer ( talk) 00:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep. Obviously notable, non-admin closure. MrPrada ( talk) 06:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
completely unsourced original research, not verified, does not establish notability, no citations nor external links NewAtThis ( talk) 00:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. See [89]. MrPrada ( talk) 06:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
non notable, non sourced original research, not verified, doesn't assert notability. NewAtThis ( talk) 00:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Snowball keep plus withdrawal of nom Grutness... wha? 01:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
non notable sing, original research, no sources reliable nor otherwise since mid to late 2007, no substantive edits, one external link
NewAtThis (
talk)
00:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
SPEEDY KEEP AND MOTION TO WITHDRAW, per 10 pound hammer's edits. NewAtThis ( talk) 01:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Dreadstar † 05:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC) reply
There is no information provided in this article. Nitraven ( talk) 12:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply