The result was delete. T. Canens ( talk) 21:15, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Already sufficiently covered in 1966 FIFA World Cup Final article. Triple RRR ( talk) 23:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. T. Canens ( talk) 21:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Original Research, NPOV, Notability Ray Eston Smith Jr ( talk) 22:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Lambert This appears to be a self-promotional article. Worse, it promotes the subjects website, which itself gives a false impression that Lambert's controversial opinion (“entropy is not disorder”) had become generally accepted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam/COIReports/2008,_Feb_7 01:23:22, Thu Feb 07, 2008 - user:FrankLambert (contribs; 1/1) scores 100% (U->P) & 92.3% (P->U) (ratio: 92.3%) on calculated overlap FrankLambert <-> Frank L. Lambert (Frank L. Lambert - diff - COIBot UserReport)
I believe that this article is just a thinly disguised link to Professor Lambert's website, http://entropysimple.oxy.edu/, which promotes the controversial assertion that “entropy is not disorder”. Dr Lambert asserts that only “a minority of US general chemistry texts for majors still describe entropy in terms of 'disorder' “ I believe that this is a conttoversial assertion, based on:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy “Entropy is a measure of how disorganized a system is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_%28order_and_disorder%29 In thermodynamics, entropy is commonly associated with the amount of order, disorder, and/or chaos in a thermodynamic system To highlight the fact that order and disorder are commonly understood to be measured in terms of entropy, below are current science encyclopedia and science dictionary definitions of entropy: Entropy – a measure of the unavailability of a system’s energy to do work; also a measure of disorder; the higher the entropy the greater the disorder.[5] Entropy – a measure of disorder; the higher the entropy the greater the disorder.[6] Entropy – in thermodynamics, a parameter representing the state of disorder of a system at the atomic, ionic, or molecular level; the greater the disorder the higher the entropy.[7] Entropy – a measure of disorder in the universe or of the availability of the energy in a system to do work.[8]
Reference Links in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Lambert :
1, 9, 11 broken links
2 ,3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12 are all links to Professor Lambert's website,
http://entropysimple.oxy.edu/. That website does include reprints of Professor Lambert's articles from the Journal of Chemical Education and The Chemical Educator, along with his other assertions, which are not peer reviewed.
4 unsourced footnote making a controversial statement “Although all U.S. chemistry texts for first-year university classes prior to 1999 had some sort of illustration of a disorderly room, or shuffled cards, or a mixture of red and green marbles as depictions of “increased entropy”, in 2007 no major text used such illustrations.”
10 (not referenced in the body of the article) is a link to the first page of the course catalog for Occidental College.
13
http://shakespeare2ndlaw.oxy.edu/ (Another of Professor Lambert's websites.)
14 is a legitimate link directly to a 2002 article by Professor Lambert on the website of the Journal of Chemical Education
The External Link, “Entropy Is Simple — If We Avoid The Briar Patches!” is another link to Professor Lambert's website,
http://entropysimple.oxy.edu/
This article is linked to by 2 other articles which I believe should also be deleted:
This article seems to be original research from Frank Lambert: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_%28energy_dispersal%29
I suspect that this article has been heavily modified by Frank Lambert. See the talk page for some valid objections to the Lambert influence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_entropy
Ray Eston Smith Jr ( talk) 22:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC) reply
I guess the Journal of Chemical Information forgot to update their website after Lambert set them straight. They missed the trend that was launched in their own journal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ray Eston Smith Jr ( talk • contribs) 02:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC) reply
"The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention to support a claim of notability." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-notable Since no one has yet presented any evidence to support Professor Lambert's notoriety, I propose that, instead of voting to keep based solely on undocumented opinion, we should defer the vote until somebody has had time to find some evidence for keeping the article: an acknowledgment of Lambert in a textbook, or a journal article by somebody other than Lambert that cites one of his articles. Ray Eston Smith Jr ( talk) 10:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC) reply
http://www.amazon.com/review/R1N6XF1PO5P0Z7 Ray Eston Smith Jr ( talk) 13:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Custom edition for Glendale Community College of Chemistry by John E. McMurry and Robert C Fay, Fifth Edition, copyright 2008
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_E._McMurry The author of more than 100 research papers, Professor McMurry is best known scientifically for his development of the McMurry reaction... McMurry was elected a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 1985 and received a Max Planck Society Research Award in 1991.
In addition to his scientific work, McMurry is the author of numerous undergraduate chemistry textbooks. More than 2.2 million copies of his books in eleven languages have been used throughout the world. Ray Eston Smith Jr ( talk) 19:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Ray Eston Smith Jr ( talk) 02:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Lynn Margulis is a recognized and respected authority on biology, but she is not an authority on what constitutes "mainstream chemistry". See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynn_Margulis#Controversy, "In addition to rejecting Neo-Darwinian evolution as an explanation for diversity (on the grounds that speciation due solely to random mutation and differential survival has yet to be proven), Margulis holds a number of opinions outside of mainstream science....In 2009 she also pushed the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) to publish a paper by Donald I. Williamson...As a member of the National Academy of Sciences, Margulis has the ability to "communicate" scientific papers, allowing them to be published with minimal review. Williamson's paper provoked immediate response from the scientific community, including a paper in PNAS [10]. Developmental Biologist and Professor at Duke university Fred Nijhout was quoted as saying that the paper was better suited for "National Enquirer than the National Academy.". Ray Eston Smith Jr ( talk) 19:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC) reply
[For most of the 20th century textbooks tended to describe entropy as "disorder", following Boltzmann's early conceptualisation of the motional energy of molecules. More recently there has been a trend in chemistry and physics textbooks to describe entropy in terms of "dispersal of energy".] [Traditionally, 20th century textbooks have introduced entropy as order and disorder so that it provides "a measurement of the disorder or randomness of a system". It has been argued that ambiguities in the terms used (such as "disorder" and "chaos") contribute to widespread confusion and can hinder comprehension of entropy for most students. A more recent formulation associated with Frank L. Lambert describing entropy as energy dispersal describes entropy as measuring "the spontaneous dispersal of energy — at a specific temperature."] Ray Eston Smith Jr ( talk) 20:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC) reply
[PDF] Different Senses of Entropy—Implications for Education File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View Abstract: A challenge in the teaching of entropy is that the word has several ... potentially misleading or uninformative when used with the uninitiated. ... www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/12/3/490/pdf This article, which mentions Lambert several times including in the final summary paragraph, has clear descriptions and evaluations of 5 alternative ways to describe entropy. Ray Eston Smith Jr ( talk) 03:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Repeating from first entry on this page: This article is linked to by 2 other articles which I believe should also be deleted:
This article seems to be original research from Frank Lambert: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_%28energy_dispersal%29
I suspect that this article has been heavily modified by Frank Lambert. See the talk page for some valid objections to the Lambert influence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_entropy
As for this AfD being overly long, I think that is largely because some editors repeatedly posted meaningless comments claiming documentation without citing it. This whole AfD would have been unnecessary if the articles had included valid references to start with, instead on relying totally on a bunch of links to one personal web page. I see from the history of these articles that my objections to lack of valid references in these articles had been raised before and ignored. Thank you (and thanks to Radagast3) for finally adding valid references. The subject "Introduction to Entropy" is a very important one. I think it is worth taking the time to get it right. None of us wants to confuse beginning students. Ray Eston Smith Jr ( talk) 17:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. T. Canens ( talk) 21:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
An indiscriminate ragbag of unrelated complaints under a title which frames the treatment to be implicitly hostile contrary to core policy. Colonel Warden ( talk) 21:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. CSD G5, creation by a banned user. T. Canens ( talk) 18:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Nothing beyond a bare assertion of notability - the references given don't mention "MDB" at all, the external links are primary sources -- the Google Code page and a press release. Non-notable and unreferenced. ArglebargleIV ( talk) 21:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
MERGE AND MAKE REDIRECT - the same argument can be used for KGDB since this article has NOT ONE SINGLE secondary or third party reference, unlike MDB which has news articles (dozens) from third party sources referenced. Given this rationale, none of the kernel debugger articles meet Wikipedia's requirements except MDB, which is not reasonable or lucid as an argument. There are sufficient sources to keep the article. The general idea of free software and kernel development makes most references to kernel debuggers contained within the development lists of linux itself. in such a case, its unlikely a kernel debugger for Linux would be mentioned outside of these sources and its the one case I think use of even primary sources and secondary sources may be valid and defensible since Kernel debugging tools are contained within dicussions of Linux development itself. I have reviewed the vandalism by a single purpose "attack" account which vandalized the article in question, don't understand this persons rationale at all after reviewing the comments. Linuxmdb ( talk) 22:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
delete - Neither the article text, nor the references proffered in the article, support notability. Pfagerburg ( talk) 03:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Keep- Maybe I'm a sucker for Any computing articles- but the debugger itself is notable, although it probably should be asserted better. -- Rockstone talk to me! 03:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Uh, it didn't really happen. We didn't, and probably won't, get superconferences. Only 2 teams switched BCS conferences (1 moved up to a BCS conference, one switched non-BCS conferences). Not a realignment--should be renamed to something more accurate if kept. Purple backpack89 21:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Fictional metal which does not meet WP:GNG, since there is no significant coverage in reliable independent sources. The article is in violation of WP:BKD and WP:PLOT - it's providing overly detailed in-universe coverage of what is essentially a minor plot element. Claritas § 19:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Howling:_New_Moon_Rising#Sequel. JForget 01:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Unreferenced article about unreleased film, possibly not even filmed yet, violates WP:CRYSTAL in many ways. Wuh Wuz Dat 18:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was deleted ( CSD G12) TexasAndroid. NAC. Cliff smith talk 04:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notability, vanity page. Band has no released music, see also Shannon Gardner-Gausten for related discussion. OldManNeptune ( talk) 18:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Bionic (Christina Aguilera album). T. Canens ( talk) 21:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Not notable per WP:NSONGS. it has not charted, not recieved any independent coverage and has not been performed/covered several times by other artists. Moreover the overiding argument is that there is nowhere near enough information to warrant a detailed page. Lil-unique1 ( talk) 18:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. JForget 01:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable person, fairly transparent vanity page. See also Effectionhate, which is essentially the same page but referencing this person's band. OldManNeptune ( talk) 18:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 01:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
I can't find anything particularly notable about this company and none of the article's references, which seem to lack independence, seem to show notability. Article has been tagged for notability for two years so I decided to bring it to AfD. I don't have strong feelings on this, but I thought it would be good to get a consensus opinion on this article (and perhaps some better sourcing). Papaursa ( talk) 17:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was Deleted as creation of a banned user. Jack Merridew 04:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Unnecessary article on a non-existent "series". Purely redundant to Fantasia (film) and Fantasia 2000, and seem mostly a copy/paste of the two with a horrible table/template thing added to it. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 17:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. JForget 01:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable British University sports team. British University sports teams are rarely notable. Often they are unheard of even on their own campus. This does not appear to be an exception to this rule. Google returns only sites related to the team and its rivals. Article is also unreferenced. Given the lack of reliable and independent sources, there is little prospect of being able to reference the article. Pit-yacker ( talk) 17:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. JForget 01:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Non notable British University sports team. British University sports teams are not generally notable. Often, they are unheard of even on their own campus. This team does not appear to be amongst the small number of exceptions to this rule. Google turns up only sites directly related to the team and its rivals. Article is also unreferenced. Given the lack of independent and/or reliable sources on the team, I see no prospect of being able to reference the article. Pit-yacker ( talk) 17:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. ( non-admin closure) -- SoCalSuperEagle ( talk) 22:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Contested prod of an article that does not assert the notability of the album it covers. The band is notable and so the article was not a candidate for speedy deletion, but not every album by a notable band is itself notable; cf.
WP:NALBUMS. No reason was given for contesting the prod other than to add a tag saying additional citations were needed.
RJC
Talk
Contribs
16:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 01:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
This article appears to be about a blog-created neologism, a subject which does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. Prod removed by creator; no response from creator to my attempt to discuss. FisherQueen ( talk · contribs) 16:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. NW ( Talk) 20:42, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Non notable British University sports team. British University sports teams are not generally notable. They are often unheard of even on their own campuses. This team does not appear to be one of the small number of exceptions to this rule. Google returns only sites directly related to the team and its rivals. The article's single reference is to the team's own web site, which hardly qualifies it as independent. Given the lack of sources, there isn't really any prospect of referencing the article further or expanding it. Pit-yacker ( talk) 16:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/stoke/content/articles/2005/11/29/sport_american_football_feature.shtml
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/n/northampton_town/8416162.stm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/stoke/content/articles/2008/03/20/american_football_stallions_feature.shtml
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-igvKToKcw&feature=related
UK Channel 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnGhrMDxcKk&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBFOcwYr7ZI&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgV0DCCg1Tk&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDKb6PVDqYM&feature=related
Additionally, the UK Daily Mirror maintains a very active American Football blog on its website, and it features the BUAFL regularly:
http://blogs.mirror.co.uk/fourth-down/2009/04/buafl-national-chamionship-fin-3.html
SteveStrummer ( talk) 22:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Pit-yacker ( talk) 23:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. ( non-admin closure) -- SoCalSuperEagle ( talk) 22:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
This was moved by me to the article creator's userspace to avoid speedy deletion. The article was sourced and it seemed to me that this could potentially be a subject of more interest than what was immediately obvious. After all, it is not unknown for even small bookshops to be significant in some way (cf. Shakespeare & Company). Maybe further work on the article would reveal that this bookshop was the meeting place for some literary group or something? I warned the user that he would have some more time to work on the article, and reminded him after about a week that this was only a temporary solution (see User talk:Moses Whyte). That was in early May. As nothing has happened and the user has disappeared, I am now reverting my own move of the page and nominating it for deletion. Hegvald ( talk) 15:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 01:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable poet lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb ( talk) 15:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep, with thanks to User:Location's research and improvements to the article. Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 22:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Completely unreferenced, even after existing as an article for 8 years. Essentially just WP:OI. Probably could be transwikied to wictionary. Oddly enough, the first version of this article was a reasonable little stub, specifically about Gentlemen's Agreement of 1907 which has turned into a perfectly good free-standing article on its own. But what we have here is pointless. A google search comes up with lots of uses of this term, but nothing which talks authoritatively about the topic.-- RoySmith (talk) 21:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC) reply
There are sources in EU competition law ( ISBN 9789050954655 pp. 150, ISBN 9789041198228 pp. 24) that mention a 1970 European Court of Justice ruling that a gentleman's agreement qualifies as an agreement as far as EU competition law is concerned. ISBN 9780199264766 pp. 323 mentions a 1960 Swiss court ruling that gentlemen's agreements are not legally binding in Swiss law. One can probably get another sentence or two from the Justice Vaisey characterization of gentlemen's agreements on page 165 of ISBN 9781590315729 (and many other places). A fair amount can be obtained from ISBN 9789050950411 pp. 91 et seq.. One can even bring in Desmond Tutu on the subject, if one uses ISBN 9781859847107 pp. 35. ISBN 9780949553232 pp. 135 discusses the difficulty of considering gentlemen's agreements to be binding (and also quotes Vaisey).
Those with more access than I should check out the 1957 Northwestern University law review, which appears to have a lengthy discussion of what gentlemen's agremeents are not, as far as the law is concerned. No, Mandsford, a gentlemen's agreement does not necessarily embody an element of injustice.
I agree, Mandsford, that there's often a long-term problem with people who don't believe in citing sources. Unfortunately, participants in this very discussion exemplify it. It's not merely a 2002 problem. ☺ But there are sources that address the actual concept of gentlemen's agreements (also gentleman's agreements) as points of contract and competition law. There is scope for expansion of this article from its current stub status. Uncle G ( talk) 15:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. needs some work Tone 19:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Non Notable company - only claim to significance is it's product " Sandra". Codf1977 ( talk) 19:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. JForget 01:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Proposed for deletion with the reason "Short-lived and apparently defunct only poll, not notable, no significant GNews hits, coverage appears restricted to self-published blogs." Brought here for wider discussion because of possible relevance for actor biographies in that area. Tikiwont ( talk) 18:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. T. Canens ( talk) 21:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Fictional character(s) who fail(s) WP:N. There's simply no significant coverage in third-party reliable sources for either of them. Notability isn't inherited from the comics they appear in. Claritas § 18:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. NW ( Talk) 14:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
I cannot find nearly enough coverage for this individual. — fetch · comms 17:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC) reply
COMMENT Penu Chalykoff is notable because Spellfury the webseries is notable, they have been reviewed and featured by Wired.com [1], Tubefilter [2] and Ain't It Cool News [3]
Added a better link to a recent full page newspaper article (EMC Perth) called "Perth-based online show casts spell on viewers" about Spellfury and Penu Chalykoff's role in the show. [4]
He was also an actor in an award winning short called "Revelation" at the 2008 Houston Worldfest International Filmfest. [5] He has a IMDB page. [6] The show he is in is the top-rated show on visioweb.tv and the second most popular show on koldcast.tv
Keep Because Spellfury is a notable show and the newspaper article mentions him as a key team member "Another key team member is actor Penu Chalykoff, who appears in many episodes." Toronto23 ( talk) 16:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 21:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Label and producer of his album are unknown to Google except on Myspace and Wikipedia. The "album" is called a mixtabe here. I suspect lack of notability. Schuhpuppe ( talk) 11:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable band, per WP:BAND and WP:GNG - but only just, so probably not a speedy candidate. Reached the lower postions of the indie chart, but not the national UK chart per the requirement on WP:BAND. One item in their local newspaper (which documents their bad luck and failure to chart) is not generally the level of coverage which meets WP:GNG. I42 ( talk) 11:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC) reply
This band are now targeting an irish chart success, due to Gary Doherty being Irish, online magazine Ybig (You boys in green) have taken the song and are campaigning to make it number one in Ireland.
http://www.ybig.ie/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=19604&PID=379677 Keep. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
86.147.245.44 (
talk)
21:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 21:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC) reply
I'm not convinced that Vijaypal Baghel meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. While the article about him does cite some sources, of the five sources cited, two are purely local in scope, two barely mention him, and two are not independent of Baghel. I did my own Google news search and found only one hit, which didn't establish that he is more significant than any other local activist. FisherQueen ( talk · contribs) 10:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 21:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Article on a non notable card game that extends into a game guide. No evidence offered and none available on searching of where the significant, independent coverage in reliable sources exists. Hence, fails WP:GNG and WP:NOT. Author has WP:COI as developer of game Nuttah ( talk) 05:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. NW ( Talk) 20:42, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
neither has country has embassies, no known agreements. current article mentions one state visit but I can't find anything else. the current article mentions a Danish program that applies to a group of countries not just Azerbaijan. those wanting to barrel scrape the President of Azerbaijan sent a letter to the Queen of Denmark wishing her a happy birthday and Azerbaijan buys ink-jet scanners from Denmark for election. LibStar ( talk) 13:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 01:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
I can't find the notability for this person in this badly written and unreferenced article. Drmies ( talk) 13:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 01:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
This book fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for books. The unrelated film of the same name should occupy the title this article currently occupies. Neelix ( talk) 12:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 01:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
No evidence of notablity of this concept per WP:N. The only reference given is a 2004 Master's thesis that does not appear to have been cited anywhere, according to MathSciNet and GoogleScholar. Also, seems to be a WP:COI case. The ref cited is by 'Cassamo, Claude Michael' and the page was created by User:Cloudmichael. Nsk92 ( talk) 11:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete. The terms "outer product algebra" and "inner product algebra" are certainly used (see e.g. this book) but I don't see that this combination article is helpful. In any case, the content is WP:OR for Wikipedia purposes, since it relies on an unpublished thesis. -- Radagast 3 ( talk) 02:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 01:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Minor writer and translator. No evidence of notability, no reliable sources. Fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:RS andy ( talk) 11:14, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn; no remaining advocates for deletion. ( non-admin closure) Mkativerata ( talk) 11:05, 3 July 2010 (UTC) reply
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
User:Mike Rosoft prodded this article as "No evidence of notability, minor local event", I endorsed it, saying there were not enough resources, but IP just removed it. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 10:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
http://www.detnews.com/article/20100626/METRO/6260345/1409/METRO http://www.freep.com/article/20100626/NEWS05/6260329/Jobbie-Nooner-party-gets-boost http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474978328103 http://www.providingnews.com/jobbie-nooner-2010-a-party-to-remember.html
This should have a place on the Wikipedia website. Please do not delete.
Keep Large amount of local coverage and photography; getting mentions in national wire services: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/06/26/Mich-may-toughen-law-on-drunken-boating/UPI-51191277590160/ Worthwhile as a reference item inasmuch as it's hard to figure out what the event is from the name alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.219.145.98 ( talk) 03:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Riverdale (Archie Comics). There's a strong consensus that this should be redirected but the !votes are split on the target. Therefore, I'll choose one as an editorial decision ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:BKD - entities in works of fiction should not have articles unless they meet the general notability guideline ( WP:GNG) independently of the fiction which they appear in. Most of the article is overly detailed plot summary which is in violation of WP:PLOT. Claritas § 10:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Editors, feel free to redirect post AFD closure, as an editorial decision. :) -- Cirt ( talk) 01:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Per WP:BKD, we shouldn't have articles on fictional plot elements which do not meet WP:GNG, and there's no significant out-of-universe coverage of this fictional school independent of the series. Contested proposed deletion. Claritas § 10:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 01:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
I'm just not seeing sufficient notability for this band Dylanfromthenorth ( talk) 10:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. NW ( Talk) 14:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The article does not show why the person in notable. Max Viwe | Wanna chat with me? 10:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to List of tallest buildings in Slovenia. As I suggested before, all the content at the moment already is in the list article. Redirecting for now, if more content is found, the article can be brought back. Tone 16:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Relisting nomination as no consensus was established in the last AfD due to lack of discussion. The building does not meet notability standards. — Parent5446 ☯ ( msg email) 09:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC) — Parent5446 ☯ ( msg email) 09:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. T. Canens ( talk) 21:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Speedy deleted as spam a week ago, although that article focused more on the company than the software. Fails to establish notability. The two "references" are abstracts of papers co-written by a Metriq employee who also created this article. Fails WP:COMPANY dramatic ( talk) 09:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Hi, new to wiki, but have added a short page on talk about this. Thanks, nile Nile1964 ( talk) 00:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 01:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Barely-referenced WP:Autobiography, with none of the references given supporting claims of subject being a prize-winning writer and thus notable per WP:CREATIVE. Zero coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Difficult to tell from online sources whether both awards mentioned actually exist: only mention of the Chalapatha Award is a Google books link mentioning another recipient in "Who's Who of Indian Writers 1999", zero mention online of the Kallola Sahitya Parishada Award. Empty Buffer ( talk) 07:14, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. definitely enough consensus to keep the article JForget 01:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Yet another sect within the LDS movement. No evidence of notability offered. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 07:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Please understand that I am NOT trying to start an argument here, but what do the rest of Adherents' entries rely on? Self-reporting, just like with Draves. There's no agency that I know of out there that goes out and counts the number of adherents in any particular religious group. Abingdon, Adherents.com: all of them rely mostly upon self-reporting for any details they give about a denomination: beliefs, membership statistics, etc. You acknowledge that the Assured Way Church exists, based upon their certificate of incorporation, so what's the "notability" issue? I've seen articles on this encyclopedia about footballers that nobody's ever heard of or cares about (beyond their own local fans); what's so "notable" about them? And yet, I do not in any way oppose their inclusion in this work, which I've always seen as striving to be the most comprehensive collection of knowledge ever assembled--no matter how minute any particular subject might prove to be in the overall scheme of things. But what makes some footballer with a two or three sentence article in Wikipedia more notable than a separate, distinct denomination of a religious movement, whose existence has alredy been demonstrated by at least one reliable third-party source (MO Secy of State)? Why is that not "notable" enough??? - Ecjmartin ( talk) 00:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC) reply
I wholeheartedly agree. I just don't see how this article can be improved much beyond what it is now, given the dearth of sources we have on hand at the present time. It seems it will have to stand or fall "as is," unless Mr. Draves gets back with me (which he hasn't yet) with some third-party sources we don't know about or haven't found. I am going to try to get to the Community of Christ library in the next few days, and see what I can find there, if anything. - Ecjmartin ( talk) 02:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC) reply
As a person who knows next to nothing about this whole process, I have a question: what happens now? Who decides if this article is a "keep," and when do they decide it? I'm not going to mess with the AfD tags in any way, as that's "above my pay-grade," but I'd just like to know. - Ecjmartin ( talk) 02:11, 3 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete - lacks independent reliable sources that are substantially about this song, no notability. PROD removed a while ago based on "mentions" of the song in sources-which does not establish notability-and the winning of a Pegasus Award, which is awarded by a regional fan convention in whose voting process anyone may participate. Song is not notable. Otto4711 ( talk) 05:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BannedFromArgo uses the title as the name of a trope
Your merry band of travelers is crossing the stars/the earth/the county line, and you find a nice fun planet/country/town for some shore leave. You don't actually mean for bad stuff to go down, but these things happen. There was nudity, violence, stuff blowing up, certain substances may have been imbibed/smoked, and whoops, you just started a revolution. Possibly, your name is Mike Nelson, in which case, you're probably screwed.
Whatever happened, when it's all over, you're not allowed back. EVER. Nor is anyone else on your crew.
Trope name is taken from the definitive filk by Leslie Fish, regarding the illustrious crew of the U.S.S. Enterprise and why they're not allowed back on Argo. May or may not be considered a Noodle Incident. The redheaded stepchild of You Cant Go Home Again.
Does not have anything to do with the Cool Boat from the Classical Mythology.
htom ( talk) 03:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 01:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Page features neologism, original research, is highly US-centric, a highly selective review of what it claims to describe, and flat-out wrong about both the concept and terminology in Canadian politics, at least at the national level. Previous proposed deletion was contested. Peter Grey ( talk) 04:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
I would question your motives in deleting an article like this. Consider the argument that most Left-wingers deny a culture war exists, whereas right-wingers are heavily involved in the debate on culture. From this stand-point, just because one side thinks it doesn't exist, does not mean you can delete the article. The Culture War in Canada is a major topic in conservative circles, and the media attention recently brought to it justifies having an article on this issue. If this bothers you so much, edit the article as you see fit, or add an alternative viewpoint. User: Matthiasobrien, 27 June 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 07:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC). reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 01:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
This has been proposed to be merged into the episodes list for years but the only sourced information is of minimal use (and probably just OR) it may be better just to delete this. Ricky81682 ( talk) 04:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was iar delete on the grounds that this can't end well no matter who does what. Policy-based consensus below appears to support deletion.-- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 14:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Some of this material undoubtedly belongs in the article Criticism of Wikipedia, where it was previously merged and then undone. Some of it belongs nowhere on Wikipedia (e.g., attacks on non-notable living persons who happen to also be Wikipedia administrators). None of it belongs in a separate article, unless it can be established that the topic of "Administrator abuse on Wikipedia" is notable in and of itself - high quality sources being a requirement, and being in my opinion quite unlikely to be found. Note, this nomination is not intended to be a forum on Wikipedia's administrators, on Wikipolitics in general, or on any particular adherent of any particular sort of Wikipolitical viewpoint; rather, by our own normal standards for which subjects deserve articles, this subject does not deserve a separate article, and in the case of self-referential material like this, we ought to enforce contents more strictly rather than less so. — Gavia immer ( talk) 04:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
: There are several good reasons to merge a page:
- Duplicate – There are two or more pages on exactly the same subject and having the same scope.
- Overlap – There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap. [/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary Wikipedia is not a dictionary]; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept in the universe. For example, "Flammable" and "Non-flammable" can both be explained in an article on [/wiki/Flammability Flammability].
- Text – If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic. For instance, parents or children of a celebrity who are otherwise unremarkable are generally covered in a section of the article on the celebrity, and can be merged there.
- Context – If a short article requires the background material or context from a broader article in order for readers to understand it. For instance, minor characters from works of fiction are generally covered in a "List of characters in <work>", and can be merged there; see also [/wiki/Wikipedia:FICT WP:FICT].
- Merging should not be considered if
- The resulting article is too long or "clunky"
- The separate topics could be expanded into longer standalone (but cross linked) articles
- The topics are discrete subjects and deserve their own articles even though they may be short
This is not a short article. The topic is notable in its own right, it does not require the context of the other article, it would make the other article too big and chunky, and it's not duplicative and does not significantly overlap (as evidenced by two editors' knee-jerk merger of the article in toto) Minor4th • talk 04:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The real problem here is that you guys feel like you got shafted, and you're pissed about it, and you wrote an article to support your POV. The whole thing starts from a non-encyclopedic place, and although you tried hard to make it NPOV and sourced, the real origin of the thing leaks through at every seam. It's not an article, it's your opinions masquerading as an article. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 06:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
No, if an article is deleted via AfD, it is vandalism to re-introduce the article unless the article is substantially different, not intended to circumvent the deletion process, and the reason for deletion of the original article is no longer applicable. GregJackP Boomer! 22:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Comment -- Perhaps a better topic as far as notability would be "Wikipedia Polity" or "Wikipedia Governance" and the article can be expanded to include both positive and negative aspects. Looking at the availability of secondary sources on the topic, the issue of governace does seem to be more notable than the niche issue of "abuse" or problems within the structure of governance. Minor4th • talk 20:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC) reply
(reinserting inadvertently deleted comments)
I'm not upset and wasn't upset. It appeared to me that I was being told what to write. Since that is not the case, my comments were not needed. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 03:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC) reply
No problem, I really did not figure that you meant it in that manner, but every ethnic group has words or phrases that have been used to insult them in the past and that their members are hyper-sensitive about. If I didn't tell you, you wouldn't know, would you? So I hope we can move forward in a friendly manner (though not necessarily agreeing on everything). Anyway, thanks for clearing it up, I really appreciate it. GregJackP Boomer! 14:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC) reply
There's a lot been said above on how sources fail to discuss this particular facet of Wikipedia administrators in depth, but 9 section breaks later no-one — most sadly none of the experienced editors who have participated in this discussion and who should be familiar with how to turn inherently non-neutral topics into neutral ones — has yet pointed out our standard renaming and refactoring solution to non-neutrality-by-dint-of-part-topic. Of course, taking this approach would involve the axe-grinders stepping back and taking on board another basic tenet of Wikipedia: writing neutrally about something that one has strong personal views upon (sometimes characterized as ignoring all of one's personal knowledge or writing for the enemy). Unfortunately, it's often an inability to write neutrally that motivates the creation of inherently non-neutral articles in the first place, and that leads to conflicts with other editors, administrators and others.
It's similarly sad to see that Wikipedia administrators is bluelinked because it is a redirect from the actual encyclopaedia content to the internal plumbing, leading people to believe that there's no possibility of some proper encyclopaedia content at that title. (But then we've always had a problem with such petty aids for editors pushing out actual encyclopaedia content that readers might want to see, here and on Wikipedia mirrors. Minor convenience for the editor who doesn't want to type too often takes precedence over the actual thing that we're supposed to be writing. Witness this, for example.) Uncle G ( talk) 12:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC) reply
-- Jorge Stolfi ( talk) 12:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC) replyWales does confirm that participation in Wikipedia has slowed, the Journal said, though potential solutions depend on the reasons for the decline. "If people think Wikipedia is done, that's substantial," he said, referring to the notion that there are no more subjects to write about. "But if the community has become more hostile to newbies, that's a correctable problem." --- [32]
The first step is to admit the problem Krames Patient education, Understanding Heroin Abuse and Addiction
Publishing @ Beyond My Ken what's with this: [33], [34] Minor4th • talk 16:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The other stuff is just formatting, making the page easier to read. There was no alteration of content. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 17:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 01:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
This article simply contains the results of a non-notable amateur MMA organization's event. The organization, MMA Raju, was previously deleted via AfD. WP:N clearly states that "routine news coverage such as ... sports coverage ... is not significant coverage." This article fails both WP:GNG and WP:N.
I am also nominating the following related page for exactly the same reasons:
The result was speedy deleted. utcursch | talk 16:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Less than twenty Ghits, and even from reading those, it's hard to tell if the subject of this article is really a person after all. Erpert (let's talk about it) 02:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Zone of alienation. T. Canens ( talk) 21:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. This article amounts to little more than advertising/encouragement for an activity in which the article's creator has a vested interest. Anything relevant here (like the criminal code that makes these activities illegal) can be included, or already is included, in the relevant articles on Chernobyl and the exclusion zone. RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 02:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 01:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
This article is a paid-editing piece developed via a conflict of interest through this posting on freelancer.com. The bid reads So we tried to publish our own wiki article but unfortunately it was deleted and we cant post again because of the marketing purposes. We need a professional writer to do the article again. We will provide him with the whole material ( text and writing ) all he has to do is to publish them correctly.
Wikipedia is not a medium for companies to promote themselves. The subject of this article also appears to lack notability as I haven't been able to find significant coverage of the group in reliable sources independent of the group itself. All of the sources cited come directly from the group's home page, which isn't enough to meet our notability guidelines. Them From Space 01:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. JForget 01:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete - unnecessary arbitrary list. The ratings TV episodes receive are not permanent (they frequently change in syndication) and this list serves no useful purpose. Are You The Cow Of Pain? ( talk) 01:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 01:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
article does not indicate encyclopedic notability. Oo7565 ( talk) 01:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete ( G12) as blatant copyright violations of [35] and [36], in which all the content was copypasted from. – MuZemike 01:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Subject is not notable enough and information is not substantial enough to warrant a dedicated article. Topic is already covered (better) at 2010 G-20 Toronto summit#Concerns. Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 01:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. JForget 00:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE as he hasn't worked in a top promotion. Also doesn't meet WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:GNG. Nikki♥ 311 01:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. T. Canens ( talk) 21:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
No evidence nor indication of notability, given certain other edits by article creator (who seems to be the only person pushing for it), appears to be subtly promotional. Ian.thomson ( talk) 00:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
— Stoneke1 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
It is due to be written about in a webzine set for September 2010 publication and release, The webzine is not associated with the author. Does this count? Kimberley Zellers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.54.45.220 ( talk) 12:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC) — 72.95.228.42 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Do I personally LIKE this `Hail Satan' book? No I don't, but the fact remains that there are enough people that DO like it to warrent its retention. Quote: ..."Wikipedia has a principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large." False remarks such as "Noon give a shit" are nothing less than your own biast opinion. Give me reliable references to back up your statement, or retract it.— 165.145.51.110 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
[1] Satanism as a recognized religion [2] LilithbethMiller ( talk) 06:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)Sheila Lilithbeth Miller LilithbethMiller ( talk)— LilithbethMiller ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Keep the Satan Page. Corred ( talk) 03:56, 3 July 2010 (UTC) reply
This book is only 12 months old, it is written by a new author, on an obscure topic. This does not mean however that the subject will fail future attempts at notability criteria. A lot of past authors & artists only became famous after their death & notability did not come about until late in life, or after life. I understand Ian's arguments, and had I not read the Wikipedia:FAILN article I would've agreed.
However, when googled there are over 12 pages of links to the author & book, at least 2 webzines have stated that they have (will) run reviews, (I am aware that they are not considered relevant in the argument, however if they have a large readership & can provide evidence to support this, then I think it should be at least reviewed, not solely dismissed) and taking into consideration that Satanist books & literature are a very unique topic readership & notability can take time to build.
If Ian is not swayed by these "Keep" arguments, perhaps merge some information into a more mainstream topic, and re-write the article after the September reviews are out from peer "zines".
Wikipedia:FAILN If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself, or:
In this case, the peer review 'zines' should at least be considered, not solely dismissed (eg: "Marie RavenSoul, Founder/Publisher 'The Serpent's Tongue'" and "It is due to be written about in a webzine set for September 2010 publication and release, The webzine is not associated with the author. Does this count? Kimberley Zellers"). (a new account, but happy to be contacted for individual verification). Msklb ( talk) 09:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Firewood. Tone 19:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
This seems like it's searching for a topic. This would much better be merged into Combustion or perhaps Firewood, it's a minor point and I don't think the references support a stand-alone article. I would have merged it but I don't think this is a likely search term either. Shadowjams ( talk) 06:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 21:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable per WP:BIO and WP:ACADEMIC. Worked with some notable people, but this doesn't of itself confer notability. No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Prod contested by anonymous editor. Empty Buffer ( talk) 07:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete Sarah 03:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Has not played in profesional league, not notable. Contested PROD. First AfD was never transcluded or even referenced on the article page. — Jeff G. ツ 14:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Actually there is a weak consensus to "merge" but the target doesn't yet exist. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 22:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable compilation. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 23:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Actually there is a weak consensus to "merge" but the target doesn't yet exist. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 22:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable compilation. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 23:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Actually there is a weak consensus to "merge" but the target doesn't yet exist. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 22:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable compilation. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 23:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. NW ( Talk) 14:36, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Really nn? I think as it do not occure that much air crashes, i think all plane crashes is notable. Esp. if 4 people were killed. I removed the prod so we could discuss it on AFD instead.
And please, do not tell me it fails WP:AIRCRASH, just because it doesn't.
KzKrann (
talk)
00:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 22:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Demos area assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 23:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 22:27, 3 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 23:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Kat DeLuna. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 22:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Not notable per WP:NSONGS. Has had reference issues since February 2010, and has virtually no sourced information. it should be merged to Kat DeLuna. Lil-unique1 ( talk) 19:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Fred Hampton. NW ( Talk) 14:36, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Written as an essay, incorporates WP:SYNTHESIS, better to merge into Fred Hampton if content is notable NativeForeigner Talk/ Contribs 19:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The dilemma with merging this content with the biographical entry on Fred Hampton is that it is not, strictly speaking, about his life or work. Rather, the content here has to do with the way his life and work proved pivotal for other activists. In this case, the reference is chiefly to the Weather Underground. For this reason, the entry does not seem biographical in nature. Neither does it fit squarely in the Weatherman (organization) narrative of Weather actions. Historytrain ( talk) 20:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to It Won't Be Soon Before Long. Redirecting as an editorial decision. Consider this a no consensus close. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 22:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC) reply
I like the song, but fails WP:NSONGS, no significant coverage, nothing on G News and only trivial G results CTJF83 pride 18:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 21:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC) reply
A chain with only seven outlets after five years trading. Two sources, the first of which is clearly taken from a press release, the second is far from being a dispassionate review (the author appears to be a True Believer in kook health food, note comments on "memory booster"). Guy ( Help!) 18:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete - not enough independent coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP-- Sodabottle ( talk) 06:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Sainthood (album). Redirecting as an editorial decision. Consider this a no consensus close. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 22:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC) reply
There is no indication why this song is notable and deserves its own article, nor are there any apparent ongoing contributions to the article. The majority of this "song" article is a track listing of the remixes on the Alligator LP. I think mentioning the single and LP on their discography page is sufficient. Klubbit ( talk) 16:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 21:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC) reply
No evidence of notability. PROD was removed without stating a reason. Schuhpuppe ( talk) 14:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 01:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
No evidence of notability. Creator removed PROD tag, but did not give an explanation. Schuhpuppe ( talk) 14:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
This person is not sufficiently notable, baronet (not to be confused with baron) is a very minor title, e.g. they do not and never did sit in the House of Lords, I am not aware of any guideline that they are inherently notable. His main claim to fame is that he was the grandfather of the best-known Oswald Mosley, leader of the British Union of Fascists, but notability is not inherited. PatGallacher ( talk) 11:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The Baronet article has a "List of notable baronets", suggesting that not all baronets are notable. PatGallacher ( talk) 11:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Reply I quote the Who's Who article: "Who's Who has been criticised for its conservatism. For example, all members of the English, Scottish, British and United Kingdom Peerage and Baronetage are included, however minor their achievements, but many better-known people are not." If we decide that everyone in Who's Who is inherently notable, we are casting the net very wide, in particular this means deciding that all baronets are inherently notable. There are around 1380 baronetcies at present, it's a sign of their marginal importance that the exact number is not definitely known. If we decide that all former holders are included this is a very large number of people. Within certain limits, Wikipedia is entitled to decide its own threshhold of notability, which is multiple reference. PatGallacher ( talk) 14:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Who's Who's bar of inclusion is not necessarily higher, it may just be different. PatGallacher ( talk) 15:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. T. Canens ( talk) 21:15, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Already sufficiently covered in 1966 FIFA World Cup Final article. Triple RRR ( talk) 23:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. T. Canens ( talk) 21:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Original Research, NPOV, Notability Ray Eston Smith Jr ( talk) 22:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Lambert This appears to be a self-promotional article. Worse, it promotes the subjects website, which itself gives a false impression that Lambert's controversial opinion (“entropy is not disorder”) had become generally accepted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam/COIReports/2008,_Feb_7 01:23:22, Thu Feb 07, 2008 - user:FrankLambert (contribs; 1/1) scores 100% (U->P) & 92.3% (P->U) (ratio: 92.3%) on calculated overlap FrankLambert <-> Frank L. Lambert (Frank L. Lambert - diff - COIBot UserReport)
I believe that this article is just a thinly disguised link to Professor Lambert's website, http://entropysimple.oxy.edu/, which promotes the controversial assertion that “entropy is not disorder”. Dr Lambert asserts that only “a minority of US general chemistry texts for majors still describe entropy in terms of 'disorder' “ I believe that this is a conttoversial assertion, based on:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy “Entropy is a measure of how disorganized a system is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_%28order_and_disorder%29 In thermodynamics, entropy is commonly associated with the amount of order, disorder, and/or chaos in a thermodynamic system To highlight the fact that order and disorder are commonly understood to be measured in terms of entropy, below are current science encyclopedia and science dictionary definitions of entropy: Entropy – a measure of the unavailability of a system’s energy to do work; also a measure of disorder; the higher the entropy the greater the disorder.[5] Entropy – a measure of disorder; the higher the entropy the greater the disorder.[6] Entropy – in thermodynamics, a parameter representing the state of disorder of a system at the atomic, ionic, or molecular level; the greater the disorder the higher the entropy.[7] Entropy – a measure of disorder in the universe or of the availability of the energy in a system to do work.[8]
Reference Links in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Lambert :
1, 9, 11 broken links
2 ,3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12 are all links to Professor Lambert's website,
http://entropysimple.oxy.edu/. That website does include reprints of Professor Lambert's articles from the Journal of Chemical Education and The Chemical Educator, along with his other assertions, which are not peer reviewed.
4 unsourced footnote making a controversial statement “Although all U.S. chemistry texts for first-year university classes prior to 1999 had some sort of illustration of a disorderly room, or shuffled cards, or a mixture of red and green marbles as depictions of “increased entropy”, in 2007 no major text used such illustrations.”
10 (not referenced in the body of the article) is a link to the first page of the course catalog for Occidental College.
13
http://shakespeare2ndlaw.oxy.edu/ (Another of Professor Lambert's websites.)
14 is a legitimate link directly to a 2002 article by Professor Lambert on the website of the Journal of Chemical Education
The External Link, “Entropy Is Simple — If We Avoid The Briar Patches!” is another link to Professor Lambert's website,
http://entropysimple.oxy.edu/
This article is linked to by 2 other articles which I believe should also be deleted:
This article seems to be original research from Frank Lambert: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_%28energy_dispersal%29
I suspect that this article has been heavily modified by Frank Lambert. See the talk page for some valid objections to the Lambert influence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_entropy
Ray Eston Smith Jr ( talk) 22:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC) reply
I guess the Journal of Chemical Information forgot to update their website after Lambert set them straight. They missed the trend that was launched in their own journal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ray Eston Smith Jr ( talk • contribs) 02:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC) reply
"The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention to support a claim of notability." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-notable Since no one has yet presented any evidence to support Professor Lambert's notoriety, I propose that, instead of voting to keep based solely on undocumented opinion, we should defer the vote until somebody has had time to find some evidence for keeping the article: an acknowledgment of Lambert in a textbook, or a journal article by somebody other than Lambert that cites one of his articles. Ray Eston Smith Jr ( talk) 10:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC) reply
http://www.amazon.com/review/R1N6XF1PO5P0Z7 Ray Eston Smith Jr ( talk) 13:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Custom edition for Glendale Community College of Chemistry by John E. McMurry and Robert C Fay, Fifth Edition, copyright 2008
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_E._McMurry The author of more than 100 research papers, Professor McMurry is best known scientifically for his development of the McMurry reaction... McMurry was elected a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 1985 and received a Max Planck Society Research Award in 1991.
In addition to his scientific work, McMurry is the author of numerous undergraduate chemistry textbooks. More than 2.2 million copies of his books in eleven languages have been used throughout the world. Ray Eston Smith Jr ( talk) 19:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Ray Eston Smith Jr ( talk) 02:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Lynn Margulis is a recognized and respected authority on biology, but she is not an authority on what constitutes "mainstream chemistry". See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynn_Margulis#Controversy, "In addition to rejecting Neo-Darwinian evolution as an explanation for diversity (on the grounds that speciation due solely to random mutation and differential survival has yet to be proven), Margulis holds a number of opinions outside of mainstream science....In 2009 she also pushed the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) to publish a paper by Donald I. Williamson...As a member of the National Academy of Sciences, Margulis has the ability to "communicate" scientific papers, allowing them to be published with minimal review. Williamson's paper provoked immediate response from the scientific community, including a paper in PNAS [10]. Developmental Biologist and Professor at Duke university Fred Nijhout was quoted as saying that the paper was better suited for "National Enquirer than the National Academy.". Ray Eston Smith Jr ( talk) 19:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC) reply
[For most of the 20th century textbooks tended to describe entropy as "disorder", following Boltzmann's early conceptualisation of the motional energy of molecules. More recently there has been a trend in chemistry and physics textbooks to describe entropy in terms of "dispersal of energy".] [Traditionally, 20th century textbooks have introduced entropy as order and disorder so that it provides "a measurement of the disorder or randomness of a system". It has been argued that ambiguities in the terms used (such as "disorder" and "chaos") contribute to widespread confusion and can hinder comprehension of entropy for most students. A more recent formulation associated with Frank L. Lambert describing entropy as energy dispersal describes entropy as measuring "the spontaneous dispersal of energy — at a specific temperature."] Ray Eston Smith Jr ( talk) 20:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC) reply
[PDF] Different Senses of Entropy—Implications for Education File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View Abstract: A challenge in the teaching of entropy is that the word has several ... potentially misleading or uninformative when used with the uninitiated. ... www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/12/3/490/pdf This article, which mentions Lambert several times including in the final summary paragraph, has clear descriptions and evaluations of 5 alternative ways to describe entropy. Ray Eston Smith Jr ( talk) 03:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Repeating from first entry on this page: This article is linked to by 2 other articles which I believe should also be deleted:
This article seems to be original research from Frank Lambert: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_%28energy_dispersal%29
I suspect that this article has been heavily modified by Frank Lambert. See the talk page for some valid objections to the Lambert influence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_entropy
As for this AfD being overly long, I think that is largely because some editors repeatedly posted meaningless comments claiming documentation without citing it. This whole AfD would have been unnecessary if the articles had included valid references to start with, instead on relying totally on a bunch of links to one personal web page. I see from the history of these articles that my objections to lack of valid references in these articles had been raised before and ignored. Thank you (and thanks to Radagast3) for finally adding valid references. The subject "Introduction to Entropy" is a very important one. I think it is worth taking the time to get it right. None of us wants to confuse beginning students. Ray Eston Smith Jr ( talk) 17:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. T. Canens ( talk) 21:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
An indiscriminate ragbag of unrelated complaints under a title which frames the treatment to be implicitly hostile contrary to core policy. Colonel Warden ( talk) 21:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. CSD G5, creation by a banned user. T. Canens ( talk) 18:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Nothing beyond a bare assertion of notability - the references given don't mention "MDB" at all, the external links are primary sources -- the Google Code page and a press release. Non-notable and unreferenced. ArglebargleIV ( talk) 21:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
MERGE AND MAKE REDIRECT - the same argument can be used for KGDB since this article has NOT ONE SINGLE secondary or third party reference, unlike MDB which has news articles (dozens) from third party sources referenced. Given this rationale, none of the kernel debugger articles meet Wikipedia's requirements except MDB, which is not reasonable or lucid as an argument. There are sufficient sources to keep the article. The general idea of free software and kernel development makes most references to kernel debuggers contained within the development lists of linux itself. in such a case, its unlikely a kernel debugger for Linux would be mentioned outside of these sources and its the one case I think use of even primary sources and secondary sources may be valid and defensible since Kernel debugging tools are contained within dicussions of Linux development itself. I have reviewed the vandalism by a single purpose "attack" account which vandalized the article in question, don't understand this persons rationale at all after reviewing the comments. Linuxmdb ( talk) 22:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
delete - Neither the article text, nor the references proffered in the article, support notability. Pfagerburg ( talk) 03:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Keep- Maybe I'm a sucker for Any computing articles- but the debugger itself is notable, although it probably should be asserted better. -- Rockstone talk to me! 03:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Uh, it didn't really happen. We didn't, and probably won't, get superconferences. Only 2 teams switched BCS conferences (1 moved up to a BCS conference, one switched non-BCS conferences). Not a realignment--should be renamed to something more accurate if kept. Purple backpack89 21:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Fictional metal which does not meet WP:GNG, since there is no significant coverage in reliable independent sources. The article is in violation of WP:BKD and WP:PLOT - it's providing overly detailed in-universe coverage of what is essentially a minor plot element. Claritas § 19:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Howling:_New_Moon_Rising#Sequel. JForget 01:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Unreferenced article about unreleased film, possibly not even filmed yet, violates WP:CRYSTAL in many ways. Wuh Wuz Dat 18:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was deleted ( CSD G12) TexasAndroid. NAC. Cliff smith talk 04:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notability, vanity page. Band has no released music, see also Shannon Gardner-Gausten for related discussion. OldManNeptune ( talk) 18:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Bionic (Christina Aguilera album). T. Canens ( talk) 21:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Not notable per WP:NSONGS. it has not charted, not recieved any independent coverage and has not been performed/covered several times by other artists. Moreover the overiding argument is that there is nowhere near enough information to warrant a detailed page. Lil-unique1 ( talk) 18:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. JForget 01:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable person, fairly transparent vanity page. See also Effectionhate, which is essentially the same page but referencing this person's band. OldManNeptune ( talk) 18:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 01:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
I can't find anything particularly notable about this company and none of the article's references, which seem to lack independence, seem to show notability. Article has been tagged for notability for two years so I decided to bring it to AfD. I don't have strong feelings on this, but I thought it would be good to get a consensus opinion on this article (and perhaps some better sourcing). Papaursa ( talk) 17:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was Deleted as creation of a banned user. Jack Merridew 04:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Unnecessary article on a non-existent "series". Purely redundant to Fantasia (film) and Fantasia 2000, and seem mostly a copy/paste of the two with a horrible table/template thing added to it. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 17:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. JForget 01:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable British University sports team. British University sports teams are rarely notable. Often they are unheard of even on their own campus. This does not appear to be an exception to this rule. Google returns only sites related to the team and its rivals. Article is also unreferenced. Given the lack of reliable and independent sources, there is little prospect of being able to reference the article. Pit-yacker ( talk) 17:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. JForget 01:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Non notable British University sports team. British University sports teams are not generally notable. Often, they are unheard of even on their own campus. This team does not appear to be amongst the small number of exceptions to this rule. Google turns up only sites directly related to the team and its rivals. Article is also unreferenced. Given the lack of independent and/or reliable sources on the team, I see no prospect of being able to reference the article. Pit-yacker ( talk) 17:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. ( non-admin closure) -- SoCalSuperEagle ( talk) 22:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Contested prod of an article that does not assert the notability of the album it covers. The band is notable and so the article was not a candidate for speedy deletion, but not every album by a notable band is itself notable; cf.
WP:NALBUMS. No reason was given for contesting the prod other than to add a tag saying additional citations were needed.
RJC
Talk
Contribs
16:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 01:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
This article appears to be about a blog-created neologism, a subject which does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. Prod removed by creator; no response from creator to my attempt to discuss. FisherQueen ( talk · contribs) 16:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. NW ( Talk) 20:42, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Non notable British University sports team. British University sports teams are not generally notable. They are often unheard of even on their own campuses. This team does not appear to be one of the small number of exceptions to this rule. Google returns only sites directly related to the team and its rivals. The article's single reference is to the team's own web site, which hardly qualifies it as independent. Given the lack of sources, there isn't really any prospect of referencing the article further or expanding it. Pit-yacker ( talk) 16:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/stoke/content/articles/2005/11/29/sport_american_football_feature.shtml
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/n/northampton_town/8416162.stm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/stoke/content/articles/2008/03/20/american_football_stallions_feature.shtml
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-igvKToKcw&feature=related
UK Channel 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnGhrMDxcKk&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBFOcwYr7ZI&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgV0DCCg1Tk&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDKb6PVDqYM&feature=related
Additionally, the UK Daily Mirror maintains a very active American Football blog on its website, and it features the BUAFL regularly:
http://blogs.mirror.co.uk/fourth-down/2009/04/buafl-national-chamionship-fin-3.html
SteveStrummer ( talk) 22:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Pit-yacker ( talk) 23:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. ( non-admin closure) -- SoCalSuperEagle ( talk) 22:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
This was moved by me to the article creator's userspace to avoid speedy deletion. The article was sourced and it seemed to me that this could potentially be a subject of more interest than what was immediately obvious. After all, it is not unknown for even small bookshops to be significant in some way (cf. Shakespeare & Company). Maybe further work on the article would reveal that this bookshop was the meeting place for some literary group or something? I warned the user that he would have some more time to work on the article, and reminded him after about a week that this was only a temporary solution (see User talk:Moses Whyte). That was in early May. As nothing has happened and the user has disappeared, I am now reverting my own move of the page and nominating it for deletion. Hegvald ( talk) 15:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 01:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable poet lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb ( talk) 15:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep, with thanks to User:Location's research and improvements to the article. Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 22:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Completely unreferenced, even after existing as an article for 8 years. Essentially just WP:OI. Probably could be transwikied to wictionary. Oddly enough, the first version of this article was a reasonable little stub, specifically about Gentlemen's Agreement of 1907 which has turned into a perfectly good free-standing article on its own. But what we have here is pointless. A google search comes up with lots of uses of this term, but nothing which talks authoritatively about the topic.-- RoySmith (talk) 21:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC) reply
There are sources in EU competition law ( ISBN 9789050954655 pp. 150, ISBN 9789041198228 pp. 24) that mention a 1970 European Court of Justice ruling that a gentleman's agreement qualifies as an agreement as far as EU competition law is concerned. ISBN 9780199264766 pp. 323 mentions a 1960 Swiss court ruling that gentlemen's agreements are not legally binding in Swiss law. One can probably get another sentence or two from the Justice Vaisey characterization of gentlemen's agreements on page 165 of ISBN 9781590315729 (and many other places). A fair amount can be obtained from ISBN 9789050950411 pp. 91 et seq.. One can even bring in Desmond Tutu on the subject, if one uses ISBN 9781859847107 pp. 35. ISBN 9780949553232 pp. 135 discusses the difficulty of considering gentlemen's agreements to be binding (and also quotes Vaisey).
Those with more access than I should check out the 1957 Northwestern University law review, which appears to have a lengthy discussion of what gentlemen's agremeents are not, as far as the law is concerned. No, Mandsford, a gentlemen's agreement does not necessarily embody an element of injustice.
I agree, Mandsford, that there's often a long-term problem with people who don't believe in citing sources. Unfortunately, participants in this very discussion exemplify it. It's not merely a 2002 problem. ☺ But there are sources that address the actual concept of gentlemen's agreements (also gentleman's agreements) as points of contract and competition law. There is scope for expansion of this article from its current stub status. Uncle G ( talk) 15:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. needs some work Tone 19:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Non Notable company - only claim to significance is it's product " Sandra". Codf1977 ( talk) 19:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. JForget 01:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Proposed for deletion with the reason "Short-lived and apparently defunct only poll, not notable, no significant GNews hits, coverage appears restricted to self-published blogs." Brought here for wider discussion because of possible relevance for actor biographies in that area. Tikiwont ( talk) 18:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. T. Canens ( talk) 21:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Fictional character(s) who fail(s) WP:N. There's simply no significant coverage in third-party reliable sources for either of them. Notability isn't inherited from the comics they appear in. Claritas § 18:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. NW ( Talk) 14:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
I cannot find nearly enough coverage for this individual. — fetch · comms 17:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC) reply
COMMENT Penu Chalykoff is notable because Spellfury the webseries is notable, they have been reviewed and featured by Wired.com [1], Tubefilter [2] and Ain't It Cool News [3]
Added a better link to a recent full page newspaper article (EMC Perth) called "Perth-based online show casts spell on viewers" about Spellfury and Penu Chalykoff's role in the show. [4]
He was also an actor in an award winning short called "Revelation" at the 2008 Houston Worldfest International Filmfest. [5] He has a IMDB page. [6] The show he is in is the top-rated show on visioweb.tv and the second most popular show on koldcast.tv
Keep Because Spellfury is a notable show and the newspaper article mentions him as a key team member "Another key team member is actor Penu Chalykoff, who appears in many episodes." Toronto23 ( talk) 16:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 21:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Label and producer of his album are unknown to Google except on Myspace and Wikipedia. The "album" is called a mixtabe here. I suspect lack of notability. Schuhpuppe ( talk) 11:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable band, per WP:BAND and WP:GNG - but only just, so probably not a speedy candidate. Reached the lower postions of the indie chart, but not the national UK chart per the requirement on WP:BAND. One item in their local newspaper (which documents their bad luck and failure to chart) is not generally the level of coverage which meets WP:GNG. I42 ( talk) 11:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC) reply
This band are now targeting an irish chart success, due to Gary Doherty being Irish, online magazine Ybig (You boys in green) have taken the song and are campaigning to make it number one in Ireland.
http://www.ybig.ie/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=19604&PID=379677 Keep. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
86.147.245.44 (
talk)
21:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 21:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC) reply
I'm not convinced that Vijaypal Baghel meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. While the article about him does cite some sources, of the five sources cited, two are purely local in scope, two barely mention him, and two are not independent of Baghel. I did my own Google news search and found only one hit, which didn't establish that he is more significant than any other local activist. FisherQueen ( talk · contribs) 10:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 21:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Article on a non notable card game that extends into a game guide. No evidence offered and none available on searching of where the significant, independent coverage in reliable sources exists. Hence, fails WP:GNG and WP:NOT. Author has WP:COI as developer of game Nuttah ( talk) 05:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. NW ( Talk) 20:42, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
neither has country has embassies, no known agreements. current article mentions one state visit but I can't find anything else. the current article mentions a Danish program that applies to a group of countries not just Azerbaijan. those wanting to barrel scrape the President of Azerbaijan sent a letter to the Queen of Denmark wishing her a happy birthday and Azerbaijan buys ink-jet scanners from Denmark for election. LibStar ( talk) 13:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 01:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
I can't find the notability for this person in this badly written and unreferenced article. Drmies ( talk) 13:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 01:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
This book fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for books. The unrelated film of the same name should occupy the title this article currently occupies. Neelix ( talk) 12:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 01:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
No evidence of notablity of this concept per WP:N. The only reference given is a 2004 Master's thesis that does not appear to have been cited anywhere, according to MathSciNet and GoogleScholar. Also, seems to be a WP:COI case. The ref cited is by 'Cassamo, Claude Michael' and the page was created by User:Cloudmichael. Nsk92 ( talk) 11:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete. The terms "outer product algebra" and "inner product algebra" are certainly used (see e.g. this book) but I don't see that this combination article is helpful. In any case, the content is WP:OR for Wikipedia purposes, since it relies on an unpublished thesis. -- Radagast 3 ( talk) 02:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 01:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Minor writer and translator. No evidence of notability, no reliable sources. Fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:RS andy ( talk) 11:14, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn; no remaining advocates for deletion. ( non-admin closure) Mkativerata ( talk) 11:05, 3 July 2010 (UTC) reply
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
User:Mike Rosoft prodded this article as "No evidence of notability, minor local event", I endorsed it, saying there were not enough resources, but IP just removed it. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 10:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
http://www.detnews.com/article/20100626/METRO/6260345/1409/METRO http://www.freep.com/article/20100626/NEWS05/6260329/Jobbie-Nooner-party-gets-boost http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474978328103 http://www.providingnews.com/jobbie-nooner-2010-a-party-to-remember.html
This should have a place on the Wikipedia website. Please do not delete.
Keep Large amount of local coverage and photography; getting mentions in national wire services: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/06/26/Mich-may-toughen-law-on-drunken-boating/UPI-51191277590160/ Worthwhile as a reference item inasmuch as it's hard to figure out what the event is from the name alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.219.145.98 ( talk) 03:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Riverdale (Archie Comics). There's a strong consensus that this should be redirected but the !votes are split on the target. Therefore, I'll choose one as an editorial decision ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:BKD - entities in works of fiction should not have articles unless they meet the general notability guideline ( WP:GNG) independently of the fiction which they appear in. Most of the article is overly detailed plot summary which is in violation of WP:PLOT. Claritas § 10:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Editors, feel free to redirect post AFD closure, as an editorial decision. :) -- Cirt ( talk) 01:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Per WP:BKD, we shouldn't have articles on fictional plot elements which do not meet WP:GNG, and there's no significant out-of-universe coverage of this fictional school independent of the series. Contested proposed deletion. Claritas § 10:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 01:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
I'm just not seeing sufficient notability for this band Dylanfromthenorth ( talk) 10:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. NW ( Talk) 14:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The article does not show why the person in notable. Max Viwe | Wanna chat with me? 10:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to List of tallest buildings in Slovenia. As I suggested before, all the content at the moment already is in the list article. Redirecting for now, if more content is found, the article can be brought back. Tone 16:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Relisting nomination as no consensus was established in the last AfD due to lack of discussion. The building does not meet notability standards. — Parent5446 ☯ ( msg email) 09:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC) — Parent5446 ☯ ( msg email) 09:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. T. Canens ( talk) 21:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Speedy deleted as spam a week ago, although that article focused more on the company than the software. Fails to establish notability. The two "references" are abstracts of papers co-written by a Metriq employee who also created this article. Fails WP:COMPANY dramatic ( talk) 09:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Hi, new to wiki, but have added a short page on talk about this. Thanks, nile Nile1964 ( talk) 00:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 01:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Barely-referenced WP:Autobiography, with none of the references given supporting claims of subject being a prize-winning writer and thus notable per WP:CREATIVE. Zero coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Difficult to tell from online sources whether both awards mentioned actually exist: only mention of the Chalapatha Award is a Google books link mentioning another recipient in "Who's Who of Indian Writers 1999", zero mention online of the Kallola Sahitya Parishada Award. Empty Buffer ( talk) 07:14, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. definitely enough consensus to keep the article JForget 01:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Yet another sect within the LDS movement. No evidence of notability offered. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 07:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Please understand that I am NOT trying to start an argument here, but what do the rest of Adherents' entries rely on? Self-reporting, just like with Draves. There's no agency that I know of out there that goes out and counts the number of adherents in any particular religious group. Abingdon, Adherents.com: all of them rely mostly upon self-reporting for any details they give about a denomination: beliefs, membership statistics, etc. You acknowledge that the Assured Way Church exists, based upon their certificate of incorporation, so what's the "notability" issue? I've seen articles on this encyclopedia about footballers that nobody's ever heard of or cares about (beyond their own local fans); what's so "notable" about them? And yet, I do not in any way oppose their inclusion in this work, which I've always seen as striving to be the most comprehensive collection of knowledge ever assembled--no matter how minute any particular subject might prove to be in the overall scheme of things. But what makes some footballer with a two or three sentence article in Wikipedia more notable than a separate, distinct denomination of a religious movement, whose existence has alredy been demonstrated by at least one reliable third-party source (MO Secy of State)? Why is that not "notable" enough??? - Ecjmartin ( talk) 00:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC) reply
I wholeheartedly agree. I just don't see how this article can be improved much beyond what it is now, given the dearth of sources we have on hand at the present time. It seems it will have to stand or fall "as is," unless Mr. Draves gets back with me (which he hasn't yet) with some third-party sources we don't know about or haven't found. I am going to try to get to the Community of Christ library in the next few days, and see what I can find there, if anything. - Ecjmartin ( talk) 02:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC) reply
As a person who knows next to nothing about this whole process, I have a question: what happens now? Who decides if this article is a "keep," and when do they decide it? I'm not going to mess with the AfD tags in any way, as that's "above my pay-grade," but I'd just like to know. - Ecjmartin ( talk) 02:11, 3 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete - lacks independent reliable sources that are substantially about this song, no notability. PROD removed a while ago based on "mentions" of the song in sources-which does not establish notability-and the winning of a Pegasus Award, which is awarded by a regional fan convention in whose voting process anyone may participate. Song is not notable. Otto4711 ( talk) 05:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BannedFromArgo uses the title as the name of a trope
Your merry band of travelers is crossing the stars/the earth/the county line, and you find a nice fun planet/country/town for some shore leave. You don't actually mean for bad stuff to go down, but these things happen. There was nudity, violence, stuff blowing up, certain substances may have been imbibed/smoked, and whoops, you just started a revolution. Possibly, your name is Mike Nelson, in which case, you're probably screwed.
Whatever happened, when it's all over, you're not allowed back. EVER. Nor is anyone else on your crew.
Trope name is taken from the definitive filk by Leslie Fish, regarding the illustrious crew of the U.S.S. Enterprise and why they're not allowed back on Argo. May or may not be considered a Noodle Incident. The redheaded stepchild of You Cant Go Home Again.
Does not have anything to do with the Cool Boat from the Classical Mythology.
htom ( talk) 03:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 01:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Page features neologism, original research, is highly US-centric, a highly selective review of what it claims to describe, and flat-out wrong about both the concept and terminology in Canadian politics, at least at the national level. Previous proposed deletion was contested. Peter Grey ( talk) 04:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
I would question your motives in deleting an article like this. Consider the argument that most Left-wingers deny a culture war exists, whereas right-wingers are heavily involved in the debate on culture. From this stand-point, just because one side thinks it doesn't exist, does not mean you can delete the article. The Culture War in Canada is a major topic in conservative circles, and the media attention recently brought to it justifies having an article on this issue. If this bothers you so much, edit the article as you see fit, or add an alternative viewpoint. User: Matthiasobrien, 27 June 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 07:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC). reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 01:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
This has been proposed to be merged into the episodes list for years but the only sourced information is of minimal use (and probably just OR) it may be better just to delete this. Ricky81682 ( talk) 04:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was iar delete on the grounds that this can't end well no matter who does what. Policy-based consensus below appears to support deletion.-- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 14:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Some of this material undoubtedly belongs in the article Criticism of Wikipedia, where it was previously merged and then undone. Some of it belongs nowhere on Wikipedia (e.g., attacks on non-notable living persons who happen to also be Wikipedia administrators). None of it belongs in a separate article, unless it can be established that the topic of "Administrator abuse on Wikipedia" is notable in and of itself - high quality sources being a requirement, and being in my opinion quite unlikely to be found. Note, this nomination is not intended to be a forum on Wikipedia's administrators, on Wikipolitics in general, or on any particular adherent of any particular sort of Wikipolitical viewpoint; rather, by our own normal standards for which subjects deserve articles, this subject does not deserve a separate article, and in the case of self-referential material like this, we ought to enforce contents more strictly rather than less so. — Gavia immer ( talk) 04:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
: There are several good reasons to merge a page:
- Duplicate – There are two or more pages on exactly the same subject and having the same scope.
- Overlap – There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap. [/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary Wikipedia is not a dictionary]; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept in the universe. For example, "Flammable" and "Non-flammable" can both be explained in an article on [/wiki/Flammability Flammability].
- Text – If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic. For instance, parents or children of a celebrity who are otherwise unremarkable are generally covered in a section of the article on the celebrity, and can be merged there.
- Context – If a short article requires the background material or context from a broader article in order for readers to understand it. For instance, minor characters from works of fiction are generally covered in a "List of characters in <work>", and can be merged there; see also [/wiki/Wikipedia:FICT WP:FICT].
- Merging should not be considered if
- The resulting article is too long or "clunky"
- The separate topics could be expanded into longer standalone (but cross linked) articles
- The topics are discrete subjects and deserve their own articles even though they may be short
This is not a short article. The topic is notable in its own right, it does not require the context of the other article, it would make the other article too big and chunky, and it's not duplicative and does not significantly overlap (as evidenced by two editors' knee-jerk merger of the article in toto) Minor4th • talk 04:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The real problem here is that you guys feel like you got shafted, and you're pissed about it, and you wrote an article to support your POV. The whole thing starts from a non-encyclopedic place, and although you tried hard to make it NPOV and sourced, the real origin of the thing leaks through at every seam. It's not an article, it's your opinions masquerading as an article. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 06:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
No, if an article is deleted via AfD, it is vandalism to re-introduce the article unless the article is substantially different, not intended to circumvent the deletion process, and the reason for deletion of the original article is no longer applicable. GregJackP Boomer! 22:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Comment -- Perhaps a better topic as far as notability would be "Wikipedia Polity" or "Wikipedia Governance" and the article can be expanded to include both positive and negative aspects. Looking at the availability of secondary sources on the topic, the issue of governace does seem to be more notable than the niche issue of "abuse" or problems within the structure of governance. Minor4th • talk 20:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC) reply
(reinserting inadvertently deleted comments)
I'm not upset and wasn't upset. It appeared to me that I was being told what to write. Since that is not the case, my comments were not needed. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 03:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC) reply
No problem, I really did not figure that you meant it in that manner, but every ethnic group has words or phrases that have been used to insult them in the past and that their members are hyper-sensitive about. If I didn't tell you, you wouldn't know, would you? So I hope we can move forward in a friendly manner (though not necessarily agreeing on everything). Anyway, thanks for clearing it up, I really appreciate it. GregJackP Boomer! 14:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC) reply
There's a lot been said above on how sources fail to discuss this particular facet of Wikipedia administrators in depth, but 9 section breaks later no-one — most sadly none of the experienced editors who have participated in this discussion and who should be familiar with how to turn inherently non-neutral topics into neutral ones — has yet pointed out our standard renaming and refactoring solution to non-neutrality-by-dint-of-part-topic. Of course, taking this approach would involve the axe-grinders stepping back and taking on board another basic tenet of Wikipedia: writing neutrally about something that one has strong personal views upon (sometimes characterized as ignoring all of one's personal knowledge or writing for the enemy). Unfortunately, it's often an inability to write neutrally that motivates the creation of inherently non-neutral articles in the first place, and that leads to conflicts with other editors, administrators and others.
It's similarly sad to see that Wikipedia administrators is bluelinked because it is a redirect from the actual encyclopaedia content to the internal plumbing, leading people to believe that there's no possibility of some proper encyclopaedia content at that title. (But then we've always had a problem with such petty aids for editors pushing out actual encyclopaedia content that readers might want to see, here and on Wikipedia mirrors. Minor convenience for the editor who doesn't want to type too often takes precedence over the actual thing that we're supposed to be writing. Witness this, for example.) Uncle G ( talk) 12:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC) reply
-- Jorge Stolfi ( talk) 12:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC) replyWales does confirm that participation in Wikipedia has slowed, the Journal said, though potential solutions depend on the reasons for the decline. "If people think Wikipedia is done, that's substantial," he said, referring to the notion that there are no more subjects to write about. "But if the community has become more hostile to newbies, that's a correctable problem." --- [32]
The first step is to admit the problem Krames Patient education, Understanding Heroin Abuse and Addiction
Publishing @ Beyond My Ken what's with this: [33], [34] Minor4th • talk 16:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The other stuff is just formatting, making the page easier to read. There was no alteration of content. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 17:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 01:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
This article simply contains the results of a non-notable amateur MMA organization's event. The organization, MMA Raju, was previously deleted via AfD. WP:N clearly states that "routine news coverage such as ... sports coverage ... is not significant coverage." This article fails both WP:GNG and WP:N.
I am also nominating the following related page for exactly the same reasons:
The result was speedy deleted. utcursch | talk 16:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Less than twenty Ghits, and even from reading those, it's hard to tell if the subject of this article is really a person after all. Erpert (let's talk about it) 02:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Zone of alienation. T. Canens ( talk) 21:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. This article amounts to little more than advertising/encouragement for an activity in which the article's creator has a vested interest. Anything relevant here (like the criminal code that makes these activities illegal) can be included, or already is included, in the relevant articles on Chernobyl and the exclusion zone. RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 02:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 01:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
This article is a paid-editing piece developed via a conflict of interest through this posting on freelancer.com. The bid reads So we tried to publish our own wiki article but unfortunately it was deleted and we cant post again because of the marketing purposes. We need a professional writer to do the article again. We will provide him with the whole material ( text and writing ) all he has to do is to publish them correctly.
Wikipedia is not a medium for companies to promote themselves. The subject of this article also appears to lack notability as I haven't been able to find significant coverage of the group in reliable sources independent of the group itself. All of the sources cited come directly from the group's home page, which isn't enough to meet our notability guidelines. Them From Space 01:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. JForget 01:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete - unnecessary arbitrary list. The ratings TV episodes receive are not permanent (they frequently change in syndication) and this list serves no useful purpose. Are You The Cow Of Pain? ( talk) 01:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 01:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
article does not indicate encyclopedic notability. Oo7565 ( talk) 01:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete ( G12) as blatant copyright violations of [35] and [36], in which all the content was copypasted from. – MuZemike 01:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Subject is not notable enough and information is not substantial enough to warrant a dedicated article. Topic is already covered (better) at 2010 G-20 Toronto summit#Concerns. Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 01:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. JForget 00:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE as he hasn't worked in a top promotion. Also doesn't meet WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:GNG. Nikki♥ 311 01:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. T. Canens ( talk) 21:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
No evidence nor indication of notability, given certain other edits by article creator (who seems to be the only person pushing for it), appears to be subtly promotional. Ian.thomson ( talk) 00:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
— Stoneke1 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
It is due to be written about in a webzine set for September 2010 publication and release, The webzine is not associated with the author. Does this count? Kimberley Zellers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.54.45.220 ( talk) 12:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC) — 72.95.228.42 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Do I personally LIKE this `Hail Satan' book? No I don't, but the fact remains that there are enough people that DO like it to warrent its retention. Quote: ..."Wikipedia has a principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large." False remarks such as "Noon give a shit" are nothing less than your own biast opinion. Give me reliable references to back up your statement, or retract it.— 165.145.51.110 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
[1] Satanism as a recognized religion [2] LilithbethMiller ( talk) 06:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)Sheila Lilithbeth Miller LilithbethMiller ( talk)— LilithbethMiller ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Keep the Satan Page. Corred ( talk) 03:56, 3 July 2010 (UTC) reply
This book is only 12 months old, it is written by a new author, on an obscure topic. This does not mean however that the subject will fail future attempts at notability criteria. A lot of past authors & artists only became famous after their death & notability did not come about until late in life, or after life. I understand Ian's arguments, and had I not read the Wikipedia:FAILN article I would've agreed.
However, when googled there are over 12 pages of links to the author & book, at least 2 webzines have stated that they have (will) run reviews, (I am aware that they are not considered relevant in the argument, however if they have a large readership & can provide evidence to support this, then I think it should be at least reviewed, not solely dismissed) and taking into consideration that Satanist books & literature are a very unique topic readership & notability can take time to build.
If Ian is not swayed by these "Keep" arguments, perhaps merge some information into a more mainstream topic, and re-write the article after the September reviews are out from peer "zines".
Wikipedia:FAILN If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself, or:
In this case, the peer review 'zines' should at least be considered, not solely dismissed (eg: "Marie RavenSoul, Founder/Publisher 'The Serpent's Tongue'" and "It is due to be written about in a webzine set for September 2010 publication and release, The webzine is not associated with the author. Does this count? Kimberley Zellers"). (a new account, but happy to be contacted for individual verification). Msklb ( talk) 09:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Firewood. Tone 19:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
This seems like it's searching for a topic. This would much better be merged into Combustion or perhaps Firewood, it's a minor point and I don't think the references support a stand-alone article. I would have merged it but I don't think this is a likely search term either. Shadowjams ( talk) 06:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 21:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable per WP:BIO and WP:ACADEMIC. Worked with some notable people, but this doesn't of itself confer notability. No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Prod contested by anonymous editor. Empty Buffer ( talk) 07:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete Sarah 03:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Has not played in profesional league, not notable. Contested PROD. First AfD was never transcluded or even referenced on the article page. — Jeff G. ツ 14:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Actually there is a weak consensus to "merge" but the target doesn't yet exist. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 22:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable compilation. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 23:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Actually there is a weak consensus to "merge" but the target doesn't yet exist. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 22:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable compilation. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 23:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Actually there is a weak consensus to "merge" but the target doesn't yet exist. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 22:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable compilation. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 23:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. NW ( Talk) 14:36, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Really nn? I think as it do not occure that much air crashes, i think all plane crashes is notable. Esp. if 4 people were killed. I removed the prod so we could discuss it on AFD instead.
And please, do not tell me it fails WP:AIRCRASH, just because it doesn't.
KzKrann (
talk)
00:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 22:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Demos area assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 23:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 22:27, 3 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 23:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Kat DeLuna. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 22:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Not notable per WP:NSONGS. Has had reference issues since February 2010, and has virtually no sourced information. it should be merged to Kat DeLuna. Lil-unique1 ( talk) 19:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Fred Hampton. NW ( Talk) 14:36, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Written as an essay, incorporates WP:SYNTHESIS, better to merge into Fred Hampton if content is notable NativeForeigner Talk/ Contribs 19:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The dilemma with merging this content with the biographical entry on Fred Hampton is that it is not, strictly speaking, about his life or work. Rather, the content here has to do with the way his life and work proved pivotal for other activists. In this case, the reference is chiefly to the Weather Underground. For this reason, the entry does not seem biographical in nature. Neither does it fit squarely in the Weatherman (organization) narrative of Weather actions. Historytrain ( talk) 20:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to It Won't Be Soon Before Long. Redirecting as an editorial decision. Consider this a no consensus close. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 22:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC) reply
I like the song, but fails WP:NSONGS, no significant coverage, nothing on G News and only trivial G results CTJF83 pride 18:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 21:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC) reply
A chain with only seven outlets after five years trading. Two sources, the first of which is clearly taken from a press release, the second is far from being a dispassionate review (the author appears to be a True Believer in kook health food, note comments on "memory booster"). Guy ( Help!) 18:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete - not enough independent coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP-- Sodabottle ( talk) 06:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Sainthood (album). Redirecting as an editorial decision. Consider this a no consensus close. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 22:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC) reply
There is no indication why this song is notable and deserves its own article, nor are there any apparent ongoing contributions to the article. The majority of this "song" article is a track listing of the remixes on the Alligator LP. I think mentioning the single and LP on their discography page is sufficient. Klubbit ( talk) 16:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 21:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC) reply
No evidence of notability. PROD was removed without stating a reason. Schuhpuppe ( talk) 14:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 01:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
No evidence of notability. Creator removed PROD tag, but did not give an explanation. Schuhpuppe ( talk) 14:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
This person is not sufficiently notable, baronet (not to be confused with baron) is a very minor title, e.g. they do not and never did sit in the House of Lords, I am not aware of any guideline that they are inherently notable. His main claim to fame is that he was the grandfather of the best-known Oswald Mosley, leader of the British Union of Fascists, but notability is not inherited. PatGallacher ( talk) 11:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The Baronet article has a "List of notable baronets", suggesting that not all baronets are notable. PatGallacher ( talk) 11:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Reply I quote the Who's Who article: "Who's Who has been criticised for its conservatism. For example, all members of the English, Scottish, British and United Kingdom Peerage and Baronetage are included, however minor their achievements, but many better-known people are not." If we decide that everyone in Who's Who is inherently notable, we are casting the net very wide, in particular this means deciding that all baronets are inherently notable. There are around 1380 baronetcies at present, it's a sign of their marginal importance that the exact number is not definitely known. If we decide that all former holders are included this is a very large number of people. Within certain limits, Wikipedia is entitled to decide its own threshhold of notability, which is multiple reference. PatGallacher ( talk) 14:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Who's Who's bar of inclusion is not necessarily higher, it may just be different. PatGallacher ( talk) 15:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply