The result was delete. Only a SPA argued for keep. No good evidence for passing WP:BIO. Fences& Windows 17:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
fails WP:BIO, the article is full of unreliable sources such as youtube and photo site links. could not find any in depth coverage of him [1]. there is a "Actor-comedian David Allen Grier " which I'm not sure is the same person in any case this David also gets very limited coverage. LibStar ( talk) 22:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Brandon ( talk) 08:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Although obvious advertising can be seen, I am unsure of the catagory most suitable for this article. MajorMinorMark ( talk) 22:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Nominator blocked for sockpuppetry J.delanoy gabs adds 02:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Obvious advertising is obvious. MajorMinorMark ( talk) 22:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Atlassian. So Why 10:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC) reply
I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill ( talk) 23:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 02:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Two problems: it's a dictionary definition, and it also appears to offer the wrong meaning. The root laic means secular (see Laïcité). As far as I can tell "laicology" is only used in theological circles to refer to secular issues, absolutely nothing about "adaptability" or "work environments." Entry has been tagged for export to Wiktionary, but there's no point preserving an incorrect definition. Prod declined. Hairhorn ( talk) 19:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Kevin ( talk) 22:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC) reply
No assertion of notability. References include one primary source and a source, which is connected to the subject. Searching for anything more substantial was unsuccessful. Óðinn ☭☆ talk 17:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. no obvious merge target has emerged so no-consensus but I would say that amerge appears to be a significant stand of opinion here Spartaz Humbug! 03:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Mid-price compilation. Has failed to appear on any notable music chart. Lack of significant coverage by reliable sources. I've also listed those related articles for the same reason:
Kekkomereq4 ( talk) 19:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Note: All of the "related" articles each had their own AfD opened when I believe it was the nominator's intent to bundle them into one. I have closed all of them and copied any delete !votes below: KuyaBriBri Talk 19:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC) reply
MERGE into the Grace jones article or into the 20th century masters article.-- 99.182.21.35 ( talk) 02:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Brandon ( talk) 08:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Article about a "feature film" made on a budget of £200 and with its first screening not due till 23 Nov. The article offers no evidence, and I can find none, that this film is notable to the standard of Notability (films). Searches are complicated, because Michael Henry is a common name and Ennui is a common word and the name of several films, but putting them together finds only Facebook, Youtube and the like. PROD removed by author without comment. JohnCD ( talk) 20:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Brandon ( talk) 08:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:GNG and WP:ATH as he's never played professionally. Giants 27( Contribs| WP:CFL) 20:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Tear of meniscus. Brandon ( talk) 08:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Much better article already exists, Tear of meniscus. Article creator continues to revert to this version and has ignored my attempts to communicate. Beach drifter ( talk) 19:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Tim Song ( talk) 00:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Mayors, per se, are not notable. Nothing here indicates otherwise. Student7 ( talk) 19:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. arguments that play the nominator and not the article have been discarded. Arguments that assert notability through generalities and assertions have been given much less weight the those providing analysis of the available sourcing. There maybe a case for notability per Шизомби but there was no indication of the depth of coverage and this remains a BLP with inadequate sourcing at the time of closing. Spartaz Humbug! 03:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Notability Dust diamond ( talk) 18:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Brandon ( talk) 08:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Does not meet notability or wp:athlete. Google does not show significant coverage in reliable sources. Seems to be a local high school star, and coverage is limited to that. Omarcheeseboro ( talk) 18:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Brandon ( talk) 08:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable fundraising activity, one of many to help finance medical research. Google searches do not bring up anything that helps the article achieve WP:GNG. Warrah ( talk) 17:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. A decision to merge should be discussed and finalized on the article talk page. – Juliancolton | Talk 18:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Bus terminal with no claim of notability Delete Secret account 17:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Brandon ( talk) 07:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Delete. This is a trivial and 99% unsourced directory of shibboleths with little to no encyclopedic value. JBsupreme ( talk) 17:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep per WP:SNOW. GARDEN 21:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Article appears to consist of a single sentence's worth of content - most succinctly written as traditionally, seclusion of a man and woman together in the same room on their own (Hebrew:Yichud), was forbidden, in Judaism, unless they were married to each other. Everything else is either repetition or a general point not specific to Yichud. Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, attitudes to Yichud are the same as their respective general attitudes to halacha - their conclusion about Yichud is self-evident, and doesn't need stating in its own article. There isn't enough here to merit more than a single sentence in Tzeniut (modesty), and/or other related topics.
This article has been around for over a year, and that's still all of the content, so I'd have to conclude that there's nothing more to say about it - that there isn't anything that makes Yichud worth writing a whole article about.
The result was keep. Brandon ( talk) 07:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
This is a neologism sourced to one 1984 book. Similar AfDs for New Ivy League and Midwestern Ivy League resulted in deletion. (Also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canadian Ivy League (2nd nomination).) Since the article was first created in May 2009, the schools it lists as the Black Ivy league changed. A google search on "black ivy league" turns up media discussions of Ivy League faculty who happen to be African American, including the President of one Ivy League school who is African-American, and an organization called the Black Ivy Alumni League which is for Ivy League alumni who are African-American. I could not locate substantial secondary sources to support the wide-spread acceptance of this neologism. The content should be included in the articles for the individual schools. The content of the article does not identify any unique characteristics that could be used to identify a Black Ivy League school compared with other HBCUs. Also, a search of the US Patent and Trademark Office data base shows that both "Ivy League" and "The Ivy League" are registered trademarks. Racepacket ( talk) 15:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Extended content - 25 citations |
---|
|
Ref #2 and #16 are the same article in two places. Ref #19 discusses an abandoned proposal to create an athletic conference called "Black Ivy League." Ref #14 is an essay arguing that the phrase "Black Ivy League" is inappropriate. Ref #5 is hedged as "equivalent of a Black Ivy League." etc. Racepacket ( talk) 23:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 03:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC) reply
One pin of an interface standard - all the context is in RS 232 which this article must duplicate. Take out the duplication and what's left is trivial. Has been tagged for merge for years, but two merge attempts have been undone. Wtshymanski ( talk) 14:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply
A Wikiproject Serial Comms, anyone, to clean up this whole area? CrispMuncher ( talk) 16:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Brandon ( talk) 07:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Fundamentally a trivia list. — SlamDiego ←T 13:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. There is substantial support for keeping or merging the content on this page; editors can discuss possible merge targets on the talk page. Despite arguments for violations of WP:NOTNEWS, WP:CRYSTAL, and WP:RECENTISM, consensus doesn't side with these concerns, arguing that the coverage of the event goes beyond the routine. The article is very well sourced, and there is evidence that the events of the match are having an impact beyond the immediate aftermath. p.s. I'd like to plug the proposal WP:EVENT that addresses this kind of article. Fences& Windows 16:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Seriously, can people stop creating articles about this game? There's already precedent on not having articles the day after a controversial refereeing decision was made. (This could be considered a sister AfD with " Hand of Frog") cha ndl er 13:52, 19 November 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}} . |
Chaos sounds important. Also from the previous source: "The French president speaks to me after the game and says it was a handball. He says to me 'it was handball, I'm sorry'". Therefore the French President himself has apologised. The leaders Cowen and Sarkozy are to discuss the matter. Sweden is blaming its own referee, according to the same source, so perhaps that is relevant. It is far too early to decide that something like this ought to be deleted in my opinion and it seems to have already gathered enough momentum to become important for some time. -- can dle • wicke 21:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC) replyThere is no way the game can be replayed. "To do so would cause absolute chaos for football. If it was replayed, then every match in the future would also be subject to these calls for a replay any time a referee misses an incident.
Jbmurphy ( talk) 21:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply
(UTC) Comment Seeing as Mick seems to have taken it upon himself to harangue everyone who proposes deletion, maybe I could ask whether any of these !voters for "Keep for now/wait" like to defend that position? It is a reasonable request where the article is in need of improvement, but in no way is it in keeping with any principle of Wikipedia to preserve an article while acknowledging that it might, at a later date, be declared notable. Kevin McE ( talk) 21:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC) reply
With no wish to disenfranchise others, I do think that it is notable that, of those contributors who I know to be regular/semi-regular posters at WP:FOOTY, there seem to be 9 in favour of deletion , one neutral, and 4 in favour of retention. Among the football community here (who might be expected to represent those most enthusiatic about the sport's appearance on Wikipedia, most aware of footballing importance, and most alert to football inclusion principles) it would seem that support for the article is very limited. Other contributors of course have the right to their say. How many have come in response to the appeal at WP:ARS (or how many retentionists saw that request, but did not want to defend the article) I cannot comment on. Kevin McE ( talk) 09:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Actually I wasn't trying to say that just because it had a lot of hits that it was notable, all I was saying was there's a huge amount of interest in the article. Its also a bit unfair to say that it seems half of the hits on this article is vandalism from angry Ireland fans IMO this is a huge storm in a teacup but is still probably notable at least in the short term and if it survives may need to be revisited in the future when everything dies down. There are certain editors here who perhaps need to step back a little.
GainLine
♠
♥
19:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
- 1) According to BBC Newsnight (25 November 2009), Wikipedia is currently suffering from a massive loss of digruntled amateur editors. It is quite obvious that this article has been produced through the research and efforts of many such dedicated editors. To delete all their work because of a few Wikicrats' autocratic and subjective interpretation of some rules will be, at least in my opinion, a dreadful example of what probably causes a lot of the above-mentioned disgruntlement. - 2) The article is clearly also of considerable interest to many readers. - 3) It has been said as grounds for deletion that the article is likely to be of little interest in the long run outside Ireland. That is probably true, but irrelevant - perhaps 99% of Wikipedia articles are mostly of interest only to some minority or other (such as devotees of Blues music, or fans of Paris Hilton, etc...), but that is not normally grounds for deleting them. So to delete the article simply because the interested minority is Irish would seem grossly discriminatory, and may well be a civil or criminal offence under various anti-discrimination laws. As with all the other minority-interest articles on Wikipedia, those who are not interested don't have to read it. Incidentally, the fact that the article is mainly of interest to Irish people is also a good reason for not merging it with the Thierry Henry article as some have suggested. Tlhslobus ( talk) 10:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 02:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable film per WP:NF, WP:Conflict of interest by creator (see http://www.myspace.com/lilkeefee), unreferenced, no trace of it can be found online, possible WP:HOAX. Prod contested by creator. MuffledThud ( talk) 13:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 02:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable company per WP:COMPANY, no significant coverage online from reliable sources per WP:RS, conflict of interest per WP:COI (written by managing director of company). Prod contested by creator. MuffledThud ( talk) 13:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 6). Brandon ( talk) 07:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Procedural nomination. This article has been repeatedly switched to and from a redirect to List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 6). That target contains bios of all the X Factor finalists and opinion is divided as to whether an independent article over and above that is justified for this act. There has been no AfD, just a simple redirect to List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 6), a discussion should be held and in my opinion, is one of the popular contestants on this series of The X Factor. Hassaan19 ( talk) 16:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 16:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Already included at Man_v._Food_(season_1) and Man_v._Food_(season_2), in more detail than is covered in this article. Ferrantino ( talk) 18:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Brandon ( talk) 07:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Arbitrary list of generally unrelated articles. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 00:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Brandon ( talk) 07:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
This seems to be at best a dictionary definition and at worst a neologism. The first two "references" are examples of 'prooks' (as defined in the article) rather than sources about 'prooks'. The third is perhaps more promising, but I don't have a copy at hand. I doubt, however that Vita Sackville-West discusses the concept of a 'prook' therein; I think this "reference" was included just to help define the Bloomsbury circle. I also doubt that such a term would ever have been needed in polari. pablo hablo. 14:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Brandon ( talk) 07:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Team fails the tests for notability, as with previous examples of temporary teams. Darrenhusted ( talk) 12:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Tim Song ( talk) 00:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The subject of the article doesn't meet WP:N and does not qualify for an article of its own. Whilst I would accept that the series itself is notable, it does not follow that each individual album in the series should have an entry - see also WP:DIRECTORY. (If this deletion passes, I propose that we review the other 73 albums in the series, all of which appear to have current pages) Guinness ( talk) 11:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 02:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Student essay rather than encyclopedia article. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 09:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Republic of Ireland vs France (2010 FIFA World Cup Play-Off). Brandon ( talk) 07:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
![]() | This is NOT the main article about the France v Ireland game. Voting here is only a vote about the term 'Hand of Frog'. The main match article is here, which is also up for deletion here |
This event does not merit a article. The name is nothing but WP:NEO. Refereeing mistakes happen. We can't create a article for every one of them. cha ndl er 09:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 02:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable neologism coined yesterday, possibly by the author or a close relative. Also, to quote the article itself, "Many people who know better consider this an idea so obvious as to be not worth naming." Suffusion of Yellow ( talk) 09:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete under criterion G4. — Gwalla | Talk 19:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply
essay-like review of a band. Not an encylopedia article. Wuh Wuz Dat 08:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Brandon ( talk) 07:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Original research. Essay. Not an encyclopedia article. Wuh Wuz Dat 07:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 00:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Quoting WP:NOTDIR: "Contact information such as phone numbers, fax numbers and email addresses are not encyclopedic." Twitter addresses aren't that far removed from email addresses. No sources are provided to show that the addresses are verified (other than checking each address in turn); building the list is just shy of original research. Also, the list is incomplete, and I don't see it being completed in the foreseeable future, as governments continue to add Twitter feeds. While the criteria are well-defined, the list is so wide in scope that it will quickly explode beyond the 50–100 entries the creator expects. While I can accept that a Twitter feed might be an acceptable external link for the city's, county's, or state's article, there's no need to run a laundry list of them like this. — C.Fred ( talk) 05:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply
There aren't that many resources about the use of Twitter for Local Government. This list is going to be build and maintained by the webmasters of cities and counties.
Just as Wikipedia, it is not the goal to create a complete list, but a list of good references/best practices. A central (neutral and reliable) resource on the web about Twitter & local government is highly needed and will improve the use of Twitter (and social media) for local government and thus will result in better service for citizens.
Besides, this article is not in any way in conflict with the "Reasons for deletion" section in the "Wikipedia deletion policy", so please let us continue building an important reference for thousands of public servants through the country working in the internet industry. Or have a Wikipedia Deletion Patrol person that works in this specific field judge the importance of this resource. Dotgovcom ( talk) 05:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Dotgovcom ( talk) 06:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Brandon ( talk) 07:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Family law firm (3 attorneys) in Cardiff, Wales. Has received a couple of the kind of professional recognitions that many, many firms receive as a matter of course. That doesn't seem like it's enough to meet WP:CORP. Further, the article reads like an advertisement. NawlinWiki ( talk) 15:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Certain other arguments are, admittedly, red herrings. Partners being invited to comment on BBC Wales may indicate that the partner is notable, but that possible notability does not pass down to the practice. Nevertheless, there is a real case for notability here and I am confident that it would be possible to write a sourced, encyclopaedic stub about this practice.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 21:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC) reply
- OK, I've taken the liberty of rewriting the article in light of the above discussion. Once again, I have a freely-admitted COI here, and so it may need further editing or work to bring it up to the required standard, but I believe there are now enough sourced statements to satisfy the notability criteria. 84.92.8.221 ( talk) 14:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Wales has the same law as England, but is that germane? They are separate countries, and it's not as if Wales was the third world.
In what way are the sources I have listed inadequate, please?— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 18:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. unverifiable; blatant misinformation Tikiwont ( talk) 09:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Little more than a WP:DICTDEF, and I can't find any evidence of it in google. Deprodded without supplying anything to help WP:V this thing. DMacks ( talk) 02:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Keep ; nomination withdrawn, article substantially improved. Horologium (talk) 23:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)}} reply
I know the page was just moved into the main space but I don't think it looks ready. MajorMinorMark ( talk) 02:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 00:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Piece of software with no news or other coverage in reliable, independent sources. Previously deleted as a blatant advertisement, the page serves only to mention and promote the software. Protonk ( talk) 01:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Notability doesn't appear to be met, per WP:MUSIC here Tony Fox (arf!) 05:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable band. None of the the criteria at WP:MUSIC are met: one EP release on a non-notable label. Their music was aparrently used in a skating video entered into a competition but that is still well short of criterion #10 at WP:MUSIC. I42 ( talk) 07:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the article about one of the band members for the same reasons:
The result was keep. The potential of expanding and renaming this article to be about Alder Biopharmaceuticals has support, this should be discussed on the article talk page. The notability of this individual therapeutic is debatable, but there's no consensus for deletion. Fences& Windows 16:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Some monoclonal antibody agent that is in its early stages of testing. May never become approved for any indication, unlikely to be informative. JFW | T@lk 21:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Reading through the discussion, it seems obvious that there's no consensus as to whether or not the topic is sufficiently notable. Most participants agree that the article is in need of cleanup, including the addition of reliable sources, and despite a higher number of keep "votes" than deletes, no such references have been provided. – Juliancolton | Talk 18:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The creator of the article has removed the PROD claiming that notability has been established with the current set of references. None of the references establish notability and only mention the company in passing. I have tried to search for evidence of notability in reliable sources, but only turn up social media sites mentioning the organization. ConcernedVancouverite ( talk) 00:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. I'll start a move discussion on the talk page. ( non-admin closure) Tim Song ( talk) 00:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The article title "Seating" doesn't really describe this article, which is about seating at entertainment venues. It has one source that cites a ban in one city of one type of seating but no sources to actual define seating or any of these seating arrangements and absolutely nothing towards notability. It acts more like original research for the article creator's personal selection of what to include. Stadium seating has an article, perhaps reserved seating and/or general admission deserve articles too, but "seating" is a broad and unnotable topic and this article has little to it. I would like to also point out that of festival seating, general admission (which I personally see used to describe ANY situation of unassigned seating - including festival seating) and reserved seating are TICKETING arrangements or seating ASSIGNMENT types, and are not TYPES of seating (eg: stadium seating is a way seats can be arranged. General admission is a way seats are assigned). The one section on "chair arrangement" which is the only part that actually talks about seating is woahfully underinformative and treats the reader like a moron (seats usually face the thing people are there to see? shocking) This section is a two-sentence paragraph that says almost nothing about entertainment seating, and another one-sentence paragraph that talks about seating on a vehicle in which it says seats could be forward, backward, or facing the side.... why the article singles out only these two venues to discuss (without even discussing them at all), I don't know TheHYPO ( talk) 21:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Tim Song ( talk) 00:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The page has been unsourced for over 2 years. In all my very extensive work for Davenport, Iowa, History of Davenport, Iowa, and Neighborhoods of Davenport, Iowa, I never came across anything about Bucktown, therefore it isn't very notable. CTJF83 chat 00:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Nobody but the nomination is convinced that this violates WP:SYNTH. Fences& Windows 16:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
This is a somewhat unusual request for deletion for a number of reasons. The article is heavily referenced and there is a plenty of detail. In fact a lot of work has gone into this article. However there are numerous issues that make the existence of this article problematic. I think it is admirable that editors have tried to create a list of haplogroups by ethnic group, but unfortunately the effort has resulted in issues that could violate WP:NOR and in particular WP:SYNTH. It is practically impossible to have a single article that describes the haplogroup profile of every ethnic group in the world.
For those unfamiliar with haplogroups, this article List of R1a frequency by population lists the same information but for just one haplogroup, that is Haplogroup R1a (Y-DNA). The list is quite long, and the article is about 66kb which is relatively large. However this is just one haplogroup, there are in fact hundreds more just like haplogroup r1a. Therefore it is practically impossible to cram all such information into one article. Despite the fact that Y-DNA haplogroups by ethnic groups is nowhere near being comprehensive, it is already illegible with one needing to scroll up and down to match a percentage with an ethnic group and a haplogroup. Not to mention that hundreds of haplogroups are missing and several ethnic groups are missing. In short this article is mission impossible. It was feasible in the early days of y-chromosome genotyping when there was very little information. But now there is wealth of data available. I suggest that this project be abandoned, and editors instead focus on particular haplogroups, in a manner similar to List of R1a frequency by population. Wapondaponda ( talk) 00:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply
I also agree with Brianann's points that there are a lot of issues to consider. For example sample size varies significantly, from as few as 28 to as many as 2000. Furthermore many ethnic groups are listed multiple times, eg northern egyptians vs southern egyptians, Albanians are listed six times. The result is an apples and oranges situation which risks becoming a WP:SYNTH. The R1a table does list sample sizes, which I believe is more accurate. Wapondaponda ( talk) 10:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply
I think there is a general consensus that the information contained in this article is useful and should be included in this encyclopedia. The debate is whether the information should be as it is currently or in some other forms. The issues that need to be addressed include:
Of course incomplete information is better than no information. But complete information is better than both incomplete information and no information. Currently this article is woefully incomplete. Wapondaponda ( talk) 21:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC) I have tried to add some information so as to get a feel of how including more of the global haplogroups would affect the article. this version, has many of the haplogroups found around the world. The cells aren't properly aligned, but that's because I tried to automate the process, and didn't work out that well. Trying to manually tinker with a wikitable that size involves a lot of repetitive edits and the opportunity for mistakes is high. With most of the global haplogroups, the article is about 200kb but I haven't added any data or ethnic groups, just haplogroups. Unfortunately, I only have access to a low bandwidth connection, so editing an article that size takes forever. Wapondaponda ( talk) 15:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. @ harej 00:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
This article is about a now indefinitely postponed martial arts event promoted by It's Showtime. Given the lack of a scheduled date, and the near conclusion of 2009, it seems to be a bit speculative to have an article on the subject. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Kevin ( talk) 22:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC) reply
There are lots of race results, but I don't see any articles that feature the athlete or mention anything other than their finishes. While running is a tricky sport to evaluate, it fails WP:ATHLETE. Shadowjams ( talk) 05:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 02:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
This is a list of guests who were on an Australian talk show, Enough Rope. This article, and the article on the other two years are unencyclopedic, specifically violating WP:NOT#DIR, electronic program guides. I am also nominating the following related articles:
]
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 00:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable residence. I think that this is it [73]. Some sort of vacation cottage?? :) Buddy23Lee ( talk) 00:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Nothing to merge, book already mentioned in author's article JohnCD ( talk) 12:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Spamvertisement by a COI editor for his own self-published book; no assertion of notability, no sources, no evidence of notability - a blatant self-advertisement and failure to meet WP:BOOK Orange Mike | Talk 00:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. NW ( Talk) 03:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
article has four references: two of which are significant from reliable sources. i'm sure that will attract the typical keep vote.
but - the product is now dead and was just one of several "WebOS" style offerings from the last several years. it was not unique in features, style, or business concept. deletion rationale here is a variant of fifteen minutes of fame and not news. If this should be kept, maybe a Dot-com graveyard article that these types of also-ran products can be dumped to? SchmuckyTheCat ( talk) 19:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 00:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
There are questions regarding the notability of this product and organization. The article is based primarily on the work of a single editor, Siringa ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), the majority of whose edits are related to adding this company's products. The article has been recreated three times following speedy deletion, each time by the same user. Ckatz chat spy 21:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Kevin ( talk) 23:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC) reply
I can't find significant coverage fo rthis software. Joe Chill ( talk) 22:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Per the general consensus, the topic seems adequately notable. – Juliancolton | Talk 18:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable Russian pejorative neologism/internet meme. Colchicum ( talk) 00:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Tim Song ( talk) 00:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD. No known citations that support the significance of the subject. causa sui × 00:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. There is sufficient consensus here that this a vaild article and not just a neologism. The rewrite since nomination is at least a good start in addressing concerns about how the article was written which is not generally a deletion issue anyway. Davewild ( talk) 18:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Advertisement for as-yet non-notable neologism Orange Mike | Talk 00:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Extended content |
---|
Onboarding is the process of getting new employees or new users up to speed. [2] Critical steps of onboarding include acquiring, accommodating, assimilating and accelerating new employees or new users into a system, culture or methodology. While the term "onboarding" is somewhat new, efforts to get new employees or users up to speed have been used for a long time. The Economist talked about the evolution of onboarding in its article on "That tricky first 100 days" in which it describes three areas of focus for onboarding: “getting up to speed, forging effective relationships and accomplishing what is expected.”. [3] BusinessWeek described onboarding in its article on "How to Take the Reins At Top Speed" [4] Since then, more and more firms have deployed onboarding well beyond just managing new hire paperwork, orientation or initial introductions. Many now have created jobs titled "Onboarding Manager".
Acquire: Identify, recruit, select and get people to join. Onboarding is a core personal and management skill. Effective onboarding of people can be one of the most important contributions any hiring manager/direct supervisor or Human Resources professional can make to long-term organizational success, because onboarding done right can improve productivity, talent retention and build shared culture. Onboarding may be especially valuable for executives transitioning into complex roles because it may be difficult for individuals to uncover personal, organizational and role risks in complicated situations when they don't have formal onboarding assistance.
See also recruitment and human resources. Obtaining new employees consists of identifying, recruiting, selecting and getting people to join the organization. Those most effective at this start to prepare for their new employee’s success even before starting to recruit. They clarify their destination by creating a recruiting brief, laying out their onboarding plan and aligning others that will have to work with and support the new employee.
New employees must be given the tools they need to work. Cost reduction in the onboarding process often focuses on the replacement of paper forms processes with electronic processes that are faster, more accurate, eliminate document shipping costs, eliminate data reentry costs, and mitigate risks. This aspect of onboarding is known as transactional onboarding. [5] Employment laws must be carefully followed. Organizations seek to mitigate any risk by use of an onboarding process. Some processes are expected to ensure the quality of the data collected from the candidate, the completeness and accuracy of the forms they submit, and to interface their data to government (primarily for new hire reporting and immigration control, such as the Department of Homeland Security’s e-Verify program) and 3rd party vendors (most often for background and drug testing). An onboarding technology’s application of business rules and related technology is often of interest to the organization in mitigating risk. Robust onboarding systems mitigate this risk by fully integrating the transactional onboarding process with non-repudiated signature technologies and employment authorization verification.
It’s essential for new employees to become part of the culture they are joining. Assimilation or socialization is how that is accomplished. Effective organizations proactively introduce new employees to the most important people they need to work with in one-on-one meetings, small group meetings, projects, behind-the-scenes networks and large meetings. They also leverage evolving technologies to help employees assimilate.
Getting employees "up to speed" is the end goal of onboarding. To accelerate transitions, onboarding should include new job preparation efforts to give new employees a head start before day one, an announcement process that sets the new employee up for success, resources, support and follow through the first 90 to 100 days, at a minimum. Accelerating transitions is different for internal promotions or transfers and external hires. In the former, the employee may know many of the people he or she will be working with, and may be familiar with some of the landmines and threats. These transitions need to emphasize the change in relationships with former peers and managers, shifting old roles and responsibilities to others, and providing new insights and new opportunities. In contrast, the external hire’s focus should be on rapidly learning the landscape, the supporters and detractors, understanding the core issues, and clarifying the role. Both, however, require articulating the strategies, operational methods and people strategy that will lead to a rapid successful outcome.
"Onboarding: How To Get Your New Employees Up To Speed In Half The Time" - George Bradt and Mary Vonnegut (John Wiley & Sons, 2009 - ISBN 0470407034) "Your Next Move: The Leader's Guide to Navigating Major Career Transitions" - Michael D. Watkins (Harvard Business Press, 2009 - ISBN 1422147630) "The New Leader's 100-Day Action Plan" - George Bradt, Jayme Check and Jorge Pedraza (John Wiley & Sons, 2006, revised edition 2009 - ISBN 0470485817) "The First 90-days" - Michael Watkins (Harvard Business School Publishing, 2003 - ISBN 1591391105) |
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 00:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
any relevant information should be in International recognition of Kosovo. this topic does not deserve its own standalone article. there is no other diplomatic relations except recognition, NZ has no peacekeepers in Kosovo? LibStar ( talk) 00:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 11:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Spamvert for obscure business writer; obvious COI problems, but those are not grounds for deletion Orange Mike | Talk 00:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Only a SPA argued for keep. No good evidence for passing WP:BIO. Fences& Windows 17:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
fails WP:BIO, the article is full of unreliable sources such as youtube and photo site links. could not find any in depth coverage of him [1]. there is a "Actor-comedian David Allen Grier " which I'm not sure is the same person in any case this David also gets very limited coverage. LibStar ( talk) 22:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Brandon ( talk) 08:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Although obvious advertising can be seen, I am unsure of the catagory most suitable for this article. MajorMinorMark ( talk) 22:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Nominator blocked for sockpuppetry J.delanoy gabs adds 02:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Obvious advertising is obvious. MajorMinorMark ( talk) 22:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Atlassian. So Why 10:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC) reply
I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill ( talk) 23:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 02:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Two problems: it's a dictionary definition, and it also appears to offer the wrong meaning. The root laic means secular (see Laïcité). As far as I can tell "laicology" is only used in theological circles to refer to secular issues, absolutely nothing about "adaptability" or "work environments." Entry has been tagged for export to Wiktionary, but there's no point preserving an incorrect definition. Prod declined. Hairhorn ( talk) 19:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Kevin ( talk) 22:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC) reply
No assertion of notability. References include one primary source and a source, which is connected to the subject. Searching for anything more substantial was unsuccessful. Óðinn ☭☆ talk 17:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. no obvious merge target has emerged so no-consensus but I would say that amerge appears to be a significant stand of opinion here Spartaz Humbug! 03:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Mid-price compilation. Has failed to appear on any notable music chart. Lack of significant coverage by reliable sources. I've also listed those related articles for the same reason:
Kekkomereq4 ( talk) 19:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Note: All of the "related" articles each had their own AfD opened when I believe it was the nominator's intent to bundle them into one. I have closed all of them and copied any delete !votes below: KuyaBriBri Talk 19:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC) reply
MERGE into the Grace jones article or into the 20th century masters article.-- 99.182.21.35 ( talk) 02:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Brandon ( talk) 08:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Article about a "feature film" made on a budget of £200 and with its first screening not due till 23 Nov. The article offers no evidence, and I can find none, that this film is notable to the standard of Notability (films). Searches are complicated, because Michael Henry is a common name and Ennui is a common word and the name of several films, but putting them together finds only Facebook, Youtube and the like. PROD removed by author without comment. JohnCD ( talk) 20:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Brandon ( talk) 08:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:GNG and WP:ATH as he's never played professionally. Giants 27( Contribs| WP:CFL) 20:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Tear of meniscus. Brandon ( talk) 08:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Much better article already exists, Tear of meniscus. Article creator continues to revert to this version and has ignored my attempts to communicate. Beach drifter ( talk) 19:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Tim Song ( talk) 00:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Mayors, per se, are not notable. Nothing here indicates otherwise. Student7 ( talk) 19:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. arguments that play the nominator and not the article have been discarded. Arguments that assert notability through generalities and assertions have been given much less weight the those providing analysis of the available sourcing. There maybe a case for notability per Шизомби but there was no indication of the depth of coverage and this remains a BLP with inadequate sourcing at the time of closing. Spartaz Humbug! 03:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Notability Dust diamond ( talk) 18:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Brandon ( talk) 08:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Does not meet notability or wp:athlete. Google does not show significant coverage in reliable sources. Seems to be a local high school star, and coverage is limited to that. Omarcheeseboro ( talk) 18:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Brandon ( talk) 08:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable fundraising activity, one of many to help finance medical research. Google searches do not bring up anything that helps the article achieve WP:GNG. Warrah ( talk) 17:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. A decision to merge should be discussed and finalized on the article talk page. – Juliancolton | Talk 18:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Bus terminal with no claim of notability Delete Secret account 17:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Brandon ( talk) 07:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Delete. This is a trivial and 99% unsourced directory of shibboleths with little to no encyclopedic value. JBsupreme ( talk) 17:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep per WP:SNOW. GARDEN 21:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Article appears to consist of a single sentence's worth of content - most succinctly written as traditionally, seclusion of a man and woman together in the same room on their own (Hebrew:Yichud), was forbidden, in Judaism, unless they were married to each other. Everything else is either repetition or a general point not specific to Yichud. Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, attitudes to Yichud are the same as their respective general attitudes to halacha - their conclusion about Yichud is self-evident, and doesn't need stating in its own article. There isn't enough here to merit more than a single sentence in Tzeniut (modesty), and/or other related topics.
This article has been around for over a year, and that's still all of the content, so I'd have to conclude that there's nothing more to say about it - that there isn't anything that makes Yichud worth writing a whole article about.
The result was keep. Brandon ( talk) 07:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
This is a neologism sourced to one 1984 book. Similar AfDs for New Ivy League and Midwestern Ivy League resulted in deletion. (Also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canadian Ivy League (2nd nomination).) Since the article was first created in May 2009, the schools it lists as the Black Ivy league changed. A google search on "black ivy league" turns up media discussions of Ivy League faculty who happen to be African American, including the President of one Ivy League school who is African-American, and an organization called the Black Ivy Alumni League which is for Ivy League alumni who are African-American. I could not locate substantial secondary sources to support the wide-spread acceptance of this neologism. The content should be included in the articles for the individual schools. The content of the article does not identify any unique characteristics that could be used to identify a Black Ivy League school compared with other HBCUs. Also, a search of the US Patent and Trademark Office data base shows that both "Ivy League" and "The Ivy League" are registered trademarks. Racepacket ( talk) 15:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Extended content - 25 citations |
---|
|
Ref #2 and #16 are the same article in two places. Ref #19 discusses an abandoned proposal to create an athletic conference called "Black Ivy League." Ref #14 is an essay arguing that the phrase "Black Ivy League" is inappropriate. Ref #5 is hedged as "equivalent of a Black Ivy League." etc. Racepacket ( talk) 23:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 03:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC) reply
One pin of an interface standard - all the context is in RS 232 which this article must duplicate. Take out the duplication and what's left is trivial. Has been tagged for merge for years, but two merge attempts have been undone. Wtshymanski ( talk) 14:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply
A Wikiproject Serial Comms, anyone, to clean up this whole area? CrispMuncher ( talk) 16:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Brandon ( talk) 07:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Fundamentally a trivia list. — SlamDiego ←T 13:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. There is substantial support for keeping or merging the content on this page; editors can discuss possible merge targets on the talk page. Despite arguments for violations of WP:NOTNEWS, WP:CRYSTAL, and WP:RECENTISM, consensus doesn't side with these concerns, arguing that the coverage of the event goes beyond the routine. The article is very well sourced, and there is evidence that the events of the match are having an impact beyond the immediate aftermath. p.s. I'd like to plug the proposal WP:EVENT that addresses this kind of article. Fences& Windows 16:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Seriously, can people stop creating articles about this game? There's already precedent on not having articles the day after a controversial refereeing decision was made. (This could be considered a sister AfD with " Hand of Frog") cha ndl er 13:52, 19 November 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}} . |
Chaos sounds important. Also from the previous source: "The French president speaks to me after the game and says it was a handball. He says to me 'it was handball, I'm sorry'". Therefore the French President himself has apologised. The leaders Cowen and Sarkozy are to discuss the matter. Sweden is blaming its own referee, according to the same source, so perhaps that is relevant. It is far too early to decide that something like this ought to be deleted in my opinion and it seems to have already gathered enough momentum to become important for some time. -- can dle • wicke 21:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC) replyThere is no way the game can be replayed. "To do so would cause absolute chaos for football. If it was replayed, then every match in the future would also be subject to these calls for a replay any time a referee misses an incident.
Jbmurphy ( talk) 21:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply
(UTC) Comment Seeing as Mick seems to have taken it upon himself to harangue everyone who proposes deletion, maybe I could ask whether any of these !voters for "Keep for now/wait" like to defend that position? It is a reasonable request where the article is in need of improvement, but in no way is it in keeping with any principle of Wikipedia to preserve an article while acknowledging that it might, at a later date, be declared notable. Kevin McE ( talk) 21:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC) reply
With no wish to disenfranchise others, I do think that it is notable that, of those contributors who I know to be regular/semi-regular posters at WP:FOOTY, there seem to be 9 in favour of deletion , one neutral, and 4 in favour of retention. Among the football community here (who might be expected to represent those most enthusiatic about the sport's appearance on Wikipedia, most aware of footballing importance, and most alert to football inclusion principles) it would seem that support for the article is very limited. Other contributors of course have the right to their say. How many have come in response to the appeal at WP:ARS (or how many retentionists saw that request, but did not want to defend the article) I cannot comment on. Kevin McE ( talk) 09:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Actually I wasn't trying to say that just because it had a lot of hits that it was notable, all I was saying was there's a huge amount of interest in the article. Its also a bit unfair to say that it seems half of the hits on this article is vandalism from angry Ireland fans IMO this is a huge storm in a teacup but is still probably notable at least in the short term and if it survives may need to be revisited in the future when everything dies down. There are certain editors here who perhaps need to step back a little.
GainLine
♠
♥
19:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
- 1) According to BBC Newsnight (25 November 2009), Wikipedia is currently suffering from a massive loss of digruntled amateur editors. It is quite obvious that this article has been produced through the research and efforts of many such dedicated editors. To delete all their work because of a few Wikicrats' autocratic and subjective interpretation of some rules will be, at least in my opinion, a dreadful example of what probably causes a lot of the above-mentioned disgruntlement. - 2) The article is clearly also of considerable interest to many readers. - 3) It has been said as grounds for deletion that the article is likely to be of little interest in the long run outside Ireland. That is probably true, but irrelevant - perhaps 99% of Wikipedia articles are mostly of interest only to some minority or other (such as devotees of Blues music, or fans of Paris Hilton, etc...), but that is not normally grounds for deleting them. So to delete the article simply because the interested minority is Irish would seem grossly discriminatory, and may well be a civil or criminal offence under various anti-discrimination laws. As with all the other minority-interest articles on Wikipedia, those who are not interested don't have to read it. Incidentally, the fact that the article is mainly of interest to Irish people is also a good reason for not merging it with the Thierry Henry article as some have suggested. Tlhslobus ( talk) 10:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 02:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable film per WP:NF, WP:Conflict of interest by creator (see http://www.myspace.com/lilkeefee), unreferenced, no trace of it can be found online, possible WP:HOAX. Prod contested by creator. MuffledThud ( talk) 13:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 02:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable company per WP:COMPANY, no significant coverage online from reliable sources per WP:RS, conflict of interest per WP:COI (written by managing director of company). Prod contested by creator. MuffledThud ( talk) 13:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 6). Brandon ( talk) 07:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Procedural nomination. This article has been repeatedly switched to and from a redirect to List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 6). That target contains bios of all the X Factor finalists and opinion is divided as to whether an independent article over and above that is justified for this act. There has been no AfD, just a simple redirect to List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 6), a discussion should be held and in my opinion, is one of the popular contestants on this series of The X Factor. Hassaan19 ( talk) 16:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 16:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Already included at Man_v._Food_(season_1) and Man_v._Food_(season_2), in more detail than is covered in this article. Ferrantino ( talk) 18:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Brandon ( talk) 07:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Arbitrary list of generally unrelated articles. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 00:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Brandon ( talk) 07:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
This seems to be at best a dictionary definition and at worst a neologism. The first two "references" are examples of 'prooks' (as defined in the article) rather than sources about 'prooks'. The third is perhaps more promising, but I don't have a copy at hand. I doubt, however that Vita Sackville-West discusses the concept of a 'prook' therein; I think this "reference" was included just to help define the Bloomsbury circle. I also doubt that such a term would ever have been needed in polari. pablo hablo. 14:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Brandon ( talk) 07:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Team fails the tests for notability, as with previous examples of temporary teams. Darrenhusted ( talk) 12:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Tim Song ( talk) 00:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The subject of the article doesn't meet WP:N and does not qualify for an article of its own. Whilst I would accept that the series itself is notable, it does not follow that each individual album in the series should have an entry - see also WP:DIRECTORY. (If this deletion passes, I propose that we review the other 73 albums in the series, all of which appear to have current pages) Guinness ( talk) 11:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 02:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Student essay rather than encyclopedia article. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 09:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Republic of Ireland vs France (2010 FIFA World Cup Play-Off). Brandon ( talk) 07:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
![]() | This is NOT the main article about the France v Ireland game. Voting here is only a vote about the term 'Hand of Frog'. The main match article is here, which is also up for deletion here |
This event does not merit a article. The name is nothing but WP:NEO. Refereeing mistakes happen. We can't create a article for every one of them. cha ndl er 09:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 02:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable neologism coined yesterday, possibly by the author or a close relative. Also, to quote the article itself, "Many people who know better consider this an idea so obvious as to be not worth naming." Suffusion of Yellow ( talk) 09:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete under criterion G4. — Gwalla | Talk 19:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply
essay-like review of a band. Not an encylopedia article. Wuh Wuz Dat 08:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Brandon ( talk) 07:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Original research. Essay. Not an encyclopedia article. Wuh Wuz Dat 07:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 00:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Quoting WP:NOTDIR: "Contact information such as phone numbers, fax numbers and email addresses are not encyclopedic." Twitter addresses aren't that far removed from email addresses. No sources are provided to show that the addresses are verified (other than checking each address in turn); building the list is just shy of original research. Also, the list is incomplete, and I don't see it being completed in the foreseeable future, as governments continue to add Twitter feeds. While the criteria are well-defined, the list is so wide in scope that it will quickly explode beyond the 50–100 entries the creator expects. While I can accept that a Twitter feed might be an acceptable external link for the city's, county's, or state's article, there's no need to run a laundry list of them like this. — C.Fred ( talk) 05:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply
There aren't that many resources about the use of Twitter for Local Government. This list is going to be build and maintained by the webmasters of cities and counties.
Just as Wikipedia, it is not the goal to create a complete list, but a list of good references/best practices. A central (neutral and reliable) resource on the web about Twitter & local government is highly needed and will improve the use of Twitter (and social media) for local government and thus will result in better service for citizens.
Besides, this article is not in any way in conflict with the "Reasons for deletion" section in the "Wikipedia deletion policy", so please let us continue building an important reference for thousands of public servants through the country working in the internet industry. Or have a Wikipedia Deletion Patrol person that works in this specific field judge the importance of this resource. Dotgovcom ( talk) 05:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Dotgovcom ( talk) 06:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Brandon ( talk) 07:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Family law firm (3 attorneys) in Cardiff, Wales. Has received a couple of the kind of professional recognitions that many, many firms receive as a matter of course. That doesn't seem like it's enough to meet WP:CORP. Further, the article reads like an advertisement. NawlinWiki ( talk) 15:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Certain other arguments are, admittedly, red herrings. Partners being invited to comment on BBC Wales may indicate that the partner is notable, but that possible notability does not pass down to the practice. Nevertheless, there is a real case for notability here and I am confident that it would be possible to write a sourced, encyclopaedic stub about this practice.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 21:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC) reply
- OK, I've taken the liberty of rewriting the article in light of the above discussion. Once again, I have a freely-admitted COI here, and so it may need further editing or work to bring it up to the required standard, but I believe there are now enough sourced statements to satisfy the notability criteria. 84.92.8.221 ( talk) 14:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Wales has the same law as England, but is that germane? They are separate countries, and it's not as if Wales was the third world.
In what way are the sources I have listed inadequate, please?— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 18:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. unverifiable; blatant misinformation Tikiwont ( talk) 09:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Little more than a WP:DICTDEF, and I can't find any evidence of it in google. Deprodded without supplying anything to help WP:V this thing. DMacks ( talk) 02:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Keep ; nomination withdrawn, article substantially improved. Horologium (talk) 23:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)}} reply
I know the page was just moved into the main space but I don't think it looks ready. MajorMinorMark ( talk) 02:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 00:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Piece of software with no news or other coverage in reliable, independent sources. Previously deleted as a blatant advertisement, the page serves only to mention and promote the software. Protonk ( talk) 01:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Notability doesn't appear to be met, per WP:MUSIC here Tony Fox (arf!) 05:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable band. None of the the criteria at WP:MUSIC are met: one EP release on a non-notable label. Their music was aparrently used in a skating video entered into a competition but that is still well short of criterion #10 at WP:MUSIC. I42 ( talk) 07:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the article about one of the band members for the same reasons:
The result was keep. The potential of expanding and renaming this article to be about Alder Biopharmaceuticals has support, this should be discussed on the article talk page. The notability of this individual therapeutic is debatable, but there's no consensus for deletion. Fences& Windows 16:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Some monoclonal antibody agent that is in its early stages of testing. May never become approved for any indication, unlikely to be informative. JFW | T@lk 21:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Reading through the discussion, it seems obvious that there's no consensus as to whether or not the topic is sufficiently notable. Most participants agree that the article is in need of cleanup, including the addition of reliable sources, and despite a higher number of keep "votes" than deletes, no such references have been provided. – Juliancolton | Talk 18:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The creator of the article has removed the PROD claiming that notability has been established with the current set of references. None of the references establish notability and only mention the company in passing. I have tried to search for evidence of notability in reliable sources, but only turn up social media sites mentioning the organization. ConcernedVancouverite ( talk) 00:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. I'll start a move discussion on the talk page. ( non-admin closure) Tim Song ( talk) 00:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The article title "Seating" doesn't really describe this article, which is about seating at entertainment venues. It has one source that cites a ban in one city of one type of seating but no sources to actual define seating or any of these seating arrangements and absolutely nothing towards notability. It acts more like original research for the article creator's personal selection of what to include. Stadium seating has an article, perhaps reserved seating and/or general admission deserve articles too, but "seating" is a broad and unnotable topic and this article has little to it. I would like to also point out that of festival seating, general admission (which I personally see used to describe ANY situation of unassigned seating - including festival seating) and reserved seating are TICKETING arrangements or seating ASSIGNMENT types, and are not TYPES of seating (eg: stadium seating is a way seats can be arranged. General admission is a way seats are assigned). The one section on "chair arrangement" which is the only part that actually talks about seating is woahfully underinformative and treats the reader like a moron (seats usually face the thing people are there to see? shocking) This section is a two-sentence paragraph that says almost nothing about entertainment seating, and another one-sentence paragraph that talks about seating on a vehicle in which it says seats could be forward, backward, or facing the side.... why the article singles out only these two venues to discuss (without even discussing them at all), I don't know TheHYPO ( talk) 21:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Tim Song ( talk) 00:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The page has been unsourced for over 2 years. In all my very extensive work for Davenport, Iowa, History of Davenport, Iowa, and Neighborhoods of Davenport, Iowa, I never came across anything about Bucktown, therefore it isn't very notable. CTJF83 chat 00:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Nobody but the nomination is convinced that this violates WP:SYNTH. Fences& Windows 16:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
This is a somewhat unusual request for deletion for a number of reasons. The article is heavily referenced and there is a plenty of detail. In fact a lot of work has gone into this article. However there are numerous issues that make the existence of this article problematic. I think it is admirable that editors have tried to create a list of haplogroups by ethnic group, but unfortunately the effort has resulted in issues that could violate WP:NOR and in particular WP:SYNTH. It is practically impossible to have a single article that describes the haplogroup profile of every ethnic group in the world.
For those unfamiliar with haplogroups, this article List of R1a frequency by population lists the same information but for just one haplogroup, that is Haplogroup R1a (Y-DNA). The list is quite long, and the article is about 66kb which is relatively large. However this is just one haplogroup, there are in fact hundreds more just like haplogroup r1a. Therefore it is practically impossible to cram all such information into one article. Despite the fact that Y-DNA haplogroups by ethnic groups is nowhere near being comprehensive, it is already illegible with one needing to scroll up and down to match a percentage with an ethnic group and a haplogroup. Not to mention that hundreds of haplogroups are missing and several ethnic groups are missing. In short this article is mission impossible. It was feasible in the early days of y-chromosome genotyping when there was very little information. But now there is wealth of data available. I suggest that this project be abandoned, and editors instead focus on particular haplogroups, in a manner similar to List of R1a frequency by population. Wapondaponda ( talk) 00:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply
I also agree with Brianann's points that there are a lot of issues to consider. For example sample size varies significantly, from as few as 28 to as many as 2000. Furthermore many ethnic groups are listed multiple times, eg northern egyptians vs southern egyptians, Albanians are listed six times. The result is an apples and oranges situation which risks becoming a WP:SYNTH. The R1a table does list sample sizes, which I believe is more accurate. Wapondaponda ( talk) 10:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply
I think there is a general consensus that the information contained in this article is useful and should be included in this encyclopedia. The debate is whether the information should be as it is currently or in some other forms. The issues that need to be addressed include:
Of course incomplete information is better than no information. But complete information is better than both incomplete information and no information. Currently this article is woefully incomplete. Wapondaponda ( talk) 21:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC) I have tried to add some information so as to get a feel of how including more of the global haplogroups would affect the article. this version, has many of the haplogroups found around the world. The cells aren't properly aligned, but that's because I tried to automate the process, and didn't work out that well. Trying to manually tinker with a wikitable that size involves a lot of repetitive edits and the opportunity for mistakes is high. With most of the global haplogroups, the article is about 200kb but I haven't added any data or ethnic groups, just haplogroups. Unfortunately, I only have access to a low bandwidth connection, so editing an article that size takes forever. Wapondaponda ( talk) 15:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. @ harej 00:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
This article is about a now indefinitely postponed martial arts event promoted by It's Showtime. Given the lack of a scheduled date, and the near conclusion of 2009, it seems to be a bit speculative to have an article on the subject. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Kevin ( talk) 22:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC) reply
There are lots of race results, but I don't see any articles that feature the athlete or mention anything other than their finishes. While running is a tricky sport to evaluate, it fails WP:ATHLETE. Shadowjams ( talk) 05:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 02:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
This is a list of guests who were on an Australian talk show, Enough Rope. This article, and the article on the other two years are unencyclopedic, specifically violating WP:NOT#DIR, electronic program guides. I am also nominating the following related articles:
]
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 00:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable residence. I think that this is it [73]. Some sort of vacation cottage?? :) Buddy23Lee ( talk) 00:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Nothing to merge, book already mentioned in author's article JohnCD ( talk) 12:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Spamvertisement by a COI editor for his own self-published book; no assertion of notability, no sources, no evidence of notability - a blatant self-advertisement and failure to meet WP:BOOK Orange Mike | Talk 00:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. NW ( Talk) 03:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
article has four references: two of which are significant from reliable sources. i'm sure that will attract the typical keep vote.
but - the product is now dead and was just one of several "WebOS" style offerings from the last several years. it was not unique in features, style, or business concept. deletion rationale here is a variant of fifteen minutes of fame and not news. If this should be kept, maybe a Dot-com graveyard article that these types of also-ran products can be dumped to? SchmuckyTheCat ( talk) 19:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 00:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
There are questions regarding the notability of this product and organization. The article is based primarily on the work of a single editor, Siringa ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), the majority of whose edits are related to adding this company's products. The article has been recreated three times following speedy deletion, each time by the same user. Ckatz chat spy 21:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Kevin ( talk) 23:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC) reply
I can't find significant coverage fo rthis software. Joe Chill ( talk) 22:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Per the general consensus, the topic seems adequately notable. – Juliancolton | Talk 18:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable Russian pejorative neologism/internet meme. Colchicum ( talk) 00:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Tim Song ( talk) 00:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD. No known citations that support the significance of the subject. causa sui × 00:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. There is sufficient consensus here that this a vaild article and not just a neologism. The rewrite since nomination is at least a good start in addressing concerns about how the article was written which is not generally a deletion issue anyway. Davewild ( talk) 18:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Advertisement for as-yet non-notable neologism Orange Mike | Talk 00:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Extended content |
---|
Onboarding is the process of getting new employees or new users up to speed. [2] Critical steps of onboarding include acquiring, accommodating, assimilating and accelerating new employees or new users into a system, culture or methodology. While the term "onboarding" is somewhat new, efforts to get new employees or users up to speed have been used for a long time. The Economist talked about the evolution of onboarding in its article on "That tricky first 100 days" in which it describes three areas of focus for onboarding: “getting up to speed, forging effective relationships and accomplishing what is expected.”. [3] BusinessWeek described onboarding in its article on "How to Take the Reins At Top Speed" [4] Since then, more and more firms have deployed onboarding well beyond just managing new hire paperwork, orientation or initial introductions. Many now have created jobs titled "Onboarding Manager".
Acquire: Identify, recruit, select and get people to join. Onboarding is a core personal and management skill. Effective onboarding of people can be one of the most important contributions any hiring manager/direct supervisor or Human Resources professional can make to long-term organizational success, because onboarding done right can improve productivity, talent retention and build shared culture. Onboarding may be especially valuable for executives transitioning into complex roles because it may be difficult for individuals to uncover personal, organizational and role risks in complicated situations when they don't have formal onboarding assistance.
See also recruitment and human resources. Obtaining new employees consists of identifying, recruiting, selecting and getting people to join the organization. Those most effective at this start to prepare for their new employee’s success even before starting to recruit. They clarify their destination by creating a recruiting brief, laying out their onboarding plan and aligning others that will have to work with and support the new employee.
New employees must be given the tools they need to work. Cost reduction in the onboarding process often focuses on the replacement of paper forms processes with electronic processes that are faster, more accurate, eliminate document shipping costs, eliminate data reentry costs, and mitigate risks. This aspect of onboarding is known as transactional onboarding. [5] Employment laws must be carefully followed. Organizations seek to mitigate any risk by use of an onboarding process. Some processes are expected to ensure the quality of the data collected from the candidate, the completeness and accuracy of the forms they submit, and to interface their data to government (primarily for new hire reporting and immigration control, such as the Department of Homeland Security’s e-Verify program) and 3rd party vendors (most often for background and drug testing). An onboarding technology’s application of business rules and related technology is often of interest to the organization in mitigating risk. Robust onboarding systems mitigate this risk by fully integrating the transactional onboarding process with non-repudiated signature technologies and employment authorization verification.
It’s essential for new employees to become part of the culture they are joining. Assimilation or socialization is how that is accomplished. Effective organizations proactively introduce new employees to the most important people they need to work with in one-on-one meetings, small group meetings, projects, behind-the-scenes networks and large meetings. They also leverage evolving technologies to help employees assimilate.
Getting employees "up to speed" is the end goal of onboarding. To accelerate transitions, onboarding should include new job preparation efforts to give new employees a head start before day one, an announcement process that sets the new employee up for success, resources, support and follow through the first 90 to 100 days, at a minimum. Accelerating transitions is different for internal promotions or transfers and external hires. In the former, the employee may know many of the people he or she will be working with, and may be familiar with some of the landmines and threats. These transitions need to emphasize the change in relationships with former peers and managers, shifting old roles and responsibilities to others, and providing new insights and new opportunities. In contrast, the external hire’s focus should be on rapidly learning the landscape, the supporters and detractors, understanding the core issues, and clarifying the role. Both, however, require articulating the strategies, operational methods and people strategy that will lead to a rapid successful outcome.
"Onboarding: How To Get Your New Employees Up To Speed In Half The Time" - George Bradt and Mary Vonnegut (John Wiley & Sons, 2009 - ISBN 0470407034) "Your Next Move: The Leader's Guide to Navigating Major Career Transitions" - Michael D. Watkins (Harvard Business Press, 2009 - ISBN 1422147630) "The New Leader's 100-Day Action Plan" - George Bradt, Jayme Check and Jorge Pedraza (John Wiley & Sons, 2006, revised edition 2009 - ISBN 0470485817) "The First 90-days" - Michael Watkins (Harvard Business School Publishing, 2003 - ISBN 1591391105) |
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 00:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
any relevant information should be in International recognition of Kosovo. this topic does not deserve its own standalone article. there is no other diplomatic relations except recognition, NZ has no peacekeepers in Kosovo? LibStar ( talk) 00:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 11:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Spamvert for obscure business writer; obvious COI problems, but those are not grounds for deletion Orange Mike | Talk 00:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply