The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 15:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Unsourced biography of a living person Smileupper09 ( talk) 01:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Innocence Project. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 15:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
I'm going to go ahead and put this one here, because this man has been the subject of a number of news stories today for being exonerated of rape. However, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E seem to apply. Glenfarclas ( talk) 23:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Delete or merge with Innocence Project, not notable enough for own article. Boleyn3 ( talk) 12:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 03:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Seems to be just a WP:NEOLOGISM which primarily exists in a paper by Thomas Hoffmann. The unpublished master's thesis (Word file) the article cites is by a doctoral student writing about Thomas Hoffmann who expressly put the term in quotation marks to indicate it is a made up word ("Hoffman has called for an 'exomissiology' to raise the Christian mission field to a vast new level . . . ."). Not presently a notable term. Glenfarclas ( talk) 22:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 03:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Notability: the article has not text, but the threshold for individual games to be notable is very high. I don't believe this game meets it. rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid ( coṁrá) 22:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 03:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
A somewhat promotional article on a non-notable filmmaker/writer/comedian, which appears to be the work of a SPA. I can't turn up any reliable sources that would establish the notability of the subject. A google search fails to turn up any reliable sources. Even if every claim here is true, this doesn't really come close to being notable. This article was prodded by Gigs, seconded by me, then de-prodded by the author. This was previously speedied during it's first AfD as a hoax, as a non-admin, I can't comment on whether it's been improved since then. (However, I would suggest that if this is deleted, some salt be applied). Bfigura ( talk) 22:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
For completeness, I'm also nominating the other non-notable works by this subject. Nothing here has any reliable sourcing, much less enough to pass the relevant notability guideline -- Bfigura ( talk) 22:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cutting the gordian knot, this AFD was opened to test some new sources. This has now taken place and the established editors are of one mind - that this is non-notable and the sources provided do not cut the mustard. I really see no point keeping this open with the extensive off site canvassing and this particular comment was really enough. I guess it was meant as a joke but no encyclopedic value is served by keeping this open a second longer Spartaz Humbug! 08:03, 20 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 the third nomination of this article. The first result was delete as non-notable. The second I speedy deleted as a recreation of an article previously deleted at AfD. However, on my talk page, editors provided a range of additional sources. Some of these certainly do not meet RS criteria. Some are in Russian, so I can't tell. One is to HAKER, which may well be a reliable source. However, I'm not qualified to tell. I have now restored this and brought to AfD so that more eyes can see it, and hopefully reach a final community decision.
Apologies in advance for the length of this nomination! I have no particularly strong feelings either way, this is a procedural nomination really.
For your convenience, below are the sources added to my talkpage.
https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/lucid/+source/qutim -
And some more links: http://qutim-forum.de/forum/ http://www.qutim.cz/ Nokia has done port qutIM to Symbian: http://www.forum.nokia.com/info/sw.nokia.com/id/d0134921-0894-42a3-a1a8-f3d0fdb7a9b3/Qt_for_Symbian_qutIM_Example.html
http://qt-apps.org/index.php?xsortmode=high -
nokia.com qt-apps.org are famous secondary sources, Also some more secondary sources, but now mostly on russian: http://valentine.viviti.com/ http://habrahabr.ru/ http://mac.softpedia.com/ http://mib.pianetalinux.org/ http://itshaman.ru/ http://www.opennet.ru/ http://iblog.su/ http://hakushka.wordpress.com/ http://jenyay.net/ http://t-34.name/ http://megaobzor.com/
Also information about qutIM was published in some famous magazines like }{aker ( April, August), ITFormat
XAKER is a journal with more than ten year history,
ITFormat looks to be journal with both professional and user articles.
English language: Qt-Apps (btw it's a software portal rather than forum) Freshports - FreeBSD software ports Gentoo Packages Softpedia - Software encyclopedia, Mac section Archlinux software Maemo software Macupdate - Mac software Software informer Slax packages Mops Linux packages
Ged UK 21:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
-- Cybercobra (talk) 12:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC) replyNote: The following software was not developed by the XMPP Standards Foundation and has not been formally tested for standards compliance, usability, reliability, or performance.
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 03:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
OR. "Visual writing" is a neologism at best; and even as a neologism, that term is not a term that is used to describe the topic of the article. The references don't use the term "visual writing". The article's haphazard definition of "visual writing" would also encompass childrens' picture books, for example. Comet Tuttle ( talk) 21:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MuZemike 21:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Non notable band. Notability is not established using references from reliable sources. Fails WP:MUSIC. The sole song that was included in a non-notable anthology does not make this band notable. Ragib ( talk) 17:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC) reply
They have a single in an album.... and they are performing in our country. Also they are working on their first album and music video. I also talked with another admin and he said its fine. So can you guys please explain why you want to delete this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.49.42.65 ( talk) 12:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 03:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
This page is orphaned (only linked to from user/talk pages). Also seems very solidly non-notable. Google news archive search shows one hit, the existing source: [3], which is about his podcast, not him. The podcast doesn't seem notable either, gnews 2 hits: [4]. Nothing in google scholar. He has a web presence (although less than me, I might add, and I don't think I'm anywhere near notability!) The only info on this person that I can find seems to be on social networking websites, his personal site, blogs, and more informal sites, and other sources which are not acceptable for establishing notability per WP:BIO. Cazort ( talk) 20:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 03:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
This website does not yet meet WP:WEB, Alexa lists it as the being the three million most visited website and the other references are not enough to provide notability being a local paper and a school newspaper. Smartse ( talk) 20:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Jayjg (talk) 04:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
This article is about a 19th century Greek schoolteacher who wrote a few dissertations and wrote a couple of books but never published them. Not notable. Ptolion ( talk) 20:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Marks & Spencer#M&S Food hall. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 15:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
This article is only about the old name for Marks & Spencer's food hall, and has no general notability. Footyfanatic3000 ( talk · contribs) 20:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 15:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
non notable website Wuh Wuz Dat 20:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 03:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable book. No claim of notability made in the article. Unable to find reliable sources on the net either Raziman T V ( talk) 20:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Stubify and rework. Reading through this long debate I am left with two clear mesages. Firstly that this is an encyclopedic subject and secondly, that this effort is so far from what is required that some of the editors working on it have thrown up their hands and decided it is best to start from scratch. There is an overwhelming majority in favour of deleting this version but a clear consensus that a proper article is also permissible. Ordinarily, I would stub the article and close this as no-consensus but given the intractable nature of the dispute I think we need a more refined solution. I have therefore created a subpage to work on the new article and put a place-holder on the main page and protected it. The subpage needs to be rewritten to remove all the synthesis and original research and be created directly from proper sources. Once there is a clear consensus on the sub-page talk-page from both sides of this dispute that the page is ready to go back into mainspace the article can be unprotected and the content merged across. Spartaz Humbug! 16:04, 25 December 2009 (UTC) reply
See extensive discussion on talk page: this reads as a merger between articles on the two empires, but is distinctly worse than either existing article. Its Roman history is inaccurate; the comparisons are not sourced to the reliable sources that discuss such things - and even if they did, they would be repeating opinions, not - as policy requires - facts about opinions. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The article has also addressed the concerns of its last AFD, and has been dramatically improved since them [ article now and then
A longer argument on why it should be kept is shown below:
Is the article perfect? No; as of present, it does suffer from signifcant problems. As some of my first contributions to wikipedia, I do admit that I did make many mistakes when creating the article, and had left some of them unfixed as I went on to work to promote Economic history of China (pre-1911) to GA and hopefully FA. However, I just want to address a few criticims of the article, and hopefully show that they are nowhere as near as malicious as some editors have claimed.
WP:OR. This has a complaint raised against the article since the beginning. To have raised it in the days of December 2008, when the article had no sources comparing the two empires, was reasonable. However, a similar complaint has no justification. The article features many sources discussing the two empires, from brief summaries such as W.W. Norton to whole scholarly papers such as work done by Walther Schiedel and Princeton on monetary matters. Yes, sources that only describe one of the two subjects are used- which does not constitute WP:Synthesis or WP:OR. Synthesis and OR refers to the creation of new ideas and thoughts- no new ideas and conclusions are created from sentences describing detailed. For example, on an article comparing apples and oranges, if it is written "Apples are red (source on apples only) and later written "oranges are orange(source about orange only)", it is not synthesis or OR- new ideas and conclusions have been presented. The only effect is that 2 facts are presented to the reader. And besides, the main information in the article comes from sources that do compare the 2 empires; the other sources are used for supporting info.
WP:NPOV . Some critics have accused the article of being NPOV, going as far as to say it is a "my daddy is bigger than your daddy" issue. Not at all true- nowhere in the article can you find a statement such as "Han is MUCH STRONGER THAN ROME" or vice versa. Yes, in some sections there is more information on Han china than Rome(this problem also exists in reverse, for example see the engineering section), but this is due to the limited sources available for use for myself(my main work was on Economic history of China). In order to remedy this problem, I have repeatedly asked other users if they could contribute Rome-related information to the article, which they refused to do so, out of hostility to the article, a factor I could not control.
WP: Encyclopedic This article is obviously encyclopedic. Since its establishment, several new papers by respected scholars have been published on the subject, showing that this is definitely a notable topic, which was confirmed in the last AFD. Just because an article is of poor quality in the eyes of some editors is not grounds for deletion- if you don't like the article, improve it. Some critics have mentioned that they would delete it and rather write a new one- If you have good sources and the time to do so, do so! Simply delete all existing information and replace it with your own (as long as it is good, I will not object). Although the article's quality is not the best, I think it would be very hard to deny that it has improved greatly since the last AFD. Further work is needed, but deletion is not warranted.
My thoughts on the issue - Recently I have not been very active on wikipedia due to school, SAT and other factors, but with the advent of christmas I will have more time to devote to wikipedia. I have already submitted this article to ARS as a first step, and after I deal with another article I will try to improve this article with the other more reputable sources currently available. I feel it would be a great travesty to wikipedia to delete an article on an encyclopedic topic and which, while not perfect, has obviously been much improved since its creation. Teeninvestor ( talk) 19:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Comment. Despite their numerous cries about "inaccuracy" and "OR", the editors involved in the AFD have yet to cite a single example of either. Teeninvestor ( talk) 20:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The issue above has been addressed(most of what you tagged was what the source said, literally)- Also, as to your example above, the article is more intended as a comparison between the two civilizatiosn in that time period, rather than the empires in particular. Teeninvestor ( talk) 20:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Your destructive personal attacks are most discouraging. You refer to "Virtual clash of Roman and Han Chinese armies and culture". I ask you: Where is it? Where is it? You have not yet presented a single example of what you have said except your boisterous bias. Ignoring your personal attacks and attempts to distract the issue, I ask you: Do you not admit that there are scholarly sources on this topic, which is also a topic of scholarly interst?. You haven't answered this question, because there are scholarly sources on this notable topic, which you have failed to acknowledge, either because of ignorance or bias. Yes, in some areas, most notably the military sphere, sources not comparing the two empires have been used. However, in this case no direct comparison has been made, no new ideas and conclusions presented- therefore there is no WP:SYNT, which refers to new conclusions. Teeninvestor ( talk) 22:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
You are so knowledgable, Gun Powder Ma, about ancient armies that you do realize that Crossbow is listed under list of Chinese inventions? That a catapault is not a crossbow, and it's firing rate was only a fraction of a crossbow?(which would have made it useless in open field fighting)? If the romans did employ the crossbow, then how come
Velites Served in the Roman army until the very end? If the Roman horse was so efficient at transport, how come Rome was dependent on Egyptian grain for travel(don't tell they couldn't grow food in Italy!)? The discrepancy in troop numbers can easily be explained by the massive improvement in agricultural technology in China at this time, including the seed drill and iron farm tools.
Teeninvestor (
talk)
23:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
reply
I believe referring to another editor as a "virtual wargamer" who fantasizes about "virtual wargame clash of Han and Roman Empires" is more than attacks. Only the most POV editors would think that is not an attack. These words are clearly implied by Gun Powder Ma. Teeninvestor ( talk) 22:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Note to above HongQiGong has posted twice and the quote in question is actually a direct quote from a book by Robert Temple, compiled from the work of Joseph Needham. Teeninvestor ( talk) 21:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The article has been stubified per Taemyr; all sections sourced purely to a source that describes just one empire has been removed. The remaining content is all cited with only citations that discuss both empires. Teeninvestor ( talk) 22:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Well in any case, the stubbification has been reversed by User:Gun Powder Ma, a curious claim since much editing work was done during the 1st AFD. Teeninvestor ( talk) 23:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Last time I checked wikipedia policy never said we should delete an article to improve it. Teeninvestor ( talk) 23:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment Many editors seem to want to "delete the article" and start over. This is a fallacy- if you wish to start over, delete the whole thing and replace it with your information and/or add your own. Never has wikipedia policy recommended deleting an article that is notable and on the subject to "start over"- that would be a massive distortion of our policy. Teeninvestor ( talk) 00:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment I believe talk of WP:OR and WP:SYNT for this article is unjustified. The direct comparisons in this article are sourced; otherwise, the information has been listed seperately- which DOES NOT constitute synthesis. If i put two pieces of information close together, it does not constitute WP:SYNT(which is defined as the creation of new conclusions and ideas). For example, putting the seperately sourced statements: Apples are red and oranges are orange together does not create any new conclusions or ideas, and therefore can be used even if the citation only refers to apples/oranges, instead of both. Teeninvestor ( talk) 01:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC) reply
I would like to know what the WP guidelines say about the editing process while an AfD is underway? Because, once this AfD started, all of a sudden a frantical editing process started and a third of the article has been removed. This hyperactivity smacks a bit of foul play, at least it is patently absurd. How can contributors to this debate form an informed opinion if they don't get to see the article as it was published for so long? Obviously, the users have a right to judge the article based on the version from the time when the AfD was made, not some face-lifted version. If the community decision is to keep the article, we have still all the time in the world for thorough editing. Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 01:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Gun Powder Ma, are you out of your head? When does wikipedia Prohibit improvement of an article? Editing during AFD is not bad; in fact, it is encouraged. Or else, what is the article rescue squadron? You are so biased and malicious towards this article that you're trying to prevent anyone from working on it to improve it? What the heck do you think you're doing? Who the heck do you think you are? Jimbo? Teeninvestor ( talk) 02:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Delete or possibly reduce to a very brief stub -- This article is a confection. It does not "compare" them: in most respects, it merely shows how different they were. If kept, it needs to cite much better sources than Encarta; BBC; The reliance on Worlds apart is also too heavy. The article does cite some academci works comparing the two empires, so that I cannot argue that this is non-encyclopaedic, but the whole can be summarised as "They were quite different in many respects". Peterkingiron ( talk) 14:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC) reply
— Hawobo ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Note This editor has made less than 30 edits to wikipedia and he shows up right here? Suspicious. Teeninvestor ( talk) 22:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC) reply
— Rootless_Juice ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Note This editor has made less than 30 edits to wikipedia and he shows up right here? Suspicious. Teeninvestor ( talk) 22:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Already has. Teeninvestor ( talk) 03:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment per Cmadler, Blueboar, SADADS, and others, the article has been restructured to include only scholarly sources and has been restructured to scholarly comparisons only. In fact, every section remaining in the article can be attributed to these sources. Teeninvestor ( talk) 16:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
That was Ludwigs2's fault, actually. Teeninvestor ( talk) 23:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
But, Gun powder Ma, weren't you complaining about the abundance of WP:OR and WP:SYNT in the article? Can I please see some examples? Teeninvestor ( talk) 02:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Beginning in 295 BCE, and certainly after 202 BCE, Rome did not normally face state-level competitors with matching mobilization potentials. This, and the consequent absence of prolonged inconclusive warfare against other states, obviated the need for farther-reaching domestic reforms promoting centralization and bureaucratization. In other words, the benefits of asymmetric warfare (against states that relied more on mercenaries in the eastern and southern Mediterranean and against less complex chiefdoms and tribes in the northern and western periphery) enabled Rome to succeed with less domestic re-structuring than was required in the intensely competitive environment of Warring States China.10
You have been directly contradicted. Teeninvestor ( talk) 16:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC) reply
And also, please stop your personal attacks on me such as "wargamer" and your attempt to portray me as illiterate of Roman history. Some of your own ideas about both China and Rome are quite ludicrous (I'm sure Romans didn't invent Yin and Yang, for example. And the Han Empire didn't "collapse completely"; ever heard of the "dynastic cycle"?) Teeninvestor ( talk) 16:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC) replyBoth the Roman and Qin-Han empires were built on templates provided by antecedent states and expanded into a widening ecumene: in the West, from the river cultures of the Middle East into the Mediterranean and on to continental Europe, in the East from the Wei and middle Yellow River valleys into the Central Plain and then on to the south. In the East, the basic context had been created by the Shang-Western Zhou polities (c.1600-771 BCE) and their dominant elite culture and the spread of the Western Zhou garrison cities across the Central Plain region. In the Mediterranean, this role had been performed by the spread of Greek settlements across the Mediterranean littoral (from the eighth century BCE) and the cultural Hellenization of autonomous local elites.
Workable Keep I change my vote from above, I feel that a careful negotiation through the scholarship would greately improve the article (see some of the more recent edits including my own). Should be titled Han and Roman comparison to help with the refocus. However, that is not neccessary. I volunteer to help make the article more historical in it's approach. SADADS ( talk) 13:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Teeninvestor ( talk) 16:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC) reply
I think the best source that says that this is both feasable and is an accepted approach amongst historians is
THE STANFORD ANCIENT CHINESE AND MEDITERRANEAN EMPIRES COMPARATIVE HISTORY PROJECT even if not all historians agree with the conclusions. The link represents the presence of a number of studies which compare these empires for a variety of reasons. Admittedly this is compiled by Scheidel, who has been the major historian used in the article so far.
SADADS (
talk)
19:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
reply
Kin sumbody splane alll this too me. Chillim-lamebrain ( talk) 04:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 19:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable amateur athlete, does not meet WP:ATHLETE, insufficient coverage in reliable sources. Esprqii ( talk) 18:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 15:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
non notable neologism Wuh Wuz Dat 17:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 03:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
non notable wrestling organization, most significant activities seem to be wrestling events hosted in bars Wuh Wuz Dat 17:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 15:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Delete per WP:BAND. This band does not seem to meet the criteria, as they have no notable 3rd party sources, never charted a song, or originated their own style of music. ɳoɍɑfʈ Talk! 16:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Strong Delete Band meets none of the 12 criteria in WP:BAND. Article reads more like a myspace bio than an encyclopaedia article. Fenix down ( talk) 18:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 03:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Speedy delete - This article was previously speedily deleted (same article name without the hyphen between Hindi-Urdu). Clearly not notable. SnottyWong talk 21:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. no reliable sources = no article. Blogs don't count Spartaz Humbug! 16:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable web-based comic lacking GHits of substance and with zero GNEWS. Appears to lack notability. ttonyb ( talk) 16:02, 17 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}} . |
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 18:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
This article on an associate professor was written by User:Bmhauglid. Hauglid publishes in the rarefied realm of "support of the Book of Abraham". I feel he does not pass WP:PROF. He has edited two books, which in the article he claims to be first editor on, but whose covers show him to be the second editor. I feel his article should be deleted from Wikipedia just for this deceitful behavior, but fortunately his academic record is insufficient. Abductive ( reasoning) 15:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
I was going to edit the authorship, but I have two questions before doing so. In some ways, since we are listing Hauglid's contributions, is it that important that we list him as a secondary author?John Pack Lambert 15:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I have relisted the two books. So can we now end this discussion and agree that the article should be preserved.John Pack Lambert 15:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
The result was keep. Cirt ( talk) 18:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The subject of the article is non-notable, there do no seem to be any sensible sources covering the role of the London eye in popular culture. This is simply a trivial and indiscriminate list of instances where it has been featured. Brilliantine ( talk) 14:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. General support for keeping this article, but editors can discuss a merge to Parkour on the talk pages. Fences& Windows 01:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Not worthy of a separate article. Many of the examples are duplicated from the existing parkour article. The article makes no attempt to discuss whether parkour has a notable place in popular culture and merely gives examples. Merge any useful content to main parkour article and delete rest. Brilliantine ( talk) 14:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
...but not usually in 75 days.-- Milowent ( talk) 01:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Jayjg (talk) 02:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC) reply
This article has remained unverified since 2007. News content referenced in discussion page is all local papers. Previously was candidate for speedy deletion.
Fails WP:N — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyleaa ( talk • contribs) 2009/12/16 01:48:39
The result was merge to Toronto Blue Jays minor league players. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 22:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Re-created page that was deleted before. Also, no provided sources that specifically assert the notability of this player. There are many reliable sources that currently mention him, but they are all referencing a trade of big-name players in which this minor leaguer that doesn't pass the notability guideline was involved. KV5 ( Talk • Phils) 02:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
I added some informaton. And the article is ot all about him being traded. it is mentioned. i'll say keep BlueJaysFan32 ( talk) 22:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Alcohol consumption by youth in the United States. ( non-admin closure) Tim Song ( talk) 04:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
It is a very poorly sourced article, from article history an attempt had been made to merge it but it was copy and pasted back by an editor. It is a very narrow topic which can be covered in articles such as short-term effects of alcohol or binge drinking if anybody ever wants to dig out references for such an article. It is not a global topic and I do not feel that it reaches notability for wikipedia. Literaturegeek | T@1k? 13:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 00:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
non notable WP:NEOLOGISM. Prod deleted. No references. noq ( talk) 13:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 00:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Cannot find any significant independent coverage. Article does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MEDIA. In my opinion, this page should be a redirect to Q (magazine). Brilliantine ( talk) 13:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 03:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable per WP:BAND, unreferenced, appears to be a recently self-published musical group without a track record of accomplishment; a brief due-diligence news search turned up one item announcing a play date. Also note WP:COI by creator. Prod contested by anonymous editor. MuffledThud ( talk) 11:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following related pages because the artist only claims notability on the basis of being a member of the band above. It's also unreferenced, and there are similar WP:COI issues. As above, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Prod contested by anonymous editor at same IP address as above article. MuffledThud ( talk) 14:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 03:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Doesn't look like he is sufficiently notable enough academic to justify an article. Spartaz Humbug! 11:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. NW ( Talk) 01:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC) reply
This is essentially a hoax, as Manchester City F.C. was never known as "Ardwick Athletic F.C.". The club was known as Ardwick F.C., which already redirects to the main article, but there seems little point in having a redirect from a name by which the club was never known - who's likely to be searching under a name that never existed? Content was copied directly from Hyde Road, so there's nothing to merge. Club badge does not look like one designed in the Victorian era and is probably fake, article's creator has created hoax articles before ChrisTheDude ( talk) 10:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
- thanks Oldelpaso for telling me that it was Ardwick Association Football Club! i was told that it was Ardwick Athletic Football Club, and i have now moved it to follow suit. Pabmeista —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pabmeista ( talk • contribs) 19:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 03:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Someone clearly spent a long time writing this (most likely autobiographical) article. However, it seems to describe an entirely unremarkable person using terrible POV language. To be honest I think it's a CSD case but will give the author the benefit of the doubt by having it debated here. Biker Biker ( talk) 09:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
*Delete on the basis that the author has created a section titled 'publications and masterpieces'. Also i checked out the "Order of Diplomacy General Secretariat Inc" which apparently has 70,000 members worldwide etc- and it just seemed like rubbish. I dont have the time to check all the claims made in this article and to check on the validity of all the organisations mentioned, but if anyone can show me evidence that this isnt all rubbish i'll gladly change my vote. -- Brunk500 ( talk) 12:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 00:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Non notable computer program. Newly released and article written by someone with an apparent conflict of interest noq ( talk) 09:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The program is notable mostly because it implements high-precision arithmetic on GPU. Is cited for this reason by nvidia on their webpage nvidia CUDA homepage. It is true, the program is new. Also, it is true, there is a conflict of interest -- please feel free edit, as you see necessary. I believe it is 100% truthful, but am also open to your opinion. fractal_gpu ( talk) 23:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 00:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Unsourced and non-notable application. Has only been released. Spartaz Humbug! 07:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Tomonori Kogawa. Cirt ( talk) 16:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Lacks third-party sources to prove notability. Makes no assertion of notability. — Farix ( t | c) 12:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Tomonori Kogawa, same as noted above. I checked google for this and didnt find much coverage- but apparently it is quite loved by a few people http://www.pelleas.net/aniTOP/index.php?title=cool_cool_bye&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1. The article at its current length (tiny) could easily be incorporated into a list of works in the Tomonori Kogawa article (the Tomonori Kogawa article is itself tiny- it list cool cool bye but doesnt even have a one line plot summary). -- Brunk500 ( talk) 14:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 06:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable per WP:NF, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. MuffledThud ( talk) 11:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Orange County High School of the Arts. Wizardman 19:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC) reply
This department within a high school(!) has 32 Google hits. Deprodded. Abductive ( reasoning) 06:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 06:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC) reply
I'm taking this to AfD because I've spent quite a bit of time trying to find out who this is and came up with only [17] which isn't a RS. Context is the editor is creating a number of unsourced articles, some clearly copyright, and in addtion we have List of emperors of the Ming Dynasty with a template [18] which contradicts it. And if this is the last Southern Ming 'emperor' (they are usually called pretenders I believe), who is Zhu Youlang, Prince of Gui (or Zhu Youlang, we seem to have two articles on this person)? I'm wondering if this is simply an error. Dougweller ( talk) 19:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Consensus to Delete unless solid sources can be found to prove existence (and hopefully encyclopedic value through notability). tedder ( talk) 07:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Very short orphan article, no claim to notability, and no references. Unedited since creation 3 weeks ago. Nothing on Google. Shem ( talk) 18:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The 1885 Single-Shot was also found in both High Wall and Low Wall versions. These terms refer to the sides of the receiver and their position in relation to the hammer. With the High Wall version, built for the more powerful cartridges, just the tip of the hammer is visible when viewed from the side; the Low Wall, chambered for such pleasant shootin' rounds such as the .22 Rimfire and .25-20, exposes the entire side of the hammer.
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 06:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Not notable, fails WP:CORP. Tagged for sources for over a month to no effect. AndrewHowse ( talk) 05:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC) reply
working on sources now —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachieheather ( talk • contribs) 18:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Cirt ( talk) 16:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:BIO. I cannot find anything besides trivial mentions. Prod declined by originating author, who appears to be an SPA. Ray Talk 03:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Keep - Not that I am unbiased, but if you think iTunes and iPods changed the face of music, Emusic was the pioneer. It was that first company in history to sell digital music files and mp3 players. Mark Chasan was the founder and CEO when he started the company in 1995. There is plenty of verification in well respected periodicals, SEC filings and even an article in Wikipedia mentioning Mark Chasan as the founder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.70.60 ( talk) 02:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Cirt ( talk) 16:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Delete: A somewhat not very notable magazine with a "distribution" of 800,000 and a "claimed readership" of 5,000,000 athletics. Kind of contradicting, if you think about it. Dave 1185 01:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to FidoNet. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Unsourced stub describing a "self-published newsletter". In fact, this is a moderated email list. No indication whatsoever that this is notable; the only current content of the stub is simply that this email list exists. In the absence of sources, it does not seem likely that this will ever grow into even a normal-sized stub, let alone a real article. Stub was redirected to the "publisher" (FidoNet, although that does not seem to be very notable either), but this is being contested. In the absence of any sources showing any notability, my vote is to delete this. Crusio ( talk) 21:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 18:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The subject of this article is a musical recording by Damascus Road, a band which does not have its own Wikipedia article. No indication of this particular album's notability is given in the article. I tagged it with A9, but the article's creator has changed the article so the infobox says the album is by Matt Wertz, who does have an article on Wikipedia, while the main text says the album is by the band Damascus Road, which includes Matt Wertz. There's no indication of notability here, so I submit this for deletion here because it just barely escapes A9. A Stop at Willoughby ( talk) 05:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
This Is A Real Album, You Idiot
http://www.soundunwound.com/sp/release/view/Damascus-Road-Damascus-Road?releaseId=6234536&ref=DI
http://phorum.nettwerk.com/mattwertz/index.php?topic=61.0 —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Vitaminsandgravy (
talk •
contribs)
21:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
reply
The result was keep. Cirt ( talk) 00:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Nominated by a new account-holder who cannot create this page. At the moment I have no opinion on the article. Kevin ( talk) 05:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Grigori Galitsin was arrested and jailed for the production and distribution of underage and illegal pornography. He faced trial in November 2009 and is currently in prison. This article promotes illegal pornography, features links that are permanently removed and links that contain material in violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”). Mr. Galitsin has violated and abused me in the past, and this article continues to harm me by using www.wikipedia.org as a platform to disseminate illegal pornography that was reportedly destroyed by regulators. Alice ( talk) 5:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Strong keep He had prominent works and his case attracted considerable mainstream media interest. Behemoth ( talk) 14:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 00:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Fails to meet WP:Athlete, not a professional athlete. Shadowjams ( talk) 04:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Jayjg (talk) 04:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
This one's going to be controversial. It's a bicycle thief, which by itself is completely non-notable. Even a spree of thefts doesn't satisfy the criminal inclusion criteria.
What complicates it are the high profile sources. Some of those sources, however, are bureau chiefs or similar regional posts doing online articles for the respective areas. Beyond those I don't know if this has widespread coverage. That coverage also suggests some human interest-style reporting, which I don't believe meets WP:N. Shadowjams ( talk) 04:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 00:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Written as an advertisement, complete mess. No sources. Shadowjams ( talk) 04:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 00:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
A pointless concept with no references or google hits. Possibly a hoax or joke. r.e.b. ( talk) 03:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 20:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
— DragonHawk ( talk| hist) 02:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 06:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC) reply
No significant coverage and doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 ( talk) 00:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC) reply
That doesn't make any sense; she was a Penthouse Pet, was in tons and tons of magazines, was in music videos (Snoop Dogg), and was actually famous. What does no significant coverage mean? And doesn't pass porn bio because she was in Penthouse and not Playboy? Does Playboy own stock in wikipedia now? • Librarian2001 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.141.21.174 ( talk) 08:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 22:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable internet encyclopedia. Minimal coverage and not apparent lasting notability. MBisanz talk 01:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus -- wL< speak· check> 19:33, 25 December 2009 (UTC) reply
He was notable when he was on a team's 40-man roster. He is now merely "just" a minor leaguer who has yet to reach the big leagues, and judging by his 2009 performance (ERA over 6.00) I don't think he'll get there any time soon. That is conjecture and take it as you will. Alex ( talk) 04:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 19:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Per DRV decision to overturn G4 speedy deletion and list on AfD. I abstain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep non admin closure TheWeakWilled ( T * G) 15:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
This article is likely a result of paid editing: see my post at COIN. As such it wouldn't be here if it weren't for some unethical dealings behind the scenes. The product also fails WP:N as it hasn't received significant discussion in reliable, third-party sources. Them From Space 04:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC) reply
There are a few other sources sitting about too, however they are much shorter and less informative versions of the above. However, I still think this gives notability. A rewrite could be good as there seem to be good claims to notability here. Hope this helps, -- Taelus ( talk) 14:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to San Francisco Giants minor league players. ( non-admin closure) Tim Song ( talk) 04:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable minor leaguer. The page was created when he was placed on a team's 40-man roster. He is not there now. Alex ( talk) 05:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Tone 22:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Extremely unnotable local police department of an police devision of a town of less than 40k people. Prod removed with note of "try AfD". -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 05:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Hybrid mail. ( non-admin closure) Tim Song ( talk) 04:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
This article is still laden with unnotable and useless factoids about a service that may only exist (if at all) on the very obscure fringes of the Internet. I note little incoming links and no major improvements which it needs regardless of whether it is obscure or not. Furthermore, it looks like the article was original research by the original editor, who was grasping at basic terms since User:Nehtefa invented the terminology specifically for this article. I like to saw logs! ( talk) 06:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Evidence of original research: Please see [25], which is the original author User:Nehtefa discussing his need to invent or re-use terminology for his pet article. I like to saw logs! ( talk) 06:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 06:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Nothing notable, no incoming links, too obscure for own article, so copy to USPS if content is really all that important. I like to saw logs! ( talk) 06:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 19:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Her only claim to fame is as an non-celebrity contestant in Bigg Boss. WP:ONEEVENT applies. Redtigerxyz Talk 16:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 06:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The entire article is written as a promotional piece. The individual does not meet the general notability guidelines and I cannot find any significant independent coverage of the subject, nor could I find reliable sources to back-up the multiple claims of "hit singles" Jezebel'sPonyo shhh 16:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 16:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:PORNBIO, no indication the subject can meet the GNG or any other specialized guideline. Long-unsourced BLP, substub quality. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 16:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Tim Song ( talk) 04:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Completing nomination for IP. Reason on talk page is:
I abstain. MrKIA11 ( talk) 19:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Lloyd discography. ( non-admin closure) Tim Song ( talk) 04:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable EP. Lack of substantial coverage from secondary sources, fails to meet notability criteria for albums. Prod was contested. — ξ xplicit 23:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 06:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Only references are IMDb, a personal website and TVTropes. I have searched under various titles, including the Italian title, but have not been able to find any reliable third-party sources regarding this film. As amusingly bad as this whole movie is, it just doesn't meet WP:N and WP:NOTFILM in any way — the writer is a red link with no notable credits on IMDb; the film didn't win any awards; nobody even saw fit to review it besides the Nostalgia Critic, but I don't think he counts towards notability here. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 19:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD. Article about an amateur boxer, fails WP:Athlete. Google search turns up mostly social networking sites, fails WP:GNG PDCook ( talk) 23:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can be userfied on request. Wizardman 19:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC) reply
This article, a BLP authored by User:Jacobeiler, is about a gay kid who took his boyfriend to prom in 1997, and had his car vandalized. News outlets noticed, but interest was ephemeral, and he moved on to an ordinary enough life. I submit this should be deleted under WP:BLP1E. Abductive ( reasoning) 23:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Cirt ( talk) 00:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Even if the lack of reliable sources is fixed (seriously, www.fark.com is a citation?!), Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and this term should exist as a soft-redirect to Wiktionary.
User:Yukichigai reverted the redirect last year and said "Restore article. Redirect to wiktionary is inappropriate. More on the talk page." Consensus on the talk page wasn't clear. Ultimately, AfD is a definitive way to resolve this, even though the outcome is likely to be Keep or Soft-redirect. tedder ( talk) 02:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 00:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
NN advertising. See also: [28] and [29] K03942 ( talk) 00:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Cirt ( talk) 00:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
there is no Commonwealth Bank Tournament of Champions in 2008, the first tournament started in 2009. MbahGondrong ( talk) 00:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Cirt ( talk) 00:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, only a single source from 1858 used. Creator is a banned user. Athenean ( talk) 00:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Unreferenced original research. There are very few hits on Google and Google Scholar for "molecular processor". The concept clearly exists but doesn't seem to have achieved notability. The only references are to the author's own writings (which are not available to readers outside his university) and his website. Fails WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:N andy ( talk) 00:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to The Fray (album) JoshSiber ( talk) 16:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Song not notable. Fails WP:NSONGS. Suggest a redirect to The Fray (album) WPTX-FM ( talk) 23:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 15:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Unsourced biography of a living person Smileupper09 ( talk) 01:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Innocence Project. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 15:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
I'm going to go ahead and put this one here, because this man has been the subject of a number of news stories today for being exonerated of rape. However, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E seem to apply. Glenfarclas ( talk) 23:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Delete or merge with Innocence Project, not notable enough for own article. Boleyn3 ( talk) 12:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 03:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Seems to be just a WP:NEOLOGISM which primarily exists in a paper by Thomas Hoffmann. The unpublished master's thesis (Word file) the article cites is by a doctoral student writing about Thomas Hoffmann who expressly put the term in quotation marks to indicate it is a made up word ("Hoffman has called for an 'exomissiology' to raise the Christian mission field to a vast new level . . . ."). Not presently a notable term. Glenfarclas ( talk) 22:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 03:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Notability: the article has not text, but the threshold for individual games to be notable is very high. I don't believe this game meets it. rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid ( coṁrá) 22:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 03:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
A somewhat promotional article on a non-notable filmmaker/writer/comedian, which appears to be the work of a SPA. I can't turn up any reliable sources that would establish the notability of the subject. A google search fails to turn up any reliable sources. Even if every claim here is true, this doesn't really come close to being notable. This article was prodded by Gigs, seconded by me, then de-prodded by the author. This was previously speedied during it's first AfD as a hoax, as a non-admin, I can't comment on whether it's been improved since then. (However, I would suggest that if this is deleted, some salt be applied). Bfigura ( talk) 22:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
For completeness, I'm also nominating the other non-notable works by this subject. Nothing here has any reliable sourcing, much less enough to pass the relevant notability guideline -- Bfigura ( talk) 22:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cutting the gordian knot, this AFD was opened to test some new sources. This has now taken place and the established editors are of one mind - that this is non-notable and the sources provided do not cut the mustard. I really see no point keeping this open with the extensive off site canvassing and this particular comment was really enough. I guess it was meant as a joke but no encyclopedic value is served by keeping this open a second longer Spartaz Humbug! 08:03, 20 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 the third nomination of this article. The first result was delete as non-notable. The second I speedy deleted as a recreation of an article previously deleted at AfD. However, on my talk page, editors provided a range of additional sources. Some of these certainly do not meet RS criteria. Some are in Russian, so I can't tell. One is to HAKER, which may well be a reliable source. However, I'm not qualified to tell. I have now restored this and brought to AfD so that more eyes can see it, and hopefully reach a final community decision.
Apologies in advance for the length of this nomination! I have no particularly strong feelings either way, this is a procedural nomination really.
For your convenience, below are the sources added to my talkpage.
https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/lucid/+source/qutim -
And some more links: http://qutim-forum.de/forum/ http://www.qutim.cz/ Nokia has done port qutIM to Symbian: http://www.forum.nokia.com/info/sw.nokia.com/id/d0134921-0894-42a3-a1a8-f3d0fdb7a9b3/Qt_for_Symbian_qutIM_Example.html
http://qt-apps.org/index.php?xsortmode=high -
nokia.com qt-apps.org are famous secondary sources, Also some more secondary sources, but now mostly on russian: http://valentine.viviti.com/ http://habrahabr.ru/ http://mac.softpedia.com/ http://mib.pianetalinux.org/ http://itshaman.ru/ http://www.opennet.ru/ http://iblog.su/ http://hakushka.wordpress.com/ http://jenyay.net/ http://t-34.name/ http://megaobzor.com/
Also information about qutIM was published in some famous magazines like }{aker ( April, August), ITFormat
XAKER is a journal with more than ten year history,
ITFormat looks to be journal with both professional and user articles.
English language: Qt-Apps (btw it's a software portal rather than forum) Freshports - FreeBSD software ports Gentoo Packages Softpedia - Software encyclopedia, Mac section Archlinux software Maemo software Macupdate - Mac software Software informer Slax packages Mops Linux packages
Ged UK 21:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
-- Cybercobra (talk) 12:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC) replyNote: The following software was not developed by the XMPP Standards Foundation and has not been formally tested for standards compliance, usability, reliability, or performance.
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 03:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
OR. "Visual writing" is a neologism at best; and even as a neologism, that term is not a term that is used to describe the topic of the article. The references don't use the term "visual writing". The article's haphazard definition of "visual writing" would also encompass childrens' picture books, for example. Comet Tuttle ( talk) 21:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MuZemike 21:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Non notable band. Notability is not established using references from reliable sources. Fails WP:MUSIC. The sole song that was included in a non-notable anthology does not make this band notable. Ragib ( talk) 17:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC) reply
They have a single in an album.... and they are performing in our country. Also they are working on their first album and music video. I also talked with another admin and he said its fine. So can you guys please explain why you want to delete this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.49.42.65 ( talk) 12:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 03:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
This page is orphaned (only linked to from user/talk pages). Also seems very solidly non-notable. Google news archive search shows one hit, the existing source: [3], which is about his podcast, not him. The podcast doesn't seem notable either, gnews 2 hits: [4]. Nothing in google scholar. He has a web presence (although less than me, I might add, and I don't think I'm anywhere near notability!) The only info on this person that I can find seems to be on social networking websites, his personal site, blogs, and more informal sites, and other sources which are not acceptable for establishing notability per WP:BIO. Cazort ( talk) 20:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 03:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
This website does not yet meet WP:WEB, Alexa lists it as the being the three million most visited website and the other references are not enough to provide notability being a local paper and a school newspaper. Smartse ( talk) 20:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Jayjg (talk) 04:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
This article is about a 19th century Greek schoolteacher who wrote a few dissertations and wrote a couple of books but never published them. Not notable. Ptolion ( talk) 20:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Marks & Spencer#M&S Food hall. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 15:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
This article is only about the old name for Marks & Spencer's food hall, and has no general notability. Footyfanatic3000 ( talk · contribs) 20:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 15:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
non notable website Wuh Wuz Dat 20:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 03:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable book. No claim of notability made in the article. Unable to find reliable sources on the net either Raziman T V ( talk) 20:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Stubify and rework. Reading through this long debate I am left with two clear mesages. Firstly that this is an encyclopedic subject and secondly, that this effort is so far from what is required that some of the editors working on it have thrown up their hands and decided it is best to start from scratch. There is an overwhelming majority in favour of deleting this version but a clear consensus that a proper article is also permissible. Ordinarily, I would stub the article and close this as no-consensus but given the intractable nature of the dispute I think we need a more refined solution. I have therefore created a subpage to work on the new article and put a place-holder on the main page and protected it. The subpage needs to be rewritten to remove all the synthesis and original research and be created directly from proper sources. Once there is a clear consensus on the sub-page talk-page from both sides of this dispute that the page is ready to go back into mainspace the article can be unprotected and the content merged across. Spartaz Humbug! 16:04, 25 December 2009 (UTC) reply
See extensive discussion on talk page: this reads as a merger between articles on the two empires, but is distinctly worse than either existing article. Its Roman history is inaccurate; the comparisons are not sourced to the reliable sources that discuss such things - and even if they did, they would be repeating opinions, not - as policy requires - facts about opinions. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The article has also addressed the concerns of its last AFD, and has been dramatically improved since them [ article now and then
A longer argument on why it should be kept is shown below:
Is the article perfect? No; as of present, it does suffer from signifcant problems. As some of my first contributions to wikipedia, I do admit that I did make many mistakes when creating the article, and had left some of them unfixed as I went on to work to promote Economic history of China (pre-1911) to GA and hopefully FA. However, I just want to address a few criticims of the article, and hopefully show that they are nowhere as near as malicious as some editors have claimed.
WP:OR. This has a complaint raised against the article since the beginning. To have raised it in the days of December 2008, when the article had no sources comparing the two empires, was reasonable. However, a similar complaint has no justification. The article features many sources discussing the two empires, from brief summaries such as W.W. Norton to whole scholarly papers such as work done by Walther Schiedel and Princeton on monetary matters. Yes, sources that only describe one of the two subjects are used- which does not constitute WP:Synthesis or WP:OR. Synthesis and OR refers to the creation of new ideas and thoughts- no new ideas and conclusions are created from sentences describing detailed. For example, on an article comparing apples and oranges, if it is written "Apples are red (source on apples only) and later written "oranges are orange(source about orange only)", it is not synthesis or OR- new ideas and conclusions have been presented. The only effect is that 2 facts are presented to the reader. And besides, the main information in the article comes from sources that do compare the 2 empires; the other sources are used for supporting info.
WP:NPOV . Some critics have accused the article of being NPOV, going as far as to say it is a "my daddy is bigger than your daddy" issue. Not at all true- nowhere in the article can you find a statement such as "Han is MUCH STRONGER THAN ROME" or vice versa. Yes, in some sections there is more information on Han china than Rome(this problem also exists in reverse, for example see the engineering section), but this is due to the limited sources available for use for myself(my main work was on Economic history of China). In order to remedy this problem, I have repeatedly asked other users if they could contribute Rome-related information to the article, which they refused to do so, out of hostility to the article, a factor I could not control.
WP: Encyclopedic This article is obviously encyclopedic. Since its establishment, several new papers by respected scholars have been published on the subject, showing that this is definitely a notable topic, which was confirmed in the last AFD. Just because an article is of poor quality in the eyes of some editors is not grounds for deletion- if you don't like the article, improve it. Some critics have mentioned that they would delete it and rather write a new one- If you have good sources and the time to do so, do so! Simply delete all existing information and replace it with your own (as long as it is good, I will not object). Although the article's quality is not the best, I think it would be very hard to deny that it has improved greatly since the last AFD. Further work is needed, but deletion is not warranted.
My thoughts on the issue - Recently I have not been very active on wikipedia due to school, SAT and other factors, but with the advent of christmas I will have more time to devote to wikipedia. I have already submitted this article to ARS as a first step, and after I deal with another article I will try to improve this article with the other more reputable sources currently available. I feel it would be a great travesty to wikipedia to delete an article on an encyclopedic topic and which, while not perfect, has obviously been much improved since its creation. Teeninvestor ( talk) 19:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Comment. Despite their numerous cries about "inaccuracy" and "OR", the editors involved in the AFD have yet to cite a single example of either. Teeninvestor ( talk) 20:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The issue above has been addressed(most of what you tagged was what the source said, literally)- Also, as to your example above, the article is more intended as a comparison between the two civilizatiosn in that time period, rather than the empires in particular. Teeninvestor ( talk) 20:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Your destructive personal attacks are most discouraging. You refer to "Virtual clash of Roman and Han Chinese armies and culture". I ask you: Where is it? Where is it? You have not yet presented a single example of what you have said except your boisterous bias. Ignoring your personal attacks and attempts to distract the issue, I ask you: Do you not admit that there are scholarly sources on this topic, which is also a topic of scholarly interst?. You haven't answered this question, because there are scholarly sources on this notable topic, which you have failed to acknowledge, either because of ignorance or bias. Yes, in some areas, most notably the military sphere, sources not comparing the two empires have been used. However, in this case no direct comparison has been made, no new ideas and conclusions presented- therefore there is no WP:SYNT, which refers to new conclusions. Teeninvestor ( talk) 22:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
You are so knowledgable, Gun Powder Ma, about ancient armies that you do realize that Crossbow is listed under list of Chinese inventions? That a catapault is not a crossbow, and it's firing rate was only a fraction of a crossbow?(which would have made it useless in open field fighting)? If the romans did employ the crossbow, then how come
Velites Served in the Roman army until the very end? If the Roman horse was so efficient at transport, how come Rome was dependent on Egyptian grain for travel(don't tell they couldn't grow food in Italy!)? The discrepancy in troop numbers can easily be explained by the massive improvement in agricultural technology in China at this time, including the seed drill and iron farm tools.
Teeninvestor (
talk)
23:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
reply
I believe referring to another editor as a "virtual wargamer" who fantasizes about "virtual wargame clash of Han and Roman Empires" is more than attacks. Only the most POV editors would think that is not an attack. These words are clearly implied by Gun Powder Ma. Teeninvestor ( talk) 22:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Note to above HongQiGong has posted twice and the quote in question is actually a direct quote from a book by Robert Temple, compiled from the work of Joseph Needham. Teeninvestor ( talk) 21:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The article has been stubified per Taemyr; all sections sourced purely to a source that describes just one empire has been removed. The remaining content is all cited with only citations that discuss both empires. Teeninvestor ( talk) 22:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Well in any case, the stubbification has been reversed by User:Gun Powder Ma, a curious claim since much editing work was done during the 1st AFD. Teeninvestor ( talk) 23:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Last time I checked wikipedia policy never said we should delete an article to improve it. Teeninvestor ( talk) 23:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment Many editors seem to want to "delete the article" and start over. This is a fallacy- if you wish to start over, delete the whole thing and replace it with your information and/or add your own. Never has wikipedia policy recommended deleting an article that is notable and on the subject to "start over"- that would be a massive distortion of our policy. Teeninvestor ( talk) 00:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment I believe talk of WP:OR and WP:SYNT for this article is unjustified. The direct comparisons in this article are sourced; otherwise, the information has been listed seperately- which DOES NOT constitute synthesis. If i put two pieces of information close together, it does not constitute WP:SYNT(which is defined as the creation of new conclusions and ideas). For example, putting the seperately sourced statements: Apples are red and oranges are orange together does not create any new conclusions or ideas, and therefore can be used even if the citation only refers to apples/oranges, instead of both. Teeninvestor ( talk) 01:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC) reply
I would like to know what the WP guidelines say about the editing process while an AfD is underway? Because, once this AfD started, all of a sudden a frantical editing process started and a third of the article has been removed. This hyperactivity smacks a bit of foul play, at least it is patently absurd. How can contributors to this debate form an informed opinion if they don't get to see the article as it was published for so long? Obviously, the users have a right to judge the article based on the version from the time when the AfD was made, not some face-lifted version. If the community decision is to keep the article, we have still all the time in the world for thorough editing. Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 01:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Gun Powder Ma, are you out of your head? When does wikipedia Prohibit improvement of an article? Editing during AFD is not bad; in fact, it is encouraged. Or else, what is the article rescue squadron? You are so biased and malicious towards this article that you're trying to prevent anyone from working on it to improve it? What the heck do you think you're doing? Who the heck do you think you are? Jimbo? Teeninvestor ( talk) 02:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Delete or possibly reduce to a very brief stub -- This article is a confection. It does not "compare" them: in most respects, it merely shows how different they were. If kept, it needs to cite much better sources than Encarta; BBC; The reliance on Worlds apart is also too heavy. The article does cite some academci works comparing the two empires, so that I cannot argue that this is non-encyclopaedic, but the whole can be summarised as "They were quite different in many respects". Peterkingiron ( talk) 14:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC) reply
— Hawobo ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Note This editor has made less than 30 edits to wikipedia and he shows up right here? Suspicious. Teeninvestor ( talk) 22:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC) reply
— Rootless_Juice ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Note This editor has made less than 30 edits to wikipedia and he shows up right here? Suspicious. Teeninvestor ( talk) 22:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Already has. Teeninvestor ( talk) 03:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment per Cmadler, Blueboar, SADADS, and others, the article has been restructured to include only scholarly sources and has been restructured to scholarly comparisons only. In fact, every section remaining in the article can be attributed to these sources. Teeninvestor ( talk) 16:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
That was Ludwigs2's fault, actually. Teeninvestor ( talk) 23:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
But, Gun powder Ma, weren't you complaining about the abundance of WP:OR and WP:SYNT in the article? Can I please see some examples? Teeninvestor ( talk) 02:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Beginning in 295 BCE, and certainly after 202 BCE, Rome did not normally face state-level competitors with matching mobilization potentials. This, and the consequent absence of prolonged inconclusive warfare against other states, obviated the need for farther-reaching domestic reforms promoting centralization and bureaucratization. In other words, the benefits of asymmetric warfare (against states that relied more on mercenaries in the eastern and southern Mediterranean and against less complex chiefdoms and tribes in the northern and western periphery) enabled Rome to succeed with less domestic re-structuring than was required in the intensely competitive environment of Warring States China.10
You have been directly contradicted. Teeninvestor ( talk) 16:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC) reply
And also, please stop your personal attacks on me such as "wargamer" and your attempt to portray me as illiterate of Roman history. Some of your own ideas about both China and Rome are quite ludicrous (I'm sure Romans didn't invent Yin and Yang, for example. And the Han Empire didn't "collapse completely"; ever heard of the "dynastic cycle"?) Teeninvestor ( talk) 16:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC) replyBoth the Roman and Qin-Han empires were built on templates provided by antecedent states and expanded into a widening ecumene: in the West, from the river cultures of the Middle East into the Mediterranean and on to continental Europe, in the East from the Wei and middle Yellow River valleys into the Central Plain and then on to the south. In the East, the basic context had been created by the Shang-Western Zhou polities (c.1600-771 BCE) and their dominant elite culture and the spread of the Western Zhou garrison cities across the Central Plain region. In the Mediterranean, this role had been performed by the spread of Greek settlements across the Mediterranean littoral (from the eighth century BCE) and the cultural Hellenization of autonomous local elites.
Workable Keep I change my vote from above, I feel that a careful negotiation through the scholarship would greately improve the article (see some of the more recent edits including my own). Should be titled Han and Roman comparison to help with the refocus. However, that is not neccessary. I volunteer to help make the article more historical in it's approach. SADADS ( talk) 13:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Teeninvestor ( talk) 16:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC) reply
I think the best source that says that this is both feasable and is an accepted approach amongst historians is
THE STANFORD ANCIENT CHINESE AND MEDITERRANEAN EMPIRES COMPARATIVE HISTORY PROJECT even if not all historians agree with the conclusions. The link represents the presence of a number of studies which compare these empires for a variety of reasons. Admittedly this is compiled by Scheidel, who has been the major historian used in the article so far.
SADADS (
talk)
19:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
reply
Kin sumbody splane alll this too me. Chillim-lamebrain ( talk) 04:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 19:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable amateur athlete, does not meet WP:ATHLETE, insufficient coverage in reliable sources. Esprqii ( talk) 18:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 15:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
non notable neologism Wuh Wuz Dat 17:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 03:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
non notable wrestling organization, most significant activities seem to be wrestling events hosted in bars Wuh Wuz Dat 17:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 15:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Delete per WP:BAND. This band does not seem to meet the criteria, as they have no notable 3rd party sources, never charted a song, or originated their own style of music. ɳoɍɑfʈ Talk! 16:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Strong Delete Band meets none of the 12 criteria in WP:BAND. Article reads more like a myspace bio than an encyclopaedia article. Fenix down ( talk) 18:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 03:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Speedy delete - This article was previously speedily deleted (same article name without the hyphen between Hindi-Urdu). Clearly not notable. SnottyWong talk 21:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. no reliable sources = no article. Blogs don't count Spartaz Humbug! 16:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable web-based comic lacking GHits of substance and with zero GNEWS. Appears to lack notability. ttonyb ( talk) 16:02, 17 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}} . |
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 18:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
This article on an associate professor was written by User:Bmhauglid. Hauglid publishes in the rarefied realm of "support of the Book of Abraham". I feel he does not pass WP:PROF. He has edited two books, which in the article he claims to be first editor on, but whose covers show him to be the second editor. I feel his article should be deleted from Wikipedia just for this deceitful behavior, but fortunately his academic record is insufficient. Abductive ( reasoning) 15:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
I was going to edit the authorship, but I have two questions before doing so. In some ways, since we are listing Hauglid's contributions, is it that important that we list him as a secondary author?John Pack Lambert 15:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I have relisted the two books. So can we now end this discussion and agree that the article should be preserved.John Pack Lambert 15:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
The result was keep. Cirt ( talk) 18:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The subject of the article is non-notable, there do no seem to be any sensible sources covering the role of the London eye in popular culture. This is simply a trivial and indiscriminate list of instances where it has been featured. Brilliantine ( talk) 14:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. General support for keeping this article, but editors can discuss a merge to Parkour on the talk pages. Fences& Windows 01:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Not worthy of a separate article. Many of the examples are duplicated from the existing parkour article. The article makes no attempt to discuss whether parkour has a notable place in popular culture and merely gives examples. Merge any useful content to main parkour article and delete rest. Brilliantine ( talk) 14:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
...but not usually in 75 days.-- Milowent ( talk) 01:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Jayjg (talk) 02:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC) reply
This article has remained unverified since 2007. News content referenced in discussion page is all local papers. Previously was candidate for speedy deletion.
Fails WP:N — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyleaa ( talk • contribs) 2009/12/16 01:48:39
The result was merge to Toronto Blue Jays minor league players. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 22:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Re-created page that was deleted before. Also, no provided sources that specifically assert the notability of this player. There are many reliable sources that currently mention him, but they are all referencing a trade of big-name players in which this minor leaguer that doesn't pass the notability guideline was involved. KV5 ( Talk • Phils) 02:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
I added some informaton. And the article is ot all about him being traded. it is mentioned. i'll say keep BlueJaysFan32 ( talk) 22:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Alcohol consumption by youth in the United States. ( non-admin closure) Tim Song ( talk) 04:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
It is a very poorly sourced article, from article history an attempt had been made to merge it but it was copy and pasted back by an editor. It is a very narrow topic which can be covered in articles such as short-term effects of alcohol or binge drinking if anybody ever wants to dig out references for such an article. It is not a global topic and I do not feel that it reaches notability for wikipedia. Literaturegeek | T@1k? 13:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 00:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
non notable WP:NEOLOGISM. Prod deleted. No references. noq ( talk) 13:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 00:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Cannot find any significant independent coverage. Article does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MEDIA. In my opinion, this page should be a redirect to Q (magazine). Brilliantine ( talk) 13:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 03:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable per WP:BAND, unreferenced, appears to be a recently self-published musical group without a track record of accomplishment; a brief due-diligence news search turned up one item announcing a play date. Also note WP:COI by creator. Prod contested by anonymous editor. MuffledThud ( talk) 11:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following related pages because the artist only claims notability on the basis of being a member of the band above. It's also unreferenced, and there are similar WP:COI issues. As above, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Prod contested by anonymous editor at same IP address as above article. MuffledThud ( talk) 14:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 03:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Doesn't look like he is sufficiently notable enough academic to justify an article. Spartaz Humbug! 11:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. NW ( Talk) 01:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC) reply
This is essentially a hoax, as Manchester City F.C. was never known as "Ardwick Athletic F.C.". The club was known as Ardwick F.C., which already redirects to the main article, but there seems little point in having a redirect from a name by which the club was never known - who's likely to be searching under a name that never existed? Content was copied directly from Hyde Road, so there's nothing to merge. Club badge does not look like one designed in the Victorian era and is probably fake, article's creator has created hoax articles before ChrisTheDude ( talk) 10:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
- thanks Oldelpaso for telling me that it was Ardwick Association Football Club! i was told that it was Ardwick Athletic Football Club, and i have now moved it to follow suit. Pabmeista —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pabmeista ( talk • contribs) 19:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 03:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Someone clearly spent a long time writing this (most likely autobiographical) article. However, it seems to describe an entirely unremarkable person using terrible POV language. To be honest I think it's a CSD case but will give the author the benefit of the doubt by having it debated here. Biker Biker ( talk) 09:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
*Delete on the basis that the author has created a section titled 'publications and masterpieces'. Also i checked out the "Order of Diplomacy General Secretariat Inc" which apparently has 70,000 members worldwide etc- and it just seemed like rubbish. I dont have the time to check all the claims made in this article and to check on the validity of all the organisations mentioned, but if anyone can show me evidence that this isnt all rubbish i'll gladly change my vote. -- Brunk500 ( talk) 12:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 00:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Non notable computer program. Newly released and article written by someone with an apparent conflict of interest noq ( talk) 09:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The program is notable mostly because it implements high-precision arithmetic on GPU. Is cited for this reason by nvidia on their webpage nvidia CUDA homepage. It is true, the program is new. Also, it is true, there is a conflict of interest -- please feel free edit, as you see necessary. I believe it is 100% truthful, but am also open to your opinion. fractal_gpu ( talk) 23:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 00:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Unsourced and non-notable application. Has only been released. Spartaz Humbug! 07:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Tomonori Kogawa. Cirt ( talk) 16:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Lacks third-party sources to prove notability. Makes no assertion of notability. — Farix ( t | c) 12:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Tomonori Kogawa, same as noted above. I checked google for this and didnt find much coverage- but apparently it is quite loved by a few people http://www.pelleas.net/aniTOP/index.php?title=cool_cool_bye&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1. The article at its current length (tiny) could easily be incorporated into a list of works in the Tomonori Kogawa article (the Tomonori Kogawa article is itself tiny- it list cool cool bye but doesnt even have a one line plot summary). -- Brunk500 ( talk) 14:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 06:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable per WP:NF, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. MuffledThud ( talk) 11:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Orange County High School of the Arts. Wizardman 19:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC) reply
This department within a high school(!) has 32 Google hits. Deprodded. Abductive ( reasoning) 06:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 06:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC) reply
I'm taking this to AfD because I've spent quite a bit of time trying to find out who this is and came up with only [17] which isn't a RS. Context is the editor is creating a number of unsourced articles, some clearly copyright, and in addtion we have List of emperors of the Ming Dynasty with a template [18] which contradicts it. And if this is the last Southern Ming 'emperor' (they are usually called pretenders I believe), who is Zhu Youlang, Prince of Gui (or Zhu Youlang, we seem to have two articles on this person)? I'm wondering if this is simply an error. Dougweller ( talk) 19:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Consensus to Delete unless solid sources can be found to prove existence (and hopefully encyclopedic value through notability). tedder ( talk) 07:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Very short orphan article, no claim to notability, and no references. Unedited since creation 3 weeks ago. Nothing on Google. Shem ( talk) 18:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The 1885 Single-Shot was also found in both High Wall and Low Wall versions. These terms refer to the sides of the receiver and their position in relation to the hammer. With the High Wall version, built for the more powerful cartridges, just the tip of the hammer is visible when viewed from the side; the Low Wall, chambered for such pleasant shootin' rounds such as the .22 Rimfire and .25-20, exposes the entire side of the hammer.
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 06:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Not notable, fails WP:CORP. Tagged for sources for over a month to no effect. AndrewHowse ( talk) 05:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC) reply
working on sources now —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachieheather ( talk • contribs) 18:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Cirt ( talk) 16:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:BIO. I cannot find anything besides trivial mentions. Prod declined by originating author, who appears to be an SPA. Ray Talk 03:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Keep - Not that I am unbiased, but if you think iTunes and iPods changed the face of music, Emusic was the pioneer. It was that first company in history to sell digital music files and mp3 players. Mark Chasan was the founder and CEO when he started the company in 1995. There is plenty of verification in well respected periodicals, SEC filings and even an article in Wikipedia mentioning Mark Chasan as the founder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.70.60 ( talk) 02:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Cirt ( talk) 16:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Delete: A somewhat not very notable magazine with a "distribution" of 800,000 and a "claimed readership" of 5,000,000 athletics. Kind of contradicting, if you think about it. Dave 1185 01:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to FidoNet. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Unsourced stub describing a "self-published newsletter". In fact, this is a moderated email list. No indication whatsoever that this is notable; the only current content of the stub is simply that this email list exists. In the absence of sources, it does not seem likely that this will ever grow into even a normal-sized stub, let alone a real article. Stub was redirected to the "publisher" (FidoNet, although that does not seem to be very notable either), but this is being contested. In the absence of any sources showing any notability, my vote is to delete this. Crusio ( talk) 21:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 18:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The subject of this article is a musical recording by Damascus Road, a band which does not have its own Wikipedia article. No indication of this particular album's notability is given in the article. I tagged it with A9, but the article's creator has changed the article so the infobox says the album is by Matt Wertz, who does have an article on Wikipedia, while the main text says the album is by the band Damascus Road, which includes Matt Wertz. There's no indication of notability here, so I submit this for deletion here because it just barely escapes A9. A Stop at Willoughby ( talk) 05:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
This Is A Real Album, You Idiot
http://www.soundunwound.com/sp/release/view/Damascus-Road-Damascus-Road?releaseId=6234536&ref=DI
http://phorum.nettwerk.com/mattwertz/index.php?topic=61.0 —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Vitaminsandgravy (
talk •
contribs)
21:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
reply
The result was keep. Cirt ( talk) 00:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Nominated by a new account-holder who cannot create this page. At the moment I have no opinion on the article. Kevin ( talk) 05:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Grigori Galitsin was arrested and jailed for the production and distribution of underage and illegal pornography. He faced trial in November 2009 and is currently in prison. This article promotes illegal pornography, features links that are permanently removed and links that contain material in violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”). Mr. Galitsin has violated and abused me in the past, and this article continues to harm me by using www.wikipedia.org as a platform to disseminate illegal pornography that was reportedly destroyed by regulators. Alice ( talk) 5:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Strong keep He had prominent works and his case attracted considerable mainstream media interest. Behemoth ( talk) 14:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 00:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Fails to meet WP:Athlete, not a professional athlete. Shadowjams ( talk) 04:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Jayjg (talk) 04:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
This one's going to be controversial. It's a bicycle thief, which by itself is completely non-notable. Even a spree of thefts doesn't satisfy the criminal inclusion criteria.
What complicates it are the high profile sources. Some of those sources, however, are bureau chiefs or similar regional posts doing online articles for the respective areas. Beyond those I don't know if this has widespread coverage. That coverage also suggests some human interest-style reporting, which I don't believe meets WP:N. Shadowjams ( talk) 04:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 00:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Written as an advertisement, complete mess. No sources. Shadowjams ( talk) 04:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 00:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
A pointless concept with no references or google hits. Possibly a hoax or joke. r.e.b. ( talk) 03:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 20:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
— DragonHawk ( talk| hist) 02:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 06:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC) reply
No significant coverage and doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 ( talk) 00:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC) reply
That doesn't make any sense; she was a Penthouse Pet, was in tons and tons of magazines, was in music videos (Snoop Dogg), and was actually famous. What does no significant coverage mean? And doesn't pass porn bio because she was in Penthouse and not Playboy? Does Playboy own stock in wikipedia now? • Librarian2001 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.141.21.174 ( talk) 08:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 22:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable internet encyclopedia. Minimal coverage and not apparent lasting notability. MBisanz talk 01:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus -- wL< speak· check> 19:33, 25 December 2009 (UTC) reply
He was notable when he was on a team's 40-man roster. He is now merely "just" a minor leaguer who has yet to reach the big leagues, and judging by his 2009 performance (ERA over 6.00) I don't think he'll get there any time soon. That is conjecture and take it as you will. Alex ( talk) 04:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 19:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Per DRV decision to overturn G4 speedy deletion and list on AfD. I abstain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep non admin closure TheWeakWilled ( T * G) 15:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
This article is likely a result of paid editing: see my post at COIN. As such it wouldn't be here if it weren't for some unethical dealings behind the scenes. The product also fails WP:N as it hasn't received significant discussion in reliable, third-party sources. Them From Space 04:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC) reply
There are a few other sources sitting about too, however they are much shorter and less informative versions of the above. However, I still think this gives notability. A rewrite could be good as there seem to be good claims to notability here. Hope this helps, -- Taelus ( talk) 14:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to San Francisco Giants minor league players. ( non-admin closure) Tim Song ( talk) 04:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable minor leaguer. The page was created when he was placed on a team's 40-man roster. He is not there now. Alex ( talk) 05:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Tone 22:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Extremely unnotable local police department of an police devision of a town of less than 40k people. Prod removed with note of "try AfD". -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 05:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Hybrid mail. ( non-admin closure) Tim Song ( talk) 04:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
This article is still laden with unnotable and useless factoids about a service that may only exist (if at all) on the very obscure fringes of the Internet. I note little incoming links and no major improvements which it needs regardless of whether it is obscure or not. Furthermore, it looks like the article was original research by the original editor, who was grasping at basic terms since User:Nehtefa invented the terminology specifically for this article. I like to saw logs! ( talk) 06:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Evidence of original research: Please see [25], which is the original author User:Nehtefa discussing his need to invent or re-use terminology for his pet article. I like to saw logs! ( talk) 06:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 06:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Nothing notable, no incoming links, too obscure for own article, so copy to USPS if content is really all that important. I like to saw logs! ( talk) 06:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 19:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Her only claim to fame is as an non-celebrity contestant in Bigg Boss. WP:ONEEVENT applies. Redtigerxyz Talk 16:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 06:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The entire article is written as a promotional piece. The individual does not meet the general notability guidelines and I cannot find any significant independent coverage of the subject, nor could I find reliable sources to back-up the multiple claims of "hit singles" Jezebel'sPonyo shhh 16:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 16:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:PORNBIO, no indication the subject can meet the GNG or any other specialized guideline. Long-unsourced BLP, substub quality. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 16:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Tim Song ( talk) 04:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Completing nomination for IP. Reason on talk page is:
I abstain. MrKIA11 ( talk) 19:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Lloyd discography. ( non-admin closure) Tim Song ( talk) 04:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable EP. Lack of substantial coverage from secondary sources, fails to meet notability criteria for albums. Prod was contested. — ξ xplicit 23:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 06:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Only references are IMDb, a personal website and TVTropes. I have searched under various titles, including the Italian title, but have not been able to find any reliable third-party sources regarding this film. As amusingly bad as this whole movie is, it just doesn't meet WP:N and WP:NOTFILM in any way — the writer is a red link with no notable credits on IMDb; the film didn't win any awards; nobody even saw fit to review it besides the Nostalgia Critic, but I don't think he counts towards notability here. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 19:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD. Article about an amateur boxer, fails WP:Athlete. Google search turns up mostly social networking sites, fails WP:GNG PDCook ( talk) 23:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can be userfied on request. Wizardman 19:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC) reply
This article, a BLP authored by User:Jacobeiler, is about a gay kid who took his boyfriend to prom in 1997, and had his car vandalized. News outlets noticed, but interest was ephemeral, and he moved on to an ordinary enough life. I submit this should be deleted under WP:BLP1E. Abductive ( reasoning) 23:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Cirt ( talk) 00:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Even if the lack of reliable sources is fixed (seriously, www.fark.com is a citation?!), Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and this term should exist as a soft-redirect to Wiktionary.
User:Yukichigai reverted the redirect last year and said "Restore article. Redirect to wiktionary is inappropriate. More on the talk page." Consensus on the talk page wasn't clear. Ultimately, AfD is a definitive way to resolve this, even though the outcome is likely to be Keep or Soft-redirect. tedder ( talk) 02:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 00:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
NN advertising. See also: [28] and [29] K03942 ( talk) 00:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Cirt ( talk) 00:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
there is no Commonwealth Bank Tournament of Champions in 2008, the first tournament started in 2009. MbahGondrong ( talk) 00:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Cirt ( talk) 00:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, only a single source from 1858 used. Creator is a banned user. Athenean ( talk) 00:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Unreferenced original research. There are very few hits on Google and Google Scholar for "molecular processor". The concept clearly exists but doesn't seem to have achieved notability. The only references are to the author's own writings (which are not available to readers outside his university) and his website. Fails WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:N andy ( talk) 00:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to The Fray (album) JoshSiber ( talk) 16:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Song not notable. Fails WP:NSONGS. Suggest a redirect to The Fray (album) WPTX-FM ( talk) 23:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply