The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
No references online, the one reference provided does not mention any gang of this name or any African gang at all for that matter. Suggest all the information in the article is completely fabricated
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete this fictional location that fails the WP:GNG with a lack of multiple, independent WP:RS. WossOccurring ( talk) 00:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Green Wing. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 00:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete this fictional location that fails the WP:GNG with a lack of multiple, independent WP:RS. WossOccurring ( talk) 23:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Please continue merge discussion on the article talk page. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 00:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete this fictional location that fails the WP:GNG with a lack of multiple, independent WP:RS. WossOccurring ( talk) 23:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. All points considered, also noting that consensus can change. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 00:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable author, and a recreation of a previously deleted article - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acharya S (2nd nomination). Thanks. Ism schism ( talk) 23:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 00:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Seems to fail notability guidelines. Aside from being a fictional day that is featured in Microsoft Excel, nothing else can be really be said about it. – Dream out loud ( talk) 23:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
I declined a speedy deletion request as spam, but feel that this article is worthy of community consensus on its remaining here. The problem with it is that it is very badly written in a rambling style and has been apparently abandoned by its creator. The book has an ISBN but many books have ISBNs. That is nothing to do with notability, that is simply the purchase of an ISBN. I'm on the fence here, so would like to nominate the article in a neutral manner. I'm not into poetry so am not the right person to improve the article. Once improved we may be able to see the wood from the trees Fiddle Faddle ( talk) 23:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
newly created soap opera character, no notability. Rm994 ( talk) 23:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The article is full of incorrect information, such as who created the character, and spoilers and speculation, which is against policy. Suggest possibly merging it with Minor characters of Days of our Lives Rm994 ( talk) 23:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Withdrawn. Joe Chill ( talk) 01:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC) reply
I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill ( talk) 23:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 00:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
This man had a nice military career, had some usual medals, but, with all due respect, he's not notable. The article was commissioned by the subject himself to a wonderful article-writer (and thus, it's a well-written article). It appears that no reliable source cites this man more than en passant. The main references used are self-published webpages from tripod or angelfire. Damiens.rf 22:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Article lacks sources; no assertion of notability for radio show; Kevin Trudeau article does not include mention of this radio show, thereby questioning verifiability A More Perfect Onion ( talk) 20:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Sorry for the poor wiki etiquette here, but it's the first time I've felt the need to post something. I've listened to Trudeau at home in MN on KLFD, and even at my parents house over the holidays in Syracuse on WGVA I believe. I used to work in radio and don't believe these stations are brokered programming. I'm not a #1 Trudeau fan by any means, but I've listened enough on actual radio stations and from what I hear he's on more than just these two. I would put this post under "The Kevin Trudeau Show" and not KTRN as KTRN is not the call letters obviously. Here is a reference for the programming on WGVA: http://fingerlakesdailynews.com/schedules/view/3/
Here is a reference to the guests. I listened to Jesse Ventura on Trudeau's show talking about his new Conspiracy TV show. I even found the interview link: http://www.ktradionetwork.com/category/guests/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkey in MN ( talk • contribs) 06:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC) — Monkey in MN ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
The result was redirect to List of the Inheritance Cycle characters#Arya Dröttningu. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 00:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Fictional character with no real-world notability or discussion in reliable sources. All encyclopedic information can easily be fitted in the relevant section of List of the Inheritance Cycle characters and other Inheritance Cycle-related articles. Una Laguna Talk 20:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
For the same reasons, I am also nominating Murtagh (Inheritance) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for deletion. (Sorry EEMIV - you got there before me!) Una Laguna Talk 20:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD. Non-notable academic. User:DGG has provided a list of Waseem's most cited articles, but in none of these is he first or last author, the two positions indicative of highest level of contribution. A Google Scholar search of Ghrelin appears to have sources that are cited far in excess of these. There are no independent sources establishing notability, and it also appears that the highest rung he has reached at an academic institution was postdoc. Steamroller Assault ( talk) 20:19, 28 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}} . |
1. T.Waseem, M.Duxbury, H.Ito, F.Rocha, D.Lautz, E.Whang, S.Ashley, M.Robinson. Ghrelin ameliorates TNF-a induced anti-proliferative and pro-apoptotic effects and promotes intestinal epithelial restitution. Journal of the American College of Surgeons, Volume 199, Issue 3, Page 16. (Original Research) 2. Waseem T. Commentary: Ghrelin's role in gastrointestinal tract cancer. Surg Oncol. 2009 Mar 25. [Epub ahead of print] PMID 19324542. (Editorial) 3. Waseem T, Javaid-Ur-Rehman, Ahmad F, Azam M, Qureshi MA. Role of ghrelin axis in colorectal cancer: a novel association. Peptides. 2008 Aug;29(8):1369-76. Epub 2008 Apr 7. PMID 18471933. (Original research) 4. Waseem T, Duxbury M, Ito H, Ashley SW, Robinson MK. Exogenous ghrelin modulates release of pro-inflammatory and anti-inflammatory cytokines in LPS-stimulated macrophages through distinct signaling pathways. Surgery. 2008 Mar;143(3):334-42. Epub 2007 Dec 27. PMID 18291254; PMC 2278045. (Original Research) 5. Duxbury MS, Waseem T, Ito H, Robinson MK, Zinner MJ, Ashley SW, Whang EE. Ghrelin promotes pancreatic adenocarcinoma cellular proliferation and invasiveness. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2003 Sep 19;309(2):464-8. PMID 12951072. (Original Research)
In google search, I came to visit a website of ‘2009 International Symposium on Ghrelin’, which pretty much explains his position in the hierarchy of ghrelin research. Kojima & Kangawa are the guys who discovered ghrelin, while Dr. Waseem is the one who has mainly worked on its role in gastrointestinal tract (1,2). In that particular conference, he was neither an invited keynote speaker nor an organizer; however, he presented 3 papers given below (the maximum number of the papers from any participant).
1. Exogenous ghrelin induces intestinal mucosal hypertrophy through GH-IGF axis independent mechanism. 2. Ghrelin promotes intestinal epithelial cell proliferation through stimulation of PI3K/Akt pathway & EGFR trans-activation leading to ERK 1/2 phosphorylation. 3. Ghrelin prevents oxidative stress-induced intestinal epithelial cell apoptosis through stimulation of PI3K/Akt and inhibition of cytochrome-c mediated caspase-3 activation.
References:
1. http://www.2009ghrelintokyo.com/program/program_day2.pdf 2. http://www.2009ghrelintokyo.com/program/poster.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.186.142.41 ( talk) 09:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC) — 115.186.142.41 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
The result was transwiki to Wiktionary. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 00:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
non notable word/phrase Wuh Wuz Dat 20:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. All points considered, as shown by the delete !votes, his only notability seemingly comes from his arrest. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 15:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
only proper notability is for being arrested; fails WP:NOT#NEWS. Ironholds ( talk) 19:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. A rough consenus of the discussion does not show favor towards deletion, but rather merging or keeping. Please continue the merge discussion on the article's talk page. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 15:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
No assertion of real-world notability. Offers no citations to reliable third-party sources. Entirely in-universe plot summary. Spruced with puffy pieces of original research ("Both sides seemingly have...") and non-statements ("It is unknown if..."). -- EEMIV ( talk) 19:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 01:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Autobiographical article that I do not believe meets WP:BIO. However, I could use a second opinion, hence the AfD rather than a PROD. Singularity42 ( talk) 18:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
I have also added the following article, also written by the same author. They are relatives involved in the same company. I would think their notability is tied into each other. Singularity42 ( talk) 18:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 01:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Article has multiple issues, notability is questionable and relies on some dubious sources. Looks like a cut and paste from somewhere else. Wexcan Talk 18:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 14:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
This article is entirely self-sourced, and the only hits I get when I do a Google news archive search are a few Spanish-language sources whose veracity I am unsure of. If he really had an important role with all the musical groups his article lists, he would probably pass criterion #6 of Wikipedia:Notability (music), but my suspicion is that some or all of this is a hoax. In particular, an anonymous editor keeps adding him to our article on The Young Veins as the bassist for that band, despite the fact that the band's own web sites list Andy Soukal in that role. And regardless of whether it is true, it fails Wikipedia:Verifiability, one of our core policies. — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 01:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Opinion piece; prod contested without explanation. I42 ( talk) 17:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
non-notable neologism Ironholds ( talk) 17:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill ( talk) 17:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( X! · talk) · @301 · 06:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
No indication this meets WP:GNG. I originally tagged this as A7, but in its current state, this article will probably pass A7. TheWeakWilled ( T * G) 17:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Neologism, original research, lacks citations Halestock ( talk) 16:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 01:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Procedural nom. Concern was " This is not an encyclopedia article and thus should be delated. It does not bring any new information compared to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fastest_Growing_Religion." TheWeakWilled ( T * G) 16:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to List of all-female bands. ( X! · talk) · @302 · 06:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Excessively long statistical list, per WP:NOT#STATS Halestock ( talk) 16:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 01:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
In my opinion, this is not a topic which is of encyclopedia importance. Of course, I could be wrong; if reliable sources discussing this can be found and the article can be expanded with verifiable information, that would be fine. I didn't find such sources with my own search, though. FisherQueen ( talk · contribs) 16:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete g11, promotion for selfpublished or nonpublished book. NawlinWiki ( talk) 16:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
I prodded this only to find out, from the creator's talk page, that it had been speedied twice already today. Book with no assertion of notability. Delete. Blanchardb - Me• MyEars• MyMouth- timed 16:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Tone 19:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
No more notable than any other contestant this season. Appears to be little more than an advertisement for his fashion stuff. Bueller 007 ( talk) 22:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Anyway, to the point and directed to Pburka's search on Google for Brett Clouser, where he/she finds "almost nothing," I don't know which version of Google he/she uses. Perhaps it's an old Beta Version or one dedicated to some South Pacific Atoll. The Google I use, i.e. google.com, has pages and pages of search results for Brett Clouser, whether Brett Clouser alone or with the hyphenated Survivor add-on.
There seems to be some fanatical dismay exercised by a few of you who keep posting these diatribes as to who is worthy of Wikipedia and who is not. Wikipedia is a search tool for information on people, subjects or history, and like the Internet should cater to providing answers for people who ask them. If you're not interested in Brett Clouser don't type in his name, but why deprive those who are curious (even if of a momentary nature) to learn a little bit more about him? How does it hurt? Is someone more notable being deprived space on Wikipedia? This engine is not the Encyclopedia Britannica or Webster's Dictionary, where it is necessary for space constraints to limit the inclusion to those people or subjects of major note.
Anyone who makes it to a top-ten show that attracts tens of millions of viewers, considering the tens of thousands who attempt to be a player in the game, has accomplished something that most have not. To have lasted until the very final show in a brave and steadfast show of will and nerves against those who wanted to vote him off is an attribute that should be admired. And only by some bad luck at the end was he voted out of the contest, which most people (including the jury) admitted he otherwise would have won. These are the things that have made him a curiosity and why there are pages of references to him on Google, not to mention the thousands who have chosen to follow him on Twitter, etc. I'm not saying that Brett Clouser will definitely be celebrated over the long haul, but for the moment a lot of people are searching his name and expect results, and that's what Wikipedia is for. Andymickey ( talk) 09:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Yes, that is true, but Wikipedia is more than just an encyclopedia. It is not like Encyclopedia Britannica at all. Wikipedia is a work in progress. It is unlike any encyclopedia that ever came before it, and very likely unlike any that will come in the future. It is a collaborative project, used by the same people who contribute to it. So therefore, if the people who make Wikipedia the way it is are interested in a subject, then we should provide them a chance to find information on it. That is what Wikipedia is all about. Why would anyone want to take this away from them? Is there a limit to the number of articles that Wikipedia holds? If we've already got over 3 million, what difference will one article (that is much more deserving than some two-sentence stubs on Wikipedia) make? It will make a difference to those who search for him looking for information. Quite frankly, I see absolutely no reason for us to be arguing over this. The public is interested, so we provide them with the opportunity. — Untitledmind72 ( talk) 01:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply"I've rarely seen so much whinging. This is an encyclopedia. It may be hard for you to understand, but not every topic or person belongs in an encyclopedia."
The result was speedied WP:NAC TheWeakWilled ( T * G) 16:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Not a dictionary. No CSD criteria for it. TheWeakWilled ( T * G) 15:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 01:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Not notable. All references are either self-published or social networking sites. This article was changed from a redirect to a full article by User:CoffeyAnderson, which suggests a conflict of interest. Coffey Anderson was a contestant on a game show ( WP:BLP1E), and currently has a few sentences in Nashville_Star_(season_6)#Coffey_Anderson. I think those few sentences should suffice. SnottyWong talk 02:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The page author has not demonstrated notability per WP:bio. The given references were either dead links (removed) or produced a spyware warning (with Google chrome). Google search turned up mainly WP/WM files/pages. PDCook ( talk) 15:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted by another admin. Cirt ( talk) 14:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
New journal, main claim to notability is that it is the first Italian student-edited law journal. Article is replete with exaggerated statements, some of them synthesis, for example: "According to the database of English-language law journals at Washington & Lee University,[2] Bocconi School of Law Student-Edited Papers is the first student-edited publication venue for scholarly articles in the field of law in Italy. The other Italian journal therein listed as student-edited is, in fact, peer-reviewed." The W&L database contains two student-edited journals, one of which the author of this article dismisses on the grounds that "it is peer-reviewed". Besides being OR and synthesis, this shows a misunderstanding of what "editing" means. In addition, this database ranks Bocconi at the very bottom (together with a whole bunch of other journals with score zero). Although the article appears to be well-sourced with 13 references, with 1 exception these are to the journal itself or are irrelevant (for instance, the reference to the Erasmus Law & Economics Review's section policies, to substantiate that it is peer-reviewed). The 1 exception is claimed to show "A recognition of the innovative potential inherent in this initiative has received explicit recognition in a 2009 article appeared on the German Law Journal." When one reads that article, however, it becomes clear that Bocconi is only mentioned in passing. In all, it appears that this article has been created prematurely and does not meet the required notability standards. Hence it should be deleted. Crusio ( talk) 14:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Unfortunately, the reviewer seems to have missed the point (or, more likely, the writer of the page must have failed to make the point clear): the journal's main claim to notability is not really that it is the first Italian student-edited law journal. In order to see the point, however, it is necessary to know a little bit more about scholarly publishing in the field of law, which is markedly different from (some would say unrigorous in comparison to) all other technical and scientific fields. Student-edited (by which I mean journals where it is students that select what gets published and what doesn't: I can see this being misleading to a non-lawyer, but that's how student-reviewed journals are called, in contrast to peer-reviewed journals)law reviews are the norm in the most important academic scenario in the world, i.e. the US, with only a handful of journals being peer-reviewed. In Europe, instead, articles are edited and reviewed by academics in the vast majority of journals. Some German student-edited law reviews exist, but they all are venues for final publication of an article. BSLSEP, on the contrary, is a working paper series, and this makes it markedly different from all other existing journals. The 2009 article that is referenced actually speaks about a model of publication, which has in BSLSEP its first example in the legal field . As such, the journal is indeed notable, and worthy of scholarly attention. As for the other journal mentioned in the W&L database, it is not student-edited: the editorial board consists entirely of academics and professionals. Therefore, it is incorrectly listed as student-edited in that database which - however - still is the one of the most comprehensive for law reviews. Therefore, for someone who understands legal publishing, the author of the entry merely seems to make readers aware of an incorrect listing, rather than showing "a misunderstanding of what 'editing' means." Last, but not least, I think it is far fetched to try and judge a working paper series, where papers can - and often have been - republished elsewhere (and cited from the journals they were republished in) based on its impact factor. That, if anything, confirms that the previous reviewer has largely missed the point about the working paper series format. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brutaska ( talk • contribs) 15:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC) — Brutaska ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Also, I fail to see why the modified version of this article should be deleted, whereas the Edinburgh Student Law Review should stay, with even less evidence of notability than I have put in my article. Apparently, Crusio was fine with that one. My feeling is this review standard is not matching the Wikipedia:New pages patrol criteria. Namely, the reviewers seem to be biased against this publication, in a manner that exceeds what has been expected of other similar entries. In light of this, I call even more strongly against deletion. Grasshopper6 —Preceding undated comment added 17:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC). reply
@ Crusio. I see. This, however, does not hide that that "othercrap" was actually reviewed by you (see history), which shows that you're either biased against Bocconi, or have a particularly short memory.
@ Angryapathy. I have read the notability page, and I believe that the fact that this journal is the first implementation of a model of publication which has been discussed in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal (and which, by the way, also mentioned Bocconi School of Law Student-Edited Papers explicitly) is enough evidence, as mentioned by Brutaska. How you claim that there is no evidence without wishing to get into the technicalities, however, is beyond me. It's like saying microbiology is useless because I do not wish to read any papers in the subject. And I still remain convinced that this review is not being conducted impartially. I'm sorry if I sound harsh, but I have received ZERO feedback on how to improve the article, and there is yet no rebuttal of the arguments put forth by Brutaska. Grasshopper6 —Preceding undated comment added 17:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC). reply
In summary, from this journal's own home page: "the hope is that this small contribution might promote a culture of scholarly openness which is a necessary prerequisite for the advancement of knowledge and the improvement of society at large." Along with others involved in free publishing--which inherently includes all Wikipedians-- I wish their hope may be realized. When it is realized, the journal will become notable. But this is not the place for publicity for even the hopes we are most sympathetic to here, until then. DGG ( talk ) 23:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC) reply
-- Grasshopper6 ( talk) 01:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC) reply
-- Grasshopper6 ( talk) 11:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
-- Grasshopper6 ( talk) 15:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 01:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
nothing in gnews for this person [25], [26]. created by a suspect editor who has really only worked on 2 articles which lack any reliable sources. the other article being the similarly weakly sourced Suthan Sivapathasuntharam. LibStar ( talk) 14:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
fails WP:BIO, nothing in gnews [27] and full of unverified statements, even the article says he's unsigned. suspect this is a WP:AUTOBIO. LibStar ( talk) 14:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Cirt ( talk) 05:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply
This chart is not official chart in Croatia. As article says: The chart is based on public's votes only! SveroH ( talk) 12:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
No significant coverage and doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 ( talk) 10:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep. !votes moved to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Daiu_International TheWeakWilled ( T * G) 13:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC) reply
NOTEI did create a AfD, it is found below, I have no idea what DumbBOT meant by missing. This is a fork/incorrect duplicate of the AfD created by a new user (see history). Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Daiu_International ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 22:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 14:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
No independent reliable sources found to verify notability. Cannot establish that the subject passes Wikipedia standards on notability. The sources do not provide the significant coverage required by the notability standard. Hot Steam Valve ( talk) 08:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 01:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Previously deleted due to lack of notability [28], but article was restored (despite the fact that its subject doesn't seem to have become any more notable.) Bueller 007 ( talk) 02:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD. Notability is not demonstrated. It may have minor coverage but nothing significant. Seems to be an element of vanity in the long lists of names. DanielRigal ( talk) 22:33, 25 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Despite some concerns over the list's usefulness, there seems to be a clear consensus that the topic is sufficiently notable. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 23:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
A non-notable list of characters with no inclusion criteria and totally random. Those characters in the list that have met Wikipedia:Notability have their own pages. Unlike Disney Princess or Disney Villains, this is not even a franchise. -- LoЯd ۞pεth 05:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Essay Eeekster ( talk) 00:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 01:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Non-notable religioius text, per WP:NB. References are insufficient to show significant coverage by major media outlets, or to show that the related religious movement is significant. -- SquidSK (1MC• log) 05:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
— Lovewisdompower ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
This has to be a joke! Geronimo20 ( talk) 10:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Delete Its not a joke, but not notable enough for an entry. I didnt find any independant coverage of this subject, but i did find a thread on a fishing forum where this group were talking about their catch and release fishing trips. Juding from the photos they have posted, they went on a few trips and had maybe 30 active members. heres the link http://www.fishingkaki.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=183&sid=a66974db22e06e727f08b2dd7366e15f t=183&sid=a66974db22e06e727f08b2dd7366e15f</ref> -- Brunk500 ( talk) 11:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 01:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Appears to be nothing but a self-promotion of a less than notable screen play. Eeekster ( talk) 04:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Let me know what you think now. I've tried to include only the facts without bias and have even pulled my name from it. THINKTANKSWORK ( talk) 09:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 01:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
I don't think Tater Tot is notable enough for his own Wikipedia article. When I googled his name, most of the results had nothing to do with him. The ones that did either quoted this article word for word or were written in a style that was suspiciously similiar.-- *Kat* ( talk) 01:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
I am unable to find references for "Tamaskan wolfdog" or "Tamaskan wolf dog". The article's creator states that this is "Not to be confused with the original Tamaskan dog which has no alleged wolf ancestry". csd-a7 does not apply to animal breeds, so the article can't be speedied. Eastmain ( talk) 12:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Well I have bred tamaskan Wolfdogs myself, and they have wolf in them, the page is in its infancy, i will tidy it up soon with better references —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamaskanwolfdog ( talk • contribs) 12:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete a10, duplicative article. NawlinWiki ( talk) 16:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Needs to be developed . Adi4094 ( talk) 10:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect; an obvious target, most probably unknown to the non-expert author of the initial text. Twri ( talk) 05:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a dictionary jheiv ( talk) 09:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. G3 Speedy. Identified hoax . SilkTork * YES! 01:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC) reply
PROD removed. See my reasoning at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Demon of River Heights Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 09:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 09:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP. Repeatedly recreated under mutiple redirects, including a previous AfD resulting in delete.
Clearly seems to be nothing more than an Advertisement masquerading as an article. Hu12 ( talk) 08:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Appears to fail WP:GNG. Ironholds ( talk) 07:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
An unreferenced glory page about "one of the richest men of the then princely state of Hyderabad, Deccan". Tagged for problems since 2007. - Altenmann >t 07:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to List of Members of the Canadian House of Commons with military service. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 15:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Unnecessary, as there are no entries. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 05:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to List of Members of the Canadian Senate. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 23:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Unnecessary. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 05:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to List of Major League Baseball players. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 23:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
No reason to have this page. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 04:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Wunschpunsch. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 07:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC) reply
No sources, not notable Bdb484 ( talk) 03:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Merge it with the article on Wunschpunsch the book. Sources don't support a separate article on the animated adaptation at this time. Sharksaredangerous ( talk) 17:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep, no outstanding delete votes (besides nom), and appears to pass WP:GNG. non admin closure TheWeakWilled ( T * G) 14:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Appears to fail WP:ATHLETE unless the World Junior Championship is considered the highest amateur level of a sport. I would think that "junior" would make that answer no. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 12:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Cirt ( talk) 05:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:CORP. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 04:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 02:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Appears to fail WP:ATHLETE unless the World Junior Championship is considered the highest amateur level of a sport. I would think that "junior" would make that answer no. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 12:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 05:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Non notable concert tour. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. Nouse4aname ( talk) 14:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Clear consensus to retain David Austen as a bluelink. Further discussions on merging should take place on the appropriate talk page. ( non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens ( talk) 01:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Not very notable minor leaguer. I don't believe his one award makes him notable. Alex ( talk) 03:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Keep - Seems to have adequate coverage to support notability, e.g., this and this. If he is notable in Venezuela, he is notable. Rlendog ( talk) 15:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.
AfD is not a vote, but has to be decided on its merits. In the discussion below, the following has been put forward as evidence for notability:
In summa, it has not been shown that any of the above meets any of the criteria of the applicable guidelines WP:WINETOPIC, WP:COMPANY, and WP:N. — Sebastian 03:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable winery that does not pass WP:CORP nor the Wine Project's internal guidelines for winery notability. Prod was contested over 6 months ago with the promise that the winery was notable and that reliable sources could be found to demonstrate this in the article. After waiting several months and checking to see if I could find the sources, myself, I do not believe there is enough independent, third-party reliable sources to make an article that adequately demonstrates notability. Agne Cheese/ Wine 16:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
(Outdent) Ah, I see the NYT time now a general interest piece on Virginia wine where Valhalla gets a casual one line mention in a larger piece that is about a general topic. "Much honored"? A single, off hand comment is what you are staking your claims of notability on? Seriously? It is not even from Frank Prial who is the actual wine columnist for the NYT. It is a casual, brief mention in a travel piece. How many local mom and pop restaurants are "much honored" in their individual communities? I wonder how many articles in the New York Times Travel section notes these "much honored" local interest places? Those types of casual mentions in travel pieces is a very weak pillar to establish notable. Agne Cheese/ Wine 00:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply
In addition to this large feature story [45] carried by the Associated Press and a major metropolitan paper in North Carolina (the vineyard is in Virginia, so I'm not sure how papers in different states qualify as local, but I'll leave it to the deletionists to explain) the vineyard is also featured as one of seven in Fodor's guide to Virginia and Maryland (there are more than 50 vintners in Virginia and its a major industry in the state so to be featured in that way says something), is featured in East Coast wineries: a complete guide from Maine to Virginia By Carlo DeVito where it's noted that "Valhalla Vineyards make some of the best red wines on the entire east coast." There are oodles more sources on google news and google books. I'm not sure why this particular producer is being targeted by members of the wine project, but it clearly meets the general notability guideline and wp:corp. And I voted weak delete on the other winery mentioned in this discussion, so I have no problem deleting ones that aren't covered substantially in independent reliable souces. But this fourteen year old winery that has a 2,000 square foot cave is a major and notable producer that clearly merits inclusion. I originally said "weakly" notable, before I went looking into the other sources available online and there are many, they aren't just local, and the coverage is substantial. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 21:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. Nancy talk 09:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Bizarre expression that is not confirmed via Google searches. Runs afoul of WP:NEO. Warrah ( talk) 03:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment by Nirgendwo (Moved by Deon: THIS ENTRY IS ENTIRELY FALSE AND MALICIOUS AND SHOULD BE INSTANTLY REMOVED. KIMMELMAN NEVER WROTE ANY SUCH THING. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nirgendwo ( talk • contribs) 07:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
NN neologism.
Sir Arthur Williams (
talk)
03:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
reply
I have edited it down to fit with what is acceptable it seems. It explains the neologism a bit more than UD. I don't know if it is enough for it to stay though. Do as you will. PS: By a simple Google search, it seems a Mr. Sir Arthur Williams needs a life outside his mother's basement. ;3
Mashew (
talk)
05:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
reply
The result was keep. Consensus has leaned towards keep since references were added - regards, Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 02:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Article about a book that does not receive significant coverage to have an article included in the encyclopedia. — Duncan (that's me!) What I Do / What I Say 02:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Joomla. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 23:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill ( talk) 02:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill ( talk) 02:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The article does attempt to establish notability, but fails to do so - relationships with people do not confer notability, so neither does the use of a product. Quantumobserver ( talk) 02:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Relist at Proposed mergers. Wikiwoohoo ( talk) 22:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The content of this article could be condensed into a paragraph within BBC One. Wikiwoohoo ( talk) 21:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Relist at Proposed mergers. Wikiwoohoo ( talk) 22:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The content of this article could be condensed into the BBC Two and History of BBC television idents articles. Wikiwoohoo ( talk) 01:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Relist at Proposed mergers. Wikiwoohoo ( talk) 22:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The content of this article could be condensed into the BBC One article. Wikiwoohoo ( talk) 01:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Relist at Proposed mergers. Wikiwoohoo ( talk) 22:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The content of this article could be condensed into the presentation section of BBC One and the section within History of BBC television idents. Wikiwoohoo ( talk) 01:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep, rename and clean up Wikiwoohoo ( talk) 20:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
This article was nominated for deletion a year ago and kept to be cleaned up. It is currently tagged for improper use of copyrighted material and to be rewritten. The content could quite easily be condensed into the articles for each of the channels mentioned. Wikiwoohoo ( talk) 01:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Note: This closure is under deletion review jheiv ( talk) 11:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Userfied to User:Wikidemon/Climategate scandal to give non-admins access to the page and see how it is a blatant POV fork of Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident: just put the two pages next to each other. Early close to minimise drama resulting from blatant WP:GAMEing. Rd232 talk 10:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC) PS Appropriate followup to issues of titling and article content/focus of Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident would be at... drum roll... Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident. Possibly using appropriate dispute resolution, most obviously Request for Comments. Rd232 talk 11:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Content fork or POV fork (not sure which) of Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident. In reliable sources the "Climategate" moniker is identical to the topic of the latter Wikipedia article and has no independent existence. Further, the term "scandal" is inherently POV until shown otherwise by a strong consensus of reliable sources (such as the Teapot Dome scandal). Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 00:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Note: This article has been moved from Climategate scandal to Climategate controversy.
The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki ( talk) 01:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
No indication of notability jheiv ( talk) 00:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 14:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Only listing on IMDB is a paid resume posting. Doesn't appear to be notable. Eeekster ( talk) 01:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Cirt ( talk) 05:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply
I can't find significant coverage for this magazine. Joe Chill ( talk) 05:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 01:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
fails WP:DIPLOMAT, simply being an ambassador does not mean you get an automatic WP article. does not seem to be any significant coverage of doing anything more [49]. LibStar ( talk) 02:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Weak delete. Thanks for placing this here and notifying, Eastmain. Although I strongly push and promote/create Croatian articles, this entry seems to me not a very good one. Simply being an ambassador is not enough (per nom), I never heard of this person (I know, that is no indication, just though I would throw it in), and I can't seem to find significant reliable coverage. Sources and significance provided I will change my mind. Turqoise127 ( talk) 18:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Strong keep Obviously notable. Dr. Blofeld White cat 14:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Keep he's a stub so... Red Hurley ( talk) 21:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Bonnier Corporation. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
I can't find significant coverage for this magazine. Joe Chill ( talk) 05:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Cirt ( talk) 05:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply
fails WP:ATHLETE. isn't the minimum requirement NBA or equivalent league not NCAA? LibStar ( talk) 06:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Please continue merge/redirect discussion on article's talk page. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 01:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable band. Fails all criteria of notability for bands except one (having performed the theme music for a network television program). I propose a merge and redirect to Mighty Moshin' Emo Rangers. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 13:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill ( talk) 15:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
(Not registered yet 86.203.157.66 ( talk))
The result was keep. Cirt ( talk) 05:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Various claims to notability, and some google news archive hits, but I don't see it passing the WP:GNG Polarpanda ( talk) 16:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Listed for 14 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to Kurt Salmon Associates. References given are unrelated and do not confer notability of the articles topic. Seems to be nothing more than Self-promotion and product placement, which wikipedia is WP:NOT. Hu12 ( talk) 17:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. No consensus to delete. The discussion wrt merging can continue on the article's talk page. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
There are no independent reliable sources to verify this. As it hasn't come in to existance yet it also appears to be a case of WP:CRYSTAL. Fails notability criteria. Polargeo ( talk) 17:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 05:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply
This one is frustrating. He ought to be notable, but I can't find any references. - Eastmain ( talk) 18:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Cirt ( talk) 05:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply
No reliable sources given or found to establish notability according to WP:N or WP:GNG. The only reference given appears to be a press release, and the only futonable source found was another press release. It's fairly likely this article was created by Mr. Keller himself; even with WP:AGF it's not possible for this article to become encyclopedic. tedder ( talk) 19:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
non notable band Wuh Wuz Dat 15:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable company. Given references are all press releases, and I have been unable to find any significant independent coverage that would indicate the subject passes the general notability guideline or WP:CORP. Haakon ( talk) 21:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC) Haakon ( talk) 21:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Hope this is the right place to reply.
I believe this is Notable coverage on Percussion:
CMS Watch - http://www.cmswatch.com/CMS/Vendors/Percussion
Note the top six links of most recent coverage are neither press releases, announcements or other "routine" news issued by Percussion. CMS Watch is vendor independent ( http://www.cmswatch.com/About/). As they do their own research and interviews, this would seem to constitute in-depth coverage by a primary source.
Next, search for "Percussion Rhythmyx" or simply "Rhythmyx"
Rhythmyx often yields more notable search results, including blog posts, product reviews, documentation, and other content written by third parties. This is because most third party writers still use the original brand name of "Rhythmyx" for the WCMS whereas most content written by Percussion uses the more recent term "Percussion CM System."
Some examples are below:
Third Party Authored Online Help/Info
http://mass-spec.lsu.edu/wiki/index.php/Rhythmyx
http://podcast.uri.edu/help/index.php/Percussion_Rhythmyx
Independent Organizations
Toronto Rhythmyx/Percussion User Group - http://www.linkedin.com/groups?home=&gid=2323722
Blog Posts
http://www.jboye.com/blogpost/percussion-says-goodbye-to-rhythmyx/
Media Reviews (secondary source content)
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,6824,00.asp
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Midmarket/Review-Rhythmyx-5/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vimrich ( talk • contribs) 22:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Disclosure is why I used my wikipedia login to make the post, so it would be clear - or at least traceable - who it was from. I just checked again and I don't see any spot in my user registration/profile forms to list company affiliation. I don't think I warrant a user page. I am the CTO of Percussion. I'll happily provide any further info that is sought wherever it would be most appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vimrich ( talk • contribs) 15:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The sentence cited as "advertising" is meant as a description of the category of product.
Compare for example to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sitecore "Sitecore provides web content management, online marketing, and intranet portal solutions to large and medium sized organizations worldwide."
And compare to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vignette_%28software%29 "Vignette Corporation (NASDAQ: VIGN) is a suite of content management, portal, collaboration, document management, and records management software"
And compare to:
The terms used in the sentence are all category terms the describe software or web site functions all linkable to existing wikipedia terms pages: "enterprise" = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enterprise_software "web content management" = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_content_management "solution" - may be a valid objection, as it is considered "jargon" in business, however, in software it's usage is more specific - a solution is simply something you buy that requires consulting services, rather than "shrink wrap" license model. The inclusion of the term "solution" was meant only to differentiate from that on a category basis. This could easily be removed or changed to something more specific, such as "combination of licensed product or services."
However, compare to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DotNetNuke
"DotNetNuke ... is written in VB.NET and distributed under both a Community Edition BSD-style license [3] and a Professional Edition commercial license. DotNetNuke has an extensive user community and third-party developer ecosystem, and the application's content management system is extensible and customizable through the use of skins and modules."
Compare also to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfresco_%28software%29
"Alfresco is an enterprise content management system for Microsoft Windows and Unix-like operating systems. Alfresco comes in two flavours[2]. Alfresco Community Edition is free software, GPL licensed open source and open standards. Alfresco Enterprise Edition is commercially / proprietary licensed open source, open standards and enterprise scale."
Other industry standard terms used:
syndication, blogs, user-generated content, web analytics. All wikipedia entries, and all compatible with existing examples describing products that are shown above.
If something is "advertising" for Percussion, it should be "advertising" for Alfresco, DotNetNuke or any of the others - correct? We wrote the description to conform to standards used in those pages.
Three independent notability examples were listed above: Tornoto User Group URI and LSU user community/help pages
The CMS Watch references also listed above show usage of Percussion to - describe a type of CMS architecture http://www.cmswatch.com/Trends/1363-Decoupled-Web-CMS-vendors-have-not-disappeared - comment on company visibility http://www.cmswatch.com/Trends/1420-Percussion---Is-no-news-good-news? - comment on a type of user modeling http://www.cmswatch.com/Trends/1392-When-your-CMS-has-Roles,-but-not-Groups
We'll be rewriting the entry to feature better use of these links, and to remove any jargon.
I would also strongly encourage examining existing comparable non-deleted entries for similar products/companies which all talk about the type of product, license, market target and functions they offer in similar, if not word for word terminology. There seem to be a vastly different standard in that the text that constitutes a "description" for open source products is considered "advertising" for commercial systems. Indeed, many of the entries for the non-commercial systems make the stronger "advertising" superlative claims, including "most widely adopted" etc. without even a flag. Such superlatives are not found in the current summary.
Thanks for consideration as we attempt to improve this entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vimrich ( talk • contribs) 19:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Made a bunch of changes, showing citations, notability outside of press release citations and clarifying use of Solutions as a brand name. Removed awards and anything else that might be considered self promotion. Again, it appears to be entirely comparable to
Day Software,
Alfresco in terms of reference sources, citations and general tone. Your further consideration is appreciated.
Vimrich (
talk)
22:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 14:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Insufficient evidence of notability: almost all of the sources of information are from the company, so not independent. -- PhantomSteve/ talk| contribs\ 22:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Consensus here seems to indicate that the article fails short of notability requirements. – Juliancolton | Talk 17:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. Article appears to be about a marginally notable person, with the only significant coverage relating to one event only. TN X Man 22:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
This went off-line - but I think the discussion really belongs here so I've pasted it below. Comments? Aarghdvaark ( talk) 13:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Hi Aargh, I reverted your additions to Munir Hussain. It seems like those belong in an article about the events and trials, not in a biography. But I'm happy to discuss or we can get other input on it. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
The result was keep. Tone 16:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Tone 16:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. mainly passing mentions in gnews [66]. don't think the 1 film Sangam is enough to get him over the line. LibStar ( talk) 23:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
No references online, the one reference provided does not mention any gang of this name or any African gang at all for that matter. Suggest all the information in the article is completely fabricated
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete this fictional location that fails the WP:GNG with a lack of multiple, independent WP:RS. WossOccurring ( talk) 00:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Green Wing. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 00:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete this fictional location that fails the WP:GNG with a lack of multiple, independent WP:RS. WossOccurring ( talk) 23:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Please continue merge discussion on the article talk page. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 00:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete this fictional location that fails the WP:GNG with a lack of multiple, independent WP:RS. WossOccurring ( talk) 23:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. All points considered, also noting that consensus can change. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 00:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable author, and a recreation of a previously deleted article - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acharya S (2nd nomination). Thanks. Ism schism ( talk) 23:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 00:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Seems to fail notability guidelines. Aside from being a fictional day that is featured in Microsoft Excel, nothing else can be really be said about it. – Dream out loud ( talk) 23:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
I declined a speedy deletion request as spam, but feel that this article is worthy of community consensus on its remaining here. The problem with it is that it is very badly written in a rambling style and has been apparently abandoned by its creator. The book has an ISBN but many books have ISBNs. That is nothing to do with notability, that is simply the purchase of an ISBN. I'm on the fence here, so would like to nominate the article in a neutral manner. I'm not into poetry so am not the right person to improve the article. Once improved we may be able to see the wood from the trees Fiddle Faddle ( talk) 23:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
newly created soap opera character, no notability. Rm994 ( talk) 23:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The article is full of incorrect information, such as who created the character, and spoilers and speculation, which is against policy. Suggest possibly merging it with Minor characters of Days of our Lives Rm994 ( talk) 23:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Withdrawn. Joe Chill ( talk) 01:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC) reply
I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill ( talk) 23:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 00:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
This man had a nice military career, had some usual medals, but, with all due respect, he's not notable. The article was commissioned by the subject himself to a wonderful article-writer (and thus, it's a well-written article). It appears that no reliable source cites this man more than en passant. The main references used are self-published webpages from tripod or angelfire. Damiens.rf 22:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Article lacks sources; no assertion of notability for radio show; Kevin Trudeau article does not include mention of this radio show, thereby questioning verifiability A More Perfect Onion ( talk) 20:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Sorry for the poor wiki etiquette here, but it's the first time I've felt the need to post something. I've listened to Trudeau at home in MN on KLFD, and even at my parents house over the holidays in Syracuse on WGVA I believe. I used to work in radio and don't believe these stations are brokered programming. I'm not a #1 Trudeau fan by any means, but I've listened enough on actual radio stations and from what I hear he's on more than just these two. I would put this post under "The Kevin Trudeau Show" and not KTRN as KTRN is not the call letters obviously. Here is a reference for the programming on WGVA: http://fingerlakesdailynews.com/schedules/view/3/
Here is a reference to the guests. I listened to Jesse Ventura on Trudeau's show talking about his new Conspiracy TV show. I even found the interview link: http://www.ktradionetwork.com/category/guests/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkey in MN ( talk • contribs) 06:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC) — Monkey in MN ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
The result was redirect to List of the Inheritance Cycle characters#Arya Dröttningu. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 00:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Fictional character with no real-world notability or discussion in reliable sources. All encyclopedic information can easily be fitted in the relevant section of List of the Inheritance Cycle characters and other Inheritance Cycle-related articles. Una Laguna Talk 20:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
For the same reasons, I am also nominating Murtagh (Inheritance) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for deletion. (Sorry EEMIV - you got there before me!) Una Laguna Talk 20:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD. Non-notable academic. User:DGG has provided a list of Waseem's most cited articles, but in none of these is he first or last author, the two positions indicative of highest level of contribution. A Google Scholar search of Ghrelin appears to have sources that are cited far in excess of these. There are no independent sources establishing notability, and it also appears that the highest rung he has reached at an academic institution was postdoc. Steamroller Assault ( talk) 20:19, 28 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}} . |
1. T.Waseem, M.Duxbury, H.Ito, F.Rocha, D.Lautz, E.Whang, S.Ashley, M.Robinson. Ghrelin ameliorates TNF-a induced anti-proliferative and pro-apoptotic effects and promotes intestinal epithelial restitution. Journal of the American College of Surgeons, Volume 199, Issue 3, Page 16. (Original Research) 2. Waseem T. Commentary: Ghrelin's role in gastrointestinal tract cancer. Surg Oncol. 2009 Mar 25. [Epub ahead of print] PMID 19324542. (Editorial) 3. Waseem T, Javaid-Ur-Rehman, Ahmad F, Azam M, Qureshi MA. Role of ghrelin axis in colorectal cancer: a novel association. Peptides. 2008 Aug;29(8):1369-76. Epub 2008 Apr 7. PMID 18471933. (Original research) 4. Waseem T, Duxbury M, Ito H, Ashley SW, Robinson MK. Exogenous ghrelin modulates release of pro-inflammatory and anti-inflammatory cytokines in LPS-stimulated macrophages through distinct signaling pathways. Surgery. 2008 Mar;143(3):334-42. Epub 2007 Dec 27. PMID 18291254; PMC 2278045. (Original Research) 5. Duxbury MS, Waseem T, Ito H, Robinson MK, Zinner MJ, Ashley SW, Whang EE. Ghrelin promotes pancreatic adenocarcinoma cellular proliferation and invasiveness. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2003 Sep 19;309(2):464-8. PMID 12951072. (Original Research)
In google search, I came to visit a website of ‘2009 International Symposium on Ghrelin’, which pretty much explains his position in the hierarchy of ghrelin research. Kojima & Kangawa are the guys who discovered ghrelin, while Dr. Waseem is the one who has mainly worked on its role in gastrointestinal tract (1,2). In that particular conference, he was neither an invited keynote speaker nor an organizer; however, he presented 3 papers given below (the maximum number of the papers from any participant).
1. Exogenous ghrelin induces intestinal mucosal hypertrophy through GH-IGF axis independent mechanism. 2. Ghrelin promotes intestinal epithelial cell proliferation through stimulation of PI3K/Akt pathway & EGFR trans-activation leading to ERK 1/2 phosphorylation. 3. Ghrelin prevents oxidative stress-induced intestinal epithelial cell apoptosis through stimulation of PI3K/Akt and inhibition of cytochrome-c mediated caspase-3 activation.
References:
1. http://www.2009ghrelintokyo.com/program/program_day2.pdf 2. http://www.2009ghrelintokyo.com/program/poster.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.186.142.41 ( talk) 09:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC) — 115.186.142.41 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
The result was transwiki to Wiktionary. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 00:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
non notable word/phrase Wuh Wuz Dat 20:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. All points considered, as shown by the delete !votes, his only notability seemingly comes from his arrest. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 15:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
only proper notability is for being arrested; fails WP:NOT#NEWS. Ironholds ( talk) 19:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. A rough consenus of the discussion does not show favor towards deletion, but rather merging or keeping. Please continue the merge discussion on the article's talk page. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 15:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
No assertion of real-world notability. Offers no citations to reliable third-party sources. Entirely in-universe plot summary. Spruced with puffy pieces of original research ("Both sides seemingly have...") and non-statements ("It is unknown if..."). -- EEMIV ( talk) 19:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 01:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Autobiographical article that I do not believe meets WP:BIO. However, I could use a second opinion, hence the AfD rather than a PROD. Singularity42 ( talk) 18:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
I have also added the following article, also written by the same author. They are relatives involved in the same company. I would think their notability is tied into each other. Singularity42 ( talk) 18:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 01:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Article has multiple issues, notability is questionable and relies on some dubious sources. Looks like a cut and paste from somewhere else. Wexcan Talk 18:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 14:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
This article is entirely self-sourced, and the only hits I get when I do a Google news archive search are a few Spanish-language sources whose veracity I am unsure of. If he really had an important role with all the musical groups his article lists, he would probably pass criterion #6 of Wikipedia:Notability (music), but my suspicion is that some or all of this is a hoax. In particular, an anonymous editor keeps adding him to our article on The Young Veins as the bassist for that band, despite the fact that the band's own web sites list Andy Soukal in that role. And regardless of whether it is true, it fails Wikipedia:Verifiability, one of our core policies. — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 01:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Opinion piece; prod contested without explanation. I42 ( talk) 17:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
non-notable neologism Ironholds ( talk) 17:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill ( talk) 17:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( X! · talk) · @301 · 06:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
No indication this meets WP:GNG. I originally tagged this as A7, but in its current state, this article will probably pass A7. TheWeakWilled ( T * G) 17:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Neologism, original research, lacks citations Halestock ( talk) 16:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 01:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Procedural nom. Concern was " This is not an encyclopedia article and thus should be delated. It does not bring any new information compared to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fastest_Growing_Religion." TheWeakWilled ( T * G) 16:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to List of all-female bands. ( X! · talk) · @302 · 06:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Excessively long statistical list, per WP:NOT#STATS Halestock ( talk) 16:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 01:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
In my opinion, this is not a topic which is of encyclopedia importance. Of course, I could be wrong; if reliable sources discussing this can be found and the article can be expanded with verifiable information, that would be fine. I didn't find such sources with my own search, though. FisherQueen ( talk · contribs) 16:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete g11, promotion for selfpublished or nonpublished book. NawlinWiki ( talk) 16:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
I prodded this only to find out, from the creator's talk page, that it had been speedied twice already today. Book with no assertion of notability. Delete. Blanchardb - Me• MyEars• MyMouth- timed 16:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Tone 19:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
No more notable than any other contestant this season. Appears to be little more than an advertisement for his fashion stuff. Bueller 007 ( talk) 22:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Anyway, to the point and directed to Pburka's search on Google for Brett Clouser, where he/she finds "almost nothing," I don't know which version of Google he/she uses. Perhaps it's an old Beta Version or one dedicated to some South Pacific Atoll. The Google I use, i.e. google.com, has pages and pages of search results for Brett Clouser, whether Brett Clouser alone or with the hyphenated Survivor add-on.
There seems to be some fanatical dismay exercised by a few of you who keep posting these diatribes as to who is worthy of Wikipedia and who is not. Wikipedia is a search tool for information on people, subjects or history, and like the Internet should cater to providing answers for people who ask them. If you're not interested in Brett Clouser don't type in his name, but why deprive those who are curious (even if of a momentary nature) to learn a little bit more about him? How does it hurt? Is someone more notable being deprived space on Wikipedia? This engine is not the Encyclopedia Britannica or Webster's Dictionary, where it is necessary for space constraints to limit the inclusion to those people or subjects of major note.
Anyone who makes it to a top-ten show that attracts tens of millions of viewers, considering the tens of thousands who attempt to be a player in the game, has accomplished something that most have not. To have lasted until the very final show in a brave and steadfast show of will and nerves against those who wanted to vote him off is an attribute that should be admired. And only by some bad luck at the end was he voted out of the contest, which most people (including the jury) admitted he otherwise would have won. These are the things that have made him a curiosity and why there are pages of references to him on Google, not to mention the thousands who have chosen to follow him on Twitter, etc. I'm not saying that Brett Clouser will definitely be celebrated over the long haul, but for the moment a lot of people are searching his name and expect results, and that's what Wikipedia is for. Andymickey ( talk) 09:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Yes, that is true, but Wikipedia is more than just an encyclopedia. It is not like Encyclopedia Britannica at all. Wikipedia is a work in progress. It is unlike any encyclopedia that ever came before it, and very likely unlike any that will come in the future. It is a collaborative project, used by the same people who contribute to it. So therefore, if the people who make Wikipedia the way it is are interested in a subject, then we should provide them a chance to find information on it. That is what Wikipedia is all about. Why would anyone want to take this away from them? Is there a limit to the number of articles that Wikipedia holds? If we've already got over 3 million, what difference will one article (that is much more deserving than some two-sentence stubs on Wikipedia) make? It will make a difference to those who search for him looking for information. Quite frankly, I see absolutely no reason for us to be arguing over this. The public is interested, so we provide them with the opportunity. — Untitledmind72 ( talk) 01:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply"I've rarely seen so much whinging. This is an encyclopedia. It may be hard for you to understand, but not every topic or person belongs in an encyclopedia."
The result was speedied WP:NAC TheWeakWilled ( T * G) 16:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Not a dictionary. No CSD criteria for it. TheWeakWilled ( T * G) 15:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 01:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Not notable. All references are either self-published or social networking sites. This article was changed from a redirect to a full article by User:CoffeyAnderson, which suggests a conflict of interest. Coffey Anderson was a contestant on a game show ( WP:BLP1E), and currently has a few sentences in Nashville_Star_(season_6)#Coffey_Anderson. I think those few sentences should suffice. SnottyWong talk 02:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The page author has not demonstrated notability per WP:bio. The given references were either dead links (removed) or produced a spyware warning (with Google chrome). Google search turned up mainly WP/WM files/pages. PDCook ( talk) 15:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted by another admin. Cirt ( talk) 14:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
New journal, main claim to notability is that it is the first Italian student-edited law journal. Article is replete with exaggerated statements, some of them synthesis, for example: "According to the database of English-language law journals at Washington & Lee University,[2] Bocconi School of Law Student-Edited Papers is the first student-edited publication venue for scholarly articles in the field of law in Italy. The other Italian journal therein listed as student-edited is, in fact, peer-reviewed." The W&L database contains two student-edited journals, one of which the author of this article dismisses on the grounds that "it is peer-reviewed". Besides being OR and synthesis, this shows a misunderstanding of what "editing" means. In addition, this database ranks Bocconi at the very bottom (together with a whole bunch of other journals with score zero). Although the article appears to be well-sourced with 13 references, with 1 exception these are to the journal itself or are irrelevant (for instance, the reference to the Erasmus Law & Economics Review's section policies, to substantiate that it is peer-reviewed). The 1 exception is claimed to show "A recognition of the innovative potential inherent in this initiative has received explicit recognition in a 2009 article appeared on the German Law Journal." When one reads that article, however, it becomes clear that Bocconi is only mentioned in passing. In all, it appears that this article has been created prematurely and does not meet the required notability standards. Hence it should be deleted. Crusio ( talk) 14:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Unfortunately, the reviewer seems to have missed the point (or, more likely, the writer of the page must have failed to make the point clear): the journal's main claim to notability is not really that it is the first Italian student-edited law journal. In order to see the point, however, it is necessary to know a little bit more about scholarly publishing in the field of law, which is markedly different from (some would say unrigorous in comparison to) all other technical and scientific fields. Student-edited (by which I mean journals where it is students that select what gets published and what doesn't: I can see this being misleading to a non-lawyer, but that's how student-reviewed journals are called, in contrast to peer-reviewed journals)law reviews are the norm in the most important academic scenario in the world, i.e. the US, with only a handful of journals being peer-reviewed. In Europe, instead, articles are edited and reviewed by academics in the vast majority of journals. Some German student-edited law reviews exist, but they all are venues for final publication of an article. BSLSEP, on the contrary, is a working paper series, and this makes it markedly different from all other existing journals. The 2009 article that is referenced actually speaks about a model of publication, which has in BSLSEP its first example in the legal field . As such, the journal is indeed notable, and worthy of scholarly attention. As for the other journal mentioned in the W&L database, it is not student-edited: the editorial board consists entirely of academics and professionals. Therefore, it is incorrectly listed as student-edited in that database which - however - still is the one of the most comprehensive for law reviews. Therefore, for someone who understands legal publishing, the author of the entry merely seems to make readers aware of an incorrect listing, rather than showing "a misunderstanding of what 'editing' means." Last, but not least, I think it is far fetched to try and judge a working paper series, where papers can - and often have been - republished elsewhere (and cited from the journals they were republished in) based on its impact factor. That, if anything, confirms that the previous reviewer has largely missed the point about the working paper series format. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brutaska ( talk • contribs) 15:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC) — Brutaska ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Also, I fail to see why the modified version of this article should be deleted, whereas the Edinburgh Student Law Review should stay, with even less evidence of notability than I have put in my article. Apparently, Crusio was fine with that one. My feeling is this review standard is not matching the Wikipedia:New pages patrol criteria. Namely, the reviewers seem to be biased against this publication, in a manner that exceeds what has been expected of other similar entries. In light of this, I call even more strongly against deletion. Grasshopper6 —Preceding undated comment added 17:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC). reply
@ Crusio. I see. This, however, does not hide that that "othercrap" was actually reviewed by you (see history), which shows that you're either biased against Bocconi, or have a particularly short memory.
@ Angryapathy. I have read the notability page, and I believe that the fact that this journal is the first implementation of a model of publication which has been discussed in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal (and which, by the way, also mentioned Bocconi School of Law Student-Edited Papers explicitly) is enough evidence, as mentioned by Brutaska. How you claim that there is no evidence without wishing to get into the technicalities, however, is beyond me. It's like saying microbiology is useless because I do not wish to read any papers in the subject. And I still remain convinced that this review is not being conducted impartially. I'm sorry if I sound harsh, but I have received ZERO feedback on how to improve the article, and there is yet no rebuttal of the arguments put forth by Brutaska. Grasshopper6 —Preceding undated comment added 17:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC). reply
In summary, from this journal's own home page: "the hope is that this small contribution might promote a culture of scholarly openness which is a necessary prerequisite for the advancement of knowledge and the improvement of society at large." Along with others involved in free publishing--which inherently includes all Wikipedians-- I wish their hope may be realized. When it is realized, the journal will become notable. But this is not the place for publicity for even the hopes we are most sympathetic to here, until then. DGG ( talk ) 23:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC) reply
-- Grasshopper6 ( talk) 01:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC) reply
-- Grasshopper6 ( talk) 11:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
-- Grasshopper6 ( talk) 15:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 01:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
nothing in gnews for this person [25], [26]. created by a suspect editor who has really only worked on 2 articles which lack any reliable sources. the other article being the similarly weakly sourced Suthan Sivapathasuntharam. LibStar ( talk) 14:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
fails WP:BIO, nothing in gnews [27] and full of unverified statements, even the article says he's unsigned. suspect this is a WP:AUTOBIO. LibStar ( talk) 14:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Cirt ( talk) 05:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply
This chart is not official chart in Croatia. As article says: The chart is based on public's votes only! SveroH ( talk) 12:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
No significant coverage and doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 ( talk) 10:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep. !votes moved to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Daiu_International TheWeakWilled ( T * G) 13:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC) reply
NOTEI did create a AfD, it is found below, I have no idea what DumbBOT meant by missing. This is a fork/incorrect duplicate of the AfD created by a new user (see history). Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Daiu_International ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 22:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 14:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
No independent reliable sources found to verify notability. Cannot establish that the subject passes Wikipedia standards on notability. The sources do not provide the significant coverage required by the notability standard. Hot Steam Valve ( talk) 08:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 01:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Previously deleted due to lack of notability [28], but article was restored (despite the fact that its subject doesn't seem to have become any more notable.) Bueller 007 ( talk) 02:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD. Notability is not demonstrated. It may have minor coverage but nothing significant. Seems to be an element of vanity in the long lists of names. DanielRigal ( talk) 22:33, 25 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Despite some concerns over the list's usefulness, there seems to be a clear consensus that the topic is sufficiently notable. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 23:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
A non-notable list of characters with no inclusion criteria and totally random. Those characters in the list that have met Wikipedia:Notability have their own pages. Unlike Disney Princess or Disney Villains, this is not even a franchise. -- LoЯd ۞pεth 05:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Essay Eeekster ( talk) 00:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 01:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Non-notable religioius text, per WP:NB. References are insufficient to show significant coverage by major media outlets, or to show that the related religious movement is significant. -- SquidSK (1MC• log) 05:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
— Lovewisdompower ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
This has to be a joke! Geronimo20 ( talk) 10:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Delete Its not a joke, but not notable enough for an entry. I didnt find any independant coverage of this subject, but i did find a thread on a fishing forum where this group were talking about their catch and release fishing trips. Juding from the photos they have posted, they went on a few trips and had maybe 30 active members. heres the link http://www.fishingkaki.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=183&sid=a66974db22e06e727f08b2dd7366e15f t=183&sid=a66974db22e06e727f08b2dd7366e15f</ref> -- Brunk500 ( talk) 11:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 01:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Appears to be nothing but a self-promotion of a less than notable screen play. Eeekster ( talk) 04:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Let me know what you think now. I've tried to include only the facts without bias and have even pulled my name from it. THINKTANKSWORK ( talk) 09:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 01:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
I don't think Tater Tot is notable enough for his own Wikipedia article. When I googled his name, most of the results had nothing to do with him. The ones that did either quoted this article word for word or were written in a style that was suspiciously similiar.-- *Kat* ( talk) 01:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
I am unable to find references for "Tamaskan wolfdog" or "Tamaskan wolf dog". The article's creator states that this is "Not to be confused with the original Tamaskan dog which has no alleged wolf ancestry". csd-a7 does not apply to animal breeds, so the article can't be speedied. Eastmain ( talk) 12:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Well I have bred tamaskan Wolfdogs myself, and they have wolf in them, the page is in its infancy, i will tidy it up soon with better references —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamaskanwolfdog ( talk • contribs) 12:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete a10, duplicative article. NawlinWiki ( talk) 16:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Needs to be developed . Adi4094 ( talk) 10:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect; an obvious target, most probably unknown to the non-expert author of the initial text. Twri ( talk) 05:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a dictionary jheiv ( talk) 09:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. G3 Speedy. Identified hoax . SilkTork * YES! 01:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC) reply
PROD removed. See my reasoning at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Demon of River Heights Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 09:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 09:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP. Repeatedly recreated under mutiple redirects, including a previous AfD resulting in delete.
Clearly seems to be nothing more than an Advertisement masquerading as an article. Hu12 ( talk) 08:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Appears to fail WP:GNG. Ironholds ( talk) 07:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
An unreferenced glory page about "one of the richest men of the then princely state of Hyderabad, Deccan". Tagged for problems since 2007. - Altenmann >t 07:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to List of Members of the Canadian House of Commons with military service. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 15:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Unnecessary, as there are no entries. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 05:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to List of Members of the Canadian Senate. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 23:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Unnecessary. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 05:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to List of Major League Baseball players. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 23:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
No reason to have this page. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 04:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Wunschpunsch. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 07:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC) reply
No sources, not notable Bdb484 ( talk) 03:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Merge it with the article on Wunschpunsch the book. Sources don't support a separate article on the animated adaptation at this time. Sharksaredangerous ( talk) 17:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep, no outstanding delete votes (besides nom), and appears to pass WP:GNG. non admin closure TheWeakWilled ( T * G) 14:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Appears to fail WP:ATHLETE unless the World Junior Championship is considered the highest amateur level of a sport. I would think that "junior" would make that answer no. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 12:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Cirt ( talk) 05:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:CORP. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 04:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 02:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Appears to fail WP:ATHLETE unless the World Junior Championship is considered the highest amateur level of a sport. I would think that "junior" would make that answer no. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 12:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 05:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Non notable concert tour. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. Nouse4aname ( talk) 14:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Clear consensus to retain David Austen as a bluelink. Further discussions on merging should take place on the appropriate talk page. ( non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens ( talk) 01:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Not very notable minor leaguer. I don't believe his one award makes him notable. Alex ( talk) 03:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Keep - Seems to have adequate coverage to support notability, e.g., this and this. If he is notable in Venezuela, he is notable. Rlendog ( talk) 15:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.
AfD is not a vote, but has to be decided on its merits. In the discussion below, the following has been put forward as evidence for notability:
In summa, it has not been shown that any of the above meets any of the criteria of the applicable guidelines WP:WINETOPIC, WP:COMPANY, and WP:N. — Sebastian 03:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable winery that does not pass WP:CORP nor the Wine Project's internal guidelines for winery notability. Prod was contested over 6 months ago with the promise that the winery was notable and that reliable sources could be found to demonstrate this in the article. After waiting several months and checking to see if I could find the sources, myself, I do not believe there is enough independent, third-party reliable sources to make an article that adequately demonstrates notability. Agne Cheese/ Wine 16:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
(Outdent) Ah, I see the NYT time now a general interest piece on Virginia wine where Valhalla gets a casual one line mention in a larger piece that is about a general topic. "Much honored"? A single, off hand comment is what you are staking your claims of notability on? Seriously? It is not even from Frank Prial who is the actual wine columnist for the NYT. It is a casual, brief mention in a travel piece. How many local mom and pop restaurants are "much honored" in their individual communities? I wonder how many articles in the New York Times Travel section notes these "much honored" local interest places? Those types of casual mentions in travel pieces is a very weak pillar to establish notable. Agne Cheese/ Wine 00:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply
In addition to this large feature story [45] carried by the Associated Press and a major metropolitan paper in North Carolina (the vineyard is in Virginia, so I'm not sure how papers in different states qualify as local, but I'll leave it to the deletionists to explain) the vineyard is also featured as one of seven in Fodor's guide to Virginia and Maryland (there are more than 50 vintners in Virginia and its a major industry in the state so to be featured in that way says something), is featured in East Coast wineries: a complete guide from Maine to Virginia By Carlo DeVito where it's noted that "Valhalla Vineyards make some of the best red wines on the entire east coast." There are oodles more sources on google news and google books. I'm not sure why this particular producer is being targeted by members of the wine project, but it clearly meets the general notability guideline and wp:corp. And I voted weak delete on the other winery mentioned in this discussion, so I have no problem deleting ones that aren't covered substantially in independent reliable souces. But this fourteen year old winery that has a 2,000 square foot cave is a major and notable producer that clearly merits inclusion. I originally said "weakly" notable, before I went looking into the other sources available online and there are many, they aren't just local, and the coverage is substantial. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 21:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. Nancy talk 09:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Bizarre expression that is not confirmed via Google searches. Runs afoul of WP:NEO. Warrah ( talk) 03:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment by Nirgendwo (Moved by Deon: THIS ENTRY IS ENTIRELY FALSE AND MALICIOUS AND SHOULD BE INSTANTLY REMOVED. KIMMELMAN NEVER WROTE ANY SUCH THING. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nirgendwo ( talk • contribs) 07:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
NN neologism.
Sir Arthur Williams (
talk)
03:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
reply
I have edited it down to fit with what is acceptable it seems. It explains the neologism a bit more than UD. I don't know if it is enough for it to stay though. Do as you will. PS: By a simple Google search, it seems a Mr. Sir Arthur Williams needs a life outside his mother's basement. ;3
Mashew (
talk)
05:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
reply
The result was keep. Consensus has leaned towards keep since references were added - regards, Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 02:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Article about a book that does not receive significant coverage to have an article included in the encyclopedia. — Duncan (that's me!) What I Do / What I Say 02:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Joomla. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 23:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill ( talk) 02:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill ( talk) 02:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The article does attempt to establish notability, but fails to do so - relationships with people do not confer notability, so neither does the use of a product. Quantumobserver ( talk) 02:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Relist at Proposed mergers. Wikiwoohoo ( talk) 22:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The content of this article could be condensed into a paragraph within BBC One. Wikiwoohoo ( talk) 21:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Relist at Proposed mergers. Wikiwoohoo ( talk) 22:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The content of this article could be condensed into the BBC Two and History of BBC television idents articles. Wikiwoohoo ( talk) 01:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Relist at Proposed mergers. Wikiwoohoo ( talk) 22:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The content of this article could be condensed into the BBC One article. Wikiwoohoo ( talk) 01:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Relist at Proposed mergers. Wikiwoohoo ( talk) 22:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The content of this article could be condensed into the presentation section of BBC One and the section within History of BBC television idents. Wikiwoohoo ( talk) 01:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep, rename and clean up Wikiwoohoo ( talk) 20:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
This article was nominated for deletion a year ago and kept to be cleaned up. It is currently tagged for improper use of copyrighted material and to be rewritten. The content could quite easily be condensed into the articles for each of the channels mentioned. Wikiwoohoo ( talk) 01:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Note: This closure is under deletion review jheiv ( talk) 11:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Userfied to User:Wikidemon/Climategate scandal to give non-admins access to the page and see how it is a blatant POV fork of Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident: just put the two pages next to each other. Early close to minimise drama resulting from blatant WP:GAMEing. Rd232 talk 10:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC) PS Appropriate followup to issues of titling and article content/focus of Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident would be at... drum roll... Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident. Possibly using appropriate dispute resolution, most obviously Request for Comments. Rd232 talk 11:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Content fork or POV fork (not sure which) of Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident. In reliable sources the "Climategate" moniker is identical to the topic of the latter Wikipedia article and has no independent existence. Further, the term "scandal" is inherently POV until shown otherwise by a strong consensus of reliable sources (such as the Teapot Dome scandal). Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 00:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Note: This article has been moved from Climategate scandal to Climategate controversy.
The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki ( talk) 01:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
No indication of notability jheiv ( talk) 00:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 14:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Only listing on IMDB is a paid resume posting. Doesn't appear to be notable. Eeekster ( talk) 01:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Cirt ( talk) 05:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply
I can't find significant coverage for this magazine. Joe Chill ( talk) 05:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 01:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
fails WP:DIPLOMAT, simply being an ambassador does not mean you get an automatic WP article. does not seem to be any significant coverage of doing anything more [49]. LibStar ( talk) 02:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Weak delete. Thanks for placing this here and notifying, Eastmain. Although I strongly push and promote/create Croatian articles, this entry seems to me not a very good one. Simply being an ambassador is not enough (per nom), I never heard of this person (I know, that is no indication, just though I would throw it in), and I can't seem to find significant reliable coverage. Sources and significance provided I will change my mind. Turqoise127 ( talk) 18:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Strong keep Obviously notable. Dr. Blofeld White cat 14:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Keep he's a stub so... Red Hurley ( talk) 21:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Bonnier Corporation. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
I can't find significant coverage for this magazine. Joe Chill ( talk) 05:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Cirt ( talk) 05:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply
fails WP:ATHLETE. isn't the minimum requirement NBA or equivalent league not NCAA? LibStar ( talk) 06:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Please continue merge/redirect discussion on article's talk page. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 01:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable band. Fails all criteria of notability for bands except one (having performed the theme music for a network television program). I propose a merge and redirect to Mighty Moshin' Emo Rangers. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 13:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill ( talk) 15:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
(Not registered yet 86.203.157.66 ( talk))
The result was keep. Cirt ( talk) 05:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Various claims to notability, and some google news archive hits, but I don't see it passing the WP:GNG Polarpanda ( talk) 16:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Listed for 14 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to Kurt Salmon Associates. References given are unrelated and do not confer notability of the articles topic. Seems to be nothing more than Self-promotion and product placement, which wikipedia is WP:NOT. Hu12 ( talk) 17:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. No consensus to delete. The discussion wrt merging can continue on the article's talk page. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
There are no independent reliable sources to verify this. As it hasn't come in to existance yet it also appears to be a case of WP:CRYSTAL. Fails notability criteria. Polargeo ( talk) 17:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 05:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply
This one is frustrating. He ought to be notable, but I can't find any references. - Eastmain ( talk) 18:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Cirt ( talk) 05:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply
No reliable sources given or found to establish notability according to WP:N or WP:GNG. The only reference given appears to be a press release, and the only futonable source found was another press release. It's fairly likely this article was created by Mr. Keller himself; even with WP:AGF it's not possible for this article to become encyclopedic. tedder ( talk) 19:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
non notable band Wuh Wuz Dat 15:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable company. Given references are all press releases, and I have been unable to find any significant independent coverage that would indicate the subject passes the general notability guideline or WP:CORP. Haakon ( talk) 21:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC) Haakon ( talk) 21:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Hope this is the right place to reply.
I believe this is Notable coverage on Percussion:
CMS Watch - http://www.cmswatch.com/CMS/Vendors/Percussion
Note the top six links of most recent coverage are neither press releases, announcements or other "routine" news issued by Percussion. CMS Watch is vendor independent ( http://www.cmswatch.com/About/). As they do their own research and interviews, this would seem to constitute in-depth coverage by a primary source.
Next, search for "Percussion Rhythmyx" or simply "Rhythmyx"
Rhythmyx often yields more notable search results, including blog posts, product reviews, documentation, and other content written by third parties. This is because most third party writers still use the original brand name of "Rhythmyx" for the WCMS whereas most content written by Percussion uses the more recent term "Percussion CM System."
Some examples are below:
Third Party Authored Online Help/Info
http://mass-spec.lsu.edu/wiki/index.php/Rhythmyx
http://podcast.uri.edu/help/index.php/Percussion_Rhythmyx
Independent Organizations
Toronto Rhythmyx/Percussion User Group - http://www.linkedin.com/groups?home=&gid=2323722
Blog Posts
http://www.jboye.com/blogpost/percussion-says-goodbye-to-rhythmyx/
Media Reviews (secondary source content)
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,6824,00.asp
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Midmarket/Review-Rhythmyx-5/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vimrich ( talk • contribs) 22:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Disclosure is why I used my wikipedia login to make the post, so it would be clear - or at least traceable - who it was from. I just checked again and I don't see any spot in my user registration/profile forms to list company affiliation. I don't think I warrant a user page. I am the CTO of Percussion. I'll happily provide any further info that is sought wherever it would be most appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vimrich ( talk • contribs) 15:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The sentence cited as "advertising" is meant as a description of the category of product.
Compare for example to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sitecore "Sitecore provides web content management, online marketing, and intranet portal solutions to large and medium sized organizations worldwide."
And compare to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vignette_%28software%29 "Vignette Corporation (NASDAQ: VIGN) is a suite of content management, portal, collaboration, document management, and records management software"
And compare to:
The terms used in the sentence are all category terms the describe software or web site functions all linkable to existing wikipedia terms pages: "enterprise" = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enterprise_software "web content management" = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_content_management "solution" - may be a valid objection, as it is considered "jargon" in business, however, in software it's usage is more specific - a solution is simply something you buy that requires consulting services, rather than "shrink wrap" license model. The inclusion of the term "solution" was meant only to differentiate from that on a category basis. This could easily be removed or changed to something more specific, such as "combination of licensed product or services."
However, compare to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DotNetNuke
"DotNetNuke ... is written in VB.NET and distributed under both a Community Edition BSD-style license [3] and a Professional Edition commercial license. DotNetNuke has an extensive user community and third-party developer ecosystem, and the application's content management system is extensible and customizable through the use of skins and modules."
Compare also to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfresco_%28software%29
"Alfresco is an enterprise content management system for Microsoft Windows and Unix-like operating systems. Alfresco comes in two flavours[2]. Alfresco Community Edition is free software, GPL licensed open source and open standards. Alfresco Enterprise Edition is commercially / proprietary licensed open source, open standards and enterprise scale."
Other industry standard terms used:
syndication, blogs, user-generated content, web analytics. All wikipedia entries, and all compatible with existing examples describing products that are shown above.
If something is "advertising" for Percussion, it should be "advertising" for Alfresco, DotNetNuke or any of the others - correct? We wrote the description to conform to standards used in those pages.
Three independent notability examples were listed above: Tornoto User Group URI and LSU user community/help pages
The CMS Watch references also listed above show usage of Percussion to - describe a type of CMS architecture http://www.cmswatch.com/Trends/1363-Decoupled-Web-CMS-vendors-have-not-disappeared - comment on company visibility http://www.cmswatch.com/Trends/1420-Percussion---Is-no-news-good-news? - comment on a type of user modeling http://www.cmswatch.com/Trends/1392-When-your-CMS-has-Roles,-but-not-Groups
We'll be rewriting the entry to feature better use of these links, and to remove any jargon.
I would also strongly encourage examining existing comparable non-deleted entries for similar products/companies which all talk about the type of product, license, market target and functions they offer in similar, if not word for word terminology. There seem to be a vastly different standard in that the text that constitutes a "description" for open source products is considered "advertising" for commercial systems. Indeed, many of the entries for the non-commercial systems make the stronger "advertising" superlative claims, including "most widely adopted" etc. without even a flag. Such superlatives are not found in the current summary.
Thanks for consideration as we attempt to improve this entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vimrich ( talk • contribs) 19:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Made a bunch of changes, showing citations, notability outside of press release citations and clarifying use of Solutions as a brand name. Removed awards and anything else that might be considered self promotion. Again, it appears to be entirely comparable to
Day Software,
Alfresco in terms of reference sources, citations and general tone. Your further consideration is appreciated.
Vimrich (
talk)
22:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 14:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Insufficient evidence of notability: almost all of the sources of information are from the company, so not independent. -- PhantomSteve/ talk| contribs\ 22:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Consensus here seems to indicate that the article fails short of notability requirements. – Juliancolton | Talk 17:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. Article appears to be about a marginally notable person, with the only significant coverage relating to one event only. TN X Man 22:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
This went off-line - but I think the discussion really belongs here so I've pasted it below. Comments? Aarghdvaark ( talk) 13:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Hi Aargh, I reverted your additions to Munir Hussain. It seems like those belong in an article about the events and trials, not in a biography. But I'm happy to discuss or we can get other input on it. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
The result was keep. Tone 16:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Tone 16:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. mainly passing mentions in gnews [66]. don't think the 1 film Sangam is enough to get him over the line. LibStar ( talk) 23:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply