The result was delete. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Doesn't satisfy the criteria detailed at WP:CREATIVE (which includes journalists), hasn't been widely cited by peers or successors, no new concepts/techniques/major roles/critical attention or significant contributions. ƒ(Δ)² 07:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete per WP:SNOW. -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 16:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC) reply
PROD removed by anon, no reason given. Consensus at WikiProject Chemistry is that this chemical compound does not exist. The only mention of this chemical in the literature is an apparent indexing mistake. Yilloslime T C 23:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
— User:75.10.48.19 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Tim Vickers ( talk) 03:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedied. This obviously is not, by any reasonable standard, an encyclopedia article. I have left an appropriate message on the creator's talkpage. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Essay comparing two short stories. ceran thor 23:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. NW ( Talk) 03:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC) reply
I don't see how notability can be established for this, as all the sources related to it seem to fail WP:RS. The idea, regardless, seems to be extreme WP:FRINGE and warrants, at most, a mention in the article on channelling. Irbisgreif ( talk) 22:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Response to "John Carter" Your point is well taken. A fair bit has been made of the purported influences on Hubbard by purely "magical" organizations such as the OTO, much less in my observations in a relative sense, of the possible influences on Hubbard by early "flying saucer" groups centred on people like George Van Tassel and his peers. It's interesting to note that both men were active in "fringe" group activities in southern California in exactly the same time frame, mid 1940's to early 1950's, and both showed a decided inclination regarding looking toward the stars for their religious "inspiration". cheers Deconstructhis ( talk) 18:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Reply to John Carter: I think I know where you're going with that, I considered something similar myself when the name of the existing article was up for debate on its talk page. What I gained an impression of when I started reading was that there are at least two (probably more) distinct organized representative groups who use "Ashtar" and "Command" in the name of their organization, one is the more heavily organized group that sponsors a hub social network site that encourages their participants to create their own sites to promote the beliefs. They seem to primarily call themselves "Ashtar Galactic Command", with a few minor variants. The problem I have is that all I'm seeing is a plethora of websites and claims, I'm not seeing any real indication of the notability of that particular group beyond that. Before I started working with this article (and its name was changed) it appeared to me to be simply a promotional mini-stub for the website of the group calling itself "Ashtar Galactic Command", which I believe was someone's initial intention. Switching the article title back to "Ashtar Galactic Command" would in effect be us declaring the website based group as notable enough for inclusion as an article, I don't see any evidence to support that. A look into a recent edition of Melton's 'Encyclopedia of American Religions',in the flying saucer section, might prove useful. I don't have access to one at the moment. IMO one last indicator against redirecting all our "Ashtar" eggs into one website based basket is the idea that the figure and name "Ashtar", along with a chunk of Van Tassel's mythos, has been appropriated by relatively larger groups like Church Universal and Triumphant, with membership in the thousands. Unless I see some reliable evidence, I don't feel I'm in a position to say that the wesite group "Ashtar Galactic Command" can claim to be the authoritative voice here. cheers Deconstructhis ( talk) 22:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Reply to JC That Lewis information will be useful. If I'm understanding the sources correctly the distinction between "Ashtar Command" and "Ashtar Galactic Command" could be important. The first one appears to be the name given to the group Robert Short (the editor of a UFO magazine at the time) initiated in the mid 50's, when he split from Van Tassel's group the "Ministry of Universal Wisdom". The group "Ashtar Galactic Command" appears to be of a more recent vintage, possibly out of the "post Tuella" period. My concern is that we're going to end up with an article called "Ashtar Galactic Command" that has a single link at the bottom to the online group, creating the direct impression that the subject of the article is that particular group alone. As I said, I'm not comfortable with helping to create an impression that a single group is notable enough for it's own separate article simply because they included the name "Ashtar" in their name and it's only being backed up with claims on a social networking site and its associated website ring, I'd like to see reliable references. Thanks for your help so far. cheers Deconstructhis ( talk) 23:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC) reply
borderline speedy. Promotional and non-notable. No usable references. DGG ( talk ) 22:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was INCUBATE with nominator's approval. ThaddeusB ( talk) 02:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Repeatedly tagged for speedy and prod--time to get a more definitive solution. Non notable hypnotist with a few media appearances. One apparently decent reference, [7] but it's just local boy makes good, and seems promotional to me, rather than reliable DGG ( talk ) 22:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. NW ( Talk) 03:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC) reply
The nominator of the previous debate is correct when s/he said that the references in the article are not nontrivial, independent reliable sources that specifically discuss Bullshido.net. I have analyzed and listed the sources in the article as of this revision:
Analysis of the sources in the article
|
---|
1. This article from Rocky Mountain News mentions Bullshido.net in passing. The only time this website is referenced in this article is: "This week, Browning, 38, posted on the Web site Bullshido.net an exhaustive dissection of Bannon's published claims, which he has investigated over the past two years. He dismisses Bannon's story as tortured fiction." This does gives no context about Bullshido.net, save that it is a website and a man named Browning has posted on it to debunk another man's story. 2. http://realbullshido.blogspot.com/ – Blogspot is not a reliable source. It is a collection of blogs that can be written by anyone who signs up. 3. http://www.themartialist.com/bullshidofaq.htm is written by Phil Elmore, a man who has been attacked by Bullshido; Elmore writes "The Bullshido.com FAQ incorrectly describes Pax Baculum (and, I suppose, The Martialist and me) as somehow other than "up front about the evidence that exists today."" This is not an neutral article about Bullshido.net. Having read through the article, I have concluded that it is a attack on Bullshido.net. Furthermore and most importantly though, it has not been given the editorial oversight and fact-checking that reliable sources (such as newspapers, magazines, and journals) are given. 4. http://web.petabox.bibalex.org/web/20060504091905/http://www.ashidakim.com/shitlist.html is the same as the fourth source. It was written by someone who has been attacked by Bullshido.net. It is a personal website by an individual called Ashida Kim (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim (7th nomination)) has also not been given the editorial oversight and fact-checking that reliable sources (such as newspapers, magazines, and journals) are given. 5. The reference that states that Bullshido.net is the "[s]eventh in Alexia category on last view" points to http://www.alexa.com/topsites/category. This link does not lead to anything about Bullshido.net. 6. This article from Rocky Mountain News does not even mention Bullshido.net. 7. This article from Interpol.com is the same as #6. It does not even mention Bullshido.net. 8. http://ashidakim.com/10k.html is from the same source as #4. Not only is it an unreliable source, but it also doesn't even mention Bullshido.net. 9. This article from The Believer (magazine) does not even mention Bullshido.net. 10. http://www.bullshido.net/modules.php?name=Reviews&file=viewarticle&id=28Ashida – a link from Bullshido.net cannnot be a neutral, independent reliable source about itself. 11. http://www.bullshido.org/Ashida_Kim – this is the same as #8. 12. http://www.bullshido.net/modules.php?name=Reviews&file=viewarticle&id=160 – this is the same as #8. 13. http://dojopress.com/catalogms2.html – This unreliable source is a catalogue for selling memberships. Even if it were reliable, it would not be a sufficient source because it doesn't mention Bullshido.net. |
I am opposed to the merge suggested above by the wub ( talk · contribs). There are absolutely no reliable sources that discuss Bullshido.net. Even the passing mentions from reliable sources (see #1) do not provide enough context to justify a stub.
I am also opposed to a redirect to David "Race" Bannon. A member of Bullshido.net may have posted information about Bannon, but that does not guarantee that the website should be mentioned in Bannon's article. Having searched through results (using the search term "Banno bullshido.net"), I have been unable to locate any reliable sources that indicate that Bullshido.net played major role in debunking Bannon's claims. The best source about Bullshido.net and Banno that I could find was this article from Rocky Mountain News. The article states: "This week, Browning, 38, posted on the Web site Bullshido.net an exhaustive dissection of Bannon's published claims, which he has investigated over the past two years." This passing mention that provides little context does not justify a redirect or a merge.
The "keep" votes in the previous debate stated that "Bullshido is quite a notable organization within the martial arts community" and "one of the most notable martial arts web sites", but I have been unable to uncover anything to substantiate their claims. Cunard ( talk) 22:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Delete per my previous argument.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 23:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
[Y]ou have to register to be on it. – I wouldn't be surprised if Bullshido.net ranked number one when compared with the sites that are listed in the Big-boards.com's directory. Any arbitrary website developer can register his/her website, so the ranking is not indicative of what ranking Bullshido.net would receive if it were compared to the other websites on the Internet, especially the ones that have not registered with this unreliable source. The fact that Bullshido.net has already received a low rating (898th most viewed out of 2319) in a small selection of websites is a strong indicator that it will rank even lower when compared to other websites. This piece of trivia from an unreliable source does not establish notability. Cunard ( talk) 22:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC) reply
And it's interesting that the question of verifiability and the lack of reliable sources was brought up by —BradV at the November 2008 talk page discussion you have referenced twice. Cunard ( talk) 08:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC) reply
We don't bounce things around until we get the result we like, even if we are an admin. Please explain. I'm not an admin, and I do not wish to be one. I re-nominated the article for deletion after asking the closing admin for leave to speedily renominate the article. The closing admin then tweaked the closing rationale, writing that "following a request, I have no problem with a re-nomination here, as I was very close to deleting this for lack of reliable sources." I re-nominated the article for deletion because no one responded to my delete arguments, either to rebut them or agree with them. Cunard ( talk) 06:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC) reply
I agree that the article needs improvement, but there is no way to improve the article when there are no reliable sources about it. Cunard ( talk) 09:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC) reply
“ | He is perfectly allowed to re-nominate it again. The discussion wasn't clear, a large amount of information was added to the AfD after people had !voted, and I really did consider for a long time deleting the article for lack of reliable sources, before NCing it. In fact, the more I look at that AfD, the more I believe I should have deleted it. Black Kite 12:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC) reply | ” |
Mind you, that RMN article, plus another one from the same paper about Bannon, and an article from The Believer, an online magazine of doubtful status, are the only references not from Bullshido forums or other websites. Let's look: the aforementioned article states that Browning published his expose on Bannon (a writer, not someone who runs a martial arts school), which was triggered by Bannon's claim to be a black belt--but that's all the article has to say about Bullshido. The second RMN article is about Bannon and doesn't mention Bullshido. The article from The Believer is an interview with Ashida Kim, whose investigation by Bullshido could be called relevant to the exposure of fraudulent practices in the field of martial arts--but the article doesn't even mention Bullshido. (I see now that Cunard has made these comments in the previous AfD--but apparently they bear repeating.)
In sum, there simply is no significant, in-depth discussion of this webforum in any reliable source, including those mentioned by Hobit, above. "Ignore all rules"? I think keep-voters have to invoke that, since there is no way this subject is notable according to our guidelines. Given the comments by the closing admin on the previous AfD, which closed as "No consensus," there is nothing wrong with this renomination. Drmies ( talk) 14:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC) reply
For example, a second article from Rocky Mountain News is about David "Race" Bannon with a passing reference to Bullshido.net. The only time this website is mentioned is: "This week, Browning, 38, posted on the Web site Bullshido.net an exhaustive dissection of Bannon's published claims, which he has investigated over the past two years. He dismisses Bannon's story as tortured fiction." I cannot see how this source provides nontrivial, meaningful discussion about Bullshido.net. Cunard ( talk) 22:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC) reply
... not enough even with the other reliable sources. The other reliable sources are also passing mentions. Cunard ( talk) 22:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Your argument about Ashida Kim has little relevance to this AfD, save that both Bullshido.net and Ashida Kim lack significant coverage in reliable sources. Cunard ( talk) 22:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC) reply
We should not WP:IAR and keep this article. Why should this article be deleted? It should be sent to the digital dustbin because the entire thing is filled with original research and fails Wikipedia's core policy of verifiability. Cunard ( talk) 23:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Unsourced, non-neutral WP:BLP violations detract from Wikipedia's quality; see here: Kim reacted badly to these investigations ... Cunard ( talk) 06:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Where is the coverage about the site's significance and its value? There are none. Where is the coverage about the site's hits? None. The lack of significant, nontrivial coverage in any secondary, reliable source means that Bullshido.net fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Cunard ( talk) 22:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Unsourced, non-neutral WP:BLP violations detract from Wikipedia's quality; see here: Kim reacted badly to these investigations ... This clearly shows why the deletion of Bullshido.net would improve the encyclopedia.
WP:NOHARM also provides some relevant reasons:
|
---|
Just because having an article does not directly hurt anyone does not mean it should be kept. For example, if there has not been any
verifiable information published in
reliable sources about the subject then there is no way to check whether the information in the article is true, and it may damage the reputation of the subject and the project. Even if it is true, without the ability to check it, false information could very well start to seep in. As for articles about subjects that do not hold to our basic tenets ( verifiability, notability, and using reliable sources), keeping them actually can do more harm than one realizes – it sets a precedent that dictates that literally anything can go here. |
The lack of reliable sources means that the article fails WP:WEB and the presence of solely original research means that this article is not verifiable and may contain false information. Those are the reasons why I believe that this article should be deleted. Cunard ( talk) 21:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to March deportation. NW ( Talk) 03:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Dubious notability ( WP:ONEEVENT). Article unlikely to be expanded at all. Quibik ( talk) 22:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC) reply
I gave it a speedy-tag 10 days ago, but removed the tag upon creator's request, and put an "under construction"-template on it. Said editor has disappeared and not done anything to improve this article since.
Main criteria for deletion:
The result was keep. This nomination appears to be in bad faith, as the nominator is abusing multiple accounts (still working on identifying them all, but it's certain there are several). There's only one other user here in favor of deleting the article, and those arguments in favor of keeping the article are well-formed. Please open a new AfD if you believe this should be deleted. Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 16:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Nominate for Deletion: The subject of this article does not meet Wikipedia guidelines for notability. The list of "books" cited in the article has much overlap with the list of "books" in the articles of certain other individuals (e.g., Alwyn Van der Merwe), and it evidently just denotes contributors to edited volumes, and these do not meet the Wikipedia guidelines for reputable sources. Also, the linked biography is at the web site of Natural Philosophy Alliance, a well known organization of physics cranks, not a reputable scientific organization. Also, there are no secondary sources on Mr Selleri, which is a strong indication of lack of notability. In addition, the editor who created this page (Webmaster6) may have a conflict of interest, since he created or edited (almost exclusively) the articles on Alwyn Van der Merwe and the Foundation of Physics and other articles, all closely associated with the subject of this article. P0CF1A ( talk) 22:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
So, in summary, I don't think the person qualifies as notable under any of the Wikipedia criteria. If anyone disagrees, can you cite which criteria you believe applies? And on what grounds you believe it?
By the way, for another perspective, see the following web page: http://atomicprecision.wordpress.com/2009/09/23/removal-of-the-franco-selleri-page-by-wikipedia/ P0CF1A ( talk) 17:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC) reply
"The author begins by summarizing continuing claims by him and others of superluminal signals. Generally such claims are misguided. To date there are no confirmed experiments or astrophysical observations of propagation of physical information in inertial frames at speeds exceeding the measured vacuum velocity of light. This fact is of course consistent with Einstein's theory of special relativity. To date, no confirmed violation of this theory has ever been found. The author proceeds to review his earlier proposal of space-time transformations generally deviating from the Lorentz transformations of special relativity by a dependence on a time-synchronization parameter. He unconvincingly argues that his transformations are consistent with superluminal signaling. The author concludes by reviewing his earlier polemics on quantum theory, in the context of Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen correlations, attempting to argue consistency with superluminal signaling, while totally ignoring the many recent experimental confirmations of quantum entanglement, particularly in the burgeoning field of quantum information processing."
The result was No Consensus to delete. There is no consensus below as to the crucial question of whether or not BLP1E should be applied to this article. Eluchil404 ( talk) 07:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC) reply
See WP:BLP1E. This person has no historical significance warranting an article, nor are there any truly biographical sources (where he, rather than the one event he gained notoriety for, is the subject of the source). Wikipedia shouldn't be a publisher of true crime accounts. He committed a murder that was briefly the subject of news reports, and that is all. However, Wikipedia is not a newspaper.
Delete. Dominic· t 21:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 17:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Subject has requested deletion and information contained was, while adequately sourced, only marginally notable (independent archaeologist, couple of TV appearances etc). GARDEN 21:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
![]() | This is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Kevin Stewart-Magee. Please do not modify it. The result was "delete". The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. |
The result was keep. Barring a few questionable comments, the article satisfies WP:N. Opener's concerns involving Crystal are also resolved. Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D 01:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Delete. Album was confirmed (via Twitter and her official website) earlier this evening, but no tracklist has been confirmed. Therefore, this fails WP:RS, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NALBUMS and WP:HAMMERTIME Dale 21:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Keep. Before we barely had an reliable info. Now we have good sources directly from Spears' site. It may not have a tracklisting, but a lot of albums on the site that don't have tracklists exist and have existed. -- -Shadow ( talk) 00:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Keep. It was confirmed by Britney's official site. how could there possibly be more evidence. i say keep it until the release may be canceled. until then, i wouldnt delete anything seeing as it is all true and not rumours-- Apeaboutsims ( talk) 00:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Keep, It was already confirmed by Britney Spears web sites, so it is no longer just a rumored album. It must be keep. Besides, there have been a lot of articles about upcoming albums that doesn't have tracklist, and even worst, there have been a lot of upcoming albums with no title. it doesnt fail at all with: WP:RS cuz her websites are reliable, WP:CRYSTAL we are not talking about rumors, its official, so we are not "watching the future", and WP:HAMMERTIME because the info shown here is not from forums or message boards, it comes from reliable sources. It must be keept. Fortunato luigi ( talk) 05:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Keep, confirmed by Spears' official website and other reliable sources online. Release isn't too far away. No reason to delete. Jayy008 ( talk) 12:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Keep, its been confirmed by britney's own official site, its been widely reported on other sites now including MTV. it is confirmed and official. Even retailers are listing it now as well. The release isn't that far away. I see no good reason to delete this article. Gartheknight ( talk) 18:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Keep: Now that it's confirmed all... More information had become available. -- Platinum Fire 18:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Keep: it's been confirmed.-- Aaa16 ( talk) 19:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Keep per above reasoning. CloversMallRat ( talk) 21:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Keep: Her official site has confirmed this release and the new single. You can't delete it this time around.-- Paul237 ( talk) 06:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Keep. It is an official album. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Affieq ( talk • contribs) 25 September 2009 09:12 UTC
The result was no conensus to delete these articles. Skomorokh, barbarian 11:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC) reply
None of these is a notable character. No sources whatsoever, no out of universe notability for any of them, not even TRYING to assert notability. If deleted, move Jill Taylor (disambiguation) accordingly. Last AFD was redirected due to the nominator's WP:JNN argument; problems of sourcing, etc. haven't even come close to being fixed because there are none, and someone has issue with redirect it seems. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC) reply
This was a disputed speedy deletion candidate which I assessed. I'm not sure if there has been a credible claim of notability inherent in the material of the article -- the creator's disputing of the speedy nomination seems to tacitly contain that. This material has not yet been released for public viewing, but I thought there was a chance that it would qualify under the general notability guideline. Although I don't personally find the citations provided to be reliable within the definition of that term that I know, again there is some doubt in my mind, so I decided to submit this for the verdict of the community. Accounting4Taste: talk 20:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
A recent addition to the reference was added shortly after the dispute began. The reference cited is a new story broadcast on IMDb, the International Movie Database, which is the leading website for all news, updates and information regarding television and film productions. I believe this should satisfy as a claim at a newsworthy source, as there is no other source better connected with this industry or a database more heavily referenced.
In addition, one point of contention regarding the viewership claims it that while the series has not aired its episodes, its supplemental content in the form of the continuing Alternate Reality Game, which also fits into general scheme of the show, as a whole, itself. Rctheaet: talk 20:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Unnotable prson who fails WP:BIO. All three ELs are from directory sites. Prod removed by User:Yatesman with note of "The man is notable. He is the CEO of one of America's largest companies." Which does not make him notable. Only news mentions found are noting his becoming CEO, with little since beyond his name noted in the company's own press releases. -- Collectonian ( talk · contribs) 20:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to List of passports. NW ( Talk) 03:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Creation of gallery only articles seems to be explicitly deemed a bad idea whenever they have come up in the past. This article was created as a gallery, and cannot be revamped to not be a gallery. It belongs on commons.
WP:IG: "if, due to its content, a gallery would only lend itself to a title along the lines of "Gallery" or "Images of [insert article title]", as opposed to a more descriptive title, the gallery should either be revamped or moved to the Commons." SchmuckyTheCat ( talk) 19:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 17:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Cannot find a single source for this band, nor the label or the albums. "Gweeter" seems to be a word in a foreign language (which explains the Google Scholar/Books hits) but not a band someone found worth mentioning. No evidence of charting in any charts, releasing on a major/notable label or meeting any other criteria in WP:BAND or the general notability guideline. So Why 19:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Userfy. Moved to User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox/Killer School Girls from Outer Space (2009 film). ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 13:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Only sources are unreliable; the variety and imdb are both based on user submissions and the accuracy of their content cannot be verified, absolutely no proof that the people listed as the cast are even in the film. The film is the first production by a non-notable film company, google does not reveal any basis behind the information listed. Terrillja talk 19:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 17:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:CORP. No significant pages found. no WP:RS. Triwbe ( talk) 19:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 17:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Article does not support notability of subject per WP:CORP. Ghits appear to be trivial, not amounting to the "significant coverage" required. ukexpat ( talk) 18:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
RDI is a huge part of the IT community up in Alaska Per capita it would be a 35,000 employee company in the United States. Wikipedia already has an existing list of Alaskan based businesses http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Companies_based_in_Alaska
RDI is the major vendor for the State of Alaska and the oil companies, so there is plenty of news discussion at a local level about the products that RDI develops and its impact on the community. RDI is also a no bid IT services provider for the state of Texas a topic which is always in the news.
RDI has been featured in the Alaska Journal of Commerce and Alaska Business Monthly.
While I agree that RDI is not a national or international company, I think it meets the guidelines based on the community in which it operates (Alaska)
Note, I have a COI, as I work there. -James JamesBecwar ( talk) 20:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was CSD-G7. NAC. Joe Chill ( talk) 22:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Nonnotable local band, only one independent source which is a garden-variety mention in a local paper. Claims regarding Rock Band 2009 are unsubstantiated. NawlinWiki ( talk) 18:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. NW ( Talk) 03:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Fails general notability guidelines, was previously deleted as PROD and recreated with no additional references; I cannot find any reliable sources. Was PROD again, but due to the recreation I'm bringing it here instead Chzz ► 18:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. – Juliancolton | Talk 17:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC) reply
As written the article is unreadable and Wikipedia would be better without it. Anyone who wants can try to rescue it by starting from scratch; it's probable that the college is notable. Chutznik ( talk) 17:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect without prejudice against material from the articles being used elsewhere responsibly. Skomorokh, barbarian 11:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Absolutely no sources for out-of-universe notability. Only sources are episodes or trivia lists. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. NW ( Talk) 03:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC) reply
No assertion of notability, lacks sources -- I am unable to find any reliable sources demonstrating notability, either. — neuro (talk) 16:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 17:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC) reply
I don't believe this person meets WP:N. Of the five references listed, two are to her website, one is to a book discussing her work but not her life, and the other two are self-published sources (website of a conference she spoke at) and note that she won an award. There is no independent, non-trivial coverage of her life. Until that exists, the article should not. (I declined the speedy deletion for this, which is why I am listing it here.) Karanacs ( talk) 15:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- Rationale: If we count noses, the deletes have it by a mile. But we don't count noses, we evaluate strength of argument. The main keep arguments seem to center around the notability of the disappearance, that it got natinonal media coverage, and that there might be something unusual about the disappearance, or that it might in future be that "the person may well be known for more". The delete arguments mostly refute the keeps, pointing to WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:BLP1E, and reminding us that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for a keep (or a delete either). Also we are reminded of WP:CRYSTALBALL
The keep arguments are not compelling arguments and are more than refuted by those commenting in favor of deletion. Per WP:BLP1E one event does not compel notability, unless it's really a big deal. Mere mentions in multiple sources aren't enough. Per WP:NOT#NEWS routine things like this disappearance aren't notable. Per WP:CRYSTALBALL we cannot base notability on future events that may not happen. Notability assertions have been refuted. This person is, if we are extremely charitable, marginally notable, and very marginally at best. For living persons (and let us hope she is living) we should default to delete in cases of marginal notability. But under a more reasoned evaluation of notability, she's not notable, and the crime is not notable (so a move to an article about the crime doesn't fit either). We are left with no possible outcome other than Delete. ++ Lar: t/ c 15:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Person known only for one event - WP:BLP1E. Rd232 talk 14:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Coverage by reliable sources: CNN/Nancy Grace: http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/04/14/grace.coldcase.biggers/index.html, America's Most Wanted: http://www.amw.com/missing_persons/brief.cfm?id=52948, Texas Equusearch: http://texasequusearch.org/2009/01/the-search-for-pam-biggers/
Also, this case has drawn attention to the "Amber Alert"-type notification system for missing/endangered senior citizens, called a " Silver Alert," as noted here: http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/topstories/news-article.aspx?storyid=110632&catid=15
The result was delete. NW ( Talk) 03:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC) reply
No evidence of notability. A fake college that was a setting in 1 episode of Hawaii Five-O. Blargh29 ( talk) 23:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Whpq ( talk) 16:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 17:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Unsourced, no real claim to notability. DreamGuy ( talk) 13:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Skomorokh, barbarian 11:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Not notable person, IMDB lists 3 works as floor runner and as a director for a short film. No awards, not 1 feature film. Prod removed by creator. feydey ( talk) 21:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Alongside Director and Misc Crew, she has also been credited as a writer on IMDB -- all claims have been backed up and referenced. I was simply dispersing information from IMDB, and trying to help Wikipedia look great by adding pictures. I'm sorry if you feel this is not enough to warrent a Wikipedia page, but the content has been active for months, and never questioned before. I believe as a reference of both the person and the company (Smoking Guns Productions) it provides a valuable source of information to Wikipedia. Please reconsider deleting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daythatnevercomes ( talk • contribs)
The result was delete. NW ( Talk) 03:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable NGO, fails WP:ORG -- minimal news coverage (3 hits in GNews). References on the page mainly establish that other organizations mentioned in the article exist. Article created and expanded by employee who is clearly seeking to raise its profile (heavy on "Mission"); this wouldn't matter if there were sources to write a proper article, but there aren't. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 20:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 17:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD. This election isn't really notable as it doesn't cover any major political area, and the circumstances behind the election don't qualify for notability There are no "antics" noted as stated on the talk page, and there are no other reasons included that establish notability. Mayors choose not to run for re-election all the time but that doesn't make this case any more notable than any other. ArcAngel ( talk) 18:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was nomination withdrawn, deletion discussion overtaken by editing of the article. Closing without prejudice against the nomination of the new article for deletion. Skomorokh, barbarian 11:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC) reply
The article is largely made up original research and would have to be rewritten almost entirely. It also fails to define what is a 3D game being substantially different from just 3D graphics inside a game. In aiddition there is no reason to note the that the term 3D game is used for such games given the limited number the article lists as it fails verifiability from any independant third-party source. Google search results show just the opposite - 3D video game is often used to for the the way in-game graphics look. 陣 内 Jinnai 21:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Note : I know there are at least 3 people proposing deletion but no discussion was made since the bot fixed the bug and listed the AFD so I will relist it so more people get a chance to participate. JForget 13:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was merge any usable content to Economy of Panama. Skomorokh, barbarian 11:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Classic example of what wikipedia is not.
Economic forecasts will change often, and with problematic citations. There's not a unifying concept here either that's talked about in notable sources. Shadowjams ( talk) 09:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. NAC. Joe Chill ( talk) 21:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Not notable. No significant coverage in secondary sources. Essentially an advert. Bladeofgrass ( talk) 14:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 17:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Problematic substub claims the subject was a defendant in a notable trial and subsequently became a writer. No reliable sourcing, basically no content except material that relates directly to the claim of a criminal record. Might be rescue-worthy if it checks out with reliable sourcing, but without sourcing it's a serious BLP problem. Durova 311 20:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Aerobie. – Juliancolton | Talk 17:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Product placement, little notability, few reliable references -- 李博杰 | — Talk contribs email 05:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC) reply
From Alan Adler - Inventor:
I tried to provide factual information, without touting the product. If any part of the page is objectionable, I'd like to correct that. Just let me know.
Wikipedia has pages (which I did not create) on my other inventions. They benefit me, yet they also provide useful information. Wikipedia has thousands of pages which benefit the creators or makers of products, yet also provide useful information to the users of Wikipedia.
Sincerely,
Alan Adler —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alan Adler ( talk • contribs) 23:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Note: Relisted for final time. JForget 12:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Discussion regarding a potential merge can continue at the article's talk page. – Juliancolton | Talk 17:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC) reply
No notability; no facts available from independent reliable sources, hence fails WP:V, WP:GNG Chzz ► 02:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. There is no consensus to just delete this page outright, but all agree that this content should not remain in article space in this form. There's no agreement about what ought to be done, though. I suggest that interested editors continue to develop ideas about what to do with this type of content in general (possibly through a RfC with a variety of options) and implement it by moving, merging or redirecting this page as required. Sandstein 11:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC) reply
I saw this at prod and brought it here, because I think the community should see this--it raises some general questions. I've known about the article, and never been happy with it because it does not really fit into the framework of an encyclopedia, and would seem to violate NOT INDISCRIMINATE. A few of these works are notable themselves & articles could be written; a good number are part of notable series, about which articles could be written. Not all of them are. We certainly could make a list of the ones we wrote articles for when we wrote them.
But there are other considerations: It would be possible to include all of these in a bibliography section of the already long article on Bacteriophage--and it might seem that a split would make more sense. Some of our articles have extremely extensive bibliographies, listing the important and the unimportant equally--sometimes with the clear objective of listing everything possible on a subject. Is this a role for a general encyclopedia? (but even if not, should we expand our role and do it anyway?) Again, If we accept articles listing all the books of a highly notable writer, and we certainly do, should we perhaps accept articles listing all the books on a notable subject? Another solution is article bibliography subpages, but that would obviously takes some discussion. Another possibility,discussed a little, is a WikiBibliography project; yet another is a Bibliography space within the project. These are really strategic planning considerations.
So the question to be is whether we should accept this as an experimental exception, or merge it, or delete it and save what content is notable. Myself, I'm undecided DGG ( talk ) 02:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Black Kite 20:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The term "Comic Being" is no more notable than many other terms made up by the two "spiritualists" quoted to death in this unnecessary and biased article. If this definition of a non-notable term possibly coined by Elizabeth Prophet and Joshua Stone needs an article (rather than being a one-line mention in the associated lengthy articles about these authors), then why not all the other terms they endlessly repeat in their books such as Cosmic Map, Way Beacons, Cosmic law and Cosmic Ascension? The bias of the article is evident by the lack of balanced sources, relying on massively over-quoting the same authors in order to give the article an illusion of validity. There are too many articles on Wikipedia about the same UFO cults and this is an ideal one to delete to the benefit of the encyclopedia. Ash ( talk) 21:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 17:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD. No reason was given as to why this article passes WP:ATHLETE or WP:GNG. The league isn't fully professional. Spiderone 12:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete g1 nonsense, WP:NFT, WP:SNOW. NawlinWiki ( talk) 18:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
WP:MADEUP and WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Was PRODed, but author declined. Favonian ( talk) 08:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 00:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable neologism; the article serves only to promote the linked blog and the new term. Ckatz chat spy 08:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 00:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC) reply
PROD removed for no reason. The K-League hasn't recorded an appearance. [55] Spiderone 07:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 00:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Long list of law firms in India with no indication of notability or reason for listing. Limited sourcing of firm names. Wikipedia is not a directory. -- Gogo Dodo ( talk) 07:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Weak delete, actually, but on the whole we are not convinced of ther notability. Could probably be resubmitted (by somebody not affiliated with the subject) if new sources proving notability are found. Sandstein 17:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not the white pages; no reliable sources to establish notability of an individual. gnews shows some minor scifi publications, nothing reliable to me. Coatrack for advertising and pseudomemorial page. tedder ( talk) 07:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Use [show](to the right) to view the repy details |
---|
|
The result was speedy delete ( G3). Blatant hoax. All the URLs leading to "verifiable sources" are 404 errors, and absolutely zilch on a basic search. MuZemike 18:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Well-written but clear hoax- thanks to a vandal, it was clear that none of the references are valid, nor did gnews turn up anything.
Taking to AFD to confirm, as it's outside of my subject area. tedder ( talk) 07:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 00:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Article just about claims some notability so not nominating for speedy deletion. However: there are no refs to support any of this, that the subject "helped" with a company's most successful products does not imply significant involvement, and there is no indication that either the company or products are notable. Delete as non-notable. I42 ( talk) 07:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete, article was blank, only redirects and disambigs in history. - Smerdis of Tlön ( talk) 17:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Speedy Delete as A3. Moved as part of move of Acsa and Acas, Hungary; putting DAB at ACSA since it's pretty much all abbreviations (but nothing currently links there either) then Acsa as the Hungarian village. SimonTrew ( talk) 07:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn nomination with no outstanding delete !votes. ( non-admin closure) Tim Song ( talk) 01:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC) reply
If one reliable source is found to prove that this is not a hoax, I will withdraw this AfD. Cunard ( talk) 06:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
By the way, I have also nominated Hazub for deletion as a hoax. Both Sutra I and Hazub were created by Gonçalo-Manuel ( talk · contribs) and tagged as hoaxes by Edward321 ( talk · contribs). I have searched for alternative titles for Hazub (Khazuv and Chatzuv) as you did at Sutra I, but have been unable to find anything substantial. Can you find sources for Hazub, too? Cunard ( talk) 21:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. NW ( Talk) 03:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC) reply
It was mentioned on the talk page that there could be sources in a language native to Manipal, India, so I will withdraw this AfD if sources are found. Cunard ( talk) 06:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Discussion
|
---|
No references except one blog, no scientific description. The image of swellings, the only image directly related to this insect, was not related ( http://www.flickr.com/photos/docfiles/95240312/, besides it was a copyright violation). With the precautions described in the article it must be a serious problem in that region and it is not likely that there is no other reference or scientific description. -- Martin H. ( talk) 11:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC) reply The Manipal Journal is not a blog. It is an English language news website affiliated with the local college. People in Karnataka speak Kannada, not English. The refs on this bug will probably not be in English, for the most part. Maybe you did not read the comments on the article--the bug clearly is a problem in Manipal, but there is no reason to assume that people outside Manipal are aware of it. S. M. Sullivan ( talk) 04:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC) reply |
Cunard ( talk) 06:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Arguments for delete are far stronger than the multiple copied comments from drive-by IPs. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC) reply
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
The first person to perform single port access surgery in Pakistan. The article has already been deleted here, here and here. Strong on peacock terms but devoid of relevant external links. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 06:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Defending the Wiki: In defence of maintaining the page, please note:
Anasim ( talk) 19:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Nominator has withdrawn but this discussion has been open long enough and has enough participation for a keep close. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC) reply
If one reliable source is found to prove that this is not a hoax, I will withdraw this AfD. Cunard ( talk) 06:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. The consensus below is that the proffered sources are enough to keep the article. Eluchil404 ( talk) 07:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC) reply
This article has been tagged as a hoax since September 15, 2009. Although I disagree that it's a hoax, the article looks like it is composed primarily of original research. If I am wrong (this looks like it could be a list of some sort), I will withdraw this nomination. Cunard ( talk) 05:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
You clearly aren't actually reading the sources presented, so your assertions here as to what they contain can at best be taken with a large pinch of salt. Heck, you clearly haven't even looked beyond the two sources mentioned above, let alone at the other twenty mentioned in the article. Indeed, it's fairly evident that you haven't even read the article and even the titles of the sources. Guess how I can, similarly, know that straightaway from what you write. Uncle G ( talk) 18:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
“ | We are in doubt whether the winter stored sap exists in a state to be affected by the expansion of the freezing fluids of the tree. If the expansion of congelation did produce the effect it should have been more general, for there are fluids in every part of the trunk–all congeal or expand–and the bursting of the trunk in one place would not relieve the contiguous portions. We should expect if this were the cause that the tree would explode rather than split. Capt. Bach, when wintering near Great Slave Lake, about 63° north latitude, experienced a cold of 70° below zero. Nor could any fire raise it in the house more than 12° above zero. Mathematical instrument cases, and boxes of seasoned fir, split in pieces by the cold. Could it have been the sap in seasoned fir wood which split them by its expansion in congealing? | ” |
The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 16:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable fight of no historical consequence YellowMonkey ( bananabucket) 05:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC) reply
The subject has no notability aside commiting a murder. Not to minimize the impact of a murder, but aside from that, the man was non-notable. There was nothing in this case that makes it pass WP:N/CA and I believe falls into the area of WP:ONEVENT. Niteshift36 ( talk) 04:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 00:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Single sourced gallery page. This page is a collection of images, all of which are from the US census bureau's American factfinder. None of these images have legends/keys to quantify the values of any of the geographic distributions being represented. This opens the page up to speculation and other original research based on the images. Without the data that corresponds with the images, they are unencyclopedic as well. Both the gallery page and these associated images should be deleted. Optigan13 ( talk) 04:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 00:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Single sourced gallery page. This page is a collection of images, all of which are from the US census bureau's American factfinder. None of these images have legends/keys to quantify the values of any of the geographic distributions being represented. This opens the page up to speculation and other original research based on the images. Without the data that corresponds with the images, they are unencyclopedic as well. Both the gallery page and these associated images should be deleted. Optigan13 ( talk) 04:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 00:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Single sourced gallery page. This page is a collection of images, all of which are from the US census bureau's American factfinder. None of these images have legends/keys to quantify the values of any of the geographic distributions being represented. This opens the page up to speculation and other original research based on the images. Without the data that corresponds with the images, they are unencyclopedic as well. Both the gallery page and these associated images should be deleted. Optigan13 ( talk) 03:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 00:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable person Tad Lincoln ( talk) 03:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. JForget 13:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
I'm mainly nominating as per WP:NOTINHERITED. most coverage relates to the fact she is the niece of Robert Rodriguez [58]. I doubt she would have received this third party coverage if she wasn't a niece. so ignoring the fact that she is a niece of someone famous she fails WP:BIO and WP:ENT. Also nominating twin sister Elise Avellan. LibStar ( talk) 04:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Cirt ( talk) 00:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC) reply
When I arrived, the article was filled with listcruft. All trivial instances that did little to provide insight to the reader. Additionally, most were uncited, cited to unreliable sources, or contained information that was not backed up by the sources.
I went ahead and pruned it to include only reliably sourced material, but it now appears that there isn't enough to warrant a separate article. — Bdb484 ( talk) 03:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. NW ( Talk) 03:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Does not assert notability, unable to find any notability online RaseaC ( talk) 15:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 16:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC) reply
This is an article about a nonnotable composer who fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC as he hasn't recieved a signifciant amount of coverage in reliable, third-party sources. He has not significantly impacted his industry nor has he been recognized by it through awards. Them From Space 02:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to New Democratic Party candidates, 2007 Ontario provincial election. – Juliancolton | Talk 16:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Heller's day in the sun is over. No reason to keep page now that he didn't get elected. Doesn't meet WP:BIO notability guidelines. Recommend delete or redirect to New Democratic Party candidates, 2007 Ontario provincial election. Suttungr ( talk) 02:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy redirect. Daniel ( talk) 14:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Too minor of an event.. (non-notable) A dust storm that took place over 15 hours or less BrianY ( talk) 02:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 00:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. WP:MADEUP. Wikipedia is not a database of invented drink recipes. <>Multi-Xfer<> ( talk) 02:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Delete - only notable for having disappeared, failed WP:BIO1E. Otto4711 ( talk) 01:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Considering WP:NOTAVOTE, the arguments for deletion are far stronger than those in favor of retaining the page. – Juliancolton | Talk 16:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Unnotable list of timed "artistic" contests that is a misnominer - may items listed do not rate artistic value, only require output; further, most of the list are unnotable knock offs of NaNoWriMo that really do not need their own articles, even after the redlink ones were cleared out. The rest, appear to be various copies of each other as well, such as the three 48 hour film challenges. Prod removed with note of "deprod; I think this at least deserves an afd" -- Collectonian ( talk · contribs) 00:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 16:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC) reply
See WP:BLP1E. This person has no historical significance warranting an article, nor are there any truly biographical sources (where he, rather than the one event he gained notoriety for, is the subject of the source). Wikipedia shouldn't be a publisher of true crime accounts. He committed a murder that was briefly the subject of news reports, and that is all. But Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Delete. Dominic· t 21:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 19:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC) reply
I hate to do this, but Vartan himself, is not very notable and being the father of someone who is doesn't qualify. No sources anywhere in Google and I could only find his personal website, facebook and SOADFANS article. SKATER Speak. 20:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 19:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC) reply
I've verified that this organisation does exist, [63] but this article is almost the only mention I can find on Google outside Wikipedia mirrors, other than this blog post: [64]. There just isn't the coverage we need to write an encyclopedia artice. Someone might be able to work wonders with a non-English search, but I doubt it. Fences& Windows 20:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 16:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Nothing indicates why this specific line of Zoids needs a separate article. Notability is not established, and the content is already covered within the main article. TTN ( talk) 18:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 19:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC) reply
fails WP:ORG Ironholds ( talk) 21:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. NW ( Talk) 03:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Not notable series. It has not even been produced yet. Dr.K. logos 18:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. NW ( Talk) 22:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC) reply
See WP:BLP1E. This person has no historical significance warranting an article, nor are there any truly biographical sources (where he, rather than the one event he gained notoriety for, is the subject of the source). Wikipedia shouldn't be a publisher of true crime accounts. His sole claim to notability appears to be a murder conviction and its acquittal, which is supposed to have been one of the first in which jurors testified. I don't think this minor legal precedent, if it is, related to his trial really calls for a biography, though. Delete. Dominic· t 00:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough participation to determine consensus. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC) reply
This book by Annie Besant is not notable and is already covered by her biographical page and so is an unnecessary content fork. Google news has two articles about this book, the newspaper articles are from 1908 and 1933. There are some mentions in Google Scholar but the work was not ground breaking and considering how long it has been around is very poorly cited. The article should be deleted. I can see no details that are reliably sourced for merging to the main biographical page. Ash ( talk) 17:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. JForget 12:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Half article self-referenced. Remaining references are from fringe sources. Article appears to be on a non-notable metaphysical claim of a single occultist. Some in-universe issues. Simonm223 ( talk) 16:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 00:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Unreferenced BLP. Contested ProD. Being ranked at the junior level of an amateur sport does not constitute notability, and search results do not give any other support for notability. Primary author has persistently removed categories (not grounds for deletion but unusual behaviour) dramatic ( talk) 00:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. There seems to be broad agreement here that the topic does not meet notability guidelines. If there is consensus to merge at a later time, the content can be restored. – Juliancolton | Talk 16:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD. Product not released yet. No proof of notability. Not much in Google. No independent references. DanielRigal ( talk) 16:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The release is 2010 and has been announced. I will edit the article to reflect more information but at the time of creation the information was hazy. Now there is more concrete information about this upcoming game and you can keep watch on this article to make sure I add more information.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Damianallison ( talk • contribs)
The result was merge to Blizzard Entertainment. Closing as "merge" on the suggestion from the only !voter. Consider this a no consensus close. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Not clear that he is notable per WP:BIO. No WP:GHITS. One external reference in the article is an automated, impersonal listing of his games and the other includes him in a discussion of one of the games—he himself isn't a topic of the interview. —Largo Plazo ( talk) 15:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aisde from the nominator. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC) reply
non-notable student newspaper. Coverage given and found is entirely 1) on the site or 2) in relation to other things. Ironholds ( talk) 15:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. NW ( Talk) 03:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC) reply
delete, non notable company. majority of sources are company related. Bordeline attacks the company without sourceing it "Strategy
"NearShore Solutions exploits the low cost of living and pay in Belarus." Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 14:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC) reply
list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- - 2/0 ( cont.) 16:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 22:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Unsourced BLP. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources provided or found. No significant roles. SummerPhD ( talk) 02:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. – Juliancolton | Talk 16:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Unreferenced OR essay. No demonstration that college preparatory schools in New England are inherently different from college preparatory schools in other regions. Durova 311 19:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 00:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable neologism... prodded, but prod was removed by creator... Adolphus79 ( talk) 00:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MuZemike 20:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC) reply
This article is an unnecessary
content fork of
Alice A. Bailey of a concept created by her and entirely reliant on her book "Initiation, Human and Solar". The same concept is already discussed on her lengthy and extensive biographical page (which manages to repeat many of her anti-Jewish comments) so a deletion is needed rather than a merge. If this page were considered necessary and encyclopaedic then we would leave the door open to creating separate pages for all the other special terms and concepts she published during her lifetime that she claimed were "telepathically dictated to her". I note that the creator of this page has created other content and point of view forks around the topic of Theosophy.
Ash (
talk)
12:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 19:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Article created by one of its founders. I'm not finding significant coverage in 3rd party sources beyond the 2 (non primary source) references given. Other hits appear to refer to another Ohio based charity with the same name. RadioFan ( talk) 12:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Grand Lodge of Massachusetts. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Not notable Vidkun ( talk) 12:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Arguments for keeping the article more explicitly refute the arguments for deletion. MuZemike 20:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Deprodded, Non-notable looks like an article written just to give visibility to a specific product with no encyclopedic interest. Was proposed for deletion, but its author removed the request. -- Pot ( talk) 11:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Basically it boils down to meeting the general notability guideline versus a more common sense rationale that this halfway rich person isn't notable per the given sources. No rough consensus for either occurred. MuZemike 20:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC) reply
British investment banker/money manager. Notable only for being wealthy. Prod declined, with the reasoning "₤140 million is enough--the Times coverage shows the notability". But the link to the Times is simply an entry on a list of wealthiest people in Britain, not an article. And what's more, the list shows him as the 388th richest person in Britain. That hardly makes him notable: having a fat wallet alone doesn't make you encyclopedia material.
There's two bits of actual coverage, but they're from peripheral news services and may in fact be press releases. And they announce him filling less than senior positions. Hairhorn ( talk) 11:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. NW ( Talk) 03:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Re-nomination after previous AfD was closed due to having been started by a banned user. This is not just a procedural nomination: my opinion is that this article should be deleted. Local journalist, only GNews hits are bylines and trivial mentions. The fact that we have articles about other local non-notable journalists is not justification for keeping this article. Thanks, cab ( talk) 09:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. MuZemike 20:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC) reply
fails WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR, hardly any coverage in gnews [75]. Google books confirms he has co-authored much more books than authored. but simply being an author doesn't satisfy WP:AUTHOR. LibStar ( talk) 06:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Not notable. Brandon ( talk) 04:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 19:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC) reply
No evidence of notability from reliable sources per WP:ATHLETE. Contested PROD. -- Kinu t/ c 01:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. MuZemike 20:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The article is a mix of a lingerie brand, and a BLP. Needs a rewrite to be even close to encyclopedic. Also, a lot of it is written like promotional material, for example: she decided while wearing a very uncomfortable cleavage enhancing brassiere that she could design something better which was:
more comfortable better looking create more cleavage
ƒ(Δ)²
14:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Doesn't satisfy the criteria detailed at WP:CREATIVE (which includes journalists), hasn't been widely cited by peers or successors, no new concepts/techniques/major roles/critical attention or significant contributions. ƒ(Δ)² 07:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete per WP:SNOW. -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 16:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC) reply
PROD removed by anon, no reason given. Consensus at WikiProject Chemistry is that this chemical compound does not exist. The only mention of this chemical in the literature is an apparent indexing mistake. Yilloslime T C 23:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
— User:75.10.48.19 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Tim Vickers ( talk) 03:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedied. This obviously is not, by any reasonable standard, an encyclopedia article. I have left an appropriate message on the creator's talkpage. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Essay comparing two short stories. ceran thor 23:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. NW ( Talk) 03:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC) reply
I don't see how notability can be established for this, as all the sources related to it seem to fail WP:RS. The idea, regardless, seems to be extreme WP:FRINGE and warrants, at most, a mention in the article on channelling. Irbisgreif ( talk) 22:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Response to "John Carter" Your point is well taken. A fair bit has been made of the purported influences on Hubbard by purely "magical" organizations such as the OTO, much less in my observations in a relative sense, of the possible influences on Hubbard by early "flying saucer" groups centred on people like George Van Tassel and his peers. It's interesting to note that both men were active in "fringe" group activities in southern California in exactly the same time frame, mid 1940's to early 1950's, and both showed a decided inclination regarding looking toward the stars for their religious "inspiration". cheers Deconstructhis ( talk) 18:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Reply to John Carter: I think I know where you're going with that, I considered something similar myself when the name of the existing article was up for debate on its talk page. What I gained an impression of when I started reading was that there are at least two (probably more) distinct organized representative groups who use "Ashtar" and "Command" in the name of their organization, one is the more heavily organized group that sponsors a hub social network site that encourages their participants to create their own sites to promote the beliefs. They seem to primarily call themselves "Ashtar Galactic Command", with a few minor variants. The problem I have is that all I'm seeing is a plethora of websites and claims, I'm not seeing any real indication of the notability of that particular group beyond that. Before I started working with this article (and its name was changed) it appeared to me to be simply a promotional mini-stub for the website of the group calling itself "Ashtar Galactic Command", which I believe was someone's initial intention. Switching the article title back to "Ashtar Galactic Command" would in effect be us declaring the website based group as notable enough for inclusion as an article, I don't see any evidence to support that. A look into a recent edition of Melton's 'Encyclopedia of American Religions',in the flying saucer section, might prove useful. I don't have access to one at the moment. IMO one last indicator against redirecting all our "Ashtar" eggs into one website based basket is the idea that the figure and name "Ashtar", along with a chunk of Van Tassel's mythos, has been appropriated by relatively larger groups like Church Universal and Triumphant, with membership in the thousands. Unless I see some reliable evidence, I don't feel I'm in a position to say that the wesite group "Ashtar Galactic Command" can claim to be the authoritative voice here. cheers Deconstructhis ( talk) 22:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Reply to JC That Lewis information will be useful. If I'm understanding the sources correctly the distinction between "Ashtar Command" and "Ashtar Galactic Command" could be important. The first one appears to be the name given to the group Robert Short (the editor of a UFO magazine at the time) initiated in the mid 50's, when he split from Van Tassel's group the "Ministry of Universal Wisdom". The group "Ashtar Galactic Command" appears to be of a more recent vintage, possibly out of the "post Tuella" period. My concern is that we're going to end up with an article called "Ashtar Galactic Command" that has a single link at the bottom to the online group, creating the direct impression that the subject of the article is that particular group alone. As I said, I'm not comfortable with helping to create an impression that a single group is notable enough for it's own separate article simply because they included the name "Ashtar" in their name and it's only being backed up with claims on a social networking site and its associated website ring, I'd like to see reliable references. Thanks for your help so far. cheers Deconstructhis ( talk) 23:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC) reply
borderline speedy. Promotional and non-notable. No usable references. DGG ( talk ) 22:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was INCUBATE with nominator's approval. ThaddeusB ( talk) 02:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Repeatedly tagged for speedy and prod--time to get a more definitive solution. Non notable hypnotist with a few media appearances. One apparently decent reference, [7] but it's just local boy makes good, and seems promotional to me, rather than reliable DGG ( talk ) 22:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. NW ( Talk) 03:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC) reply
The nominator of the previous debate is correct when s/he said that the references in the article are not nontrivial, independent reliable sources that specifically discuss Bullshido.net. I have analyzed and listed the sources in the article as of this revision:
Analysis of the sources in the article
|
---|
1. This article from Rocky Mountain News mentions Bullshido.net in passing. The only time this website is referenced in this article is: "This week, Browning, 38, posted on the Web site Bullshido.net an exhaustive dissection of Bannon's published claims, which he has investigated over the past two years. He dismisses Bannon's story as tortured fiction." This does gives no context about Bullshido.net, save that it is a website and a man named Browning has posted on it to debunk another man's story. 2. http://realbullshido.blogspot.com/ – Blogspot is not a reliable source. It is a collection of blogs that can be written by anyone who signs up. 3. http://www.themartialist.com/bullshidofaq.htm is written by Phil Elmore, a man who has been attacked by Bullshido; Elmore writes "The Bullshido.com FAQ incorrectly describes Pax Baculum (and, I suppose, The Martialist and me) as somehow other than "up front about the evidence that exists today."" This is not an neutral article about Bullshido.net. Having read through the article, I have concluded that it is a attack on Bullshido.net. Furthermore and most importantly though, it has not been given the editorial oversight and fact-checking that reliable sources (such as newspapers, magazines, and journals) are given. 4. http://web.petabox.bibalex.org/web/20060504091905/http://www.ashidakim.com/shitlist.html is the same as the fourth source. It was written by someone who has been attacked by Bullshido.net. It is a personal website by an individual called Ashida Kim (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim (7th nomination)) has also not been given the editorial oversight and fact-checking that reliable sources (such as newspapers, magazines, and journals) are given. 5. The reference that states that Bullshido.net is the "[s]eventh in Alexia category on last view" points to http://www.alexa.com/topsites/category. This link does not lead to anything about Bullshido.net. 6. This article from Rocky Mountain News does not even mention Bullshido.net. 7. This article from Interpol.com is the same as #6. It does not even mention Bullshido.net. 8. http://ashidakim.com/10k.html is from the same source as #4. Not only is it an unreliable source, but it also doesn't even mention Bullshido.net. 9. This article from The Believer (magazine) does not even mention Bullshido.net. 10. http://www.bullshido.net/modules.php?name=Reviews&file=viewarticle&id=28Ashida – a link from Bullshido.net cannnot be a neutral, independent reliable source about itself. 11. http://www.bullshido.org/Ashida_Kim – this is the same as #8. 12. http://www.bullshido.net/modules.php?name=Reviews&file=viewarticle&id=160 – this is the same as #8. 13. http://dojopress.com/catalogms2.html – This unreliable source is a catalogue for selling memberships. Even if it were reliable, it would not be a sufficient source because it doesn't mention Bullshido.net. |
I am opposed to the merge suggested above by the wub ( talk · contribs). There are absolutely no reliable sources that discuss Bullshido.net. Even the passing mentions from reliable sources (see #1) do not provide enough context to justify a stub.
I am also opposed to a redirect to David "Race" Bannon. A member of Bullshido.net may have posted information about Bannon, but that does not guarantee that the website should be mentioned in Bannon's article. Having searched through results (using the search term "Banno bullshido.net"), I have been unable to locate any reliable sources that indicate that Bullshido.net played major role in debunking Bannon's claims. The best source about Bullshido.net and Banno that I could find was this article from Rocky Mountain News. The article states: "This week, Browning, 38, posted on the Web site Bullshido.net an exhaustive dissection of Bannon's published claims, which he has investigated over the past two years." This passing mention that provides little context does not justify a redirect or a merge.
The "keep" votes in the previous debate stated that "Bullshido is quite a notable organization within the martial arts community" and "one of the most notable martial arts web sites", but I have been unable to uncover anything to substantiate their claims. Cunard ( talk) 22:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Delete per my previous argument.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 23:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
[Y]ou have to register to be on it. – I wouldn't be surprised if Bullshido.net ranked number one when compared with the sites that are listed in the Big-boards.com's directory. Any arbitrary website developer can register his/her website, so the ranking is not indicative of what ranking Bullshido.net would receive if it were compared to the other websites on the Internet, especially the ones that have not registered with this unreliable source. The fact that Bullshido.net has already received a low rating (898th most viewed out of 2319) in a small selection of websites is a strong indicator that it will rank even lower when compared to other websites. This piece of trivia from an unreliable source does not establish notability. Cunard ( talk) 22:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC) reply
And it's interesting that the question of verifiability and the lack of reliable sources was brought up by —BradV at the November 2008 talk page discussion you have referenced twice. Cunard ( talk) 08:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC) reply
We don't bounce things around until we get the result we like, even if we are an admin. Please explain. I'm not an admin, and I do not wish to be one. I re-nominated the article for deletion after asking the closing admin for leave to speedily renominate the article. The closing admin then tweaked the closing rationale, writing that "following a request, I have no problem with a re-nomination here, as I was very close to deleting this for lack of reliable sources." I re-nominated the article for deletion because no one responded to my delete arguments, either to rebut them or agree with them. Cunard ( talk) 06:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC) reply
I agree that the article needs improvement, but there is no way to improve the article when there are no reliable sources about it. Cunard ( talk) 09:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC) reply
“ | He is perfectly allowed to re-nominate it again. The discussion wasn't clear, a large amount of information was added to the AfD after people had !voted, and I really did consider for a long time deleting the article for lack of reliable sources, before NCing it. In fact, the more I look at that AfD, the more I believe I should have deleted it. Black Kite 12:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC) reply | ” |
Mind you, that RMN article, plus another one from the same paper about Bannon, and an article from The Believer, an online magazine of doubtful status, are the only references not from Bullshido forums or other websites. Let's look: the aforementioned article states that Browning published his expose on Bannon (a writer, not someone who runs a martial arts school), which was triggered by Bannon's claim to be a black belt--but that's all the article has to say about Bullshido. The second RMN article is about Bannon and doesn't mention Bullshido. The article from The Believer is an interview with Ashida Kim, whose investigation by Bullshido could be called relevant to the exposure of fraudulent practices in the field of martial arts--but the article doesn't even mention Bullshido. (I see now that Cunard has made these comments in the previous AfD--but apparently they bear repeating.)
In sum, there simply is no significant, in-depth discussion of this webforum in any reliable source, including those mentioned by Hobit, above. "Ignore all rules"? I think keep-voters have to invoke that, since there is no way this subject is notable according to our guidelines. Given the comments by the closing admin on the previous AfD, which closed as "No consensus," there is nothing wrong with this renomination. Drmies ( talk) 14:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC) reply
For example, a second article from Rocky Mountain News is about David "Race" Bannon with a passing reference to Bullshido.net. The only time this website is mentioned is: "This week, Browning, 38, posted on the Web site Bullshido.net an exhaustive dissection of Bannon's published claims, which he has investigated over the past two years. He dismisses Bannon's story as tortured fiction." I cannot see how this source provides nontrivial, meaningful discussion about Bullshido.net. Cunard ( talk) 22:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC) reply
... not enough even with the other reliable sources. The other reliable sources are also passing mentions. Cunard ( talk) 22:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Your argument about Ashida Kim has little relevance to this AfD, save that both Bullshido.net and Ashida Kim lack significant coverage in reliable sources. Cunard ( talk) 22:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC) reply
We should not WP:IAR and keep this article. Why should this article be deleted? It should be sent to the digital dustbin because the entire thing is filled with original research and fails Wikipedia's core policy of verifiability. Cunard ( talk) 23:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Unsourced, non-neutral WP:BLP violations detract from Wikipedia's quality; see here: Kim reacted badly to these investigations ... Cunard ( talk) 06:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Where is the coverage about the site's significance and its value? There are none. Where is the coverage about the site's hits? None. The lack of significant, nontrivial coverage in any secondary, reliable source means that Bullshido.net fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Cunard ( talk) 22:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Unsourced, non-neutral WP:BLP violations detract from Wikipedia's quality; see here: Kim reacted badly to these investigations ... This clearly shows why the deletion of Bullshido.net would improve the encyclopedia.
WP:NOHARM also provides some relevant reasons:
|
---|
Just because having an article does not directly hurt anyone does not mean it should be kept. For example, if there has not been any
verifiable information published in
reliable sources about the subject then there is no way to check whether the information in the article is true, and it may damage the reputation of the subject and the project. Even if it is true, without the ability to check it, false information could very well start to seep in. As for articles about subjects that do not hold to our basic tenets ( verifiability, notability, and using reliable sources), keeping them actually can do more harm than one realizes – it sets a precedent that dictates that literally anything can go here. |
The lack of reliable sources means that the article fails WP:WEB and the presence of solely original research means that this article is not verifiable and may contain false information. Those are the reasons why I believe that this article should be deleted. Cunard ( talk) 21:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to March deportation. NW ( Talk) 03:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Dubious notability ( WP:ONEEVENT). Article unlikely to be expanded at all. Quibik ( talk) 22:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC) reply
I gave it a speedy-tag 10 days ago, but removed the tag upon creator's request, and put an "under construction"-template on it. Said editor has disappeared and not done anything to improve this article since.
Main criteria for deletion:
The result was keep. This nomination appears to be in bad faith, as the nominator is abusing multiple accounts (still working on identifying them all, but it's certain there are several). There's only one other user here in favor of deleting the article, and those arguments in favor of keeping the article are well-formed. Please open a new AfD if you believe this should be deleted. Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 16:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Nominate for Deletion: The subject of this article does not meet Wikipedia guidelines for notability. The list of "books" cited in the article has much overlap with the list of "books" in the articles of certain other individuals (e.g., Alwyn Van der Merwe), and it evidently just denotes contributors to edited volumes, and these do not meet the Wikipedia guidelines for reputable sources. Also, the linked biography is at the web site of Natural Philosophy Alliance, a well known organization of physics cranks, not a reputable scientific organization. Also, there are no secondary sources on Mr Selleri, which is a strong indication of lack of notability. In addition, the editor who created this page (Webmaster6) may have a conflict of interest, since he created or edited (almost exclusively) the articles on Alwyn Van der Merwe and the Foundation of Physics and other articles, all closely associated with the subject of this article. P0CF1A ( talk) 22:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
So, in summary, I don't think the person qualifies as notable under any of the Wikipedia criteria. If anyone disagrees, can you cite which criteria you believe applies? And on what grounds you believe it?
By the way, for another perspective, see the following web page: http://atomicprecision.wordpress.com/2009/09/23/removal-of-the-franco-selleri-page-by-wikipedia/ P0CF1A ( talk) 17:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC) reply
"The author begins by summarizing continuing claims by him and others of superluminal signals. Generally such claims are misguided. To date there are no confirmed experiments or astrophysical observations of propagation of physical information in inertial frames at speeds exceeding the measured vacuum velocity of light. This fact is of course consistent with Einstein's theory of special relativity. To date, no confirmed violation of this theory has ever been found. The author proceeds to review his earlier proposal of space-time transformations generally deviating from the Lorentz transformations of special relativity by a dependence on a time-synchronization parameter. He unconvincingly argues that his transformations are consistent with superluminal signaling. The author concludes by reviewing his earlier polemics on quantum theory, in the context of Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen correlations, attempting to argue consistency with superluminal signaling, while totally ignoring the many recent experimental confirmations of quantum entanglement, particularly in the burgeoning field of quantum information processing."
The result was No Consensus to delete. There is no consensus below as to the crucial question of whether or not BLP1E should be applied to this article. Eluchil404 ( talk) 07:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC) reply
See WP:BLP1E. This person has no historical significance warranting an article, nor are there any truly biographical sources (where he, rather than the one event he gained notoriety for, is the subject of the source). Wikipedia shouldn't be a publisher of true crime accounts. He committed a murder that was briefly the subject of news reports, and that is all. However, Wikipedia is not a newspaper.
Delete. Dominic· t 21:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 17:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Subject has requested deletion and information contained was, while adequately sourced, only marginally notable (independent archaeologist, couple of TV appearances etc). GARDEN 21:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
![]() | This is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Kevin Stewart-Magee. Please do not modify it. The result was "delete". The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. |
The result was keep. Barring a few questionable comments, the article satisfies WP:N. Opener's concerns involving Crystal are also resolved. Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D 01:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Delete. Album was confirmed (via Twitter and her official website) earlier this evening, but no tracklist has been confirmed. Therefore, this fails WP:RS, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NALBUMS and WP:HAMMERTIME Dale 21:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Keep. Before we barely had an reliable info. Now we have good sources directly from Spears' site. It may not have a tracklisting, but a lot of albums on the site that don't have tracklists exist and have existed. -- -Shadow ( talk) 00:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Keep. It was confirmed by Britney's official site. how could there possibly be more evidence. i say keep it until the release may be canceled. until then, i wouldnt delete anything seeing as it is all true and not rumours-- Apeaboutsims ( talk) 00:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Keep, It was already confirmed by Britney Spears web sites, so it is no longer just a rumored album. It must be keep. Besides, there have been a lot of articles about upcoming albums that doesn't have tracklist, and even worst, there have been a lot of upcoming albums with no title. it doesnt fail at all with: WP:RS cuz her websites are reliable, WP:CRYSTAL we are not talking about rumors, its official, so we are not "watching the future", and WP:HAMMERTIME because the info shown here is not from forums or message boards, it comes from reliable sources. It must be keept. Fortunato luigi ( talk) 05:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Keep, confirmed by Spears' official website and other reliable sources online. Release isn't too far away. No reason to delete. Jayy008 ( talk) 12:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Keep, its been confirmed by britney's own official site, its been widely reported on other sites now including MTV. it is confirmed and official. Even retailers are listing it now as well. The release isn't that far away. I see no good reason to delete this article. Gartheknight ( talk) 18:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Keep: Now that it's confirmed all... More information had become available. -- Platinum Fire 18:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Keep: it's been confirmed.-- Aaa16 ( talk) 19:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Keep per above reasoning. CloversMallRat ( talk) 21:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Keep: Her official site has confirmed this release and the new single. You can't delete it this time around.-- Paul237 ( talk) 06:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Keep. It is an official album. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Affieq ( talk • contribs) 25 September 2009 09:12 UTC
The result was no conensus to delete these articles. Skomorokh, barbarian 11:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC) reply
None of these is a notable character. No sources whatsoever, no out of universe notability for any of them, not even TRYING to assert notability. If deleted, move Jill Taylor (disambiguation) accordingly. Last AFD was redirected due to the nominator's WP:JNN argument; problems of sourcing, etc. haven't even come close to being fixed because there are none, and someone has issue with redirect it seems. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC) reply
This was a disputed speedy deletion candidate which I assessed. I'm not sure if there has been a credible claim of notability inherent in the material of the article -- the creator's disputing of the speedy nomination seems to tacitly contain that. This material has not yet been released for public viewing, but I thought there was a chance that it would qualify under the general notability guideline. Although I don't personally find the citations provided to be reliable within the definition of that term that I know, again there is some doubt in my mind, so I decided to submit this for the verdict of the community. Accounting4Taste: talk 20:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
A recent addition to the reference was added shortly after the dispute began. The reference cited is a new story broadcast on IMDb, the International Movie Database, which is the leading website for all news, updates and information regarding television and film productions. I believe this should satisfy as a claim at a newsworthy source, as there is no other source better connected with this industry or a database more heavily referenced.
In addition, one point of contention regarding the viewership claims it that while the series has not aired its episodes, its supplemental content in the form of the continuing Alternate Reality Game, which also fits into general scheme of the show, as a whole, itself. Rctheaet: talk 20:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Unnotable prson who fails WP:BIO. All three ELs are from directory sites. Prod removed by User:Yatesman with note of "The man is notable. He is the CEO of one of America's largest companies." Which does not make him notable. Only news mentions found are noting his becoming CEO, with little since beyond his name noted in the company's own press releases. -- Collectonian ( talk · contribs) 20:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to List of passports. NW ( Talk) 03:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Creation of gallery only articles seems to be explicitly deemed a bad idea whenever they have come up in the past. This article was created as a gallery, and cannot be revamped to not be a gallery. It belongs on commons.
WP:IG: "if, due to its content, a gallery would only lend itself to a title along the lines of "Gallery" or "Images of [insert article title]", as opposed to a more descriptive title, the gallery should either be revamped or moved to the Commons." SchmuckyTheCat ( talk) 19:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 17:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Cannot find a single source for this band, nor the label or the albums. "Gweeter" seems to be a word in a foreign language (which explains the Google Scholar/Books hits) but not a band someone found worth mentioning. No evidence of charting in any charts, releasing on a major/notable label or meeting any other criteria in WP:BAND or the general notability guideline. So Why 19:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Userfy. Moved to User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox/Killer School Girls from Outer Space (2009 film). ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 13:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Only sources are unreliable; the variety and imdb are both based on user submissions and the accuracy of their content cannot be verified, absolutely no proof that the people listed as the cast are even in the film. The film is the first production by a non-notable film company, google does not reveal any basis behind the information listed. Terrillja talk 19:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 17:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:CORP. No significant pages found. no WP:RS. Triwbe ( talk) 19:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 17:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Article does not support notability of subject per WP:CORP. Ghits appear to be trivial, not amounting to the "significant coverage" required. ukexpat ( talk) 18:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
RDI is a huge part of the IT community up in Alaska Per capita it would be a 35,000 employee company in the United States. Wikipedia already has an existing list of Alaskan based businesses http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Companies_based_in_Alaska
RDI is the major vendor for the State of Alaska and the oil companies, so there is plenty of news discussion at a local level about the products that RDI develops and its impact on the community. RDI is also a no bid IT services provider for the state of Texas a topic which is always in the news.
RDI has been featured in the Alaska Journal of Commerce and Alaska Business Monthly.
While I agree that RDI is not a national or international company, I think it meets the guidelines based on the community in which it operates (Alaska)
Note, I have a COI, as I work there. -James JamesBecwar ( talk) 20:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was CSD-G7. NAC. Joe Chill ( talk) 22:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Nonnotable local band, only one independent source which is a garden-variety mention in a local paper. Claims regarding Rock Band 2009 are unsubstantiated. NawlinWiki ( talk) 18:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. NW ( Talk) 03:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Fails general notability guidelines, was previously deleted as PROD and recreated with no additional references; I cannot find any reliable sources. Was PROD again, but due to the recreation I'm bringing it here instead Chzz ► 18:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. – Juliancolton | Talk 17:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC) reply
As written the article is unreadable and Wikipedia would be better without it. Anyone who wants can try to rescue it by starting from scratch; it's probable that the college is notable. Chutznik ( talk) 17:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect without prejudice against material from the articles being used elsewhere responsibly. Skomorokh, barbarian 11:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Absolutely no sources for out-of-universe notability. Only sources are episodes or trivia lists. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. NW ( Talk) 03:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC) reply
No assertion of notability, lacks sources -- I am unable to find any reliable sources demonstrating notability, either. — neuro (talk) 16:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 17:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC) reply
I don't believe this person meets WP:N. Of the five references listed, two are to her website, one is to a book discussing her work but not her life, and the other two are self-published sources (website of a conference she spoke at) and note that she won an award. There is no independent, non-trivial coverage of her life. Until that exists, the article should not. (I declined the speedy deletion for this, which is why I am listing it here.) Karanacs ( talk) 15:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- Rationale: If we count noses, the deletes have it by a mile. But we don't count noses, we evaluate strength of argument. The main keep arguments seem to center around the notability of the disappearance, that it got natinonal media coverage, and that there might be something unusual about the disappearance, or that it might in future be that "the person may well be known for more". The delete arguments mostly refute the keeps, pointing to WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:BLP1E, and reminding us that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for a keep (or a delete either). Also we are reminded of WP:CRYSTALBALL
The keep arguments are not compelling arguments and are more than refuted by those commenting in favor of deletion. Per WP:BLP1E one event does not compel notability, unless it's really a big deal. Mere mentions in multiple sources aren't enough. Per WP:NOT#NEWS routine things like this disappearance aren't notable. Per WP:CRYSTALBALL we cannot base notability on future events that may not happen. Notability assertions have been refuted. This person is, if we are extremely charitable, marginally notable, and very marginally at best. For living persons (and let us hope she is living) we should default to delete in cases of marginal notability. But under a more reasoned evaluation of notability, she's not notable, and the crime is not notable (so a move to an article about the crime doesn't fit either). We are left with no possible outcome other than Delete. ++ Lar: t/ c 15:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Person known only for one event - WP:BLP1E. Rd232 talk 14:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Coverage by reliable sources: CNN/Nancy Grace: http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/04/14/grace.coldcase.biggers/index.html, America's Most Wanted: http://www.amw.com/missing_persons/brief.cfm?id=52948, Texas Equusearch: http://texasequusearch.org/2009/01/the-search-for-pam-biggers/
Also, this case has drawn attention to the "Amber Alert"-type notification system for missing/endangered senior citizens, called a " Silver Alert," as noted here: http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/topstories/news-article.aspx?storyid=110632&catid=15
The result was delete. NW ( Talk) 03:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC) reply
No evidence of notability. A fake college that was a setting in 1 episode of Hawaii Five-O. Blargh29 ( talk) 23:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Whpq ( talk) 16:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 17:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Unsourced, no real claim to notability. DreamGuy ( talk) 13:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Skomorokh, barbarian 11:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Not notable person, IMDB lists 3 works as floor runner and as a director for a short film. No awards, not 1 feature film. Prod removed by creator. feydey ( talk) 21:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Alongside Director and Misc Crew, she has also been credited as a writer on IMDB -- all claims have been backed up and referenced. I was simply dispersing information from IMDB, and trying to help Wikipedia look great by adding pictures. I'm sorry if you feel this is not enough to warrent a Wikipedia page, but the content has been active for months, and never questioned before. I believe as a reference of both the person and the company (Smoking Guns Productions) it provides a valuable source of information to Wikipedia. Please reconsider deleting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daythatnevercomes ( talk • contribs)
The result was delete. NW ( Talk) 03:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable NGO, fails WP:ORG -- minimal news coverage (3 hits in GNews). References on the page mainly establish that other organizations mentioned in the article exist. Article created and expanded by employee who is clearly seeking to raise its profile (heavy on "Mission"); this wouldn't matter if there were sources to write a proper article, but there aren't. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 20:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 17:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD. This election isn't really notable as it doesn't cover any major political area, and the circumstances behind the election don't qualify for notability There are no "antics" noted as stated on the talk page, and there are no other reasons included that establish notability. Mayors choose not to run for re-election all the time but that doesn't make this case any more notable than any other. ArcAngel ( talk) 18:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was nomination withdrawn, deletion discussion overtaken by editing of the article. Closing without prejudice against the nomination of the new article for deletion. Skomorokh, barbarian 11:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC) reply
The article is largely made up original research and would have to be rewritten almost entirely. It also fails to define what is a 3D game being substantially different from just 3D graphics inside a game. In aiddition there is no reason to note the that the term 3D game is used for such games given the limited number the article lists as it fails verifiability from any independant third-party source. Google search results show just the opposite - 3D video game is often used to for the the way in-game graphics look. 陣 内 Jinnai 21:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Note : I know there are at least 3 people proposing deletion but no discussion was made since the bot fixed the bug and listed the AFD so I will relist it so more people get a chance to participate. JForget 13:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was merge any usable content to Economy of Panama. Skomorokh, barbarian 11:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Classic example of what wikipedia is not.
Economic forecasts will change often, and with problematic citations. There's not a unifying concept here either that's talked about in notable sources. Shadowjams ( talk) 09:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. NAC. Joe Chill ( talk) 21:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Not notable. No significant coverage in secondary sources. Essentially an advert. Bladeofgrass ( talk) 14:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 17:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Problematic substub claims the subject was a defendant in a notable trial and subsequently became a writer. No reliable sourcing, basically no content except material that relates directly to the claim of a criminal record. Might be rescue-worthy if it checks out with reliable sourcing, but without sourcing it's a serious BLP problem. Durova 311 20:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Aerobie. – Juliancolton | Talk 17:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Product placement, little notability, few reliable references -- 李博杰 | — Talk contribs email 05:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC) reply
From Alan Adler - Inventor:
I tried to provide factual information, without touting the product. If any part of the page is objectionable, I'd like to correct that. Just let me know.
Wikipedia has pages (which I did not create) on my other inventions. They benefit me, yet they also provide useful information. Wikipedia has thousands of pages which benefit the creators or makers of products, yet also provide useful information to the users of Wikipedia.
Sincerely,
Alan Adler —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alan Adler ( talk • contribs) 23:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Note: Relisted for final time. JForget 12:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Discussion regarding a potential merge can continue at the article's talk page. – Juliancolton | Talk 17:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC) reply
No notability; no facts available from independent reliable sources, hence fails WP:V, WP:GNG Chzz ► 02:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. There is no consensus to just delete this page outright, but all agree that this content should not remain in article space in this form. There's no agreement about what ought to be done, though. I suggest that interested editors continue to develop ideas about what to do with this type of content in general (possibly through a RfC with a variety of options) and implement it by moving, merging or redirecting this page as required. Sandstein 11:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC) reply
I saw this at prod and brought it here, because I think the community should see this--it raises some general questions. I've known about the article, and never been happy with it because it does not really fit into the framework of an encyclopedia, and would seem to violate NOT INDISCRIMINATE. A few of these works are notable themselves & articles could be written; a good number are part of notable series, about which articles could be written. Not all of them are. We certainly could make a list of the ones we wrote articles for when we wrote them.
But there are other considerations: It would be possible to include all of these in a bibliography section of the already long article on Bacteriophage--and it might seem that a split would make more sense. Some of our articles have extremely extensive bibliographies, listing the important and the unimportant equally--sometimes with the clear objective of listing everything possible on a subject. Is this a role for a general encyclopedia? (but even if not, should we expand our role and do it anyway?) Again, If we accept articles listing all the books of a highly notable writer, and we certainly do, should we perhaps accept articles listing all the books on a notable subject? Another solution is article bibliography subpages, but that would obviously takes some discussion. Another possibility,discussed a little, is a WikiBibliography project; yet another is a Bibliography space within the project. These are really strategic planning considerations.
So the question to be is whether we should accept this as an experimental exception, or merge it, or delete it and save what content is notable. Myself, I'm undecided DGG ( talk ) 02:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Black Kite 20:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The term "Comic Being" is no more notable than many other terms made up by the two "spiritualists" quoted to death in this unnecessary and biased article. If this definition of a non-notable term possibly coined by Elizabeth Prophet and Joshua Stone needs an article (rather than being a one-line mention in the associated lengthy articles about these authors), then why not all the other terms they endlessly repeat in their books such as Cosmic Map, Way Beacons, Cosmic law and Cosmic Ascension? The bias of the article is evident by the lack of balanced sources, relying on massively over-quoting the same authors in order to give the article an illusion of validity. There are too many articles on Wikipedia about the same UFO cults and this is an ideal one to delete to the benefit of the encyclopedia. Ash ( talk) 21:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 17:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD. No reason was given as to why this article passes WP:ATHLETE or WP:GNG. The league isn't fully professional. Spiderone 12:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete g1 nonsense, WP:NFT, WP:SNOW. NawlinWiki ( talk) 18:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
WP:MADEUP and WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Was PRODed, but author declined. Favonian ( talk) 08:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 00:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable neologism; the article serves only to promote the linked blog and the new term. Ckatz chat spy 08:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 00:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC) reply
PROD removed for no reason. The K-League hasn't recorded an appearance. [55] Spiderone 07:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 00:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Long list of law firms in India with no indication of notability or reason for listing. Limited sourcing of firm names. Wikipedia is not a directory. -- Gogo Dodo ( talk) 07:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Weak delete, actually, but on the whole we are not convinced of ther notability. Could probably be resubmitted (by somebody not affiliated with the subject) if new sources proving notability are found. Sandstein 17:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not the white pages; no reliable sources to establish notability of an individual. gnews shows some minor scifi publications, nothing reliable to me. Coatrack for advertising and pseudomemorial page. tedder ( talk) 07:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Use [show](to the right) to view the repy details |
---|
|
The result was speedy delete ( G3). Blatant hoax. All the URLs leading to "verifiable sources" are 404 errors, and absolutely zilch on a basic search. MuZemike 18:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Well-written but clear hoax- thanks to a vandal, it was clear that none of the references are valid, nor did gnews turn up anything.
Taking to AFD to confirm, as it's outside of my subject area. tedder ( talk) 07:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 00:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Article just about claims some notability so not nominating for speedy deletion. However: there are no refs to support any of this, that the subject "helped" with a company's most successful products does not imply significant involvement, and there is no indication that either the company or products are notable. Delete as non-notable. I42 ( talk) 07:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete, article was blank, only redirects and disambigs in history. - Smerdis of Tlön ( talk) 17:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Speedy Delete as A3. Moved as part of move of Acsa and Acas, Hungary; putting DAB at ACSA since it's pretty much all abbreviations (but nothing currently links there either) then Acsa as the Hungarian village. SimonTrew ( talk) 07:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn nomination with no outstanding delete !votes. ( non-admin closure) Tim Song ( talk) 01:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC) reply
If one reliable source is found to prove that this is not a hoax, I will withdraw this AfD. Cunard ( talk) 06:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
By the way, I have also nominated Hazub for deletion as a hoax. Both Sutra I and Hazub were created by Gonçalo-Manuel ( talk · contribs) and tagged as hoaxes by Edward321 ( talk · contribs). I have searched for alternative titles for Hazub (Khazuv and Chatzuv) as you did at Sutra I, but have been unable to find anything substantial. Can you find sources for Hazub, too? Cunard ( talk) 21:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. NW ( Talk) 03:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC) reply
It was mentioned on the talk page that there could be sources in a language native to Manipal, India, so I will withdraw this AfD if sources are found. Cunard ( talk) 06:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Discussion
|
---|
No references except one blog, no scientific description. The image of swellings, the only image directly related to this insect, was not related ( http://www.flickr.com/photos/docfiles/95240312/, besides it was a copyright violation). With the precautions described in the article it must be a serious problem in that region and it is not likely that there is no other reference or scientific description. -- Martin H. ( talk) 11:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC) reply The Manipal Journal is not a blog. It is an English language news website affiliated with the local college. People in Karnataka speak Kannada, not English. The refs on this bug will probably not be in English, for the most part. Maybe you did not read the comments on the article--the bug clearly is a problem in Manipal, but there is no reason to assume that people outside Manipal are aware of it. S. M. Sullivan ( talk) 04:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC) reply |
Cunard ( talk) 06:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Arguments for delete are far stronger than the multiple copied comments from drive-by IPs. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC) reply
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
The first person to perform single port access surgery in Pakistan. The article has already been deleted here, here and here. Strong on peacock terms but devoid of relevant external links. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 06:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Defending the Wiki: In defence of maintaining the page, please note:
Anasim ( talk) 19:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Nominator has withdrawn but this discussion has been open long enough and has enough participation for a keep close. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC) reply
If one reliable source is found to prove that this is not a hoax, I will withdraw this AfD. Cunard ( talk) 06:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. The consensus below is that the proffered sources are enough to keep the article. Eluchil404 ( talk) 07:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC) reply
This article has been tagged as a hoax since September 15, 2009. Although I disagree that it's a hoax, the article looks like it is composed primarily of original research. If I am wrong (this looks like it could be a list of some sort), I will withdraw this nomination. Cunard ( talk) 05:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
You clearly aren't actually reading the sources presented, so your assertions here as to what they contain can at best be taken with a large pinch of salt. Heck, you clearly haven't even looked beyond the two sources mentioned above, let alone at the other twenty mentioned in the article. Indeed, it's fairly evident that you haven't even read the article and even the titles of the sources. Guess how I can, similarly, know that straightaway from what you write. Uncle G ( talk) 18:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
“ | We are in doubt whether the winter stored sap exists in a state to be affected by the expansion of the freezing fluids of the tree. If the expansion of congelation did produce the effect it should have been more general, for there are fluids in every part of the trunk–all congeal or expand–and the bursting of the trunk in one place would not relieve the contiguous portions. We should expect if this were the cause that the tree would explode rather than split. Capt. Bach, when wintering near Great Slave Lake, about 63° north latitude, experienced a cold of 70° below zero. Nor could any fire raise it in the house more than 12° above zero. Mathematical instrument cases, and boxes of seasoned fir, split in pieces by the cold. Could it have been the sap in seasoned fir wood which split them by its expansion in congealing? | ” |
The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 16:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable fight of no historical consequence YellowMonkey ( bananabucket) 05:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC) reply
The subject has no notability aside commiting a murder. Not to minimize the impact of a murder, but aside from that, the man was non-notable. There was nothing in this case that makes it pass WP:N/CA and I believe falls into the area of WP:ONEVENT. Niteshift36 ( talk) 04:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 00:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Single sourced gallery page. This page is a collection of images, all of which are from the US census bureau's American factfinder. None of these images have legends/keys to quantify the values of any of the geographic distributions being represented. This opens the page up to speculation and other original research based on the images. Without the data that corresponds with the images, they are unencyclopedic as well. Both the gallery page and these associated images should be deleted. Optigan13 ( talk) 04:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 00:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Single sourced gallery page. This page is a collection of images, all of which are from the US census bureau's American factfinder. None of these images have legends/keys to quantify the values of any of the geographic distributions being represented. This opens the page up to speculation and other original research based on the images. Without the data that corresponds with the images, they are unencyclopedic as well. Both the gallery page and these associated images should be deleted. Optigan13 ( talk) 04:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 00:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Single sourced gallery page. This page is a collection of images, all of which are from the US census bureau's American factfinder. None of these images have legends/keys to quantify the values of any of the geographic distributions being represented. This opens the page up to speculation and other original research based on the images. Without the data that corresponds with the images, they are unencyclopedic as well. Both the gallery page and these associated images should be deleted. Optigan13 ( talk) 03:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 00:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable person Tad Lincoln ( talk) 03:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. JForget 13:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
I'm mainly nominating as per WP:NOTINHERITED. most coverage relates to the fact she is the niece of Robert Rodriguez [58]. I doubt she would have received this third party coverage if she wasn't a niece. so ignoring the fact that she is a niece of someone famous she fails WP:BIO and WP:ENT. Also nominating twin sister Elise Avellan. LibStar ( talk) 04:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Cirt ( talk) 00:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC) reply
When I arrived, the article was filled with listcruft. All trivial instances that did little to provide insight to the reader. Additionally, most were uncited, cited to unreliable sources, or contained information that was not backed up by the sources.
I went ahead and pruned it to include only reliably sourced material, but it now appears that there isn't enough to warrant a separate article. — Bdb484 ( talk) 03:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. NW ( Talk) 03:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Does not assert notability, unable to find any notability online RaseaC ( talk) 15:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 16:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC) reply
This is an article about a nonnotable composer who fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC as he hasn't recieved a signifciant amount of coverage in reliable, third-party sources. He has not significantly impacted his industry nor has he been recognized by it through awards. Them From Space 02:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to New Democratic Party candidates, 2007 Ontario provincial election. – Juliancolton | Talk 16:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Heller's day in the sun is over. No reason to keep page now that he didn't get elected. Doesn't meet WP:BIO notability guidelines. Recommend delete or redirect to New Democratic Party candidates, 2007 Ontario provincial election. Suttungr ( talk) 02:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy redirect. Daniel ( talk) 14:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Too minor of an event.. (non-notable) A dust storm that took place over 15 hours or less BrianY ( talk) 02:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 00:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. WP:MADEUP. Wikipedia is not a database of invented drink recipes. <>Multi-Xfer<> ( talk) 02:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Delete - only notable for having disappeared, failed WP:BIO1E. Otto4711 ( talk) 01:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Considering WP:NOTAVOTE, the arguments for deletion are far stronger than those in favor of retaining the page. – Juliancolton | Talk 16:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Unnotable list of timed "artistic" contests that is a misnominer - may items listed do not rate artistic value, only require output; further, most of the list are unnotable knock offs of NaNoWriMo that really do not need their own articles, even after the redlink ones were cleared out. The rest, appear to be various copies of each other as well, such as the three 48 hour film challenges. Prod removed with note of "deprod; I think this at least deserves an afd" -- Collectonian ( talk · contribs) 00:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 16:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC) reply
See WP:BLP1E. This person has no historical significance warranting an article, nor are there any truly biographical sources (where he, rather than the one event he gained notoriety for, is the subject of the source). Wikipedia shouldn't be a publisher of true crime accounts. He committed a murder that was briefly the subject of news reports, and that is all. But Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Delete. Dominic· t 21:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 19:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC) reply
I hate to do this, but Vartan himself, is not very notable and being the father of someone who is doesn't qualify. No sources anywhere in Google and I could only find his personal website, facebook and SOADFANS article. SKATER Speak. 20:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 19:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC) reply
I've verified that this organisation does exist, [63] but this article is almost the only mention I can find on Google outside Wikipedia mirrors, other than this blog post: [64]. There just isn't the coverage we need to write an encyclopedia artice. Someone might be able to work wonders with a non-English search, but I doubt it. Fences& Windows 20:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 16:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Nothing indicates why this specific line of Zoids needs a separate article. Notability is not established, and the content is already covered within the main article. TTN ( talk) 18:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 19:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC) reply
fails WP:ORG Ironholds ( talk) 21:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. NW ( Talk) 03:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Not notable series. It has not even been produced yet. Dr.K. logos 18:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. NW ( Talk) 22:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC) reply
See WP:BLP1E. This person has no historical significance warranting an article, nor are there any truly biographical sources (where he, rather than the one event he gained notoriety for, is the subject of the source). Wikipedia shouldn't be a publisher of true crime accounts. His sole claim to notability appears to be a murder conviction and its acquittal, which is supposed to have been one of the first in which jurors testified. I don't think this minor legal precedent, if it is, related to his trial really calls for a biography, though. Delete. Dominic· t 00:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough participation to determine consensus. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC) reply
This book by Annie Besant is not notable and is already covered by her biographical page and so is an unnecessary content fork. Google news has two articles about this book, the newspaper articles are from 1908 and 1933. There are some mentions in Google Scholar but the work was not ground breaking and considering how long it has been around is very poorly cited. The article should be deleted. I can see no details that are reliably sourced for merging to the main biographical page. Ash ( talk) 17:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. JForget 12:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Half article self-referenced. Remaining references are from fringe sources. Article appears to be on a non-notable metaphysical claim of a single occultist. Some in-universe issues. Simonm223 ( talk) 16:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 00:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Unreferenced BLP. Contested ProD. Being ranked at the junior level of an amateur sport does not constitute notability, and search results do not give any other support for notability. Primary author has persistently removed categories (not grounds for deletion but unusual behaviour) dramatic ( talk) 00:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. There seems to be broad agreement here that the topic does not meet notability guidelines. If there is consensus to merge at a later time, the content can be restored. – Juliancolton | Talk 16:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD. Product not released yet. No proof of notability. Not much in Google. No independent references. DanielRigal ( talk) 16:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The release is 2010 and has been announced. I will edit the article to reflect more information but at the time of creation the information was hazy. Now there is more concrete information about this upcoming game and you can keep watch on this article to make sure I add more information.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Damianallison ( talk • contribs)
The result was merge to Blizzard Entertainment. Closing as "merge" on the suggestion from the only !voter. Consider this a no consensus close. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Not clear that he is notable per WP:BIO. No WP:GHITS. One external reference in the article is an automated, impersonal listing of his games and the other includes him in a discussion of one of the games—he himself isn't a topic of the interview. —Largo Plazo ( talk) 15:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aisde from the nominator. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC) reply
non-notable student newspaper. Coverage given and found is entirely 1) on the site or 2) in relation to other things. Ironholds ( talk) 15:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. NW ( Talk) 03:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC) reply
delete, non notable company. majority of sources are company related. Bordeline attacks the company without sourceing it "Strategy
"NearShore Solutions exploits the low cost of living and pay in Belarus." Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 14:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC) reply
list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- - 2/0 ( cont.) 16:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 22:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Unsourced BLP. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources provided or found. No significant roles. SummerPhD ( talk) 02:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. – Juliancolton | Talk 16:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Unreferenced OR essay. No demonstration that college preparatory schools in New England are inherently different from college preparatory schools in other regions. Durova 311 19:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 00:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable neologism... prodded, but prod was removed by creator... Adolphus79 ( talk) 00:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MuZemike 20:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC) reply
This article is an unnecessary
content fork of
Alice A. Bailey of a concept created by her and entirely reliant on her book "Initiation, Human and Solar". The same concept is already discussed on her lengthy and extensive biographical page (which manages to repeat many of her anti-Jewish comments) so a deletion is needed rather than a merge. If this page were considered necessary and encyclopaedic then we would leave the door open to creating separate pages for all the other special terms and concepts she published during her lifetime that she claimed were "telepathically dictated to her". I note that the creator of this page has created other content and point of view forks around the topic of Theosophy.
Ash (
talk)
12:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 19:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Article created by one of its founders. I'm not finding significant coverage in 3rd party sources beyond the 2 (non primary source) references given. Other hits appear to refer to another Ohio based charity with the same name. RadioFan ( talk) 12:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Grand Lodge of Massachusetts. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Not notable Vidkun ( talk) 12:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Arguments for keeping the article more explicitly refute the arguments for deletion. MuZemike 20:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Deprodded, Non-notable looks like an article written just to give visibility to a specific product with no encyclopedic interest. Was proposed for deletion, but its author removed the request. -- Pot ( talk) 11:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Basically it boils down to meeting the general notability guideline versus a more common sense rationale that this halfway rich person isn't notable per the given sources. No rough consensus for either occurred. MuZemike 20:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC) reply
British investment banker/money manager. Notable only for being wealthy. Prod declined, with the reasoning "₤140 million is enough--the Times coverage shows the notability". But the link to the Times is simply an entry on a list of wealthiest people in Britain, not an article. And what's more, the list shows him as the 388th richest person in Britain. That hardly makes him notable: having a fat wallet alone doesn't make you encyclopedia material.
There's two bits of actual coverage, but they're from peripheral news services and may in fact be press releases. And they announce him filling less than senior positions. Hairhorn ( talk) 11:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. NW ( Talk) 03:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Re-nomination after previous AfD was closed due to having been started by a banned user. This is not just a procedural nomination: my opinion is that this article should be deleted. Local journalist, only GNews hits are bylines and trivial mentions. The fact that we have articles about other local non-notable journalists is not justification for keeping this article. Thanks, cab ( talk) 09:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. MuZemike 20:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC) reply
fails WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR, hardly any coverage in gnews [75]. Google books confirms he has co-authored much more books than authored. but simply being an author doesn't satisfy WP:AUTHOR. LibStar ( talk) 06:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Not notable. Brandon ( talk) 04:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 19:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC) reply
No evidence of notability from reliable sources per WP:ATHLETE. Contested PROD. -- Kinu t/ c 01:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. MuZemike 20:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The article is a mix of a lingerie brand, and a BLP. Needs a rewrite to be even close to encyclopedic. Also, a lot of it is written like promotional material, for example: she decided while wearing a very uncomfortable cleavage enhancing brassiere that she could design something better which was:
more comfortable better looking create more cleavage
ƒ(Δ)²
14:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
reply