The result was keep. Seems to be a consensus that the tiger (err, dog) is notable, and the sources seem to confirm this claim. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
This was a bit of a confusing article when I found it, so I decided to clean it up a bit. And the resulting version didn't look up to much. After some attempts at improving it, I drew a blank, and so have decided to Afd it on grounds of basic notability. I could find nothing remotely corroborating what the article previously claimed, that Tiger is "one of the top show dogs in the United States". It seems from the passing mentions after he failed to win Best in Show in 2009, it might have been different had he won, but he didn't. Best of Breed and Hound Group, albeit in a top show, still looks unremarkable to me, and these feats are not particularly given much attention in the refs beyond routine coverage it seems (by comparison, there are countless breeds and even 7 overall Groups in that show). The one thing you would think would also get coverage, his celebrity name, hasn't really, with only this short LA TImes blog entry paying it any attention. MickMacNee ( talk) 23:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
See this article from the Times Herald-Record. This article presents information about the deerhound's breed, age, and accomplishments. Although the dog's name may have garnered it coverage in the Times Herald-Record, the article is primarily about the deerhound's dog show accomplishments, not its name. I consider it original research to classify this article as being a "puff piece" when there is no evidence of it being so. The article discusses how the dog was the "winner of the Hound group and Best in Show competitor at the Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show" and how it would compete "against six other dogs for the title of Best in Show". The depth of coverage in this article is enough for this source to qualify as the "significant coverage" required by Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
Additionally, this blog from the Los Angeles Times provides decent coverage about this deerhound. This article verifies that the dog's owner is Gayle Bontecou and its handler is Clifford W. Steele. How does this article establish that Tiger Woods (dog) is notable? It states that "[a] Scottish deerhound has never won best in show at Westminster." Because the Los Angeles Times found it worthy to make this dog the subject of one of its publications, Tiger Woods (dog) is clearly notable.
This article from Dog Channel provides a paragraph of coverage about this deerhound. The article states "Tiger has accumulated an impressive show record, but taking the Group at the Garden is without a doubt his most illustrious win yet … quite a feat for a 7-year-old dog of a giant breed." Phrases such as "impressive show record" and "quite a feat" establish that this deerhound has notable achievements.
Winning "Best in Show" at the Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show, a prestigious contest, is already a good indicator that Tiger Woods (dog) is notable. Receiving media coverage because of these accomplishments cements this notability. Cunard ( talk) 19:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill ( talk) 23:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable unreleased film lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:NOTFILM. ttonyb ( talk) 23:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
I do not think this person passes WP:GNG. One piece of coverage in a local paper, as far as I can see. The book mentioned appears to have had no substantial coverage anywhere. Brilliantine ( talk) 22:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Wizardman 22:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Delete, individual is completely non-notable, just another signatory of the Albanian Declaration of Independence, part of a series of identical one-line stubs created about every single signatory. Nowhere close to meeting WP:NOTABLE. -- Athenean ( talk) 22:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Delete, no need to keep a one sentence article. Alexikoua ( talk) 13:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was deleted as non-notable, utterly lacking in content
Contested prod (see talk page). I can find no coverage in reliable sources to indicate that this meets notability requirements. May be eligible under G4 but I can't see deleted versions of Ninjuwusu to find out. Gonzonoir ( talk) 22:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was deleted/userfied. non admin closure TheWeakWilled ( T * G) 20:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Refuted PROD. This book appears to be completely non-notable. Indeed, looking at the talk page, I'm not even sure if the book exists. Note that all the references are sourcing the history behind the content of the book, nothing to do with the book itself. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 21:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
As the author of this article I would like to request to move it back into my user space until I complete some of the tie in articles I wish to write. My series would include, The Final Solution (Jason Bailey), Final Solution (Lawrence Graham), and Final Solution (Richard Peck). The idea of these articles is to compare the difference between the coined term "Final Solution" historically to the fictional uses for it in literature. I understand that the article does not appear notable on its own but I believe when it is included in my series, this topic of comparison will be notable. I will wait until I get your permission before moving the article back to my user space. Thank you. 09:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eraser1 ( talk • contribs)
Eraser1 has moved this article into userspace. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 17:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable band. Canniba loki 20:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 22:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Non notable actor. Has made very few appearances. Looks as if he was a one off in some series playing a minor character in some segment called the The Man Show but doesn't seem viable for his own biography as such.... Can't find any reliable sources... Dr. Blofeld White cat 20:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Non notable high school coach Wuh Wuz Dat 20:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 22:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Notability - the article does not state how this is a notable book per Wikipedia:Notability (books). rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid ( coṁrá) 20:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
References:
SonicANS ( talk) 23:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Icewedge ( talk) 21:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC) reply
No assertion of notability whatsoever. It's a high school project which, holy smokes has been covered in blogs!!!!!111. Ironholds ( talk) 20:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 00:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
WP:NOTNEWS This is an article about allegations without lasting effects. Dethlock99 ( talk) 20:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC) Dethlock99 ( talk) 20:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC) FYI, the first AFD was withdrawn before closure. It had not been decided and consensus was head toward delete. Dethlock99 ( talk) 20:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Note: This AfD is being debated in an external forum
The result was delete -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 23:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Contested Prod. Really bad sources, doesnt say what movies this actress stared in, barely asserts notability at all. google search reveals only 2 hits, one of which is to a yellowpage hit for her home care services. As it stands, falls way short of notability Bonewah ( talk) 19:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Restoring comment by Saedienyx:
-- GRuban ( talk) 19:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Declined an A7 on this article, but I'm unable to find any reliable sources providing significant coverage of this..."hug". Given the claim that it was "created" apparently by the article's creator, I think there's a good chance that this is something made up one day. I will, of course, withdraw this nomination if someone uncovers enough sources to pass WP:V and WP:N. Tim Song ( talk) 19:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Apparently no significant references about him. Keeps were admittedly all "weak keep" (and one "very weak keep". Jayjg (talk) 00:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
I tried to clean this article some, but it appears to be mostly spam, with no real content. I can't see how this biography is notable enough to warrant inclusion. TN X Man 19:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
I'm not sure if this is how I respond to your note, but I'm very confused as to why this article is considered spam. In writing it, I modeled it after Timothy Ferris's page and a few others biographis at Wikipedia. Mike Song is a noted author of two books, and a verified expert in his field, as shown with the multiple references provided. Can you please give me some specific feedback on why this article appears to you to be spam? I disagree. Can I get a second opinion? Thanks! RachelMetzger ( talk) 19:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
I think this is a hoax. It's never been sourced and I can find no mention anywhere of a swimmer called Sei Wee Lim or Lim Sei Wee. The claim that he won the 100m breaststroke gold at the 1999 SEA games is false; this was won by Elvin Chia from Malaysia. [10] Fences& Windows 19:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Protests of 1968. ( non-admin closure) Tim Song ( talk) 09:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Pigeon-holing a vast number of completely unrelated events based on the year they happened in? Nuh-uh. The individual events are notable - the events collectively are not. Ironholds ( talk) 18:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Dream Focus 01:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC) Merge as per infor above. Lets not lose the content on here though. Merge not redirrect. Kurlansky's '1968 the year that rocked the world' is a good source of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Confusedmiked ( talk • contribs) 10:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. This is "keep" in the sense of "do not delete outright", rather than "keep in its current state". There is no real support for actually deleting this content, but there are valid concerns about the appropriateness of leaving it as a separate article. I suggest efforts are made to either source this article properly or trim and merge it to Therapeutic horseback riding - the correct way forward can be discussed on the talk page. ~ mazca talk 15:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Unencyclopedic, unreferenced essay. KuyaBriBri Talk 18:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 23:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
No sources found for this website, apart from their own cooperate twitter and facebook accounts. Doesn't seem notable Random Time 17:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
A disputed PROD. Since there is no definition of "womaniser" and absolutely no references provided, this is essentially original research by synthesis. It can never be clear whether an entry belongs on this list without a definitive citation; none have been provided and none seem available. Accounting4Taste: talk 17:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Keep I searched within wikipedia to see if this material was covered elsewhere- it doesnt appear to be. Womaniser, womanizing etc just link to Promiscuity- if you check that its focus is very different to the intended focus of this article.
My point is, this is a notable subject not adequately covered elsewhere (from what i can tell- anyone searching for this sort of topic would have similiar issues to myself). Yes there are massive problems with the article as it is- but they could easily be fixed, new content and citations added etc etc. The article needs to have more analysis at the start instead of just being a list. "The womaniser" is a specific, recurring literary and filmic archetype- focusing on explaining that, with a list giving examples, i think would be very worthwile and not at all "unmanageable" as suggested above. If the original creator is no longer active- tag up the page for improvement and maintenance and see if someone else can take over. Brunk500 ( talk) 19:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was withdrawn sources have been found. JBsupreme ( talk) 05:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Delete. Pretty simple here, WP:NFT. JBsupreme ( talk) 17:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Delete. As above, WP:NFT. also, article seems to give varying, confused definitions of what punchball is - "Punchball is a sport similar to baseball but without a pitcher, catcher, or bat. It is a pastime of football announcer Al Michaels, who often played with former Chicago Bears quarterback Sid Luckman" vs "At the University of Florida, students commonly play a version of punchball which involves 2 players, a pitcher/goalie and the puncher". Article doesn't cite any sources to prove this game exists.
Also, a speedball is a speedball, not a punchball. no connection there. AND- how can a game be similiar to baseball, but not have a pitcher? nothing makes sense.
Keep. Article has been cleaned up a bit + has some better references now. I would like to mention however that at [1] and at [2] (those are currently citations 1 and 5 in the article) i couldnt find any actual reference to punchball. If punchball is mentioned in the books featured on those sites (you cant access the books text) pls delete the links and just provide standard book references instead, with page numbers. Also ill add, the original article seemed to go out of its way to declare its subject non notable (a game played by 2 famous people plus students at one college) -- Brunk500 ( talk) 05:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Keep and clean up Comment Assuming the article's true and not a hoax, the editor didn't think it up one day, Al Michaels and Sid Luckman did. One question, then, is whether anybody besides Al Michaels and Sid Luckman ever played it. Another question is when did Al and Sid's paths ever cross? Yeh, they're both from Brooklyn, but different generations. ←
Baseball Bugs
What's up, Doc?
carrots→
03:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
reply
The result was no consensus, default to keep. Jayjg (talk) 00:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
This limited-edition album is not notable per WP:NALBUMS. It does not receive significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Pyrrhus 16 16:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
MJfan9: hey did you click on the sources and links anyway I started off the article someone else expanded it. anyway if you are Michael Jackson fan you should know about these albums. search google anyway of course there are not alot of sources the album is vary Rare and not alot of people know about it. search Michael Jackson albums discography on section: other albums
Keep I searched for "dangerous - the remix collection" and got 234,000 hits on google. I'm not a jackson fan, but anything that is an official jackson release by sony (epic is part of sony) is pretty much notable. I think the articles authors should hunt down and provide additional information, such as albums sold. -- Brunk500 ( talk) 18:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
DELETE. Also including Screwed In Houston which was created on the same day as a duplicate article by the same author. I have searched [16] and found nothing representing non-trivial coverage by reliable third party publications of this subject. JBsupreme ( talk) 16:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Delete. similiar experience as above- only links i found were a few scattered words on blogs and the video up on youtube or youtube like sites. I tried to post this earlier with a mention that they say they are distributed by vbstv- which is just basically like a youtube site. i tried to post the link to vbstv but wikipedia tells me its is on the WP blocklist. anyways, i tried to follow the links to play the vid on vbstv but just got an unrelated snowboarding clip instead. Also, only 'credible' external link in the article is to an mtv page, which is about houston but doesnt mention this documentary at all. -- Brunk500 ( talk) 18:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was withdrawn by nominator; no outstanding delete !votes. Non-admin closure. KuyaBriBri Talk 18:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Definite lack of
reliable sources showing up in
Google web search, and Google Books appears to have only
two brief mentions.
SarekOfVulcan (
talk) 16:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)Withdrawing per evidence of external sourcing shown below.--
SarekOfVulcan (
talk)
17:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Unreferenced, unencyclopedic, OR essay. KuyaBriBri Talk 15:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep. Nominator informed me that has elected to withdraw the AFD, with no other arguments for deletion. – MuZemike 02:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
In the scope of an encyclopedia, this article is far from encyclopedic. Yes it has a lot of references, but the material included is essentially about how one country (UK) changed some of it's telephone area codes, and how some people still misquote them. The article was written in 2005, and the general use of these codes today means the article is now seriously out of date despite updates being performed by IP editors, mostly.
The article also has a number of statements which have not been sourced or tagged for checking, it is marked as possibly containing OR, which is not allowed here, and essentially, this article is not fit for inclusion here.
It is large, longwinded, and unencyclopedic. My gut instinct says "Coat this with something volatile, and strike a match near it."
Thor Malmjursson (
talk)
15:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
reply
Nomination Withdrawn BarkingFish Talk to me | My contributions 02:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Apparently non-notable dermatologist. I checked Google, Google news, and Google scholar and couldn't turn up any reliable sources which discuss this person's life and/or work in any detail. Googel Scholar did turn up a few papers he has published in reliable journals, but I don't see enough to satisfy the baseline conditions noted at WP:PROF. Based on this, and the likely conflict of interest involved in creating this article, it should likely be deleted. Jayron 32 15:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Top Gear (series 14). ( non-admin closure) Tim Song ( talk) 09:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD: Non notable TV car that only existed for one episode and is not likely to ever appear in another episode again, I would like to nominate it under WP:BLP1E but that rationale is for a person, not for a vehicle, hence I would like to nominate it under a similar guideline. Donnie Park ( talk) 15:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. ( non-admin closure) Tim Song ( talk) 09:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
First of all, this list is more useful as a category than a list, it was originally part of the 'public information films until I removed it and rep[laced it with a category as I doubted the notability of most of the recent PIFs, also much of the famous articles have its own article, hence why I decided it was useful as a category. Rather than explaining why it should exist, user:Jonny99 decided to create an list here rather than bothering to form any discussion like he should.
Also, another reason is that Wikipedia is not a dumping ground of some random recent PIF minus its own article or any form of verifications or notability, which most of these (recent PIFs) have fallen into ignomity within a few years of it being shown on TV. Donnie Park ( talk) 14:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Term used in one college only. the author cheekily claims: "this article is only created to help the 15,000 new students that enroll to CBS". So put it on the college website, not here! — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 14:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 00:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Already deleted under CSD A7, G11 and G12 but brought back. Hoping for some consensus. NJA (t/ c) 13:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC) NJA (t/ c) 13:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
This is yet another article on an FP7 project, part of a ongoing effort to get articles on Framework Programme projects onto Wikipedia. This article was created by User:Irmos-FP7. As I stated in my prod tag, this IRMOS Project, "Interactive Realtime Multimedia Applications on Service Oriented Infrastructures" is not notable by Wikipedia's usual standards, with no independent third party sources. The Google hits one finds for IRMOS are for Infrared Multi-Object spectrometer instead. Abductive ( reasoning) 12:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Cirt ( talk) 01:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Seems like a POV Fork from here [29] jheiv ( talk) 11:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
*Merge unless expanded. Reading this Afd I expected this to be a POV fight over a long article. But the article as it
now has just one paragraph, so it is ridiculously short to qualify as a
WP:SUMMARY-style subarticle at this time.
Pcap
ping
10:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
reply
The result was no consensus. With a note that several of the keep votes were filed by single-purpose or very new accounts, though this doesn't seem to sway the discussion terribly. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Recreation of previously previously deleted student society which still fails WP:N and still smacks of WP:PROMOTION. Still a lack of reliable refs also. Delete Féasógach ( talk) 11:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Keep Much more notable than e.g. Northern Council for Unity. Red Hurley ( talk) 19:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Golden Secondary School. Yes, this is the wrong venue, but consensus to merge is clear. No point closing this procedurally to have another discussion just to repeat what has been said here. ( non-admin closure) Tim Song ( talk) 09:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
To quote the article in its entirety: 'Golden Alternate School is a program within Golden Secondary School that provides additional services to "at risk" students.' That's it. Seems to me that this a classic case for deletion and merging into the Golden Secondary School article (which itself needs some extra text), but not being au fait with the Canadian educational system I nomnate in the hope that others can give more expert opinions. Emeraude ( talk) 10:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Consensus is that the subject passes WP:ATHLETE. ( non-admin closure) Tim Song ( talk) 09:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Fail to see notability. All coverage is passing mention of name in coverage about other people (not inherited) or simple club profile stuff which, if it were an actual footballer, would be dismissed as standard non-independent coverage not implying notability. read some of the refs provided.. "Robson recalled that, knowing Van Nistelrooy from his period as PSV manager, he had told Martin Ferguson - an Old Trafford scout - to recommend that his brother, Sir Alex, buy the forward" and "Ferguson's brother and chief European scout Martin watched the Sampdoria star playing against Palermo towards the end of the season..." DNQ as "significant coverage" ClubOranje T 10:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Fails WP:GNG. Jayjg (talk) 00:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Fail to see notability here. All coverage is passing mention of name in coverage about other people (not inherited) or simple club profile stuff which, if it were an actual footballer, would be dismissed as standard non-independent coverage not implying notability. ClubOranje T 10:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Article about a non-notable doctoral thesis, aparrently by the author of said thesis. There is no evidence this is anything other than original research. I42 ( talk) 08:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
I am new to this page so I hope this is the right procedure. I wish to contest the deletion of Joint Directed Action as the purpose of this article is to describe the meaning of Joint Directed Action as well as its research origin. The definition of Joint Directed Action is published in a doctoral dissertation (with both an ISBN and ISSN number) and as this is peer-reviewed research and as such has passed a rigorous non-biased research review I cannot see how there exists a conflict of interest nor could be described to be original reserach without a foundation. The purpose of this article is to define the notion of Joint Directed Action.
Chrmau (
talk)
09:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 00:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The played did not played in professional level ( Serie C2 or above nor Coppa Italia. He is a non-notable player Matthew_hk t c 07:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Page created by blocked sockpuppet account with proven COI with subject. Non-notable, and only sources I could find for article were from commercial seduction community websites DRosin ( talk) 06:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. A vast majority of the "keep" votes rest upon exceedingly weak and irrelevant arguments, but given the lack of endorsements of the nomination, I can't reasonably justify deleting. – Juliancolton | Talk 02:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
This is a non-notable software product. The only provided references are extensive notes from the developer site about each minor version update. Wikipedia is not a software directory and all articles need to be notable as referenced by multiple and significant reference by independent sources. Miami33139 ( talk) 06:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Nyco ( talk) 17:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 00:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Not a public person, no direct reference --> links only show general frontpages and no personal profile. Neither is the person refered to on any site. Mixcompetition is only a funbased competition according to the site, certainly not a high level volleybal competition. In general nothing about this person related to the given subjects can be found online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.113.169.180 ( talk • contribs) 09:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC) reply
AFD: Note: this is not my AFD, I'm good-faith submitting it for the IP who wanted it. tedder ( talk) 06:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable minor band. An IP removed the seconded PROD, but I can find no significant coverage whatsoever for this act, just some local California blog interviews at LAist and the OC Weekly blog. That's not nothing, I guess, but then I read the Popwreckoning.com interview, which starts, "Earlier in the week I got a phone call from Army Navy front man Justin Kennedy. . . ." So given the prevalence of interviews over objective articles, I'm guessing this is the result of some aggressive self-promotion. Glenfarclas ( talk) 05:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:GNG. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 05:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Also nominating Nexcore Mobile Platform on same grounds. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 05:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
This is a "Wikipedia as free webhost" style entry: a largely non-notable list of clubs, activities etc., aimed at Michigan Tech students, complete with wording that makes it clear this isn't aimed at an encyclopedia audience:
one of the many things we are proud of is our very own, student run radio station
And remember, if they don't have [a religious group] for you, you can always get a group of six people together and start your own group
Come out and support your huskies!
Most, if not all listings are not notable, anything that is notable can be added to Michigan Tech. Hairhorn ( talk) 04:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Apparently non-notable author. Looked him up in a several different google searches, couldn't find ANYTHING. Lots of other Stephen Zhangs, but not this one. Unless someone else can turn up reliable sources, this should probably be deleted. Jayron 32 04:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Deletion process begun by an IP, who said "Considering that the article has numerous (pre-tagged) issues, that it has remained a stub for quite some time, that its relevancy and importance seem very low, and that I have never heard of "technically speaking" as anything than a turn of phrase, I suggest deletion. 94.220.240.23 (talk) 02:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)". Article topic is a webpage on the NSF website on how to give good presentations. Abductive ( reasoning) 04:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
A highly non-encyclopedic article that takes its material solely from Islamic Watch, a web site that does not meet WP:RS requirements. Concerns regarding WP:COATRACK and WP:CFORK also need to be considered. Absent of information culled from reliable sources, there is nothing to merge or redirect. Warrah ( talk) 04:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Switzerland – United States relations and Pakistan – United States relations. First of all, whether the articles are interesting or not has no bearing on their notability. That said, it comes down to whether the sources establish notability. Any diplomatic missions should be mentioned in the bilateral relations article, not here. And any notable event that occured should have its own stand-alone article, but does not automatically confer notability upon the building. However, the articles do have content with sources that are useful (albeit impertinent to the Consulate-General itself, save the primary source), so a merge would be the ideal solution. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Deletion Review was closed as Overturn to AfD. Link to discussion: Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_December_9#Consulate-General_of_Switzerland_in_Houston_and_Consulate-General_of_Pakistan_in_Houston_.28closed.29 ( X! · talk) · @186 · 03:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Article appears to be a WP:HOAX - the search term ("ronnie rico" snowboard -facebook -myspace) yields 5 gHits [44], which seems extremely low given the stated release of the CD was 1997. However, given the number of gHits on just Ronnie Rico, it is possible that it existed. If that is the case, it surely lacks WP:RS. Checking other sources such as archive.org was also a bust. Should this article be deleted, though, I would argue that it be done without prejudice. There is another Ronnie Rico [45] who may at some point meet WP:GNG. In the interest of full disclosure, I put the {{unreferenced}} tag in the article from a public computer. Vulture19 ( talk) 03:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Cirt ( talk) 01:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
This article came up a week ago during a routine sweep through the black project template pages. Its just enough outside the norm that I feel an afd is warranted, so here we are. Proposed grounds for deletion are WP:FRINGE and WP:OR. TomStar81 ( Talk) 02:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The article is OR; the term is not used by reputable sources, as the article itself admits. Looie496 ( talk) 02:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Cirt ( talk) 01:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable former high school coach and current div. I-AA (FCS) defensive coordinator. I can find no significant independent coverage that would indicate his individual notability. Glenfarclas ( talk) 02:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. A definitive close is made impossible in part by two things: the prevalence of SPAs, and the batch nomination. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:20, 23 December 2009 (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}} . |
Non-notable tech business. Speedily deleted twice before as advertising. Current version shows some essentially trivial announcements circulated in IT-related sources ( [46] [47]) but the first looks like a recirculated press release and the second is in fact a blog. Other sources are all IT industry related, not enough to confer general notability. Not sure that claiming to be the first commercial open source vendor of data integration software is a sufficient claim of historical or technical importance. Smerdis of Tlön ( talk) 17:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply
“ | Then a real Wikipedia apparatchik,
Ihcoyc, decided that enough was enough, and who were these people who dared write about products and companies he did not know himself. Ihcoyc is a real Wikipedia expert specializing in religious content, and also an attorney from Indiana (per his profile). He actually wrote an essay
The presumption of non-notability for Internet related, computing, and services businesses, in which he proclaims:
I presume that a business or product is unlikely to be notable if it:
So here goes Ihcoyc, who cannot tolerate stuff he personally does not know about, and he slams the two Talend pieces with a request to delete: His claims: that references like eWeek, PCWorld or InfoWorld, or even Gartner, do not count. If it does not appear in the Indiana Bar Association Gazette, it isn’t relevant to the Wikipedia readers. |
” |
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
This stub was recently created in a good-faith attempt to differentiate btw esoteric/pseudoscientific/non-mainstream claims about pyramids (ie, pyramidology), and academic archaeological research on pyramids (ie, this stub). Problem is, the scientific study of pyramids—either singly or as a class of structure—is not a recognised or separately defined (sub-)field within archaeology or any other discipline.
While there's obviously plenty of academic research conducted on pyramids, this is in the broader context of investigating an archaeological culture, time period, engineering/technical development, etc.
While individual archaeologists might have expertise & career-long attentions to particular structures or groups of structures, there are not really "pyramid archaeologists" per se, as a class.
Any archaeological knowledge about individual pyramids or pyramid groups/types that wikipedia might record is best covered (is already covered) in the various articles— Egyptian pyramids, Nubian pyramids, Mesoamerican pyramids, etc, plus the many articles on individual structures—or at pyramid itself.
Any info in this pyramid archaeology article would be redundant with these others, & as mentioned there is no discipline or methodological approach peculiar to the archaeological study of pyramids to warrant an article on a subfield and its techniques (excepting the pseudoarchaeological, and for that we have the common term and article pyramidology). I see no prospect for useful/non-redundant expansion of this article, & the subject lacks a real-world definition; therefore propose delete. cjllw ʘ TALK 00:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 19:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable computer hardware Orange Mike | Talk 21:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 14:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Emerging artist, but has not attained a sufficient level of notability per WP:Creative. Two solo exhibitions, both within the last two years; let's give it a few more years and we'll see. Litho derm 20:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Cirt ( talk) 14:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Request for a speedy deletion was made based on notability, and contested. There is one news article listed as a source. I am of No Opinion at this time. CitiCat ♫ 18:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply
I have added more references and information now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sahrafilms ( talk • contribs) 10:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Unable to locate multiple instances of significant coverage in
reliable sources to indicate
notability. Only good piece of coverage I can find is the one Softpedia review.
Cybercobra
(talk)
00:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
reply
The result was merge to Vivarium. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC) reply
This is in that blurred area of Encyclopaedia vs Dictionary. I see this article as a dictionary definition that has no place in an encyclopaedia. Your mileage may vary. Fiddle Faddle ( talk) 15:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 14:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC) reply
person of questionable notability, part of a series of articles created by this same editor and his obvious sockpuppet Wuh Wuz Dat 15:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom, non-notable person being spammed by suspected sockmaster. -- SquidSK (1MC• log) 15:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. No prejudice against a redirect. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
This lists offers nothing new. There is no actual title, it's just 2 separate titles held together. Both title already have their own history lists here on Wikipedia and the article on the unified belts has the same info already as well. Prod removed by an IP (who I suspect is the same user that reverted me when I turned the article back into a redirect because the IP hadn't edited in 4 months). TJ Spyke 00:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Keep Notable and the World and WWE Tag Team Championships have seperate title histories and this would make it easier to see the each reign.-- Zack Ryder Fan Give him a page 00:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Yah but if they want one of the titles specifically they can go to that page and not this page.-- Zack Ryder Fan Give him a page 00:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Like I said before this would make it easier for people to look at the reigns when the titles are unified so it should be kept.-- Zack Ryder Fan Give him a page 00:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
My explaination is right.-- Zack Ryder Fan Give him a page 02:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
This would make it easier for people just look at champions when the titles are unified.-- Zack Ryder Fan Give him a page 21:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC) Also as I've said before if they want one of the championships specifically then they'll go to that page.-- Zack Ryder Fan Give him a page 21:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
I'm right but nobody else thinks I am show me the rule that says that I can't create this article.-- Zack Ryder Fan Give him a page 01:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Yah but this is not the same.-- Zack Ryder Fan Give him a page 02:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
It gives information about when the titles are unified the top part is also different and as i've said before this list make it eaiser for people to check reigns when the titles are unified so it's plainly different.-- Zack Ryder Fan Give him a page 21:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Also why don't you just put the information in Unified WWE Tag Team Championship in the pages for the World Tag Team Championship and WWE Tag Team Championship?-- Zack Ryder Fan Give him a page 21:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
I know it does but my past explainations say it all.-- Zack Ryder Fan Give him a page 21:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Yours do to.-- Zack Ryder Fan Give him a page 21:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
This page is useful that's why it should be kept.-- Curtis23 (talk) 21:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Duh it does they both have different title histories.-- Curtis23 (talk) 22:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Merge. Looking at the three list articles, it would appear that every new "champion" from now on would have to be entered in three different places. This is not sensible. The canonical solution would be to identify whichever previous title is the more notable, rename it to the new title, then curtail the other list at the point in history where the titles were merged, with a note saying "For champions since the merger, see (name of article). Sussexonian ( talk) 12:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Cirt ( talk) 14:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC) reply
person of questionable notability, part of a series of articles created by this same editor and his obvious sockpuppet Wuh Wuz Dat 15:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Cirt ( talk) 14:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Does not appear to demonstrate any notability. A medicinal manufacturing company in Kerala seemingly associated with the State. Being founded in 1941 does not make it notable, IMO. SGGH ping! 14:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Oushadhi, as an Kerala government owned company, had played an important role in the Kerala health sector. As a company promoted by Kerala government, it provides medicines to the poor and needy people in a marginal rate. This has kept big multi-national medicine companies from charging high price. There is no government in any part of the world which have a medicine company under thier control. This shows government of Kerala's effort to secure the medicine supply to the Kerala people. So in that context, it plays a big role in Kerala economy by giving needy medicines.
So please don't delete it and just see through the lens of Kerala economy, but not on a corporate angle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpullokaran ( talk • contribs) 15:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The main reason why there were no articles in news is because the government don't allow companies to sponsor any programmes or advertising. The company is accountable to the Kerala people and any penny spend on advertising is much of waste. Because Ayurveda is a service and people want to have faith in it. It is very easy to sell a soap or detergent in a market by advertising. But you can't sell a ayurveda product in a market with out much faith. Most of the ayurveda companies in Kerala is decades old. They have a histoty of 300 years. Jomy Jos Pullokaran 16:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpullokaran ( talk • contribs)
The result was redirect to Avenged Sevenfold (album). Wizardman 16:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:MUSIC. 7107Lecker Tischgespräch, außerdem... 13:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Wizardman 22:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Multiple unresolved tagged issues since creation in June 2008. Original research by member of website. No reliable sources. Non-notable. Seregain ( talk) 05:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Prolific author, but does he meet the WP:GNG? Polarpanda ( talk) 19:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. copyvio Cirt ( talk) 01:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Notability has not been established. Eeekster ( talk) 03:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 19:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Promotion for non-notable company and product. Article was written by single-issue user who is the CEO of the company [75]. I was unable to find any significant third-party coverage. Haakon ( talk) 10:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 14:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Indiscriminate list of statistics inappropriate per WP:NOT#STATS
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 14:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Not notable, unreferenced. Can't find any sources Mattg82 ( talk) 01:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Individual is notable simply for operating a Ponzi scheme, which itself is a dubious claim to notability, but seeing as how it's the ONLY thing the subject is notable for...... fuzzy510 ( talk) 00:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 19:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC) reply
No significant coverage and doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 ( talk) 14:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 19:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC) reply
No significant coverage and doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 ( talk) 11:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 23:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC) reply
No significant independent coverage and doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 ( talk) 10:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Wizardman 19:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable composer. IMDB does list some credits, but nothing that would make hum particularly noteworthy. Personal web site lists many more credits, but this is not an independent, reliable source, and it doesn't match up with the IMDB listing very well. No other sources found. I just don't think he clears the notability bar. - Realkyhick ( Talk to me) 06:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Thanks, can you suggest a way to make a difference in appearance between "external link that is just a link" (e.g. for something that has no Wikipedia entry) and "external link that refers directly to the subject of the article" (reference)? Or should all ext. links look the same? I'm not sure of the correct procedure. Actually I will check the Help section too. Philip Howard ( talk) 11:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 14:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC) reply
I found this article while random article searching. I tagged it and tried to find ANY sources of any kind. Completely fails notability. - Warthog Demon 04:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. There is clearly no consensus to delete. Whether to keep or to merge can be decided on the talk page. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Co-nomination with the article Windows Neptune.
WP:COI disclosure: I have trivial amounts of code that is probably present in these demo projects. I don't know how ten year old code presents a conflict other than a wish for historical accuracy.
The policy reason to delete this is lack of notability, and lack of sources. This article has one single third-party source. That is not enough to base a Wikipedia article on and we have a lack of both verifiability and truth here.
The second reason to delete is that it is just plain wrong. The article contains several more statements that are completely unsourced and unremovable because of the efforts of people involved in a fan forum. The single source for this article, Paul Thurrot, is a somewhat reliable source in the context of Microsoft Windows, but not really. Paul Thurrot is like an über fan site. This is an instance where he is not reliable because in this timeframe of publication, what he says is speculation. Paul Thurrot publishes two kinds of speculation: his own, and what he is leaked from inside Microsoft. What is leaked isn't reliable either because he is fed misinformation on purpose. (Remember that COI disclosure? I'm a better RS than Paul Thurrot. I've edited and been published by Microsoft Press about Microsoft Windows, but not about this article.)
If you remove anything unsourced, you are left with one sentence. If you look at that sentence from the position that it was speculation you are left with nothing. There is a proper place for what little public information exists about this project, it is the article Development of Windows XP. Unfortunately, trying to enforce a redirect is blocked by the efforts of a fan forum where a handful of people trade old Windows releases on BitTorrent who then write about their entirely original research "findings" on Wikipedia. Ars Technica even wrote an article based on the OR in Wikipedia - that is the horrible situation the OR policy is designed to prevent, we risk basing further references on stuff that first appeared, wrongly, in Wikipedia. The proper thing to do with these two articles is Delete, redirect, and protect SchmuckyTheCat ( talk) 03:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Also, as for sources, the articles are sourced by the screenshots inside them. To consider those screenshots un-reliable sources, would mean essentially, that you think, that they're fake, which can be considered as a personal attack at the users who uploaded them, since you call them fakers, and frauds, basically.
The screen-shots come from BetaArchive.co.uk, which is the top internet forum for Operating System Alpha's, and Beta's, and the screen-shots were made by a reliable user of that forum.
Also, there are on-line available Microsoft anti-trust law-suit documents, which further prove, that Windows Neptune (spelled NepTune in those documents), was planned to be the successor to Windows 2000. Also, even a Service Pack was planned for it, codenamed Triton. Again, mentioned in those documents.
And to prove, that Odyssey was supposed to be NT 6.0, there are the sources by Paul Thurrott.
So I think, that there are more, than enough sources available on-line for these two articles. Also, SchmuckyTheCat, you have made mistakes about Windows before, such as when you claimed, that Windows 3.2 Simplified Chinese had for Workgroups features, which Wengier Wu from the China DOS Union later successfully proved wrong, so I would kindly ask you to refrain from labelling yourself as an expert, when you made such an elementary mistake before. - OBrasilo ( talk) 01:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC) reply
3 verifiable sources in article: http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/windowsxp_gold.asp, http://www.winhistory.de/more/nept.htm (in german), screenshots at http://neosmart.net/gallery/v/os/Neptune/ more outside of article: http://www.activewin.com/faq/neptune.shtml google gives many results to good sources There are multiple external verifiable sources on this topic. 174.112.211.143 ( talk) 02:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Win-history de isn't a forum. It has a forum but it's different. Microsoft also has discussion forum, but that doesn't make Microsoft themselves a discussion forum.
As for an user-generated site - someone tested it, and published a site about Neptune, Wikipedia then can use this site.
So it's YOU here, who rejects any site about it, as un-reliable. If Microsoft posted their own article about it, you'd say it's un-reliable. If an independent source tests Neptune, and post their own site about it, you say it's un-reliable. So what kind of sources do you want for it? It's an old OS, no major publication will talk about it anymore.
Also, I mentioned the Anti-Trust lawsuit documents as a source for it, which you clearly ignored.
You also consistently ignore my comments about your own unreliability for judgment and writing articles on Windows. You couldn't even get the features of Windows 3.2 Simplified Chinese right, and you're expecting us to let you have your own way with two articles of something more important?
And again, how many sources are there for Windows Nashville? Yet, you have no problems with that staying, but you have problems with Windows Neptune, and Windows Odyssey staying. Taking double standard, are we?
Not to mention, you worked for MS, so you're involved in the company, and might be trying to cover up facts about Neptune, and Odyssey, hence your insistance on having the articles converted to mere redirects. Now, it's up to YOU to prove it's not so. - OBrasilo ( talk) 21:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Merge with/redirect to Development of Windows XP WP:Verifiability != WP:Notability. The article is poorly sourced, perhaps, but that alone is not a reason for deletion. The fact is that any 'insiders' are probably breaking confidentiality agreements, which is illegal. The second fact is that these insiders have a conflict of interest. This does not necessarily mean these editors cannot work on the article, but it does mean that they have a bias towards its notability. Here-say is not verifiable, and constitutes WP:Original research. Again, however, this is not a reason for deletion. Any Windows product is notable. However, what should be looked at is what is done with other codenames. Windows Longhorn redirects to the Development of Windows Vista. Likewise, these two should redirect to Development of Windows XP (as should Windows Whistler now that I look at it). The material on the page should be moved into that article. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 19:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC) reply
I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill ( talk) 02:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Vast disagreement over whether the sources constitute "significant coverage." US News is indeed significant; even if it's "only" four paragraphs, that is obviously not a trivial mention. The other sources are quite on the borderline. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
This borders on a CSD A7, but AfD is free, so why not. This article, such as it is, has had nearly 3 years to shape up (and I have waited for quite some time before coming here - see edit history), yet it remains nothing but a blatant product advertisement, frequently edited with what appears to be a clear vested interest. No sources are cited, much less reliable ones, and thus no notability is established. In short, this is yet another unsourced advert for some gimmick product. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Seems to be a consensus that the tiger (err, dog) is notable, and the sources seem to confirm this claim. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
This was a bit of a confusing article when I found it, so I decided to clean it up a bit. And the resulting version didn't look up to much. After some attempts at improving it, I drew a blank, and so have decided to Afd it on grounds of basic notability. I could find nothing remotely corroborating what the article previously claimed, that Tiger is "one of the top show dogs in the United States". It seems from the passing mentions after he failed to win Best in Show in 2009, it might have been different had he won, but he didn't. Best of Breed and Hound Group, albeit in a top show, still looks unremarkable to me, and these feats are not particularly given much attention in the refs beyond routine coverage it seems (by comparison, there are countless breeds and even 7 overall Groups in that show). The one thing you would think would also get coverage, his celebrity name, hasn't really, with only this short LA TImes blog entry paying it any attention. MickMacNee ( talk) 23:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
See this article from the Times Herald-Record. This article presents information about the deerhound's breed, age, and accomplishments. Although the dog's name may have garnered it coverage in the Times Herald-Record, the article is primarily about the deerhound's dog show accomplishments, not its name. I consider it original research to classify this article as being a "puff piece" when there is no evidence of it being so. The article discusses how the dog was the "winner of the Hound group and Best in Show competitor at the Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show" and how it would compete "against six other dogs for the title of Best in Show". The depth of coverage in this article is enough for this source to qualify as the "significant coverage" required by Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
Additionally, this blog from the Los Angeles Times provides decent coverage about this deerhound. This article verifies that the dog's owner is Gayle Bontecou and its handler is Clifford W. Steele. How does this article establish that Tiger Woods (dog) is notable? It states that "[a] Scottish deerhound has never won best in show at Westminster." Because the Los Angeles Times found it worthy to make this dog the subject of one of its publications, Tiger Woods (dog) is clearly notable.
This article from Dog Channel provides a paragraph of coverage about this deerhound. The article states "Tiger has accumulated an impressive show record, but taking the Group at the Garden is without a doubt his most illustrious win yet … quite a feat for a 7-year-old dog of a giant breed." Phrases such as "impressive show record" and "quite a feat" establish that this deerhound has notable achievements.
Winning "Best in Show" at the Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show, a prestigious contest, is already a good indicator that Tiger Woods (dog) is notable. Receiving media coverage because of these accomplishments cements this notability. Cunard ( talk) 19:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill ( talk) 23:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable unreleased film lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:NOTFILM. ttonyb ( talk) 23:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
I do not think this person passes WP:GNG. One piece of coverage in a local paper, as far as I can see. The book mentioned appears to have had no substantial coverage anywhere. Brilliantine ( talk) 22:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Wizardman 22:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Delete, individual is completely non-notable, just another signatory of the Albanian Declaration of Independence, part of a series of identical one-line stubs created about every single signatory. Nowhere close to meeting WP:NOTABLE. -- Athenean ( talk) 22:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Delete, no need to keep a one sentence article. Alexikoua ( talk) 13:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was deleted as non-notable, utterly lacking in content
Contested prod (see talk page). I can find no coverage in reliable sources to indicate that this meets notability requirements. May be eligible under G4 but I can't see deleted versions of Ninjuwusu to find out. Gonzonoir ( talk) 22:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was deleted/userfied. non admin closure TheWeakWilled ( T * G) 20:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Refuted PROD. This book appears to be completely non-notable. Indeed, looking at the talk page, I'm not even sure if the book exists. Note that all the references are sourcing the history behind the content of the book, nothing to do with the book itself. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 21:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
As the author of this article I would like to request to move it back into my user space until I complete some of the tie in articles I wish to write. My series would include, The Final Solution (Jason Bailey), Final Solution (Lawrence Graham), and Final Solution (Richard Peck). The idea of these articles is to compare the difference between the coined term "Final Solution" historically to the fictional uses for it in literature. I understand that the article does not appear notable on its own but I believe when it is included in my series, this topic of comparison will be notable. I will wait until I get your permission before moving the article back to my user space. Thank you. 09:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eraser1 ( talk • contribs)
Eraser1 has moved this article into userspace. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 17:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable band. Canniba loki 20:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 22:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Non notable actor. Has made very few appearances. Looks as if he was a one off in some series playing a minor character in some segment called the The Man Show but doesn't seem viable for his own biography as such.... Can't find any reliable sources... Dr. Blofeld White cat 20:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Non notable high school coach Wuh Wuz Dat 20:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 22:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Notability - the article does not state how this is a notable book per Wikipedia:Notability (books). rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid ( coṁrá) 20:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
References:
SonicANS ( talk) 23:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Icewedge ( talk) 21:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC) reply
No assertion of notability whatsoever. It's a high school project which, holy smokes has been covered in blogs!!!!!111. Ironholds ( talk) 20:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 00:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
WP:NOTNEWS This is an article about allegations without lasting effects. Dethlock99 ( talk) 20:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC) Dethlock99 ( talk) 20:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC) FYI, the first AFD was withdrawn before closure. It had not been decided and consensus was head toward delete. Dethlock99 ( talk) 20:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Note: This AfD is being debated in an external forum
The result was delete -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 23:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Contested Prod. Really bad sources, doesnt say what movies this actress stared in, barely asserts notability at all. google search reveals only 2 hits, one of which is to a yellowpage hit for her home care services. As it stands, falls way short of notability Bonewah ( talk) 19:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Restoring comment by Saedienyx:
-- GRuban ( talk) 19:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Declined an A7 on this article, but I'm unable to find any reliable sources providing significant coverage of this..."hug". Given the claim that it was "created" apparently by the article's creator, I think there's a good chance that this is something made up one day. I will, of course, withdraw this nomination if someone uncovers enough sources to pass WP:V and WP:N. Tim Song ( talk) 19:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Apparently no significant references about him. Keeps were admittedly all "weak keep" (and one "very weak keep". Jayjg (talk) 00:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
I tried to clean this article some, but it appears to be mostly spam, with no real content. I can't see how this biography is notable enough to warrant inclusion. TN X Man 19:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
I'm not sure if this is how I respond to your note, but I'm very confused as to why this article is considered spam. In writing it, I modeled it after Timothy Ferris's page and a few others biographis at Wikipedia. Mike Song is a noted author of two books, and a verified expert in his field, as shown with the multiple references provided. Can you please give me some specific feedback on why this article appears to you to be spam? I disagree. Can I get a second opinion? Thanks! RachelMetzger ( talk) 19:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
I think this is a hoax. It's never been sourced and I can find no mention anywhere of a swimmer called Sei Wee Lim or Lim Sei Wee. The claim that he won the 100m breaststroke gold at the 1999 SEA games is false; this was won by Elvin Chia from Malaysia. [10] Fences& Windows 19:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Protests of 1968. ( non-admin closure) Tim Song ( talk) 09:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Pigeon-holing a vast number of completely unrelated events based on the year they happened in? Nuh-uh. The individual events are notable - the events collectively are not. Ironholds ( talk) 18:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Dream Focus 01:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC) Merge as per infor above. Lets not lose the content on here though. Merge not redirrect. Kurlansky's '1968 the year that rocked the world' is a good source of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Confusedmiked ( talk • contribs) 10:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. This is "keep" in the sense of "do not delete outright", rather than "keep in its current state". There is no real support for actually deleting this content, but there are valid concerns about the appropriateness of leaving it as a separate article. I suggest efforts are made to either source this article properly or trim and merge it to Therapeutic horseback riding - the correct way forward can be discussed on the talk page. ~ mazca talk 15:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Unencyclopedic, unreferenced essay. KuyaBriBri Talk 18:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 23:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
No sources found for this website, apart from their own cooperate twitter and facebook accounts. Doesn't seem notable Random Time 17:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
A disputed PROD. Since there is no definition of "womaniser" and absolutely no references provided, this is essentially original research by synthesis. It can never be clear whether an entry belongs on this list without a definitive citation; none have been provided and none seem available. Accounting4Taste: talk 17:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Keep I searched within wikipedia to see if this material was covered elsewhere- it doesnt appear to be. Womaniser, womanizing etc just link to Promiscuity- if you check that its focus is very different to the intended focus of this article.
My point is, this is a notable subject not adequately covered elsewhere (from what i can tell- anyone searching for this sort of topic would have similiar issues to myself). Yes there are massive problems with the article as it is- but they could easily be fixed, new content and citations added etc etc. The article needs to have more analysis at the start instead of just being a list. "The womaniser" is a specific, recurring literary and filmic archetype- focusing on explaining that, with a list giving examples, i think would be very worthwile and not at all "unmanageable" as suggested above. If the original creator is no longer active- tag up the page for improvement and maintenance and see if someone else can take over. Brunk500 ( talk) 19:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was withdrawn sources have been found. JBsupreme ( talk) 05:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Delete. Pretty simple here, WP:NFT. JBsupreme ( talk) 17:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Delete. As above, WP:NFT. also, article seems to give varying, confused definitions of what punchball is - "Punchball is a sport similar to baseball but without a pitcher, catcher, or bat. It is a pastime of football announcer Al Michaels, who often played with former Chicago Bears quarterback Sid Luckman" vs "At the University of Florida, students commonly play a version of punchball which involves 2 players, a pitcher/goalie and the puncher". Article doesn't cite any sources to prove this game exists.
Also, a speedball is a speedball, not a punchball. no connection there. AND- how can a game be similiar to baseball, but not have a pitcher? nothing makes sense.
Keep. Article has been cleaned up a bit + has some better references now. I would like to mention however that at [1] and at [2] (those are currently citations 1 and 5 in the article) i couldnt find any actual reference to punchball. If punchball is mentioned in the books featured on those sites (you cant access the books text) pls delete the links and just provide standard book references instead, with page numbers. Also ill add, the original article seemed to go out of its way to declare its subject non notable (a game played by 2 famous people plus students at one college) -- Brunk500 ( talk) 05:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Keep and clean up Comment Assuming the article's true and not a hoax, the editor didn't think it up one day, Al Michaels and Sid Luckman did. One question, then, is whether anybody besides Al Michaels and Sid Luckman ever played it. Another question is when did Al and Sid's paths ever cross? Yeh, they're both from Brooklyn, but different generations. ←
Baseball Bugs
What's up, Doc?
carrots→
03:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
reply
The result was no consensus, default to keep. Jayjg (talk) 00:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
This limited-edition album is not notable per WP:NALBUMS. It does not receive significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Pyrrhus 16 16:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
MJfan9: hey did you click on the sources and links anyway I started off the article someone else expanded it. anyway if you are Michael Jackson fan you should know about these albums. search google anyway of course there are not alot of sources the album is vary Rare and not alot of people know about it. search Michael Jackson albums discography on section: other albums
Keep I searched for "dangerous - the remix collection" and got 234,000 hits on google. I'm not a jackson fan, but anything that is an official jackson release by sony (epic is part of sony) is pretty much notable. I think the articles authors should hunt down and provide additional information, such as albums sold. -- Brunk500 ( talk) 18:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
DELETE. Also including Screwed In Houston which was created on the same day as a duplicate article by the same author. I have searched [16] and found nothing representing non-trivial coverage by reliable third party publications of this subject. JBsupreme ( talk) 16:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Delete. similiar experience as above- only links i found were a few scattered words on blogs and the video up on youtube or youtube like sites. I tried to post this earlier with a mention that they say they are distributed by vbstv- which is just basically like a youtube site. i tried to post the link to vbstv but wikipedia tells me its is on the WP blocklist. anyways, i tried to follow the links to play the vid on vbstv but just got an unrelated snowboarding clip instead. Also, only 'credible' external link in the article is to an mtv page, which is about houston but doesnt mention this documentary at all. -- Brunk500 ( talk) 18:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was withdrawn by nominator; no outstanding delete !votes. Non-admin closure. KuyaBriBri Talk 18:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Definite lack of
reliable sources showing up in
Google web search, and Google Books appears to have only
two brief mentions.
SarekOfVulcan (
talk) 16:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)Withdrawing per evidence of external sourcing shown below.--
SarekOfVulcan (
talk)
17:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Unreferenced, unencyclopedic, OR essay. KuyaBriBri Talk 15:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep. Nominator informed me that has elected to withdraw the AFD, with no other arguments for deletion. – MuZemike 02:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
In the scope of an encyclopedia, this article is far from encyclopedic. Yes it has a lot of references, but the material included is essentially about how one country (UK) changed some of it's telephone area codes, and how some people still misquote them. The article was written in 2005, and the general use of these codes today means the article is now seriously out of date despite updates being performed by IP editors, mostly.
The article also has a number of statements which have not been sourced or tagged for checking, it is marked as possibly containing OR, which is not allowed here, and essentially, this article is not fit for inclusion here.
It is large, longwinded, and unencyclopedic. My gut instinct says "Coat this with something volatile, and strike a match near it."
Thor Malmjursson (
talk)
15:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
reply
Nomination Withdrawn BarkingFish Talk to me | My contributions 02:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Apparently non-notable dermatologist. I checked Google, Google news, and Google scholar and couldn't turn up any reliable sources which discuss this person's life and/or work in any detail. Googel Scholar did turn up a few papers he has published in reliable journals, but I don't see enough to satisfy the baseline conditions noted at WP:PROF. Based on this, and the likely conflict of interest involved in creating this article, it should likely be deleted. Jayron 32 15:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Top Gear (series 14). ( non-admin closure) Tim Song ( talk) 09:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD: Non notable TV car that only existed for one episode and is not likely to ever appear in another episode again, I would like to nominate it under WP:BLP1E but that rationale is for a person, not for a vehicle, hence I would like to nominate it under a similar guideline. Donnie Park ( talk) 15:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. ( non-admin closure) Tim Song ( talk) 09:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
First of all, this list is more useful as a category than a list, it was originally part of the 'public information films until I removed it and rep[laced it with a category as I doubted the notability of most of the recent PIFs, also much of the famous articles have its own article, hence why I decided it was useful as a category. Rather than explaining why it should exist, user:Jonny99 decided to create an list here rather than bothering to form any discussion like he should.
Also, another reason is that Wikipedia is not a dumping ground of some random recent PIF minus its own article or any form of verifications or notability, which most of these (recent PIFs) have fallen into ignomity within a few years of it being shown on TV. Donnie Park ( talk) 14:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Term used in one college only. the author cheekily claims: "this article is only created to help the 15,000 new students that enroll to CBS". So put it on the college website, not here! — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 14:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 00:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Already deleted under CSD A7, G11 and G12 but brought back. Hoping for some consensus. NJA (t/ c) 13:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC) NJA (t/ c) 13:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
This is yet another article on an FP7 project, part of a ongoing effort to get articles on Framework Programme projects onto Wikipedia. This article was created by User:Irmos-FP7. As I stated in my prod tag, this IRMOS Project, "Interactive Realtime Multimedia Applications on Service Oriented Infrastructures" is not notable by Wikipedia's usual standards, with no independent third party sources. The Google hits one finds for IRMOS are for Infrared Multi-Object spectrometer instead. Abductive ( reasoning) 12:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Cirt ( talk) 01:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Seems like a POV Fork from here [29] jheiv ( talk) 11:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
*Merge unless expanded. Reading this Afd I expected this to be a POV fight over a long article. But the article as it
now has just one paragraph, so it is ridiculously short to qualify as a
WP:SUMMARY-style subarticle at this time.
Pcap
ping
10:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
reply
The result was no consensus. With a note that several of the keep votes were filed by single-purpose or very new accounts, though this doesn't seem to sway the discussion terribly. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Recreation of previously previously deleted student society which still fails WP:N and still smacks of WP:PROMOTION. Still a lack of reliable refs also. Delete Féasógach ( talk) 11:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Keep Much more notable than e.g. Northern Council for Unity. Red Hurley ( talk) 19:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Golden Secondary School. Yes, this is the wrong venue, but consensus to merge is clear. No point closing this procedurally to have another discussion just to repeat what has been said here. ( non-admin closure) Tim Song ( talk) 09:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
To quote the article in its entirety: 'Golden Alternate School is a program within Golden Secondary School that provides additional services to "at risk" students.' That's it. Seems to me that this a classic case for deletion and merging into the Golden Secondary School article (which itself needs some extra text), but not being au fait with the Canadian educational system I nomnate in the hope that others can give more expert opinions. Emeraude ( talk) 10:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Consensus is that the subject passes WP:ATHLETE. ( non-admin closure) Tim Song ( talk) 09:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Fail to see notability. All coverage is passing mention of name in coverage about other people (not inherited) or simple club profile stuff which, if it were an actual footballer, would be dismissed as standard non-independent coverage not implying notability. read some of the refs provided.. "Robson recalled that, knowing Van Nistelrooy from his period as PSV manager, he had told Martin Ferguson - an Old Trafford scout - to recommend that his brother, Sir Alex, buy the forward" and "Ferguson's brother and chief European scout Martin watched the Sampdoria star playing against Palermo towards the end of the season..." DNQ as "significant coverage" ClubOranje T 10:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Fails WP:GNG. Jayjg (talk) 00:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Fail to see notability here. All coverage is passing mention of name in coverage about other people (not inherited) or simple club profile stuff which, if it were an actual footballer, would be dismissed as standard non-independent coverage not implying notability. ClubOranje T 10:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Article about a non-notable doctoral thesis, aparrently by the author of said thesis. There is no evidence this is anything other than original research. I42 ( talk) 08:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
I am new to this page so I hope this is the right procedure. I wish to contest the deletion of Joint Directed Action as the purpose of this article is to describe the meaning of Joint Directed Action as well as its research origin. The definition of Joint Directed Action is published in a doctoral dissertation (with both an ISBN and ISSN number) and as this is peer-reviewed research and as such has passed a rigorous non-biased research review I cannot see how there exists a conflict of interest nor could be described to be original reserach without a foundation. The purpose of this article is to define the notion of Joint Directed Action.
Chrmau (
talk)
09:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 00:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The played did not played in professional level ( Serie C2 or above nor Coppa Italia. He is a non-notable player Matthew_hk t c 07:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Page created by blocked sockpuppet account with proven COI with subject. Non-notable, and only sources I could find for article were from commercial seduction community websites DRosin ( talk) 06:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. A vast majority of the "keep" votes rest upon exceedingly weak and irrelevant arguments, but given the lack of endorsements of the nomination, I can't reasonably justify deleting. – Juliancolton | Talk 02:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
This is a non-notable software product. The only provided references are extensive notes from the developer site about each minor version update. Wikipedia is not a software directory and all articles need to be notable as referenced by multiple and significant reference by independent sources. Miami33139 ( talk) 06:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Nyco ( talk) 17:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 00:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Not a public person, no direct reference --> links only show general frontpages and no personal profile. Neither is the person refered to on any site. Mixcompetition is only a funbased competition according to the site, certainly not a high level volleybal competition. In general nothing about this person related to the given subjects can be found online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.113.169.180 ( talk • contribs) 09:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC) reply
AFD: Note: this is not my AFD, I'm good-faith submitting it for the IP who wanted it. tedder ( talk) 06:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable minor band. An IP removed the seconded PROD, but I can find no significant coverage whatsoever for this act, just some local California blog interviews at LAist and the OC Weekly blog. That's not nothing, I guess, but then I read the Popwreckoning.com interview, which starts, "Earlier in the week I got a phone call from Army Navy front man Justin Kennedy. . . ." So given the prevalence of interviews over objective articles, I'm guessing this is the result of some aggressive self-promotion. Glenfarclas ( talk) 05:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:GNG. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 05:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Also nominating Nexcore Mobile Platform on same grounds. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 05:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
This is a "Wikipedia as free webhost" style entry: a largely non-notable list of clubs, activities etc., aimed at Michigan Tech students, complete with wording that makes it clear this isn't aimed at an encyclopedia audience:
one of the many things we are proud of is our very own, student run radio station
And remember, if they don't have [a religious group] for you, you can always get a group of six people together and start your own group
Come out and support your huskies!
Most, if not all listings are not notable, anything that is notable can be added to Michigan Tech. Hairhorn ( talk) 04:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Apparently non-notable author. Looked him up in a several different google searches, couldn't find ANYTHING. Lots of other Stephen Zhangs, but not this one. Unless someone else can turn up reliable sources, this should probably be deleted. Jayron 32 04:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Deletion process begun by an IP, who said "Considering that the article has numerous (pre-tagged) issues, that it has remained a stub for quite some time, that its relevancy and importance seem very low, and that I have never heard of "technically speaking" as anything than a turn of phrase, I suggest deletion. 94.220.240.23 (talk) 02:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)". Article topic is a webpage on the NSF website on how to give good presentations. Abductive ( reasoning) 04:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
A highly non-encyclopedic article that takes its material solely from Islamic Watch, a web site that does not meet WP:RS requirements. Concerns regarding WP:COATRACK and WP:CFORK also need to be considered. Absent of information culled from reliable sources, there is nothing to merge or redirect. Warrah ( talk) 04:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Switzerland – United States relations and Pakistan – United States relations. First of all, whether the articles are interesting or not has no bearing on their notability. That said, it comes down to whether the sources establish notability. Any diplomatic missions should be mentioned in the bilateral relations article, not here. And any notable event that occured should have its own stand-alone article, but does not automatically confer notability upon the building. However, the articles do have content with sources that are useful (albeit impertinent to the Consulate-General itself, save the primary source), so a merge would be the ideal solution. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Deletion Review was closed as Overturn to AfD. Link to discussion: Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_December_9#Consulate-General_of_Switzerland_in_Houston_and_Consulate-General_of_Pakistan_in_Houston_.28closed.29 ( X! · talk) · @186 · 03:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Article appears to be a WP:HOAX - the search term ("ronnie rico" snowboard -facebook -myspace) yields 5 gHits [44], which seems extremely low given the stated release of the CD was 1997. However, given the number of gHits on just Ronnie Rico, it is possible that it existed. If that is the case, it surely lacks WP:RS. Checking other sources such as archive.org was also a bust. Should this article be deleted, though, I would argue that it be done without prejudice. There is another Ronnie Rico [45] who may at some point meet WP:GNG. In the interest of full disclosure, I put the {{unreferenced}} tag in the article from a public computer. Vulture19 ( talk) 03:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Cirt ( talk) 01:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
This article came up a week ago during a routine sweep through the black project template pages. Its just enough outside the norm that I feel an afd is warranted, so here we are. Proposed grounds for deletion are WP:FRINGE and WP:OR. TomStar81 ( Talk) 02:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The article is OR; the term is not used by reputable sources, as the article itself admits. Looie496 ( talk) 02:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Cirt ( talk) 01:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable former high school coach and current div. I-AA (FCS) defensive coordinator. I can find no significant independent coverage that would indicate his individual notability. Glenfarclas ( talk) 02:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. A definitive close is made impossible in part by two things: the prevalence of SPAs, and the batch nomination. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:20, 23 December 2009 (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}} . |
Non-notable tech business. Speedily deleted twice before as advertising. Current version shows some essentially trivial announcements circulated in IT-related sources ( [46] [47]) but the first looks like a recirculated press release and the second is in fact a blog. Other sources are all IT industry related, not enough to confer general notability. Not sure that claiming to be the first commercial open source vendor of data integration software is a sufficient claim of historical or technical importance. Smerdis of Tlön ( talk) 17:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply
“ | Then a real Wikipedia apparatchik,
Ihcoyc, decided that enough was enough, and who were these people who dared write about products and companies he did not know himself. Ihcoyc is a real Wikipedia expert specializing in religious content, and also an attorney from Indiana (per his profile). He actually wrote an essay
The presumption of non-notability for Internet related, computing, and services businesses, in which he proclaims:
I presume that a business or product is unlikely to be notable if it:
So here goes Ihcoyc, who cannot tolerate stuff he personally does not know about, and he slams the two Talend pieces with a request to delete: His claims: that references like eWeek, PCWorld or InfoWorld, or even Gartner, do not count. If it does not appear in the Indiana Bar Association Gazette, it isn’t relevant to the Wikipedia readers. |
” |
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
This stub was recently created in a good-faith attempt to differentiate btw esoteric/pseudoscientific/non-mainstream claims about pyramids (ie, pyramidology), and academic archaeological research on pyramids (ie, this stub). Problem is, the scientific study of pyramids—either singly or as a class of structure—is not a recognised or separately defined (sub-)field within archaeology or any other discipline.
While there's obviously plenty of academic research conducted on pyramids, this is in the broader context of investigating an archaeological culture, time period, engineering/technical development, etc.
While individual archaeologists might have expertise & career-long attentions to particular structures or groups of structures, there are not really "pyramid archaeologists" per se, as a class.
Any archaeological knowledge about individual pyramids or pyramid groups/types that wikipedia might record is best covered (is already covered) in the various articles— Egyptian pyramids, Nubian pyramids, Mesoamerican pyramids, etc, plus the many articles on individual structures—or at pyramid itself.
Any info in this pyramid archaeology article would be redundant with these others, & as mentioned there is no discipline or methodological approach peculiar to the archaeological study of pyramids to warrant an article on a subfield and its techniques (excepting the pseudoarchaeological, and for that we have the common term and article pyramidology). I see no prospect for useful/non-redundant expansion of this article, & the subject lacks a real-world definition; therefore propose delete. cjllw ʘ TALK 00:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 19:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable computer hardware Orange Mike | Talk 21:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 14:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Emerging artist, but has not attained a sufficient level of notability per WP:Creative. Two solo exhibitions, both within the last two years; let's give it a few more years and we'll see. Litho derm 20:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Cirt ( talk) 14:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Request for a speedy deletion was made based on notability, and contested. There is one news article listed as a source. I am of No Opinion at this time. CitiCat ♫ 18:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply
I have added more references and information now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sahrafilms ( talk • contribs) 10:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Unable to locate multiple instances of significant coverage in
reliable sources to indicate
notability. Only good piece of coverage I can find is the one Softpedia review.
Cybercobra
(talk)
00:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
reply
The result was merge to Vivarium. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC) reply
This is in that blurred area of Encyclopaedia vs Dictionary. I see this article as a dictionary definition that has no place in an encyclopaedia. Your mileage may vary. Fiddle Faddle ( talk) 15:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 14:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC) reply
person of questionable notability, part of a series of articles created by this same editor and his obvious sockpuppet Wuh Wuz Dat 15:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom, non-notable person being spammed by suspected sockmaster. -- SquidSK (1MC• log) 15:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. No prejudice against a redirect. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
This lists offers nothing new. There is no actual title, it's just 2 separate titles held together. Both title already have their own history lists here on Wikipedia and the article on the unified belts has the same info already as well. Prod removed by an IP (who I suspect is the same user that reverted me when I turned the article back into a redirect because the IP hadn't edited in 4 months). TJ Spyke 00:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Keep Notable and the World and WWE Tag Team Championships have seperate title histories and this would make it easier to see the each reign.-- Zack Ryder Fan Give him a page 00:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Yah but if they want one of the titles specifically they can go to that page and not this page.-- Zack Ryder Fan Give him a page 00:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Like I said before this would make it easier for people to look at the reigns when the titles are unified so it should be kept.-- Zack Ryder Fan Give him a page 00:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
My explaination is right.-- Zack Ryder Fan Give him a page 02:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
This would make it easier for people just look at champions when the titles are unified.-- Zack Ryder Fan Give him a page 21:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC) Also as I've said before if they want one of the championships specifically then they'll go to that page.-- Zack Ryder Fan Give him a page 21:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
I'm right but nobody else thinks I am show me the rule that says that I can't create this article.-- Zack Ryder Fan Give him a page 01:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Yah but this is not the same.-- Zack Ryder Fan Give him a page 02:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
It gives information about when the titles are unified the top part is also different and as i've said before this list make it eaiser for people to check reigns when the titles are unified so it's plainly different.-- Zack Ryder Fan Give him a page 21:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Also why don't you just put the information in Unified WWE Tag Team Championship in the pages for the World Tag Team Championship and WWE Tag Team Championship?-- Zack Ryder Fan Give him a page 21:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
I know it does but my past explainations say it all.-- Zack Ryder Fan Give him a page 21:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Yours do to.-- Zack Ryder Fan Give him a page 21:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
This page is useful that's why it should be kept.-- Curtis23 (talk) 21:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Duh it does they both have different title histories.-- Curtis23 (talk) 22:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Merge. Looking at the three list articles, it would appear that every new "champion" from now on would have to be entered in three different places. This is not sensible. The canonical solution would be to identify whichever previous title is the more notable, rename it to the new title, then curtail the other list at the point in history where the titles were merged, with a note saying "For champions since the merger, see (name of article). Sussexonian ( talk) 12:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Cirt ( talk) 14:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC) reply
person of questionable notability, part of a series of articles created by this same editor and his obvious sockpuppet Wuh Wuz Dat 15:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Cirt ( talk) 14:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Does not appear to demonstrate any notability. A medicinal manufacturing company in Kerala seemingly associated with the State. Being founded in 1941 does not make it notable, IMO. SGGH ping! 14:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Oushadhi, as an Kerala government owned company, had played an important role in the Kerala health sector. As a company promoted by Kerala government, it provides medicines to the poor and needy people in a marginal rate. This has kept big multi-national medicine companies from charging high price. There is no government in any part of the world which have a medicine company under thier control. This shows government of Kerala's effort to secure the medicine supply to the Kerala people. So in that context, it plays a big role in Kerala economy by giving needy medicines.
So please don't delete it and just see through the lens of Kerala economy, but not on a corporate angle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpullokaran ( talk • contribs) 15:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The main reason why there were no articles in news is because the government don't allow companies to sponsor any programmes or advertising. The company is accountable to the Kerala people and any penny spend on advertising is much of waste. Because Ayurveda is a service and people want to have faith in it. It is very easy to sell a soap or detergent in a market by advertising. But you can't sell a ayurveda product in a market with out much faith. Most of the ayurveda companies in Kerala is decades old. They have a histoty of 300 years. Jomy Jos Pullokaran 16:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpullokaran ( talk • contribs)
The result was redirect to Avenged Sevenfold (album). Wizardman 16:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:MUSIC. 7107Lecker Tischgespräch, außerdem... 13:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Wizardman 22:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Multiple unresolved tagged issues since creation in June 2008. Original research by member of website. No reliable sources. Non-notable. Seregain ( talk) 05:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Prolific author, but does he meet the WP:GNG? Polarpanda ( talk) 19:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. copyvio Cirt ( talk) 01:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Notability has not been established. Eeekster ( talk) 03:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 19:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Promotion for non-notable company and product. Article was written by single-issue user who is the CEO of the company [75]. I was unable to find any significant third-party coverage. Haakon ( talk) 10:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 14:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Indiscriminate list of statistics inappropriate per WP:NOT#STATS
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 14:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Not notable, unreferenced. Can't find any sources Mattg82 ( talk) 01:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Individual is notable simply for operating a Ponzi scheme, which itself is a dubious claim to notability, but seeing as how it's the ONLY thing the subject is notable for...... fuzzy510 ( talk) 00:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 19:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC) reply
No significant coverage and doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 ( talk) 14:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 19:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC) reply
No significant coverage and doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 ( talk) 11:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 23:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC) reply
No significant independent coverage and doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 ( talk) 10:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Wizardman 19:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable composer. IMDB does list some credits, but nothing that would make hum particularly noteworthy. Personal web site lists many more credits, but this is not an independent, reliable source, and it doesn't match up with the IMDB listing very well. No other sources found. I just don't think he clears the notability bar. - Realkyhick ( Talk to me) 06:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Thanks, can you suggest a way to make a difference in appearance between "external link that is just a link" (e.g. for something that has no Wikipedia entry) and "external link that refers directly to the subject of the article" (reference)? Or should all ext. links look the same? I'm not sure of the correct procedure. Actually I will check the Help section too. Philip Howard ( talk) 11:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 14:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC) reply
I found this article while random article searching. I tagged it and tried to find ANY sources of any kind. Completely fails notability. - Warthog Demon 04:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. There is clearly no consensus to delete. Whether to keep or to merge can be decided on the talk page. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Co-nomination with the article Windows Neptune.
WP:COI disclosure: I have trivial amounts of code that is probably present in these demo projects. I don't know how ten year old code presents a conflict other than a wish for historical accuracy.
The policy reason to delete this is lack of notability, and lack of sources. This article has one single third-party source. That is not enough to base a Wikipedia article on and we have a lack of both verifiability and truth here.
The second reason to delete is that it is just plain wrong. The article contains several more statements that are completely unsourced and unremovable because of the efforts of people involved in a fan forum. The single source for this article, Paul Thurrot, is a somewhat reliable source in the context of Microsoft Windows, but not really. Paul Thurrot is like an über fan site. This is an instance where he is not reliable because in this timeframe of publication, what he says is speculation. Paul Thurrot publishes two kinds of speculation: his own, and what he is leaked from inside Microsoft. What is leaked isn't reliable either because he is fed misinformation on purpose. (Remember that COI disclosure? I'm a better RS than Paul Thurrot. I've edited and been published by Microsoft Press about Microsoft Windows, but not about this article.)
If you remove anything unsourced, you are left with one sentence. If you look at that sentence from the position that it was speculation you are left with nothing. There is a proper place for what little public information exists about this project, it is the article Development of Windows XP. Unfortunately, trying to enforce a redirect is blocked by the efforts of a fan forum where a handful of people trade old Windows releases on BitTorrent who then write about their entirely original research "findings" on Wikipedia. Ars Technica even wrote an article based on the OR in Wikipedia - that is the horrible situation the OR policy is designed to prevent, we risk basing further references on stuff that first appeared, wrongly, in Wikipedia. The proper thing to do with these two articles is Delete, redirect, and protect SchmuckyTheCat ( talk) 03:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Also, as for sources, the articles are sourced by the screenshots inside them. To consider those screenshots un-reliable sources, would mean essentially, that you think, that they're fake, which can be considered as a personal attack at the users who uploaded them, since you call them fakers, and frauds, basically.
The screen-shots come from BetaArchive.co.uk, which is the top internet forum for Operating System Alpha's, and Beta's, and the screen-shots were made by a reliable user of that forum.
Also, there are on-line available Microsoft anti-trust law-suit documents, which further prove, that Windows Neptune (spelled NepTune in those documents), was planned to be the successor to Windows 2000. Also, even a Service Pack was planned for it, codenamed Triton. Again, mentioned in those documents.
And to prove, that Odyssey was supposed to be NT 6.0, there are the sources by Paul Thurrott.
So I think, that there are more, than enough sources available on-line for these two articles. Also, SchmuckyTheCat, you have made mistakes about Windows before, such as when you claimed, that Windows 3.2 Simplified Chinese had for Workgroups features, which Wengier Wu from the China DOS Union later successfully proved wrong, so I would kindly ask you to refrain from labelling yourself as an expert, when you made such an elementary mistake before. - OBrasilo ( talk) 01:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC) reply
3 verifiable sources in article: http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/windowsxp_gold.asp, http://www.winhistory.de/more/nept.htm (in german), screenshots at http://neosmart.net/gallery/v/os/Neptune/ more outside of article: http://www.activewin.com/faq/neptune.shtml google gives many results to good sources There are multiple external verifiable sources on this topic. 174.112.211.143 ( talk) 02:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Win-history de isn't a forum. It has a forum but it's different. Microsoft also has discussion forum, but that doesn't make Microsoft themselves a discussion forum.
As for an user-generated site - someone tested it, and published a site about Neptune, Wikipedia then can use this site.
So it's YOU here, who rejects any site about it, as un-reliable. If Microsoft posted their own article about it, you'd say it's un-reliable. If an independent source tests Neptune, and post their own site about it, you say it's un-reliable. So what kind of sources do you want for it? It's an old OS, no major publication will talk about it anymore.
Also, I mentioned the Anti-Trust lawsuit documents as a source for it, which you clearly ignored.
You also consistently ignore my comments about your own unreliability for judgment and writing articles on Windows. You couldn't even get the features of Windows 3.2 Simplified Chinese right, and you're expecting us to let you have your own way with two articles of something more important?
And again, how many sources are there for Windows Nashville? Yet, you have no problems with that staying, but you have problems with Windows Neptune, and Windows Odyssey staying. Taking double standard, are we?
Not to mention, you worked for MS, so you're involved in the company, and might be trying to cover up facts about Neptune, and Odyssey, hence your insistance on having the articles converted to mere redirects. Now, it's up to YOU to prove it's not so. - OBrasilo ( talk) 21:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Merge with/redirect to Development of Windows XP WP:Verifiability != WP:Notability. The article is poorly sourced, perhaps, but that alone is not a reason for deletion. The fact is that any 'insiders' are probably breaking confidentiality agreements, which is illegal. The second fact is that these insiders have a conflict of interest. This does not necessarily mean these editors cannot work on the article, but it does mean that they have a bias towards its notability. Here-say is not verifiable, and constitutes WP:Original research. Again, however, this is not a reason for deletion. Any Windows product is notable. However, what should be looked at is what is done with other codenames. Windows Longhorn redirects to the Development of Windows Vista. Likewise, these two should redirect to Development of Windows XP (as should Windows Whistler now that I look at it). The material on the page should be moved into that article. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 19:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC) reply
I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill ( talk) 02:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Vast disagreement over whether the sources constitute "significant coverage." US News is indeed significant; even if it's "only" four paragraphs, that is obviously not a trivial mention. The other sources are quite on the borderline. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
This borders on a CSD A7, but AfD is free, so why not. This article, such as it is, has had nearly 3 years to shape up (and I have waited for quite some time before coming here - see edit history), yet it remains nothing but a blatant product advertisement, frequently edited with what appears to be a clear vested interest. No sources are cited, much less reliable ones, and thus no notability is established. In short, this is yet another unsourced advert for some gimmick product. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply